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

[Daryl Hunt]

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 wasn't the Legislators that did the pick for the Senate. It was the Governor.

I am not against such an idea as long as we also roll back the House to it's part time unpaid status. And apply term limits to all.

 

[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.

It wasn't the Legislators that did the pick for the Senate. It was the Governor.

I am not against such an idea as long as we also roll back the House to it's part time unpaid status. And apply term limits to all.

Wrong, asshole

Section 3
1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State chosen by the Legislature thereof; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

 

[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?

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).

How does that argue against the people of the state electing their Senators?

 

[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.

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?

A 2 vote advantage in a state legislature for one party would require how many well placed bribes to shift the balance of power?

And your endorsement of gerrymandering is fascinating.

 

[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?

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

lol, so your answer is you have no clue how.

 

[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?

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).

Like I said, the only reason conservatives want this is that they think it gives political advantage to conservatives.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

lol, so your answer is you have no clue how.

I certainly do have a clue. You've already been given several reasons. I just have no further interest in trying to educate someone who is determined to remain ignorant.

One thing we know is that douche bags like you hate states rights, so you would never support anything that enhanced or protected those rights.

 

[bripat9643]

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).

Like I said, the only reason conservatives want this is that they think it gives political advantage to conservatives.

By "conservatives" you mean people who believe in freedom. If you think it gives an advantage to them, then you must believe it limits the power of the federal government.

 

[paperview]

I certainly do have a clue.
...

This ^ from a guy who takes a Pizzagate truther and Infowars CT warrior on steroids at his word and finds him to be a credible source.

 

[paperview]

Yikes.

 

[bripat9643]

I certainly do have a clue.
...

This ^ from a guy who takes a Pizzagate truther and Infowars CT warrior on steroids at his word and finds him to be a credible source.

He's more credible than McCain.

 

[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?

A 2 vote advantage in a state legislature for one party would require how many well placed bribes to shift the balance of power?

And your endorsement of gerrymandering is fascinating.

Reading comprehension is hard.

 

[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.

term limits is the only way. Limit Senators to one term and House members to 3 terms.

This is the most idiotic comment on this thread and there is fair competition...

What this will cause is party machines rotating representatives, the back room kingmakers would be in charge. Lobbyists with years of experience will effectively writing all law...

Well done in turning the swamp into a sewer...

 

[Doc1]

“Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) on Friday called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment and the return to senators selected by state legislatures after the Senate GOP's effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare died in a late-night vote.”

Huckabee calls for repeal of 17th Amendment after healthcare failure

Such advocacy of ‘repeal’ is made in bad faith, of course – motivated by rightist partisanism given the majority of the states are controlled by Republicans.

Needless to say, if a majority of the states were controlled by Democrats, we wouldn’t hear anything from the reprehensible right about ‘repealing’ the 17th Amendment.

Why would you have a problem with term limits for Senators?

Would you go to a surgeon with little experience, or choose one with lots of experience? Would you to a fertilizer salesman, or an attorney for legal advice?

You elected Bammy and he had ZERO experience.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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 wasn't the Legislators that did the pick for the Senate. It was the Governor.

I am not against such an idea as long as we also roll back the House to it's part time unpaid status. And apply term limits to all.

Wrong, asshole

Section 3
1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State chosen by the Legislature thereof; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

You sure know how to end any meanful discussion with you.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

“Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) on Friday called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment and the return to senators selected by state legislatures after the Senate GOP's effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare died in a late-night vote.”

Huckabee calls for repeal of 17th Amendment after healthcare failure

Such advocacy of ‘repeal’ is made in bad faith, of course – motivated by rightist partisanism given the majority of the states are controlled by Republicans.

Needless to say, if a majority of the states were controlled by Democrats, we wouldn’t hear anything from the reprehensible right about ‘repealing’ the 17th Amendment.

Why would you have a problem with term limits for Senators?

Would you go to a surgeon with little experience, or choose one with lots of experience? Would you to a fertilizer salesman, or an attorney for legal advice?

You elected Bammy and he had ZERO experience.

From what I can see, the only experience it needs to be a Republican Senator is to hate America. With only 3 Exceptions.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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).

Like I said, the only reason conservatives want this is that they think it gives political advantage to conservatives.

Actually, that is a very shallow stupid argument.

Especially when you consider that blue states would then be free to hold onto more of that cash you whine about going to red states to fund the programs you so desperately want.

And, at the state level, if you want them....you should have them and should fund them.

That is the beauty of this.

Mass wants health care.....great they got it.

Wyoming does not....they don't have it.

Obama thinks Wyoming should have it...he passes a POS legislation.

In reality, the argument that conservatives want states to have the ability to chose openly challenges you and exposes you as someone who wants the federal government to run the entire show.

You have no clue as to how this was supposed to work.

 

[Doc1]

“Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee (R) on Friday called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment and the return to senators selected by state legislatures after the Senate GOP's effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare died in a late-night vote.”

Huckabee calls for repeal of 17th Amendment after healthcare failure

Such advocacy of ‘repeal’ is made in bad faith, of course – motivated by rightist partisanism given the majority of the states are controlled by Republicans.

Needless to say, if a majority of the states were controlled by Democrats, we wouldn’t hear anything from the reprehensible right about ‘repealing’ the 17th Amendment.

Why would you have a problem with term limits for Senators?

Would you go to a surgeon with little experience, or choose one with lots of experience? Would you to a fertilizer salesman, or an attorney for legal advice?

You elected Bammy and he had ZERO experience.

From what I can see, the only experience it needs to be a Republican Senator is to hate America. With only 3 Exceptions.

You still have a lot to to learn kid. The Dem/Pub paradigm exists only on the street level, it doesn't exist on any other level than that. American politics is nothing more than theatre, that's it. That's why nothing ever really changes. Our elected folks are nothing but players on a stage. They dance to whatever tune the Bankers and the money men play.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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).

How does that argue against the people of the state electing their Senators?

Senators elected by people only see themselves accountable to the people.

They pass legislation at the federal level.

The continual quest for power causes them to force things to the federal level.

That you can't see that a different accountability would produce actions and behaviours more condusive to state soveriegnty...isn't my issue.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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 wasn't the Legislators that did the pick for the Senate. It was the Governor.

I am not against such an idea as long as we also roll back the House to it's part time unpaid status. And apply term limits to all.

Wrong, asshole

Section 3
1: The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State chosen by the Legislature thereof; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

You sure know how to end any meanful discussion with you.

Darn the facts.