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

[Correll]

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

And you just revealed that your Barriers to Communication are so strong that you never really hear what we say.

 

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For many years I have stated that the 17th should be repealed and go back to the intent of the Constitution.

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

Yes they did but their original intent was for the Senate to be chosen by State Gov'ts..............

Federalists papers clearly state that intent.

 

[Correll]

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For many years I have stated that the 17th should be repealed and go back to the intent of the Constitution.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

Kind of "brilliant" of them, wouldn't you say?

 

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For many years I have stated that the 17th should be repealed and go back to the intent of the Constitution.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

Kind of "brilliant" of them, wouldn't you say?

So you admit your original interpretation of intent was dead wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Letting legislators pick Senators would mean fewer voters need to be bribed or otherwise coerced into voting a certain way.
It would also encourage gerrymandering of in-state voting districts.

 

[eagle1462010]

Letting legislators pick Senators would mean fewer voters need to be bribed or otherwise coerced into voting a certain way.
It would also encourage gerrymandering of in-state voting districts.

LOL

You are dumber than a rock. They would have to bribe the entire State legislature...........LOL

 

[Correll]

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.

Kind of "brilliant" of them, wouldn't you say?

So you admit your original interpretation of intent was dead wrong.

I haven no idea how you got from what I said, to what you claimed.


Walk me though it very slowly, and without any hidden made up meanings for any of the words.

 

[Correll]

Letting legislators pick Senators would mean fewer voters need to be bribed or otherwise coerced into voting a certain way.
It would also encourage gerrymandering of in-state voting districts.

Letting special interests saving money by bribing fewer people would be a bad thing, I guess. NOt really impactful on most people though.

Your guess on gerrymandering seems unsupported.

 

[CowboyTed]

Something must be done to end the corruption and rigging of elections that enable Senators to rig/bribe/corrupt their way into serving 40 years in the senate.

How about Citizens United v. FEC and CU v. McCutcheon go the way of Drew Scott and Plessy? And that real reform, not the fake shit the R's proposed on health care and soon on tax reform, making every dime donated to a campaign be accounted for by name of the person who donated. No money should be given to anything put before the voters without full transparency of who paid for it. No longer can money be given to a ballot measure or a candidate from "The American people who love apple pie, baseball and God"

But the Alt right solution is to call their problem of taking Health Insurance away from 23 million as America's problem and there solution has nothing to do with the problem but will give them more power...

List alt right fuckwits, your messiah told you fixing healthcare would be easy and everyone would be covered and it would be cheap... That was a lie....

 

[BluesLegend]

Something must be done to end the corruption and rigging of elections that enable Senators to rig/bribe/corrupt their way into serving 40 years in the senate.

How about Citizens United v. FEC and CU v. McCutcheon go the way of Drew Scott and Plessy? And that real reform, not the fake shit the R's proposed on health care and soon on tax reform, making every dime donated to a campaign be accounted for by name of the person who donated. No money should be given to anything put before the voters without full transparency of who paid for it. No longer can money be given to a ballot measure or a candidate from "The American people who love apple pie, baseball and God"

But the Alt right solution is to call their problem of taking Health Insurance away from 23 million as America's problem and there solution has nothing to do with the problem but will give them more power...

List alt right fuckwits, your messiah told you fixing healthcare would be easy and everyone would be covered and it would be cheap... That was a lie....

23 million Americans are free to purchase their own healthcare just like the rest of us nobody is taking anything away from them. Tissue?

 

[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.

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

If you are asking this sincerely, you don't understand the premise of the constitution.

Quite simply put, the federal government is a limited government (in scope). The senate was put in place to ensure the house (the body elected by the people) didn't usurp power which they have been doing since 1913. Additionally, the senate would only put justices on the SCOTUS who had a strong respect for the soveriegn power of states in the matters that the constitution said belonged to them (that pesky 10th amendment).

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I keep telling him that I don't accept his premise. It fails to penetrate.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I don't think the founders intended for the people to amend the Constitution so the government could setup concentration camps and throw deplorables in them, so what makes you think they would approve of the 17th Amendment? They clearly wouldn't.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

No it doesn't, obviously, because those have been eroding ever since the amendment was ratified.

 

[bripat9643]

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

The founders definitely weren't perfect, but the wisdom of snowflakes like you certainly isn't superior to theirs. They viewed government as something to be feared, not something to be adored, as you do.

 

[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.

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?

If it wasn't true, then you wouldn't be arguing against repealing the 17th Amendment. We all know that.

 

[bripat9643]

Letting legislators pick Senators would mean fewer voters need to be bribed or otherwise coerced into voting a certain way.
It would also encourage gerrymandering of in-state voting districts.

No, it means instead of bribing one senator lobbyists would need to bribe a majority of the state legislator, a much more expensive proposition.

 

[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.

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

You're not responding to anything I'm saying. The fact that the 17th Amendment does exist means that there is no state right to appoint U.S. Senators, so that's not my argument. I'm making two arguments:

1.) The 17th Amendment serves no purpose and ought to be repealed because the House of Representatives already catered to the general public by being based on popular vote, and there was no reason for the Senate to also be based on popular vote. If you disagree you should be able to make a case for why the Senate should also be based on the popular vote. If your argument is that the popular vote is in and of itself good then you need to defend that.

2.) Given that the 17th Amendment does exist there is no reason to have two houses of the legislature because they both serve the same purpose of representing the general public. If the Senate and the House both serve the general public why not simply eliminate one and save ourselves some money? If you think we need two houses that serve the exact same purpose you need to make a better argument than "Well that's the way it's always been." Make a positive case for your position.

I'm not making a states' rights argument because I don't actually believe having the state governments appointing U.S. Senators would make us any better off than popularly electing them. We'd still get the dregs of society in the Senate. My argument is that it simply makes no sense to have two houses of the legislature based on the popular vote so we ought to repeal the 17th Amendment or eliminate one of the two houses.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Letting legislators pick Senators would mean fewer voters need to be bribed or otherwise coerced into voting a certain way.
It would also encourage gerrymandering of in-state voting districts.

It wouldn't require fewer bribes because they'd still be trying to bribe the whole country, just for different elections. And we already have gerrymandering of federal voting districts and state voting districts so what's the difference?

 

[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.

I keep telling him that I don't accept his premise. It fails to penetrate.

He's incapable of understanding that.