Posted on 05/05/2014 7:04:59 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
INDIANAPOLIS | Hoosiers never again would vote in a primary election for U.S. Senate candidates if the decision were up to Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller.
Zoeller is among a growing number of state's rights conservatives who favor a so-called "soft repeal" of the 17th Amendment that would empower members of the General Assembly, instead of voters, to nominate each party's U.S. Senate candidates.
Voters still would have the final say on who represents Indiana in the Senate. But Zoeller, a Republican, believes giving the General Assembly's control of selecting candidates could revive the idea that U.S. senators are ambassadors of a state's government and not entirely free agents.
"If they had to come back ... and get renominated each six-year cycle, they'll be less likely to pass statutes that stuck it to states," Zoeller said. "Would we have an unfunded mandate if they had to come back and explain it to members of the Legislature?"
Speaking earlier this year to the Federalist Society of Indianapolis, an association of politically conservative lawyers and judges, Zoeller said the proper relationship between states and the federal government was "slaughtered" when the 17th Amendment, providing for popular election of U.S. senators, was ratified in 1913.
In the century since, the federal government has come to view states as entities it controls, instead of the co-equal sovereigns the framers of the Constitution intended, Zoeller said.
That relationship urgently needs to be rebalanced to bring an end to overreaching federal regulations and unconstitutional laws, and to cut down on the number of legal challenges, he said. Zoeller said he's felt obligated to file against the federal government in the past six years.
(Excerpt) Read more at nwitimes.com ...
PING!
Utterly and completely absurd. The people should decide. Like it or not, it is THEIR State, their Nation. This is a power play by the Elite, pure and simple. Wanna see a quick, permanent and immediate end to the Tea party? This is it.
Sometimes those that revere the Constitution lead the battle to destroy it.
I think it started about half a century before that, but the 17th amendment really gave it steam. If state legislatures were doing the nominating, I can't imagine that even an ultraleft state like Washington would be sending an absolute dunce like Patty Bun Murray to represent them.
Indiana? Has to be related to Fuzzy. Probably a cousin?
Why don’t you try actually reading the Constitution sometime. The 17th is an abomination.
Sounds like a pretty good idea to this Hoosier. Would probably raise the collective IQs of the current Senators by several points.
AWESOME! Go Indiana!
You’re right. They’d be sending cretins like Kshama Sawant. Patty bin Murray is too right wing for them. Meanwhile, “right wing” Texas would be sending David DewCrist and Tokyo Rove. Repeal of the 17th is insanity at this point.
I have to disagree. When the Senate changed to popular election, it was a watershed moment for the states losing power to the Fed-monster. The Senators were previously accountable to the state government to protect their interests. Now it’s unfettered Federal power.
What many people don’t understand is that although the founders wanted the people to have a say, they were also fearful giving the public TOO much of a say would result in government catering to voters own self interest over the interest of the nation as a whole (which is what you are seeing now with the massive welfare state). The system was designed so the House or Representatives was the “people’s house” and elected by and answerable to the people. The Senate, on the other hand, was appointed by the states, the Senate was to represent the interest and rights of the state NOT the individual. This was to create a balance where the neither the interest of the state or the interest of the individual would be able to run roughshod over the other. Unfortunately, with the direct vote for senators, we now have two houses that are answerable to the voters and nobody to advocate for the states, that is why you see a behemoth federal government, and massive welfare state where individual states rights are left to the mercy of the courts...
Indeed, you’d have Dick Lugars forever. How does that grab you ?
Now "democracy" and the "right to vote" are seen as laudable. It's going to come crashing down, one of these days, and it's going to be an ugly mess.
Indiana damned near did have Lugar for ever...
They’re trying,
but I find it hard to believe there would be many instances of the state legislature NOT nominating the incumbent.
Here’s what I’m for:
return all domestic policy to the states, run the federal government on excise taxes, tariffs, and land sales and such.
then invite all democratic countries with per capita income roughly in line with ours to join
a hundred or even more states
THEN have one Senator per state elected for at most three six-year terms and no more than 600 Congressmen elected by population for at most six two-year terms, provided states have at least 0.5 percent of the national population and with states allowed to join for the purpose of getting to the 0.5 percent threshold.
AND every state qualifies for the U.N. and for the Olympics.
Article V ping!
He would’ve been easily renominated with this “change.” We’d never get a Conservative Tea Party Senator out of almost any GOP state with the legs electing them. Democrat states wouldn’t need to even pander to “moderates”, they’d elect bonafide Stalinists across the board.
Pennsylvania with GOP majorities in both houses certainly would not be sending an intellectual lightweight like Bob Casey Jr. to represent us. But probably not former Club for Growth chairman Pat Toomey either.
So I have mixed feelings.
For an obvious example, for the Federal Government to force every State to allow 18 year olds to vote, when the trend from the Constitutional origins 1787-1789, to the present, has been a more pampered, less demanding maturation for those under 21, makes no sense. Thus while boys used to be able to drink in many States, before they were 21; they cannot do so now legally--even though they can still join the Army at 18--not quite so young as when all the States had 21 as the voting requirement. Now we have a 21 year requirement to drink; but no problem allowing an 18 year old with no proven demonstration of responsibility--even the payment of a poll tax on a particular day--to vote!
There are now literally millions of voters, whose votes are being bought by unearned benefits, appropriated by politicians for the purpose of keeping those voters happy. This is the most obvious conflict of interests.
The Indiana Attorney General makes an interesting suggestion as a step towards turning around a trend that has clearly gone too far in one direction. It is imperative that we find a way to turn that corner; so while, one cannot be sure that his plan would work out as intended, the very discussion is constructive.
My views on the general subject, should be clear. See Universal Suffrage, Threat To Liberty.
William Flax
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.