Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Lawmaker believes Legislature should select U.S. senators
The Verde Independent ^ | February 9, 2010 | Howard Fischer

Posted on 02/10/2010 12:10:30 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks

PHOENIX -- A freshman Southern Arizona lawmaker is leading the effort to strip Arizona voters of the right to nominate U.S. senators.

The proposal by Rep. David Stevens, R-Sierra Vista, would give that right to the elected legislators from each party. Only after that process is complete would voters get a say, in the general election, who they actually want to send to Washington.

Stevens said his measure, if approved by Arizona voters in November, would be a partial return to the way things were before the 17th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted.

Until then, each state legislature actually got to choose its U.S. senators, with voters allowed only to pick only the folks going to the House of Representatives. The 1913 amendment requires direct election of all members of Congress.

Stevens said that amendment was a mistake. He said the old system ensured that senators were responsive to the desires of state lawmakers.

"The state is supreme over the federal government,' he said. "And when they weren't doing what we thought they should be doing, we could recall them at any time.'

With direct election, Stevens said, federal senators are less interested in protecting the rights of the states and more interested in looking out for the powers of the federal government.

"It takes away the ability of the state to negotiate with the federal government,' he said.

Unable to repeal the 17th Amendment, Stevens is trying the next best thing: changing the nominating process.

He said HCR 2046 would not run afoul of the U.S. Constitution because it does preserve the direct election of senators as required. He said nothing in that amendment spells out the nominating process for those candidates, which is what he wants to change.

Because his plan requires voter approval, nothing in his measure would affect this year's Republican primary battle involving incumbent John McCain and challengers J.D. Hayworth and Chris Simcox.

Stevens said, though, there might be an entirely different political landscape if McCain, Hayworth and Simcox were busy battling for the support of the 35 House Republicans and 18 GOP senators rather than seeing who can corral more popular votes at the primary in August.

In fact, he said it is possible that someone like Hayworth, whose campaign warchest is going to be dwarfed by McCain, actually might have a better chance of becoming the party's nominee.

"He would have to come down and, basically, campaign us,' Stevens said.

Stevens said he believes he can sell voters on the idea of giving up their right to nominate their U.S. senators.

"I'll ask them if they feel like they're being served by their senators,' Stevens said.

"And I can pretty much tell you what they're answer is going to be, that is 'no,' ' he continued. Stevens added, though, he said he's not just talking about Arizona but the situation nationwide.

The plan will get no backing from McCain.

"Senator McCain believes all elections, primary and general, should be decided by the people, as stated in the Constitution,' said aide Brooke Buchanan.

Hayworth said he is sympathetic to what Stevens is trying to do.

"I believe in states' rights,' he said. But Hayworth said he can't support this specific measure.

"Right now I just think it's important for the people to decide' who are their Arizona senators.

And Simcox said he's not sure if such a change would make the process better.

On one hand, he said the measure might help candidates like himself who he contends are more committed to the principles of the party and less to being loyal to those who control the party structure. But Simcox said he also can foresee a way that this system also can be co-opted by the party leadership.

The measure does have an escape clause for recognized parties that don't happen to have any members in the Arizona Legislature: Their U.S. Senate nominees would continue to be chosen the way they are now through a primary race.

Stevens said even if he gets his wish and the nominating process is changed, it still might be difficult for Arizona lawmakers to keep their federal senators' feet to the fire. That goes back to the 17th Amendment and that federal requirement for direct election.

"Once they get elected to their six years, we (legislators) don't have the ability to call them back,' Stevens said.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 17thamendment; arizona; az; chrissimcox; davidstevens; elections; fail; jdhayworth; johnmccain; legislators; primaries; senators; sovereignty; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

1 posted on 02/10/2010 12:10:31 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I agree with this proposal.


2 posted on 02/10/2010 12:12:34 PM PST by mick (Central Banker Capitalism is NOT Free Enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
1913 the year of the:

IRS

FEDERAL RESERVE

Direct election of Senators

Time to turn back the clock..and stop those Progressives.

3 posted on 02/10/2010 12:13:03 PM PST by Nat Turner (Escaped from NY in 1983 and not ever going back....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I believe the 17th amendment was a big mistake..if US Senators were beholden to the state legislatures..we wouldn’t have such runaway federal government..imho..


4 posted on 02/10/2010 12:13:53 PM PST by BerniesFriend (Sarah Palin-"Lord knows she's attractive" says bitter Andrea Mitchell and the rest of the MSM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The 17th Amendment was a huge mistake and it should be repealed.


5 posted on 02/10/2010 12:14:09 PM PST by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I believe electoral college votes should be split by the number of districts won with the two extra votes going to the overall winner. No more winner take all. Imagine democrats only picking up 28 votes in CA instead of 40.


6 posted on 02/10/2010 12:14:15 PM PST by CriticalJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Repeal the 17th bump!!

Rebellion is brewing!!


7 posted on 02/10/2010 12:14:18 PM PST by Jim Robinson (JUST VOTE THEM OUT! teapartyexpress.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The founders of this great nation had it right the first time.


8 posted on 02/10/2010 12:14:49 PM PST by dainbramaged (If you want a friend, get a dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nat Turner

Cal is screwed either way. Look at what we have already elected.


9 posted on 02/10/2010 12:14:50 PM PST by votemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
And when they weren't doing what we thought they should be doing, we could recall them at any time.

Incorrect. Senators were chosen by their state legislatures for a 6 year term. Legislatures could not recall them at will.

10 posted on 02/10/2010 12:14:55 PM PST by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Agree Jim !!


11 posted on 02/10/2010 12:15:02 PM PST by mick (Central Banker Capitalism is NOT Free Enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
1913 the year of the:

IRS

FEDERAL RESERVE

Direct election of Senators

Time to turn back the clock..and stop those Progressives.

12 posted on 02/10/2010 12:15:08 PM PST by Nat Turner (Escaped from NY in 1983 and not ever going back....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
I agree. The 17th amendment is one of the factors that turned state government into mere provincial administrations, subservient to the Federal government. That's the reverse of the principle of keeping governmental power as localized and accountable as possible.

Notice the bias in how they portray it as an attempt to strip voters of their rights? As if federal government under the current setup wasn't doing that on a vast scale already.

13 posted on 02/10/2010 12:16:28 PM PST by Liberty1970 (http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/lydiablievernicht)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Publius

The legisl00tures could, apparently, successfully pressure the Sinators to resign, however. (Yes, I spelled it that way on purpose.)


14 posted on 02/10/2010 12:16:51 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (I am Ellie Light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: votemout

At this point I am all in favor of political triage. Cut their star out of the flag and reduce them to territory status till they can get their s*it together. If they cannot get it together auction their land off to other states.


15 posted on 02/10/2010 12:17:18 PM PST by Nat Turner (Escaped from NY in 1983 and not ever going back....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I'm in favor of changing the election method to along the lines of the German Bundesrat... give each state government the power to appoint Senators with instructions to represent the wishes of the states in Congress. It would keep Senators more in touch with what happens in their state capitals and the Senate wouldn't be worse than it is today.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find only things evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelogus

16 posted on 02/10/2010 12:18:20 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nat Turner
"1913 the year of the:..."

I agree, absolutely. That year, along 1935 (Social Security Act), was one of the biggest reasons that liberty lost it's primacy to federal rule. It was a HUGE mistake which of course is never spoken about in our public schools. I would wager less than 1% of the graduating seniors in public school even are aware that US Senators were once elected by the state's respective legislatures, to say nothing of why it was a good idea then, and now.

17 posted on 02/10/2010 12:18:23 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Not exactly. The men chosen as senators were part of the state's political establishment and were good at reading the tea leaves. Legislatures did not need to pass resolutions to "instruct" a senator how to vote, although some did. A guy didn't get to be senator without understanding how his state's politics worked.

There was no need to pressure a senator to resign. If he wasn't welcome anymore, he would know it without being told.

18 posted on 02/10/2010 12:19:54 PM PST by Publius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
From our America's Independent Party Platform:

Repeal of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments

We consider the federal income tax to be destructive of our liberty, privacy, and prosperity. Therefore, we are working to bring about its complete elimination and the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We recommend that the current system be replaced by an equitable, simple, noninvasive, visible, efficient tax, one that does not destroy or even infringe upon our economic privacy and liberty.

We also call for the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment. Its enactment greatly reduced the power of our state legislatures and state governments – which are much closer to the people – and damaged our system of federalism.

19 posted on 02/10/2010 12:25:01 PM PST by EternalVigilance (Law is too important to be left to the lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I think that’s a excellent way to undo the damage of the 17th.


20 posted on 02/10/2010 12:29:48 PM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

The passage of the 13th amendment turned Senators into Federal animals when they were designed to be State animals.

I support repeal.


21 posted on 02/10/2010 12:32:47 PM PST by texmexis best
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: texmexis best

Make that the 17th Amendment. sheesh...


22 posted on 02/10/2010 12:36:55 PM PST by texmexis best
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

“Repeal the 17th bump!!”

Can we have a twofer, the 16th needs to go.

“Rebellion is brewing!!”

I guess rebellion makes a better “battle cry” but it must be accompanied by revival (political and spiritual), without an increase in virtue any effort will fail.


23 posted on 02/10/2010 12:37:37 PM PST by Peter Horry (Those who aren't responsible always know best.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

This isn’t a bad idea if you want to get senators who are more beholden to state government than popular whims.


24 posted on 02/10/2010 12:47:53 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

YEE-HAW!!!

Three cheers for the Arizona Federalist! (or Anti-Federalist!) (*)

This is a brilliant idea, as it doesn’t have to repeal the 17th Amendment.

John McCain hates it, because his rich wife and lobbyists buy his seat, and the Arizona GOP is too cheap to fund a decent candidate. McCain doesn’t give two poops about Arizona.

Even if the State legislators pick a liar who promises loyalty to the State, then falls in love with the national government and betrays his State, this effectively term limits him to one term!

(*) By today’s definition, a “Federalist” wants a balance of power between the national government and the individual States, and an “Anti-Federalist” wants the States to be superior in power to the national government. Right now, they are not in conflict at all, because they both believe that the national government has far too much power, taken at the expense of the individual States and the people.


25 posted on 02/10/2010 12:49:33 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

How does this proposal differ from the selection of Dede in NY23 ?


26 posted on 02/10/2010 12:59:51 PM PST by paudio (Road to hell is paved by unintended consequences of good intentions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nat Turner

Oregon gets to deal with SF, Nevada gets LA, and Arizona shall be blessed with San Diego. SacraMENTAL shall be bulldozed to the ground.


27 posted on 02/10/2010 1:00:37 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (I am Ellie Light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

This man is right. The Founders knew the damage that could be done by a “royal” senator, using his incumbency to maintain his personal power for 6-year-term after 6-year-term. The amendment passed at the beginning of the Progressive period was a blatant power grab by members of the senate and needs to be repealed.


28 posted on 02/10/2010 1:05:39 PM PST by 13Sisters76 ("It is amazing how many people mistake a certain hip snideness for sophistication. " Thos. Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paudio

As I understand it, Diddly Dee was selected by NY GOP insiders, while the AZ Sinatorial candidate would be selected by GOP legisl00ters.

(Yeah, I know, my cynicism is showing. Repealing the 17th, as good an idea as it is, will be a risky gamble until we get better legislators by being more active on the state level.)


29 posted on 02/10/2010 1:06:30 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (I am Ellie Light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: mick

So do I.


30 posted on 02/10/2010 1:10:58 PM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Liberty1970; Jim Robinson
Notice the bias in how they portray it as an attempt to strip voters of their rights?

I noticed that, too, although the author/editor seemed to me to be concerned about voting rights. It's something that advocates of this maneuver should NOT put in their brochures.

31 posted on 02/10/2010 1:12:10 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (I am Ellie Light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Yep the 17th was a dumb one for sure.


32 posted on 02/10/2010 1:30:12 PM PST by vpintheak (How can love of God, Family and Country make me an extremist?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paudio

Because the original intent was for Congressmen to represent the current mood of the country (elections every 2 years, changing districts, states gaining/losing seats) while Senators were supposed to represent the interests of the states (reserve funding/projects) and slow down majority opinion to be able to see the total impact ( elections every 6 years, each state gets 2-small/large, north/south, east/west).

Congressmen should be representative of the district and not thrust upon us (like Murtha’s wife will be). Senators should represent our state’s represenatives (Legislature).

With the way it is now, everyone direct elected, what is the difference in a Senator and Congressman?


33 posted on 02/10/2010 1:36:57 PM PST by Raider Sam (They're on our left, right, front, and back. They aint gettin away this time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Nat Turner

“Time to turn back the clock...”

Only if turning back the clock means the instant demise of the IRS and the Federal Reserve. Both are mostly foreign owned, banking controlled organizations that have no Constitutional merit.


34 posted on 02/10/2010 1:38:01 PM PST by GGpaX4DumpedTea (I am a tea party descendant - steeped in the Constitutional legacy handed down by the Founders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: BerniesFriend
I believe the 17th amendment was a big mistake..if US Senators were beholden to the state legislatures..we wouldn’t have such runaway federal government..imho..

Twenty eight states have legislatures controlled by Democrats. Thirteen are controlled by Republicans. Eight are split. One is non-partisan. Do the math.

35 posted on 02/10/2010 1:45:32 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BerniesFriend

14th Amendment was the beginning of the end.


36 posted on 02/10/2010 1:47:20 PM PST by ChinaThreat (3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Good for him. It should be for the Several States to individually decide how they choose their Senators.


37 posted on 02/10/2010 1:49:53 PM PST by Little Ray (Madame President sounds really good to me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

He’s asking for half-a-loaf, and often in politics such proposals can wind up making a bad situation worse.

His proposal does not do what’s needed and it gives too much power in the party to incumbents. If there is still a primary process, it should not be controlled by the legislators.

Instead of half-a-loaf, we need to return election of Senators to the state legislators; and that needs to include making them subject to recall by the state legislators as well.

It is a lie that such a change makes a Senatorial choice less a choice of “the people”.

Senators were intended to represent the State, as an entity, and as a government, which, as that government, was to have representation in the Federal Government.

“The people” elect their State legislators; and by that representation their legislators were to elect their Senators - to represent the State.

Direct election, and the campaign process of direct election, opened the seats of the Senators to mountains of money and influence beyond the territory - and without regard to the interests of - the State; much more so than was evident before their “direct” election.


38 posted on 02/10/2010 1:53:23 PM PST by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Twenty eight states have legislatures controlled by Democrats

That's the one part that sucks about repeal: the party angle. The crinimal DemocRAT legisl00tures need to be replaced, while the RINO elements in the Pubbie legisl00tures need to be weeded out and retired.

39 posted on 02/10/2010 1:55:11 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (I am Ellie Light.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 13Sisters76
The amendment passed at the beginning of the Progressive period was a blatant power grab by members of the senate and needs to be repealed.

Read some history. The then-members of the Senate fiercely opposed the 17th Amendment. It passed the House year after year before the Senate finally caved in to overwhelming public pressure.

40 posted on 02/10/2010 1:58:06 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I don’t get this. So, there would be no primary?

The legislature would choose the candidates, but how many?

And how does this not aid someone like Byrd who simply can send federal dollars home to balance the state books?


41 posted on 02/10/2010 2:10:47 PM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrRobertPlant2009

To continue, this just seems like a way to make bribery easier. Instead of buying off the voters, I can simply buy off 20 or so legislators by promising them federal dollars for their district.

Suddenly, Bobby Nobody from Beckley County, WV can have a bridge on I-77 named after him.


42 posted on 02/10/2010 2:13:27 PM PST by MrRobertPlant2009
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

While I agree in printable, I don’t think this half measure is the way to do it. As it will almost certainly backfire, killing the over all causes.

This is an easy target for a largely ignorance population be sold into being against.

The best in term measure is simply a senate recall mechanism initiated by either the voters in a referendum or the legislator more dynamically.


43 posted on 02/10/2010 2:41:15 PM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GGpaX4DumpedTea

That works for me :)!!!!


44 posted on 02/10/2010 3:54:32 PM PST by Nat Turner (Escaped from NY in 1983 and not ever going back....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: mick; R. Scott; GOPsterinMA

This proposal means nearly half the states in this country would never elect Republican Senators again. Scott Brown would’ve lost by a 9-to-1 margin in MA in favor of “Marcia” Coakley.


45 posted on 02/10/2010 4:47:32 PM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

1,000,000% correct FM!


46 posted on 02/10/2010 5:13:12 PM PST by GOPsterinMA (Camelot sleeps with the fishes!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Sure. This would be what would happen today with the breakdown in the State Legislatures.

But our belief is that returning to the original intent of the Constitution would, over time, change the US Senate into a body very, very jealous of the rights and prerogatives of the individual States. That is the point of repealing the 17th Amend. Democrat and Republican are not the problem. It is the Progressive Philosophy to consolidate power in the national government that has infected both parties that is the problem.

At least this is how those of us pushing for this see it.

47 posted on 02/11/2010 12:30:12 AM PST by mick (Central Banker Capitalism is NOT Free Enterprise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: mick

I understand the argument, we had this discussion recently in another thread, but you simply can’t get around the makeup of the legislatures. People believe the quality of the Senators would improve, I really don’t. It only serves to make them that much less accountable to the people. I know what kind of hacks my state would’ve sent to DC, and it chills my blood. It wouldn’t have been for 140 years until last year we would’ve been able to send a Republican to the Senate.


48 posted on 02/11/2010 12:44:27 AM PST by fieldmarshaldj (~"This is what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps !"~~)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

I doubt that. If the People are strong enough Republican to elect a Republican Senator their State legislature/assembly will appoint a Republican - or blow their chance at reelection.
Originally the US Senate represented the States and the House of Representatives represented We, the People. Now our State has no representation. Why do we have an Upper and Lower House at the Federal level when both are composed of elected politicians? With both being directly elected why not eliminate the Senate and combine both functions in the House?


49 posted on 02/11/2010 3:06:16 AM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Comment #50 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson