libertarians: should us senators be elected by the people?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This isn't really a question for Libertarians, it's a question for Federalists.  As far as Libertarianism is concerned, how Senators are elected is unimportant.  However, as an ardent Federalist, I want to see the 17th amendment repealed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This isn't really a question for Libertarians, it's a question for Federalists.  As far as Libertarianism is concerned, how Senators are elected is unimportant.  However, as an ardent Federalist, I want to see the 17th amendment repealed.

Ernest I would be interested in hearing your reason for that. As I mentioned I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other, but I might be convinced by a good argument.

Unless Libertarians start controlling State legislatures, the Senators that get elected will still be Republicrats or what ever the predominant political party happens to be.  Indeed, one could argue that since the current system at least allows for a small-l libertarian independent to be elected Senator, popular vote increases the chance that there will libertarian Senators.

However, it definitely is a Federalism issue as Senators elected by State legislatures are less likely to pass laws that place burdens on State governments.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The constitution provides for Direct taxes ( taxes paid to the federal govt by the states in proportion to their population). It also provides for duties, imposts and excises.  Duties and imposts are tariffs. Excise taxes according to the Law.com dictionary are defined as follows:
excise
n. a tax upon manufacture, sale or for a business license or charter, as distinguished from a tax on real property, income or estates. Sometimes it is redundantly called an excise tax.

As you can see they are not income taxes and are specifically distinguished from income taxes.

The term "indirect tax" does not come from the constitution. It has been used by statists to create something which the constitution does not provide for.
 

When did Article I Section 8 Clause 1 get amended?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That clause grants a broad Tax power, then limits what the money may be spent on, and then limits the manner in which Duties, Imposts and Excises can be imposed.

Clauses 4 and 5 of Article I Section 9 then places additional restrictions on the ability of Congress to tax by specifying how direct taxes are to be levied and baring taxes on exports.

Note that without the 16th Amendment, one could argue that Article I Section 9 Clause 5 bars the taxing of income derived from exporting goods.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The constitution provides for Direct taxes ( taxes paid to the federal govt by the states in proportion to their population). It also provides for duties, imposts and excises.  Duties and imposts are tariffs. Excise taxes according to the Law.com dictionary are defined as follows:
excise
n. a tax upon manufacture, sale or for a business license or charter, as distinguished from a tax on real property, income or estates. Sometimes it is redundantly called an excise tax.

As you can see they are not income taxes and are specifically distinguished from income taxes.

The term "indirect tax" does not come from the constitution. It has been used by statists to create something which the constitution does not provide for.
 

When did Article I Section 8 Clause 1 get amended?

What did I say that conflicts with the constitution?

The constitution provides for Direct taxes ( taxes paid to the federal govt by the states in proportion to their population). It also provides for duties, imposts and excises.

You certainly implied that only direct taxes, duties, imposts, and excises were constitutional as means of compelling income.  As I pointed out in the portion of my post you didn't quote, even before the 16th amendment, the power to raise funds was broader than that.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Even if filibusters on senator selection are forbidden, it is possible that a bicameral state legislature might be unable to choose a candidate if the two houses are controlled by different parties.

This would not affect Nebraska or South Carolina.  Nebraska because of its unicameral legislature.  South Carolina because assuming that they use the same procedure as is used for electing judges, the 124 member House and 46 member Senate would sit as one body, the 170 member General Assembly with the Lieutenant Governor presiding and breaking ties.