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

[eagle7_31]

“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 what?

 

[radical right]

But senators were never meant to represent them.

The president was never meant to represent them.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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.

So you have no argument for why there should be two houses that are both popularly elected. Got it.

 

[Avatar4321]

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.

Do you know why that is?

Because the house represents the people

The senate represents the States.

They have different functions because they represent different powers

 

[radical right]

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

One of the most famous unfunded mandates, mandatory emergency room care, came from the house.

 

[radical right]

Do you know why that is?

Because the house represents the people

The senate represents the States.

They have different functions because they represent different powers

the 17th has the senate elected by a statewide election. The people of the state are the best to know what's best for the state.

 

[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.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you know why that is?

Because the house represents the people

The senate represents the States.

They have different functions because they represent different powers

the 17th has the senate elected by a statewide election. The people of the state are the best to know what's best for the state.

So when they voted for their state legislature they didn't know what they were doing?

You can't claim they are competent in one arena and simultaneously claim the are incompetent in another.

 

[bripat9643]

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, a knife and a fork do not server the same purpose.

 

[dcbl]

Excellent idea - does his daughter have the President's ear?

 

[dcbl]

Do you know why that is?

Because the house represents the people

The senate represents the States.

They have different functions because they represent different powers

the 17th has the senate elected by a statewide election. The people of the state are the best to know what's best for the state.

So when they voted for their state legislature they didn't know what they were doing?

You can't claim the are competent in one arena and simultaneously claim the are incompetent in another.

Yes he can

Liberal logic 101

 

[radical right]

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.

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

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Remember, you vote for state legislators to run your state, not for their judgement of how to run a house of congress.

It's like letting your best friend chose what car you should buy, what job you should take, or how you should raise your children. That's not why you chose him.

Okay, you seem to have some kind of blind spot here.

We elect the State legislature to run our state. That is very true. Part of that "running of our state" is to elect Senators to represent our state in the Federal government. Do you get that yet?

Which would mean people should vote a straight party line. A democrat wouldn't vote for a state representative who's a reublican because of his senate vote, no matter how much he agrees with their position on property taxes, or other state issues.

People would have to settle on people who they only half agree with, or even chose somebody they disagree with on running their state, but agree with for picking their senator.

Seperating those issues, means the people chose who they want, and don't have to settle or compromise.

And we have yet another incorrect stacking of "logic".

If the senate is doing it's job, there is nothing that needs to be separated.

The state legislature would simply pick people who would keep power with the state legislature.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

“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 don't you move to a country where they wipe your bottom for you ?

The repeal of the 17th amendment would place the senate back in the position the founders intended for it...as watchdogs for the states.

That would be the first step in reducing the federal government to the tasks for which it was originally intended.

Why do you hate the constitution so much ?

And the 17th Amendment is now what our country intends. Or are you going to assert that everything our Founders intended is set in stone? Because those same Founders created the Amendment process too.

And it could be unintended.

The OP calls Huckabee reprehensible for wanting to exercise a constitutional process.

So why does C_Clayton_Jones , the asshole, think it's wrong for someone to want to follow an American process.

The country intended prohibition too....until it didn't. You gonna argue that repeal was wrong ?

 

[radical right]

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.

 

[Avatar4321]

“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 don't you move to a country where they wipe your bottom for you ?

The repeal of the 17th amendment would place the senate back in the position the founders intended for it...as watchdogs for the states.

That would be the first step in reducing the federal government to the tasks for which it was originally intended.

Why do you hate the constitution so much ?

And the 17th Amendment is now what our country intends. Or are you going to assert that everything our Founders intended is set in stone? Because those same Founders created the Amendment process too.

And it could be unintended.

The OP calls Huckabee reprehensible for wanting to exercise a constitutional process.

So why does C_Clayton_Jones , the asshole, think it's wrong for someone to want to follow an American process.

The country intended prohibition too....until it didn't. You gonna argue that repeal was wrong ?

More importantly why does he think its wrong to follow the process to restore it to how it originally was

 

[Sun Devil 92]

I believe in the Amendment process. That does not mean I'm some kind of autonomic idiot who thinks that every single admendment to the Constitution is a good alteration of the original document. Prohibition was wrong, and it was repealed. How was it repealed is important? It was repealed with an Amendment, which makes it part of the Constitution.

An amendment repealing the 17th is, in My opinion, the correct thing to do. I was advocating for this many years before this last election so you don't have to bother with phony charges of supporting Trump.

The 13th has some things of merit, other things that are wrong. However, this is a discussion on the 17th. We need to return the voices of the States to the Federal Government.

First amendments require a supermajority in both houses of congress before it even gets off the ground. And then 3/4ths of the states to agree, which is a pretty rare combination.

Why would you want to return to mob rule in choosing the senate?

There is no mob rule in the way the senate was chosen.

In fact, the opposite.

If you don't believe in the Constitution as it was formed, then you really don't care how senators are chosen.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

“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 don't you move to a country where they wipe your bottom for you ?

The repeal of the 17th amendment would place the senate back in the position the founders intended for it...as watchdogs for the states.

That would be the first step in reducing the federal government to the tasks for which it was originally intended.

Why do you hate the constitution so much ?

And the 17th Amendment is now what our country intends. Or are you going to assert that everything our Founders intended is set in stone? Because those same Founders created the Amendment process too.

And it could be unintended.

The OP calls Huckabee reprehensible for wanting to exercise a constitutional process.

So why does C_Clayton_Jones , the asshole, think it's wrong for someone to want to follow an American process.

The country intended prohibition too....until it didn't. You gonna argue that repeal was wrong ?

More importantly why does he think its wrong to follow the process to restore it to how it originally was

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

Lefties can't stand individuality or innovation.

 

[radical right]

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.