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

[Sun Devil 92]

Because it does not fit his lefty agenda of bascially killing the autonomy of the states altogether.

Lefties can't stand individuality or innovation.

We're saying the states should be represented by the peoples choice, not the indirect choice of the people.

The house was created to represent the will of the people.

The senate was created to represent the will of the states.

Pure and simple.

 

[bripat9643]

It's the basis for the constitutional powers of each house. Along with those different functions came different eligibility requirements.

It isn't the "basis" for anything. It's just one of the powers the Founders gave to the House. You're blowing hot gas out your ass.

With those powers came different eligibility. You can't be a senator until you're thirty.

Of what relevance is that?

 

[bripat9643]

Because it does not fit his lefty agenda of bascially killing the autonomy of the states altogether.

Lefties can't stand individuality or innovation.

We're saying the states should be represented by the peoples choice, not the indirect choice of the people.

Why is that better than the arrangement that existed before the 17th Amendment passed?

 

[radical right]

[
The senate was created to represent the will of the states.

Pure and simple.

The president was created to represent the will of the states.

 

[bripat9643]

[
The senate was created to represent the will of the states.

Pure and simple.

The president was created to represent the will of the states.

Obviously wrong.

 

[radical right]

Why is that better than the arrangement that existed before the 17th Amendment passed?

Because 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4's of the states said so.

 

[bripat9643]

Why is that better than the arrangement that existed before the 17th Amendment passed?

Because 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4's of the states said so.

That isn't proof of anything.

 

[radical right]

The president was created to represent the will of the states.

Obviously wrong.

You said the senate was created to represent the will of the states,

The president was chosen by the same people.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The president was created to represent the will of the states.

Obviously wrong.

You said the senate was created to represent the will of the states,

The president was chosen by the same people.

That only further shows that the will of the states was to supreme in matters that did not cross our borders.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Why is that better than the arrangement that existed before the 17th Amendment passed?

Because 2/3rds of both houses and 3/4's of the states said so.

They said so in 1913.

They can say differently in 2017.

The OP is an asswipe.

 

[bripat9643]

The president was created to represent the will of the states.

Obviously wrong.

You said the senate was created to represent the will of the states,

The president was chosen by the same people.

You're an imbecile. There's no point in arguing with you. This discussion is over.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Now both houses serve the same function, which means one of those houses is superfluous.

They don't. Bills to raise revenue (spending) can't come from the senate. And the house doesn't get to ratify treaties.

That's purely a formality. It's easily gotten around.

The argument is that the popular election is good in and of itself. In RR's mind there has to be no other reason than that, so the idea that there can be a discussion on the topic is wrong. RR can only talk in slogans.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's the basis for the constitutional powers of each house. Along with those different functions came different eligibility requirements.

It isn't the "basis" for anything. It's just one of the powers the Founders gave to the House. You're blowing hot gas out your ass.

With those powers came different eligibility. You can't be a senator until you're thirty.

For everyone else, remember that the differences between the Senate and the House were established before the 17th Amendment was ratified. The Senate votes to ratify treaties and has a higher age requirement because the Senate was originally meant to serve as the representative body of the state governments. That's why it's considered the upper-house. When the 17th Amendment was ratified this all became moot.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's the basis for the constitutional powers of each house. Along with those different functions came different eligibility requirements.

It isn't the "basis" for anything. It's just one of the powers the Founders gave to the House. You're blowing hot gas out your ass.

With those powers came different eligibility. You can't be a senator until you're thirty.

Of what relevance is that?

It's relevant in that it makes our point instead of RR's, but RR has no logical basis for their argument so they're just saying whatever comes to mind hoping it'll stick.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The president was created to represent the will of the states.

Obviously wrong.

You said the senate was created to represent the will of the states,

The president was chosen by the same people.

That only further shows that the will of the states was to supreme in matters that did not cross our borders.

How are states rights weakened by allowing the residents of a state to directly elect their Senators?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives tend to take the weird, inexplicable view that what the founders thought in the 18th century was brilliance that should never be contested.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Senate was to be the representatives of the State Governments under the Constitution.

The House members were to be those voted on by the people............

Should the Senators go against the will of the State Gov't.........they would be replaced by the State Legislature and Governor.

The 17th Amendment is against those who strongly believe in the Founders Intent.

For many years I have stated that the 17th should be repealed and go back to the intent of the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Conservatives tend to take the weird, inexplicable view that what the founders thought in the 18th century was brilliance that should never be contested.

I doubt anybody is actually taking that view. Regardless, I ask again, why have two houses of the legislature when they serve the same purpose? Why do both need to be popularly elected? Make the case for it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Conservatives tend to take the weird, inexplicable view that what the founders thought in the 18th century was brilliance that should never be contested.

I doubt anybody is actually taking that view. Regardless, I ask again, why have two houses of the legislature when they serve the same purpose? Why do both need to be popularly elected? Make the case for it.

The apportionment of Senators, two per state regardless of size, satisfies the states rights thing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The Senate was to be the representatives of the State Governments under the Constitution.

The House members were to be those voted on by the people............

Should the Senators go against the will of the State Gov't.........they would be replaced by the State Legislature and Governor.

The 17th Amendment is against those who strongly believe in the Founders Intent.

For many years I have stated that the 17th should be repealed and go back to the intent of the Constitution.

lol, the founders' INTENT was that the people could amend their original Constitution and the founders made provision for that.