Karl,

You pulled a Mush (or Mish) by the following:

Indeed, if one looks back through the outrages of Federal Government expansion, you'll find they pretty much began with the 17th Amendment, and the reason is clear: Its passage removed the ability of The States to block federal legislation.

The 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution:

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.


Now I will give you this, that many scholarly law articles and debates have held that the 17th Amendment weakened the powers of the state legislatures as popularly elected senators became competing interests. This alone makes a good case for repeal. However, making a direct connection to the removal of the ability of The States to block federal legislation and the 17th Amendment needs to be explained. A state legislature can still pass a resolution requesting that its senators vote a certain way. These senators can ignore it and before they also could ignore it (but face consequences).