You raise good points.The people" were not represented by Congress in full at the time the Amendment was put in place. At the time, the Senate represented the states. They were essentially ambassadors from the various state governments to the national government, installed to keep the national government from overreaching its authority and usurping the power of the individual states.
I dont believe its erroneos, I believe there is always room for interpetation and your point of view has logic too.Since it requires both the House and the Senate to pass a bill that then goes before the President for signature or veto, I believe your interpretation of the Amendment is erroneous.
Okay, let me rephrase.
In other words, is this your opinion, or is it established precedent?
It is my opinion.