"Before the 17th amendment (1913) the federal government remained stable and small. Following the amendment's adoption it has grown dramatically."

He doesn't say how having legislatures select senators would have prevented that. Not a word I saw, just that in 1913 along came the 17th Amendment (and no one knows why?) and the Feds grew.

Dean says that the Supreme Court is busy allocating powers between States and the Feds. That's it's job. Always has been. And will be unless this Court turns itself into a rubber-stamp for the Presidency.

While I don't doubt Zywicki's scholarship, it seems to me that the growth of the Feds was due to the improving transportation and financial systems of the world. The US was about to become much more involved with the rest of the world, something which could be much more efficiently handled by the Feds than the States. And the income tax may have made that possible.

"As originally designed, the framers' system both protected federalism and ensured that relatively few benefits would be provided to special interests."

And we know how well that worked, don't we. "Robber barons". His theory that people are more influenced by special interests than are state legislatures sorta smells. State legislatures ARE special interests.

State legislatures are dominated by wealthier people. I suspect this idea is an outgrowth of the conservative upset with "one person, one vote" and wanting to get Federal representation more in line with land ownership.

"Absent a change of heart in the American populace and a better understanding of the beneficial role played by limitations on direct democracy, it is difficult to imagine a movement to repeal the 17th amendment."

Who is threatened by "direct democracy"? Who is bothered by the people deciding matters in a democracy (or republic)?

Just the folks who would like money in it's various forms to rule.

Nope. Bad idea. And he doesn't even have a reasonable thesis as to how it would correct the problem. In fact, it's so poorly reasoned I'm thinking an editor must have cut out some part of the article.

Arf