[steveegg]

"Manner" includes the primaries, as well as any laws written in order to facilitate the entire election process. The fact that, outside of the date of the general election, Congress has not used its "oversight" role speaks well of Congress.

When the Jersey Supreme Idiots based their vacation of Jersey election law not on the law, nor on any authority granted it by the US Constitution, Congress or the NJ legislature to rule on election law with regard to Senate elections, that vacation became unconstitutional (regardless of SCOTUS' lack of review).

[NittanyLion]

"Manner" includes the primaries, as well as any laws written in order to facilitate the entire election process. The fact that, outside of the date of the general election, Congress has not used its "oversight" role speaks well of Congress.

When the Jersey Supreme Idiots based their vacation of Jersey election law not on the law, nor on any authority granted it by the US Constitution, Congress or the NJ legislature to rule on election law with regard to Senate elections, that vacation became unconstitutional (regardless of SCOTUS' lack of review).

I can see your argument. That said:

1. Under your argument does the vacation of election law trump the right of a state to determine what candidates it will field on the ballot?

2. Does the Constitution speak to the election itself, or also to the means by which candidates will be selected?

3. What effect did the 17th Amendment have on this passage? Did it modify it in any way?

All open-ended questions - you've persuaded me, to a point. FWIW, I've been concerned from the start that if the GOP successfully barred Lautenberg from the ballot there'd be a big backlash against the party. I don't think the popular view is for the "rule of law", so in a political sense this may not hurt the GOP as much as some may think.