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

[radical right]

But why does that matter? If both houses are popularly elected, and at least theoretically accountable to the people, whether they have a number of legislators based on population or an equal number doesn't make a difference, at least as far as I can tell. Again, this notion makes sense, at least on paper, when the two houses serve different functions, but when they serve the same function it becomes irrelevant.
.

The two houses serve vastly different functions.
The house is in charge of taxes (spending)
The senate is in charge of confirming the executive heads, and foreign treaties.

 

[radical right]

Or he would have gotten picked until he was too old to serve, because the state legislature recognized his political senority.

How would that be any worse the current situation? When do these senile old fuckers ever retire? McCain is a perfect example.

Because the people get to determine if it time for him to go.

 

[bripat9643]

We don't vote for Supreme Court justices either, so until you start whining about that, you're just a big fat hypocrite.

They have to be confirmed by the senate. An important safeguard.

It's a safeguard against what, responding to the will of the people? State legislatures are elected. Apparently you don't believe that form of democracy is acceptable.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's not an answer. The question is why do you see it as an advantage.

Because the people get to pick who will represent them in washington. Picking the guy, who picks the guy doesn't mean you get the guy you want. Originally the state legislatures picked the president and the senate, but those powers were given to the people for a reason.

They got to pick who "represents" them in Washington before. That was the function of the House of Representatives, and that's why there were two houses making up the legislature. Now both houses serve the same function, which means one of those houses is superfluous.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That's not an answer. The question is why do you see it as an advantage.

Because the people get to pick who will represent them in washington. Picking the guy, who picks the guy doesn't mean you get the guy you want. Originally the state legislatures picked the president and the senate, but those powers were given to the people for a reason.

If the legislators would've picked the senators from say, South Dakota. We would've never had a piece of shit Tom Daschle… That Would've been a great thing because he did not represent the state whatsoever.
All he ever was/is a corrupt big pharma lobbyist... lol

Most likely there would have been someone equally as terrible, if not him.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No different than the reprehensible left calling for the end of the electoral college when things didn't go there way.

Actually it's the opposite. Ending the electoral college gives the electoral power directly to the people.

Repealing the 17th, makes senate elections like the electoral college.

Yes, directly to the people of California and New York.

 

[bripat9643]

What's funny here is that the RWnuts don't think that normal, sane people can see right through their support for changing the 17th amendment.

It has NOTHING to do with principle. It has EVERYTHING to do with conservatives once more trying to jigger the system to give undue advantage to conservatives.

Why would this be an advantage to conservatives? Do you think they'd suddenly become more competitive in places like California or Connecticut? Why wouldn't the opposite be just as true for Democrats in Texas or Alabama?

If it wasn't seen as an advantage to conservatives, conservatives wouldn't be widely in support of it.

The problem here is simple,

there's nothing wrong with electing Senators the way we elect them now.

That's not an answer. The question is why do you see it as an advantage.

Bingo!
We need to strengthen the 10th amendment by changing the 17th admendment, The states need to be able to tell the federal government to fuck off a lot more often.

I'd say that ship has sailed. They have no interest in their sovereignty, they'd rather get federal handouts.

When you hand feed the fish they get accustomed to it.

 

[bripat9643]

Or he would have gotten picked until he was too old to serve, because the state legislature recognized his political senority.

How would that be any worse the current situation? When do these senile old fuckers ever retire? McCain is a perfect example.

Because the people get to determine if it time for him to go.

No they really don't. The incumbant has a huge advantage over any challenger - the main one being he gets his face on television all the time. He also has franking privileges, and he can hand out cash to his favored constituents. Anyone who claims the contest is fair is obviously a douche bag.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

But why does that matter? If both houses are popularly elected, and at least theoretically accountable to the people, whether they have a number of legislators based on population or an equal number doesn't make a difference, at least as far as I can tell. Again, this notion makes sense, at least on paper, when the two houses serve different functions, but when they serve the same function it becomes irrelevant.
.

The two houses serve vastly different functions.
The house is in charge of taxes (spending)
The senate is in charge of confirming the executive heads, and foreign treaties.

Irrelevant. Since both houses theoretically serve the people directly there's no reason you can't get rid of one and give the one remaining those duties the other house was allegedly in charge of.

 

[radical right]

It's a safeguard against what, responding to the will of the people? State legislatures are elected. Apparently you don't believe that form of democracy is acceptable.

I'd rather vote for the guy, than get to vote for the guy. who votes for the guy.

Would you rather pick your doctor, or pick the guy who picks your doctor?

 

[blackhawk]

No different than the reprehensible left calling for the end of the electoral college when things didn't go there way.

Actually it's the opposite. Ending the electoral college gives the electoral power directly to the people.

Repealing the 17th, makes senate elections like the electoral college.

No it's not the electors voted for the candidate that won there state the only reason the left would like the electoral college gone is they know places like New York and California have large populations that are heavily Democrat and would give them a major almost unbeatable advantage in a Presidential election.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a safeguard against what, responding to the will of the people? State legislatures are elected. Apparently you don't believe that form of democracy is acceptable.

I'd rather vote for the guy, than get to vote for the guy. who votes for the guy.

Would you father pick your doctor, or pick the guy who picks your doctor?

Who gives a flying fuck what you prefer? What people do in the marketplace has no relevance to government.

 

[radical right]

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's a safeguard against what, responding to the will of the people? State legislatures are elected. Apparently you don't believe that form of democracy is acceptable.

I'd rather vote for the guy, than get to vote for the guy. who votes for the guy.

Would you father pick your doctor, or pick the guy who picks your doctor?

The two are not the same. In the case of the politician, you're voting for a politician who gets a say in picking another politician to represent the interests of the state government, not your interests. In the second you imagine a scenario where you get to choose a third party to choose a doctor for you.

 

[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.

You're arguing in circles. They serve the same purpose, in the sense that they both serve the people directly. Because of this there's no reason revenue couldn't be raised in the Senate or treaties ratified in the House.

 

[radical right]

The two houses serve vastly different functions.
The house is in charge of taxes (spending)
The senate is in charge of confirming the executive heads, and foreign treaties.

Irrelevant. Since both houses theoretically serve the people directly there's no reason you can't get rid of one and give the one remaining those duties the other house was allegedly in charge of.

There has always been a split in legislation. The house of lords and the house of commons, the Senate and the House. They split their functions for a reason.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Repeal 17th. Amen

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The two houses serve vastly different functions.
The house is in charge of taxes (spending)
The senate is in charge of confirming the executive heads, and foreign treaties.

Irrelevant. Since both houses theoretically serve the people directly there's no reason you can't get rid of one and give the one remaining those duties the other house was allegedly in charge of.

There has always been a split in legislation. The house of lords and the house of commons, the Senate and the House. They split their functions for a reason.

Is the House of Lords popularly elected?

 

[radical right]

The two are not the same. In the case of the politician, you're voting for a politician who gets a say in picking another politician to represent the interests of the state government, not your interests. In the second you imagine a scenario where you get to choose a third party to choose a doctor for you.

According to the constitution, the president was picked by the interest of the state, and not the people.

Do you want to go back to state legislatures determining foreign affairs.

 

[radical right]

You're arguing in circles. They serve the same purpose, in the sense that they both serve the people directly.

A knife and a fork serve the same purpose,. but they're not interchangeable.