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

[radical right]

Is the House of Lords popularly elected?

Neither was the senate, before the 17th.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

Well we can't go back to that, because it was never that. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

No, they literally don't.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Is the House of Lords popularly elected?

Neither was the senate, before the 17th.

So you see how you made my argument then.

 

[radical right]

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

Well we can't go back to that, because it was never that. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

Sure it was. The state legislatures picked the commander in chief, and the people who would write and ratify treaties with foreign states. The house has no say in foreign affairs. They're in charge of taxing and spending.

 

[radical right]

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

No, they literally don't.

Really, both are used to eat a steak.

 

[radical right]

So you see how you made my argument then.

Not when most states popularly elect their house and senate. Yet give them different functions.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

Well we can't go back to that, because it was never that. Regardless, that has nothing to do with the post you quoted.

Sure it was. The state legislatures picked the commander in chief, and the people who would write and ratify treaties with foreign states. The house has no say in foreign affairs. They're in charge of taxing and spending.

Really? The Constitution says that Congress, meaning the Senate and the House, has the power to declare war, not the President. So you can't even get basic questions of civics right.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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

No, they literally don't.

Really, both are used to eat a steak.

No, one is used to eat steak, the other is used to cut steak.

 

[radical right]

The house has no say in foreign affairs. They're in charge of taxing and spending.

Really? The Constitution says that Congress, meaning the Senate and the House, has the power to declare war, not the President. So you can't even get basic questions of civics right.

Congress declared the civil war. What did that have to do with foreign affairs?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you see how you made my argument then.

Not when most states popularly elect their house and senate. Yet give them different functions.

Yet you used the example of the U.K. Parliament, which has one house popularly elected and another that is appointed. In this case it makes sense to divide responsibilities between the houses as they serve different purposes. When you have two houses that serve the same purpose, like the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, it makes no difference how you split their duties or whether you simply eliminate one and give all the duties to the other.

You're just arguing that because this is the way it is this is the way it has to be, but that's illogical. You obviously can't make a case for why it should be the way it is.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The house has no say in foreign affairs. They're in charge of taxing and spending.

Really? The Constitution says that Congress, meaning the Senate and the House, has the power to declare war, not the President. So you can't even get basic questions of civics right.

Congress declared the civil war. What did that have to do with foreign affairs?

They declared war on Japan as well. What did that have to do with foreign affairs?

 

[radical right]

Really, both are used to eat a steak.

No, one is used to eat steak, the other is used to cut steak.

You mouth is used to eat the steak, the fork is just transport, and the knife to make it bite sized.

So as I said, a knife and fork are both used to eat a steak, but they're not interchangeable.

 

[radical right]

When you have two houses that serve the same purpose, like the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, it makes no difference how you split their duties or whether you simply eliminate one and give all the duties to the other.

The states do it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When you have two houses that serve the same purpose, like the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, it makes no difference how you split their duties or whether you simply eliminate one and give all the duties to the other.

The states do it.

Do what?

 

[radical right]

When you have two houses that serve the same purpose, like the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, it makes no difference how you split their duties or whether you simply eliminate one and give all the duties to the other.

The states do it.

Do what?

Split the legislative functions, yet popularly elect both houses.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

When you have two houses that serve the same purpose, like the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, it makes no difference how you split their duties or whether you simply eliminate one and give all the duties to the other.

The states do it.

Do what?

Split the legislative functions, yet popularly elect both houses.

So what? Again, you fail to make a case for why this should be.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

But senators were never meant to represent them. They were meant to represent states.

By removing that check and balance the progressives removed a big restraint on the federal government

 

[radical right]

Split the legislative functions, yet popularly elect both houses.

So what? Again, you fail to make a case for why this should be.

The states did it because the feds did it, now the fed does it because the states do it.

 

[Markle]

“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.

So glad to see this finally being discussed. I've advocated this for decades. It was a pathetic, budget breaking move when it was done.

Imagine the trillions of dollars the states would save without dozens of unfunded mandates being forced down their throats by Congress.

NO ONE represents the states, they are just sitting ducks for whatever Congress demands.

If the Senate answered to the states, as our founding fathers knew was necessary, the states and country would be in far better condition.