Term Limits and Supreme Court case vs Thornton decision

The XVII Amendment strictly defines the composition of Senators from each state and the method to be used by the applicable state to replace it's Senator if a vacancy appears. Nothing within this Amendment remotely refers to or is inherit to term limits of Senators. Article I of the U.S. Constitution defined a method for the state to replace Representatives; hence, the 17th Amendment was invoked to provide a means to replace the Senator, when applicable. Again, for Article 1, no obvious or implied references to term limits are contained within the Article. In U.S. Term Limits vs. Thornton, Judge Stevens argument was invalid because he invoked the definition that restricting term limits within the states was a violation of people's rights for selecting their representatives as granted by Article I. However, he failed to see that when a state puts up a state Amendment for voting to limit terms of the elected representatives of the state to the U.S. Congress, for either house, the result of the voting for that state Amendment was a declaration by the people of that state to the majority of their wishes, which was granted within the wording of the Constitution. The Constitution mandates to the federal government those powers which involves the whole people as a nation. As James Madison wrote in "The Federalist Papers", [paraphrase] the poweres delegated to the federal government are few and and defined. The powers delegated to the States are numerous and indefinite. The powers delegated to the federal government are principally on external matters, such as war, peace and foreign commerce. The powers reserved to the states are those which directly or indirectly affect the lives, liberties and properties of the people and the order, improvement and prosperity of the state. Hence, the wishes of the majority of any state's population as it affects the order, improvement and prosperity of that state and does not affect the definition of the powers of the federal government are not unconstitutional when those wishes are voted in as a majority of the state's populace, which reflects the people's wishes within that state. This closely relates to the dissenting argument by judge Thomas. "U.S. Term Limits vs. Thornton" clearly violates states' rights as granted by the Constitution and needs to be readdressed again.