Yeah baby!

No, they are not. "either way"/"not going to NOT".

On this continent, the bicameral legislature was born in Massachsuetts-Bay colony, because of a split over a legal case.

A poor woman's cow got loose on the streets of Boston, and a wealthy man caught and sold it. She sued over that, losing all the way to the General Court.

The General Court at that time was the single branch of gov't: it made the laws, enforced the laws, and heard conflicts over the laws.

There were two categories of elected officials in the General Court, Magistrates and Deputies. When the "cow case" came before them, the Magistrates held in favor of the man, and the Deputies held in favor of the woman, and it was essentially a stalemate. The deliberations became so heated that the two -- Magistrates and Deputies -- literally had to meet in separate rooms. That shortly became formerly established in statute as the bicameral legislature.

The Massachusetts-Bay constitution (1780) was written by John Adams, which established seapration of powers and continued the bicameral legislature. That constitution was the model for the US Constitution. (A few states don't have bicameral legislatures; I, for one, prefer the tug-of-war necessitated by the bicameral.)

There is entirely too much recourse to England, and English law, as concerns US law. In fact, and in contrast, there was a long evolved divergence between English and colonial law, and systems of governance, which ultimately eventuated in the final split of the "revolution".

During the "revolution," at the suggestion of the Continental Congress, the states adopted constitutions/bills of rights in 1776-1777 (and 1780). As the US Constitution was modeled on the Massachusetts-Bay constitution, the Bill of Rights was drawn from those existing state constitutions/bills of rights -- not from England or English law.

The Magistrates were the equivalent of today's Senators, and the Deputies of today's Representatives.

George Washington described the difference between Seantae and House in terms of a cup of tea and saucer: the hot tea in the cup -- House -- is poured into the saucer -- Senate -- for cooling.

And it is further not undemocratic because there are distinct authorities lodged in the House ("money bills" an example; "impeachment" another), and others lodged in the Senate. And both work together on bills.

Thus the Senate is a check against excessive democracy (have you heard the yelling that is the norm in the House, which is at one remove from "direct rule"?), and the House a guarantor of democracy.

Last but not least, the essence of democracy is elections; and the Constitution expressly stipulates that there shall be elections, including to the Senate. And the Constitution was amended to change the appointment of Senators by the state legislatures to Senators being elected by popular vote because as originally established the Senators became the spokesmen for the powerful interests that tended to control the legislatures and its appointments.

The more I learn about the Constitution, the less I see it needing to be revised by those who don't know the fundamentals of it.