The Seventeenth Amendment made Senators to be elected by the people rather than by the state legislatures, effectively dismantling the separation of powers as the Founding Fathers desired. The Founding Fathers rightly believed man was cursed with sin and all but sure to be corrupt in wielding power over others. So fundamental was this belief that the entire structure of the federal government was designed to split power so completely that corruption would find inhospitable conditions for growth. The House of Representatives was to be elected by the people. The House of the Senate was to be elected by the state legislatures and not the people at large. The three branches further splits power. The President was not elected by the people either, nor by the legislatures, but by the electoral college. The federal judges were not elected by any of those parties but were appointed by the President.

When the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified, it dismantled a key component in this separation of power, making both houses of Congress and entire Branch of government beholden only to one demographic, the people. And, just as the Founders predicted, as soon as the people realized they could be bought--or rather, that they could vote their pocketbooks--any hope for an altruistic government was flushed down the toilet. The electoral college, too, is all but a joke as they almost always vote just as the people want them to. This means the people now control two of the three Branches of federal government. The Judicial Branch is largely accountable to the people, too, but only indirectly--prospective judges must be somewhat popular else the President who appoints them will be unpopular and so lose the support of the people. (The mythical "Fourth Branch", the media, is also accountable to the same people due to their profit motive.) [It's too complicated to describe succinctly here, but the illusion that the government controls the people is just that, an illusion. In truth, the trend is that the people's sins determine the government, and the government only transitively controls the righteousness of the people.]

My real question here is, can a legally ratified Constitutional Amendment be voided by a higher law? In the extreme, an example of this would be an Amendment that voided the Constitution completely. Could such an Amendment be legal? The Seventeenth Amendment fundamentally altered the structure of the federal government, destroying a significant component of the separation of powers and any hope for a just government. Did it go too far such that the intended principles of the Constitution were violated? If it did, does that nullify it?

The correct, next question is this: is there any law to which the Constitution--the supposedly highest law of the land--is held accountable? Our present government would say no, both in word and in deed. In truth, though, the Constitution descended from what is called Natural Law. This is a law that supersedes all man-made law and is preexisting and inviolable. The true origin of Natural Law is God Himself, although He also planted much of it within us as our conscience. When a man-made law violates Natural Law, it is null and void, going against the very laws of nature, so to speak. For example, laws condoning homosexual "marriage" violate Natural Law. (If there is any doubt, a most basic lesson in sexual anatomy and procreation proves the point.)

Does the Seventeenth Amendment violate Natural Law? The Seventeenth Amendment implicitly denies the sinful nature of man by placing too much power in one, easily bribed group. As the very structure of the federal government was derived from Natural Law--and that structure was fundamentally dismantled by the Seventeenth Amendment--it would seem the Seventeenth Amendment is at least borderline immoral. (Note: The very definition of democracy violates Natural Law, as man is too corrupt to self-govern. This is why our Republic was designed to have its power split among so many disparate groups.)

In an age when Natural Law is denied, as well as the Lawgiver, it's no wonder corruption abounds. It could not be otherwise. The Constitution can then be reinterpreted to mean whatever we want; there is no respected, higher authority to prevent it. Those few of us still accountable to Natural Law are then faced with a choice: submit to these immoral laws or not. If we choose not to submit, we may face eventual imprisonment (e.g., refusing to condone homosexual "marriage"). If you are convicted that the Seventeenth Amendment is immoral, then refraining from voting for federal Senators may be the correct response.

As for me, I find the Seventeenth Amendment--which clearly violates the intended structure of the federal government--borders on violating Natural Law but does not clearly cross that line. Nevertheless, I am not inclined to vote for anyone willfully seeking the power of federal office. I prefer to write in names of those I believe would govern wisely but are not desiring power. My conscience will be clear when I face the Judge and am held accountable for my voting record. The Bible clearly states the end does not justify the means, so my write-in vote is not "wasted" at all.