The Reprehensible Right: Huckabee calls for repeal of 17th Amendment

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You mean replace what you call a mob of a few million people, and instead chose them by mob of a few hundred people.

No, that is not what I mean at all. You now try to move the goal posts because you realized that you were on the wrong end of that.

The state legislature is a mob of a few hundred. You want that small mob, to chose a senator instead of the majority of voters, a mob of millions.

Remember, you vote for state legislators to run your state, not for their judgement of how to run a house of congress.

It's like letting your best friend chose what car you should buy, what job you should take, or how you should raise your children. That's not why you chose him.

Well your analogy makes no sense, but more importantly neither does your logic. I'm with you on not accepting the judgment of politicians on appointing other politicians to other offices, but why does accepting the judgment of the general population make any more sense? These are the people who elected the first group of politicians in the first place, right? So if I can't trust the first group of politicians to appoint a second group of politicians I fail to see why I should trust the people who elected the first group of politicians to elect a second group of politicians.

 

[Darkwind]

You mean replace what you call a mob of a few million people, and instead chose them by mob of a few hundred people.

No, that is not what I mean at all. You now try to move the goal posts because you realized that you were on the wrong end of that.

The state legislature is a mob of a few hundred. You want that small mob, to chose a senator instead of the majority of voters, a mob of millions.

Remember, you vote for state legislators to run your state, not for their judgement of how to run a house of congress.

It's like letting your best friend chose what car you should buy, what job you should take, or how you should raise your children. That's not why you chose him.

Okay, you seem to have some kind of blind spot here.

We elect the State legislature to run our state. That is very true. Part of that "running of our state" is to elect Senators to represent our state in the Federal government. Do you get that yet?

Diversity is what ensures that the people have the widest amount of representation, without the parties corrupting the entire process. The reason we have state congressional districts and US congressional districts is to provide the widest possible diversity of thought and opinion in our elected bodies. It is, for this reason, we have an Electoral College at the Presidential level, districts at the congressional level, and legislatures at the state level. This ensures that no one group can dictate their values and morals to the rest of the country. It is for this reason that those we trust to manage our States are trusted to send representatives to the Senate.

The legislature is elected by the EXACT same people who would elect the Senator directly. If you trust them to directly elect a state legislature, then you trust that they can remove a legislature that does not provide adequate representation in the Federal Government.

As it stands now, it takes an act of God to remove a corrupted Senator, whereas, as the Constitution was originally intended, it only took a change in the state legislature.

Either way, there is no nefarious intent in wanting to remove the 17th amendment and return us to a what I consider the proper role of U.S. Senators.

Now, I have to get a bunch of stuff done today so I'm out of here.

 

[JGalt]

The constitution gives the power of term limits to the states.

Where does it say that? The states have term limits on their governors and several states have term limits on their state representatives.

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.

That has already been decided by the Supreme Court. I won't quote the entire Congressional record, but it makes for an interesting read...

S. Rept. 104-158 - CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS

 

[radical right]

It has nothing to do with the machinations senators and/or senator aspirants undertake "to rig/bribe/corrupt their way into serving 40 years in the senate." Eliminating the 17th may alter the nature by which such rigging, bribery and corruption occurs not stop it from occurring or abate its frequency.

Actually it makes corruption easier. Getting a few hundred people in the legislature to chose the senate, instead of the millions of voters. It would return the senate to being chosen in the famous smoke filled rooms.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It has nothing to do with the machinations senators and/or senator aspirants undertake "to rig/bribe/corrupt their way into serving 40 years in the senate." Eliminating the 17th may alter the nature by which such rigging, bribery and corruption occurs not stop it from occurring or abate its frequency.

Actually it makes corruption easier. Getting a few hundred people in the legislature to chose the senate, instead of the millions of voters. It would return the senate to being chosen in the famous smoke filled rooms.

That may be....it wouldn't at all surprise me that is indeed so.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Huckabee calls for repeal of 17th Amendment

Yes, well, there's no dearth of inane proposals and ideas that have come from that man.

 

[radical right]

Remember, you vote for state legislators to run your state, not for their judgement of how to run a house of congress.

It's like letting your best friend chose what car you should buy, what job you should take, or how you should raise your children. That's not why you chose him.

Okay, you seem to have some kind of blind spot here.

We elect the State legislature to run our state. That is very true. Part of that "running of our state" is to elect Senators to represent our state in the Federal government. Do you get that yet?

Which would mean people should vote a straight party line. A democrat wouldn't vote for a state representative who's a reublican because of his senate vote, no matter how much he agrees with their position on property taxes, or other state issues.

People would have to settle on people who they only half agree with, or even chose somebody they disagree with on running their state, but agree with for picking their senator.

Seperating those issues, means the people chose who they want, and don't have to settle or compromise.

 

[radical right]

That has already been decided by the Supreme Court. I won't quote the entire Congressional record, but it makes for an interesting read...

S. Rept. 104-158 - CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS

That was when the democdrats had a 5-4 majority, now the republicans have a 5-4 majority

The dissent, written by Justice Thomas and joined by
Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Scalia, argued that nothing
in the Constitution deprives the people of each State the power
to proscribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who
seek to represent them in Congress. The Constitution is silent
on this issue, and where it is silent, the 10th amendment
reserves the power to the States or to the people.

They can pass a new law today (20 years later) and a new court will probably come up with a new answer.

 

[radical right]

I'm with you on not accepting the judgment of politicians on appointing other politicians to other offices, but why does accepting the judgment of the general population make any more sense? These are the people who elected the first group of politicians in the first place, right? So if I can't trust the first group of politicians to appoint a second group of politicians I fail to see why I should trust the people who elected the first group of politicians to elect a second group of politicians.

You don't pick your state legislature to handle national security or confirming justices, or foreign relations. When my school picks a coach they trust him to pick the football team, not the school board.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Huckabee? I suspect he's feeling forgotten, even his daughter gets more attention than does he. Pity him, he's a loser lusting for attention.

Wow......

No argument from you.

Typical.

I provided it, earlier. The 21st Century Conservative is opposed to democracy and seeks to remake our political structure into an Oligarchy of the First and Second Estates, i.e. The Power Elite; keep the Third Estate in check (see my signature) and make the Fourth Estate impotent.

 

[bodecea]

As Reagan used to say, "here we go again" but Reagan didn't have to deal with the tax exempt gigantic left wing propaganda entity Media Matters. You almost gotta laugh that all MM has to do is cherry pick a comment from (only) republicans and troll it in front of the angry, blood thirsty sharks on the left with a little spin by left wing blogs to make more appealing and presto, you get a hysteria strike (with violence?) and outrage on the left. They don't even have to think about it or research it, all they have to do is go by instinct.

It's funny to watch the trumpanzees upset about how the Democrats can raise as much if not more money than the GOP....I don't remember them complaining when it used to be the other way around.

The reasons that republicans brought that up was not that we are upset that you raise money,

but to point out how utterly stupid the left's talk of the rich being so evul is.

Can you point out where I said that the rich were evil?

Can you point out where I said that you personally said that, or were you just trying to dishonestly dodge my point, like a standard lefty?

You made a sweeping statement that includes me. Now...let's get back to....Can you point out where I said that the rich were evil?

 

[bodecea]

Our constitution was also set up that the state legislatures chose the president, and that slavery would be the law for at least the next decade.

It was a compromise with language written in to do away with it at a later date. .

You mean by the 13th amendment?

If you call for the repeal of the 17th, why not the repeal of the 13th, or the 2nd?

Either you believe in the original constitution, or in the amendments.

I believe in the Amendment process. That does not mean I'm some kind of autonomic idiot who thinks that every single admendment to the Constitution is a good alteration of the original document. Prohibition was wrong, and it was repealed. How was it repealed is important? It was repealed with an Amendment, which makes it part of the Constitution.

An amendment repealing the 17th is, in My opinion, the correct thing to do. I was advocating for this many years before this last election so you don't have to bother with phony charges of supporting Trump.

The 13th has some things of merit, other things that are wrong. However, this is a discussion on the 17th. We need to return the voices of the States to the Federal Government.

Oh do tell us....what things in the 13th Amendment are wrong?

This thread is about the 17th. Do stick to it or be ignored.

I am responding to YOUR comment that there are things wrong with the 13th Amendment.....feel free to report me rather than answer my totally legitimate question based on your earlier comment.

 

[bodecea]

Being an immature potty mouth doesn't make your point valid. There are no limits on the number of terms a Senator can serve.

States can impose term limits on their senators, or representatives if they choose to. Why do you want to force one states choices onto the other states?

Wrong. The US Constitution imposes no limits on the number of terms a US Senator can serve. Where are you getting that from, Chairman Mao's Little Red Book?

I believe he is referring to voting someone out. That is the "in place" term limit system. Don't like someone, vote them out......thus limiting their terms.

 

[bodecea]

Oh do tell us....what things in the 13th Amendment are wrong?

This thread is about the 17th. Do stick to it or be ignored.

You brought up your objection to the 13th. Finish your point.

It is an interesting point...that there are things wrong with the 13th Amendment....don't you think?

 

[bodecea]

The 13th has some things of merit, other things that are wrong. However, this is a discussion on the 17th. We need to return the voices of the States to the Federal Government.

What's wrong with the 13th?

You brought up parts of it are wrong.

I made a point that just because an amendment is passed, that it is not the right thing to do, nor are all amendments written well.

Like I said, start your own thread. I'll stick to the 17th in this thread.

What is the wrong stuff in the 13th Amendment? You are the one who said there was some wrong stuff in it.

 

[bodecea]

Wrong. The US Constitution imposes no limits on the number of terms a US Senator can serve.

The constitution gives the power of term limits to the states.

Where does it say that? The states have term limits on their governors and several states have term limits on their state representatives.

Interesting though, Alabama Governor George Wallace was against term limits. Are you saying that you side up with George Wallace??

It's called voting them out every 2 years for Reps or every 6 years for Senators.

 

[bodecea]

It has nothing to do with the machinations senators and/or senator aspirants undertake "to rig/bribe/corrupt their way into serving 40 years in the senate." Eliminating the 17th may alter the nature by which such rigging, bribery and corruption occurs not stop it from occurring or abate its frequency.

Actually it makes corruption easier. Getting a few hundred people in the legislature to chose the senate, instead of the millions of voters. It would return the senate to being chosen in the famous smoke filled rooms.

I believe that's the main reason the 17th Amendment was ratified in the first place.

 

[Correll]

As Reagan used to say, "here we go again" but Reagan didn't have to deal with the tax exempt gigantic left wing propaganda entity Media Matters. You almost gotta laugh that all MM has to do is cherry pick a comment from (only) republicans and troll it in front of the angry, blood thirsty sharks on the left with a little spin by left wing blogs to make more appealing and presto, you get a hysteria strike (with violence?) and outrage on the left. They don't even have to think about it or research it, all they have to do is go by instinct.

It's funny to watch the trumpanzees upset about how the Democrats can raise as much if not more money than the GOP....I don't remember them complaining when it used to be the other way around.

The reasons that republicans brought that up was not that we are upset that you raise money,

but to point out how utterly stupid the left's talk of the rich being so evul is.

Can you point out where I said that the rich were evil?

Can you point out where I said that you personally said that, or were you just trying to dishonestly dodge my point, like a standard lefty?

You made a sweeping statement that includes me. Now...let's get back to....Can you point out where I said that the rich were evil?

I made a sweeping statement about the left.

Which does include you.

Which does not claim that you personally made that statement.


My post was to point out the reason for the Right's discussion of the LEft fundraising, which was not what you characterized it as.


DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT?

 

[bodecea]

It has nothing to do with the machinations senators and/or senator aspirants undertake "to rig/bribe/corrupt their way into serving 40 years in the senate." Eliminating the 17th may alter the nature by which such rigging, bribery and corruption occurs not stop it from occurring or abate its frequency.

Actually it makes corruption easier. Getting a few hundred people in the legislature to chose the senate, instead of the millions of voters. It would return the senate to being chosen in the famous smoke filled rooms.

Fascinating read on the history of why the Amendment came to be: Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[bodecea]

It's funny to watch the trumpanzees upset about how the Democrats can raise as much if not more money than the GOP....I don't remember them complaining when it used to be the other way around.

The reasons that republicans brought that up was not that we are upset that you raise money,

but to point out how utterly stupid the left's talk of the rich being so evul is.

Can you point out where I said that the rich were evil?

Can you point out where I said that you personally said that, or were you just trying to dishonestly dodge my point, like a standard lefty?

You made a sweeping statement that includes me. Now...let's get back to....Can you point out where I said that the rich were evil?

I made a sweeping statement about the left.

Which does include you.

Which does not claim that you personally made that statement.


My post was to point out the reason for the Right's discussion of the LEft fundraising, which was not what you characterized it as.


DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT?

"Which does include me"...Ok, then. Where did I (the included one) state that the rich were evil?