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

Skip to comments.

Zoeller favors major changes to U.S. Senate elections
nwi.com ^ | April 27, 2014 | Dan Carden

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: 10thamendment; 17thamendment; gregzoeller; nominations; repeal; senate; states
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

1 posted on 05/05/2014 7:04:59 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

PING!


2 posted on 05/05/2014 7:05:33 AM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (The PASSING LANE is for PASSING, not DAWDLING)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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.


3 posted on 05/05/2014 7:07:17 AM PDT by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
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.

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.

4 posted on 05/05/2014 7:08:52 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Indiana? Has to be related to Fuzzy. Probably a cousin?


5 posted on 05/05/2014 7:12:49 AM PDT by FlJoePa ("Success without honor is an unseasoned dish; it will satisfy your hunger, but it won't taste good")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Why don’t you try actually reading the Constitution sometime. The 17th is an abomination.


6 posted on 05/05/2014 7:14:23 AM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Sounds like a pretty good idea to this Hoosier. Would probably raise the collective IQs of the current Senators by several points.


7 posted on 05/05/2014 7:14:55 AM PDT by curmudgeonII (Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

AWESOME! Go Indiana!


8 posted on 05/05/2014 7:17:22 AM PDT by gattaca (The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left. Ecclesiastes10:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman; Impy; BillyBoy

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.


9 posted on 05/05/2014 7:17:35 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

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.


10 posted on 05/05/2014 7:18:06 AM PDT by ilgipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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...


11 posted on 05/05/2014 7:18:32 AM PDT by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: curmudgeonII

Indeed, you’d have Dick Lugars forever. How does that grab you ?


12 posted on 05/05/2014 7:18:33 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: apillar
There was also awareness that universal suffrage is destructive to the ideal of limited government.

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.

13 posted on 05/05/2014 7:22:30 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

Indiana damned near did have Lugar for ever...


14 posted on 05/05/2014 7:23:11 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks (Rip it out by the roots.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: curmudgeonII

They’re trying,

but I find it hard to believe there would be many instances of the state legislature NOT nominating the incumbent.


15 posted on 05/05/2014 7:24:24 AM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

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.


16 posted on 05/05/2014 7:24:48 AM PDT by Redmen4ever
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; Resolute Conservative; VerySadAmerican; Nuc 1.1; MamaTexan; ...

Article V ping!


17 posted on 05/05/2014 7:27:48 AM PDT by Jacquerie (By their oaths, it is the duty of state legislators to invoke Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

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.


18 posted on 05/05/2014 7:34:02 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (Resist We Much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
You have a point. But so does post #10. Even left-wing interests competing for power and jealously guarding their sovereignty and power is a better check than none at all. Or the system we have now where more and more power is centralized in Washington.

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.

19 posted on 05/05/2014 7:36:27 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Changes in the suffrage--and those choices entrusted to those having suffrage--have been moving only in one direction for the past century & a half in the West, generally. While some of the early extensions made sense, most of those in recent decades do not. As the trend has proceeded, less & less critical thought has gone into the changes.

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

20 posted on 05/05/2014 7:41:47 AM PDT by Ohioan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
Sometimes those that revere the Constitution lead the battle to destroy it.

Sometimes idiots have no idea what they are talking about.

The founders did not give us a pure democracy because democracy always devolves to mob rule.

The only way to keep the feral government in check is to assure that the states are strong enough to keep the feral government from usurping powers beyond those enumerated to it. The senate was meant to be composed of representatives chosen by the state legislatures. The House was meant to be elected directly by the people.

No one part is supposed to be able to dictate to the others.

21 posted on 05/05/2014 7:41:56 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Disagree.

Senators were to represent the states hence their appointment by state legislatures until the 17th amendment was ratified.

As is pointed out, Senators do not represent the States as was the explicit purpose of the unamended constitution.


22 posted on 05/05/2014 7:44:00 AM PDT by Principled (Obama: Unblemished by success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Absent the 17th Amendment David Dewhurst would be the junior senator from Texas. Bob Bennett would still be the junior senator from Utah. And Mitch McConnell, Lindsay Graham, Lamar Alexander, and Thad Cochrane would not be looking over their shoulders.


23 posted on 05/05/2014 7:45:27 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Totally disagree with you.....


24 posted on 05/05/2014 7:46:42 AM PDT by Osage Orange (I have strong feelings about gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be controlling it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

[ Why don’t you try actually reading the Constitution sometime. The 17th is an abomination. ]

The 17th effectively “Neutered” people’s involvement in State Level politics and removed a point of interest when it came to elect state reps and state senators.

People are supposed to pay attention when they fill their state’s chambers and if they send some moron to Washington it would become a mandate for the state citizens to throw out the current crop of state senators, the 17th effectively Isolated the citizens away from state level elections and effectively turned the federal senate into manipulated chamber that used the mob tendencies of the people to override the state as an entity.

Just think, how much federal land would there be out west had the 17th not passed?


25 posted on 05/05/2014 7:46:45 AM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The founders did not give us a pure democracy because democracy always devolves to mob rule.

Yep. I challenge anyone to cite a single exception unless it is the City of Enoch or the Kingdom of Heaven where only the righteous dwell.

Most of the time, when someone makes a statement of this sort containing the words never, everybody or always, there are exceptions. Not here.

26 posted on 05/05/2014 7:47:31 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

The structure of the design of our legislative system of government was to give power to the people in the lower house (Representatives were elected by the people) and power to the States (Senators were selected by the States). You don’t like the Electoral College and now you don’t like States having power in the legislative system. Are you really sure you LIKE the Constitution?


27 posted on 05/05/2014 7:48:20 AM PDT by Anitius Severinus Boethius (www.wilsonharpbooks.com - Eclipse, the sequel to Bright Horizons is out! Get it now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
I think America would be best served by adopting a national electoral process now used by Maine and Nebraska where electors are awarded to each state based on the number of House seats plus the number of Senate seats (always two), the congressional district method allocates one electoral vote to each congressional district. The winner of each district (equal to the number of Representatives) is awarded one electoral vote, and the winner of the state-wide vote is then awarded the state's remaining two electoral votes (equal to the number of Senators).

This would eliminate the winner take all method that (as democrats like to say) disenfranchises people who do not live in liberal urban strongholds which not only are largely inhabited by government dependents, but traditionally more susceptible to vote fraud.

28 posted on 05/05/2014 7:49:32 AM PDT by Baynative (How much longer will the media be able to prop up this administration?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
The founders did not give us a pure democracy because democracy always devolves to mob rule.

The only way to keep the feral government in check is to assure that the states are strong enough to keep the feral government from usurping powers beyond those enumerated to it. The senate was meant to be composed of representatives chosen by the state legislatures. The House was meant to be elected directly by the people.

AMEN to what you said!

29 posted on 05/05/2014 7:51:55 AM PDT by Marathoner (What are we waiting for? Where are the Articles of Impeachment?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Like the people elected Obama?


30 posted on 05/05/2014 7:54:20 AM PDT by hoosiermama (Obama: "Born in Kenya" Lying now or then or now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jacquerie

Thanks for the ping!
-
“... by having state legislators nominate U.S. Senate candidates
and still letting voters elect the state’s U.S. senators ...”
-
That is actually quite interesting.

17th Amendment to U.S. Constitution
“The Senate of the United States shall be composed
of two Senators from each State,
elected by the people thereof...”

No mention there of “how” the names are to get on the ballots.


31 posted on 05/05/2014 7:56:31 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (We have met the enemy and he is us.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gattaca

Agree. Novel idea, hadn’t thought of this particular angle before.

It would restore the States to their proper role and place in the Federal system, would incentivize people to pay more attention and be more involved in state-level elections, and would force a lot of Senators to defend their states against things like unfunded mandates.

And to those who are saying that it would keep the GOPe in power, I completely disagree. It would really incentivize the GOP grassroots (currently defined largely by the Tea Party) to bring about change at the state level, which is where most of our successes have actually been.

I’m all for it.


32 posted on 05/05/2014 7:59:30 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo

Not sure what you mean here but the 17th amendment needs to be repealed not worked around. Repealing the 17th would go a long way to correcting the problems we have in America today. It is the only way to re-establish state representation in the Federal Government.


33 posted on 05/05/2014 8:02:32 AM PDT by Nuc 1.1 (Nuc 1 Liberals aren't Patriots. Remember 1789!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
You are so wrong.

The Indiana General Assembly would not have kept returning Lugar to Washington... they would have bounced him as soon as he started to turn left.

Repealing the 17th Amendment, and repealing the Income Tax, would do a lot to restore the Republic.

"Republic" means you don't directly elect Senators, BTW.

34 posted on 05/05/2014 8:29:58 AM PDT by caddie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; Vigilanteman; RIghtwardHo; BillyBoy; GOPsterinMA; sickoflibs; AuH2ORepublican; ...
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.

This is the first I've heard of this "soft repeal" idea. Unlike actually repealing the amendment, which is candyland fantasy, it's actually possible for a state with enough incredible douchebags in power to do this by changing state election law. This proposal crystallizes why the whole thing is retarded and anyone that supports it is either an enemy of freedom or someone that doesn't understand the constitutional ideals that supposedly matter so much to them.

Let me be the first but to state the proper response: Go F yourself, Greg. Why don't you try making this the idea the centerpiece of your next campaign and see how well it plays, dipstick.

35 posted on 05/05/2014 8:34:29 AM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

I agree w Fuz. The senate was originally set up to represent the states. The House belongs to the people. In actuality, the house has the power of he purse

Section 1.

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states, and the electors in each state shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature.
No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state in which he shall be chosen.
Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons, including those bound to service for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the state of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.
When vacancies happen in the Representation from any state, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.
The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.

Section 3.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.
Immediately after they shall be assembled in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year, of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, so that one third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or otherwise, during the recess of the legislature of any state, the executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.
No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall choose their other officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the United States.
The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.
Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

Section 4.

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in December, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

Section 5.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.
Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Section 6.

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time: and no person holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office.

Section 7.

All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.
Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case of a bill.

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;
To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;
To establish post offices and post roads;
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;
To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;
To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
To provide and maintain a navy;
To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;—And
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Section 9.

The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another: nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.

Section 10.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.
No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.
No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.


36 posted on 05/05/2014 8:34:44 AM PDT by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks; zot; Interesting Times

A good reason to move back to Indiana. After seeing the Senate in action the last 20 years, Zoeller’s idea makes sense to me. If not the outright repeal of the 17th Amendment.


37 posted on 05/05/2014 8:59:33 AM PDT by GreyFriar ( Spearhead - 3rd Armored Division 75-78 & 83-87)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RIghtwardHo
I would suggest you do some reading on the reasoning behind the original way the Senate was seated. Thomas Jefferson addresses why they sett things up the way they did in the Federalist Papers.

I agree with Jefferson on this one, and would like to see a full repeal of the 17th.

38 posted on 05/05/2014 9:51:32 AM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

This Texan would like to know how you base that assertion.


39 posted on 05/05/2014 9:53:27 AM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: caddie; fieldmarshaldj; BillyBoy
The Indiana General Assembly would not have kept returning Lugar to Washington... they would have bounced him as soon as he started to turn left.

Bull. They might have replaced him a rat when the rats took the State House, I don't how it worked if the 2 Houses were divided.

You people need to get it though your heads that state legislators are POLITICIANS who are no more likely to be conservative nor to oppose the federal government having a lot of power than members of Congress (many of whom used to be state legislators!). This idiotic scheme would give you the exact opposite of what you want, and that's so breathtakingly obvious that I really have trouble seeing how any intelligent person could not realize that. Put down Mark Levin's book and take a glance at the real world.

40 posted on 05/05/2014 9:56:30 AM PDT by Impy (RED=COMMUNIST, NOT REPUBLICAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: GreyFriar

This idea makes sense to me, too.


41 posted on 05/05/2014 10:00:58 AM PDT by zot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks
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.

Although I agree in the fundamental return of the States' role in the Central Government, I am convinced that it would not work for dystopic states like mine, California.

Much more's the pity!

42 posted on 05/05/2014 11:22:12 AM PDT by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good g race to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Repeal of the 17th is insanity at this point.

Only because it renders both the House and the States irrelevant. For controlling "democratic" doofuses, that is a good thing.

43 posted on 05/05/2014 11:25:32 AM PDT by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good g race to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
I have no problems with this. Let the states compete for their own interests. Just do away with central party control of funding Senators.

That's the biggest impact of the 17th - making Senators have to raise campaign funds. And they get those funds from the central party, with strings attached of toeing the party agenda, not the home state's agenda.

-PJ

44 posted on 05/05/2014 11:30:12 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan
Thomas Jefferson addresses why they sett things up the way they did in the Federalist Papers.

I believe you mean Hamilton, (Madison and Jay.

: )

45 posted on 05/05/2014 11:33:01 AM PDT by publius911 ( At least Nixon had the good g race to resign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Tolerance Sucks Rocks

Bad bad idea


46 posted on 05/05/2014 11:33:57 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

The state legislature should not choose party candidates - that is an abomination - they should choose the Senators outright


47 posted on 05/05/2014 11:35:10 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: curmudgeonII

This is a way to beat down the TEA party


48 posted on 05/05/2014 11:35:48 AM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: publius911

Oops. Well, everyone should still read The Federalist Papers. They were written by people way smarter than I.


49 posted on 05/05/2014 11:51:13 AM PDT by 5thGenTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum; Vigilanteman; Marathoner
Exactly. The Framers divided power vertically between the states and the government they created. It was the Framers’ structure of diffused power that was to secure our rights, not the parchment barriers of a Bill of Rights.

For all practical purposes, the 17th knocked off the 10th, and overnight consolidated power in DC.

Repeal the 17th and kiss goodbye the nomination of federal judges hostile to the 10th.

50 posted on 05/05/2014 12:31:28 PM PDT by Jacquerie (By their oaths, it is the duty of state legislators to invoke Article V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 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