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

[Harry Dresden]

“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?

Wry are you trying to say a senator with 30 years in the senate is a better senator than one with 5?.....because there are plenty up there with lots of "experience" who are not that great at what they do...

 

[Darkwind]

Our constitution was also set up that the state legislatures chose the president, and that slavery would be the law for at least the next decade.

It was a compromise with language written in to do away with it at a later date. .

You mean by the 13th amendment?

If you call for the repeal of the 17th, why not the repeal of the 13th, or the 2nd?

Either you believe in the original constitution, or in the amendments.

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 Prohibition was wrong, and it was repealed. How was it repealed is important? It was repealed with an Amendment, which makes it part of the Constitution.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.

Oh do tell us....what things in the 13th Amendment are wrong?

This thread is about the 17th. Do stick to it or be ignored.

 

[JGalt]

Being an immature potty mouth doesn't make your point valid. There are no limits on the number of terms a Senator can serve.

States can impose term limits on their senators, or representatives if they choose to. Why do you want to force one states choices onto the other states?

Wrong. The US Constitution imposes no limits on the number of terms a US Senator can serve. Where are you getting that from, Chairman Mao's Little Red Book?

 

[radical right]

I don't. We have mob rule now. The Members of the U.S. Senate are elected by a majority (mob) of the citizens of their state as per the Constitution with the 17th Amendment.

Repeal it and the U.S. Senate reverts back to the Original Intent of the Founders. .

You mean replace what you call a mob of a few million people, and instead chose them by mob of a few hundred people.

 

[radical right]

Oh do tell us....what things in the 13th Amendment are wrong?

This thread is about the 17th. Do stick to it or be ignored.

You brought up your objection to the 13th. Finish your point.

 

[radical right]

Wrong. The US Constitution imposes no limits on the number of terms a US Senator can serve.

The constitution gives the power of term limits to the states.

 

[Harry Dresden]

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?

Huckabee is neither a surgeon, a salesman, or an attorney. Well he might be an attorney, I don't know. But he has had experience governing a state and running for President.

And he failed at both.

That doesn't mean he doesn't have any good ideas.

You cited his failed stint as governor, and his failed run for the presidency as examples of his experience. Those failures don't show much evidence of any good ideas you think he might have.

when you fail you can learn alot and yes its experience....

 

[Darkwind]

Oh do tell us....what things in the 13th Amendment are wrong?

This thread is about the 17th. Do stick to it or be ignored.

You brought up your objection to the 13th. Finish your point.

No, you brought it up. I made on remark on it to get back on track for this thread.

Our constitution was also set up that the state legislatures chose the president, and that slavery would be the law for at least the next decade.

It was a compromise with language written in to do away with it at a later date. .

You mean by the 13th amendment?

If you call for the repeal of the 17th, why not the repeal of the 13th, or the 2nd?

Either you believe in the original constitution, or in the amendments.

I'll continue a discussion on the 17th because that is what this thread is about. If YOU wish to deflect to a discussion on the 13th, start a different thread.

 

[Darkwind]

I don't. We have mob rule now. The Members of the U.S. Senate are elected by a majority (mob) of the citizens of their state as per the Constitution with the 17th Amendment.

Repeal it and the U.S. Senate reverts back to the Original Intent of the Founders. .

You mean replace what you call a mob of a few million people, and instead chose them by mob of a few hundred people.

No, that is not what I mean at all. You now try to move the goal posts because you realized that you were on the wrong end of that.

The state legislature is likely voted in by the exact same number of people who would have elected a U.S. Senator. They are often elected in the same election cycle with the exception of special elections, which if the 17th were rescinded, wouldn't happen because the legislature would replace a leaving Senator or one who was jailed.

With direct election, money interests and bribes are far more common.

 

[radical right]

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.

What's wrong with the 13th?

You brought up parts of it are wrong.

Amendment 13
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

What's wrong with the 13th?

You brought up parts of it are wrong.

I made a point that just because an amendment is passed, that it is not the right thing to do, nor are all amendments written well.

Like I said, start your own thread. I'll stick to the 17th in this thread.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

“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.

Needless to say you didn't bother to explain why this is so reprehensible.

 

[radical right]

You mean replace what you call a mob of a few million people, and instead chose them by mob of a few hundred people.

No, that is not what I mean at all. You now try to move the goal posts because you realized that you were on the wrong end of that.

The state legislature is a mob of a few hundred. You want that small mob, to chose a senator instead of the majority of voters, a mob of millions.

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.

 

[JGalt]

Wrong. The US Constitution imposes no limits on the number of terms a US Senator can serve.

The constitution gives the power of term limits to the states.

Where does it say that? The states have term limits on their governors and several states have term limits on their state representatives.

Interesting though, Alabama Governor George Wallace was against term limits. Are you saying that you side up with George Wallace??

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

It might also be useful to restrict funding of campaigns for state and local offices to in-state sources only. Michael Bloomberg and George Soros, for example, have no business funding such candidates in states in which they do not live.

Would you include the Koch brothers in that?

Across the board restrictions.

 

[radical right]

I made a point that just because an amendment is passed, that it is not the right thing to do, nor are all amendments written well.

The 13th is two sentences long. Which part of it is wrong?

Amendment 13
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.

 

[radical right]

The constitution gives the power of term limits to the states.

Where does it say that? The states have term limits on their governors and several states have term limits on their state representatives.

Amendment 10
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to
the people.

 

[Correll]

As Reagan used to say, "here we go again" but Reagan didn't have to deal with the tax exempt gigantic left wing propaganda entity Media Matters. You almost gotta laugh that all MM has to do is cherry pick a comment from (only) republicans and troll it in front of the angry, blood thirsty sharks on the left with a little spin by left wing blogs to make more appealing and presto, you get a hysteria strike (with violence?) and outrage on the left. They don't even have to think about it or research it, all they have to do is go by instinct.

It's funny to watch the trumpanzees upset about how the Democrats can raise as much if not more money than the GOP....I don't remember them complaining when it used to be the other way around.

The reasons that republicans brought that up was not that we are upset that you raise money,

but to point out how utterly stupid the left's talk of the rich being so evul is.

Can you point out where I said that the rich were evil?

Can you point out where I said that you personally said that, or were you just trying to dishonestly dodge my point, like a standard lefty?

 

[jillian]

“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.

no one cares what Huckabee says.

 

[usmbguest5318]

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.

Let's, for the sake of argument, say that such is indeed needed. How does eliminating the 17th Amendment do anything to end "the corruption and rigging of elections that enable Senators to rig/bribe/corrupt their way into serving 40 years in the senate?" The 17th Amendment merely allows for the popular election of federal senators. It has nothing to do with the machinations senators and/or senator aspirants undertake "to rig/bribe/corrupt their way into serving 40 years in the senate." Eliminating the 17th may alter the nature by which such rigging, bribery and corruption occurs not stop it from occurring or abate its frequency. Moreover, senators' tenure isn't the problem.


To obtain a rich understanding of the 17th, see "The Meaning of the Seventeenth Amendment and a Century of State Defiance," along with the writings referenced in footnote seven in that document.