Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Mike Huckabee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mike Huckabee. Show all posts

July 28, 2017

Mike Huckabee wants the 17th amendment gone

  1. Boards
  2. Current Events
  3. Mike Huckabee wants the 17th amendment gone
https://twitter.com/GovMikeHuckabee/status/890837365891018752

lmao
Enjoy movies and television? Check out my blog! I do reviews and analyses.
http://fictionrantreview.wordpress.com/ (The Force Awakens spoiler review up!)
Doom_Art 1 hour ago#2
- can't succeed
- tries to change rules of game
Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009
http://i.imgur.com/mPvcy.png
The Admiral 1 hour ago#3
Getting rid of the Senate and just having the House isn't the worst idea. Although this definitely hurts folks in red states, so I don't get Huckabee's endorsement.
- The Admiral
Doom_Art 1 hour ago#4
The Admiral posted...
Getting rid of the Senate and just having the House isn't the worst idea.

i mean if the senate slurped trump as hard as the House does, you'd be singing a different tune.
Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009
http://i.imgur.com/mPvcy.png
Antifar 1 hour ago#5
The Admiral posted...
Although this definitely hurts folks in red states, so I don't get Huckabee's endorsement.

Repealing the 17th Amendment wouldn't remove the Senate, just the popular election of senators, placing it once again in the hands of state legislatures. Given the shaping of state districts, the GOP controls 32 of those, and would right now theoretically have 64 senators as a result.
kin to all that throbs
The Admiral posted...
Getting rid of the Senate and just having the House isn't the worst idea. Although this definitely hurts folks in red states, so I don't get Huckabee's endorsement.

You know the 17th Amendment didn't establish the Senate, right?
DevsBro 1 hour ago#7
Which one was the seventeenth again?

*google*
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.


Um... I made it to "requisite."
He's right you know.
The reason the Senate exists is to represent the states, while the House represents the people. Having two "popular" houses pretty much misses the point of having either.
Admiral showing his lack of understanding of the constitution here.
Jake Peralta: World's Grossest Pervert
DevsBro posted...
Which one was the seventeenth again?

*google*
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.


Um... I made it to "requisite."

Senators used to be elected solely by state legislatures. The 17th made it so they're elected by popular vote. Huckabee is proposing that they revert that so Senators will once again be elected by state reps, presumably because horrific gerrymandering means Republicans will get more Senators.
I hope he realizes he has as much chance of getting rid of the 17th amendment as we do of getting rid of the 2nd. :u
Questionmarktarius posted...
He's right you know.
The reason the Senate exists is to represent the states, while the House represents the people. Having two "popular" houses pretty much misses the point of having either.


That's not what they're representing. They are representing that 1 state = any other state in terms of legislative voting power. the house represents that states with more people should have more say in legislative power.

senates represent states equally, house represents them with a weighting in proportion to their population rank.
Doom_Art 1 hour ago#13
Questionmarktarius posted...
The reason the Senate exists is to represent the states, while the House represents the people. Having two "popular" houses pretty much misses the point of having either.

how does eliminating the popular election of senators prevent them from representing their states?
Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009
http://i.imgur.com/mPvcy.png
KiwiTerraRizing posted...
Admiral showing his lack of understanding of the constitution here.

He's also right, for the wrong reason.
Having two popularly-elected houses is silly and pointless. Either revert the senate to being a representative of state legislatures, or end it entirely.

Doom_Art posted...
Questionmarktarius posted...
The reason the Senate exists is to represent the states, while the House represents the people. Having two "popular" houses pretty much misses the point of having either.

how does eliminating the popular election of senators prevent them from representing their states?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3034400/posts
This is not the kind of representation in the Senate that the Framers put in place. The direct election of Senators was part of the progressive movement, along with the so-called progressive income tax. The point was, and there was an enormous amount of debate about this at the constitutional convention, AND in the state ratification conventions, the federalists made the case over and over again, that the states not only had plenary power under the constitution, and the federal government was limited to specific powers, but the states were right there at the table in Congress in the United States Senate.

Meanwhile, the states are not at the table anywhere now, and when the states try to assert themselves, its %u201CWhoa, look at that, they%u2019re trying to undermine federal law.%u201D We know about the supremacy of federal law, so the whole thing is out of whack. So federal law preempts, federal law is supreme, but now who is making federal law, the states have no say in it, none whatsoever. So there you have two senators, McCain and Flake, conducting themselves in ways that are harmful to the people of their state, and the state can%u2019t do a damn thing about it. You have a state legislature in Arizona that has passed %u201Ctough%u201D immigration laws, but they%u2019re not tough, they%u2019re appropriate and proper. And, and look, the state%u2019s senators who are supposed to represent the states, are the worst senators when it comes to state government in Arizona. Something has to be done about it. The idea that we . . . seventy or more senators are going to support this bill, when I dare say, half if not more of the state legislatures in this country reject it, says a hell of a lot, doesn%u2019t it? It tells you the system is broken, and here we are, oh, as if we%u2019re really going to toughen up border security with the same people who refuse to do it, now telling us they%u2019re going to do it.
(edited 1 hour ago)quote
Doom_Art 1 hour ago#15
On another note I think it's f***ing hilarious that some people are having this discussion seriously right now. 

Like seriously discussing ending the popular election of Senators. 

All because of their own party and its inability to compromise or govern effectively.
Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009
http://i.imgur.com/mPvcy.png
Questionmarktarius posted...
He's right you know.
The reason the Senate exists is to represent the states, while the House represents the people. Having two "popular" houses pretty much misses the point of having either.

I was interested in why they changed it and looked it up. It seems that the primary reason for changing it was that states sometimes didn't fill their senate seats because state reps couldn't agree on who to elect to the Senate. Delaware, for instance, once went five years with an empty seat because they couldn't agree. State elections also came to be somewhat dominated by the Senate picks; people would vote for who a candidate would elect to the Senate rather than what candidate's positions were. 

Of course, there was also the problem of political corruption where people would trade favors or bribe state legislators to become a senator.
Doom_Art posted...
All because of their own party and its inability to compromise or govern effectively.

No. It's because the progressive movement of a hundred years or so gutted the very concept of Federalism. It just takes sour grapes to get anyone else to pay attention to any of the arguments made since then.

The people whining right now are the same ones who happily surfed on Teddy's progressive movement while it fit their agendas and filled their pockets, until it suddenly didn't give them what they wanted.
Questionmarktarius posted...
Doom_Art posted...
All because of their own party and its inability to compromise or govern effectively.

No. It's because the progressive movement of a hundred years or so gutted the very concept of Federalism. It just takes sour grapes to get anyone else to pay attention to any of the arguments made since then.

The people whining right now are the same ones who happily surfed on Teddy's progressive movement while it fit their agendas and filled their pockets, until it suddenly didn't give them what they wanted.


Ted Kennedy is one of the most anti-abortion politicians in history.
ChromaticAngel posted...
Ted Kennedy is one of the most anti-abortion politicians in history.

No, the other Teddy, from about a hundred years ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_(United_States,_1912)
Doom_Art 1 hour ago#20
Questionmarktarius posted...
No. It's because the progressive movement of a hundred years or so gutted the very concept of Federalism

No. For 100 years no one had a damn problem with the direct election of senators. People like you only started caring after the GOP turned out to be utterly incapable of governing even with a majority, so now you feel the need to change the rules.
Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009
http://i.imgur.com/mPvcy.png
Doom_Art posted...
People like you only started caring after the GOP turned out to be utterly incapable of governing even with a majority, so now you feel the need to change the rules.

The US government is at its best when it's entirely deadlocked and ineffective, and state-appointed senators makes it more so.
Doom_Art 1 hour ago#22
Questionmarktarius posted...
The US government is at its best when it's entirely deadlocked and ineffective

wut
Not removing this until Mega Man 64 is released on the Wii Virtual Console. Started on: 12/1/2009
http://i.imgur.com/mPvcy.png
Balrog0 1 hour ago#23
Questionmarktarius posted...
The US government is at its best when it's entirely deadlocked and ineffective, and state-appointed senators makes it more so.


seems untrue

right now it would enable much more action by the senate for instance
He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.
Balrog0 posted...
Questionmarktarius posted...
The US government is at its best when it's entirely deadlocked and ineffective, and state-appointed senators makes it more so.


seems untrue

right now it would enable much more action by the senate for instance

The constitution specifically structured the government to make legislation very difficult, intentionally, to prevent the sort of runaway ramrodding we get when a single party controls it all.
If anything, we should be relived that the republicans are disorganized and incompetent.
Balrog0 56 minutes ago#25
Questionmarktarius posted...
The constitution specifically structured the government to make legislation very difficult, intentionally, to prevent the sort of runaway ramrodding we get when a single party controls it all.
If anything, we should be relived that the republicans are disorganized and incompetent.


But you're saying that changing senators to being elected by state legislatures would change this by making them even more ineffectual

I'm just saying, that seems very untrue; at least, it's not necessarily true.
He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.
iosifsvoboda 56 minutes ago#26
GOP gonna gop
^_^
Balrog0 posted...
But you're saying that changing senators to being elected by state legislatures would change this by making them even more ineffectual

Yes. By representing state legislatures, instead of being a second directly-elected body, it's a completely different group of interests that can say no. That's the greater part of the reason senators are there for six years instead of two.

The House is meant to be a popular body, and reflect trends and fads. The Senate is supposed to be stodgy and stubborn.
(edited 52 minutes ago)quote
Antifar 51 minutes ago#28
The idea of state legislatures picking senators was supposed to give states more say over national government, but instead made it so that national issues took priority over local concerns in legislative elections.
kin to all that throbs
BLAKUboy 51 minutes ago#29
Questionmarktarius posted...

Seriously, what kind of trolling is this?
Aeris dies if she takes more damage than her current HP - Panthera
http://signavatar.com/26999_s.png
Balrog0 48 minutes ago#30
Questionmarktarius posted...
Yes. By representing state legislatures, instead of being a second directly-elected body, it's a completely different group of interests that can say no. That's the greater part of the reason senators are there for six years instead of two.


maybe this was true at some point, but how can you argue it's true in an era where national activist groups on both sides literally write legislation for state legislators? they might have different priorities and interests but to say they're "completely different" is really kind of crazy to me

Questionmarktarius posted...
The House is meant to be a popular body, and reflect trends and fads. The Senate is supposed to be stodgy and stubborn.


1) don't statewide races already cause this to be the case? 
2) it's obviously easier for a group of 100-200 elites to influence 2 people, including doing things like initiating processes to remove them, so I don't understand how state legislative elections would necessarily fulfill this ideal
He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.
Balrog0 47 minutes ago#31
like I elect my house members every 2 years, what happens if senator cotton does something the electorate doesn't like and everyone runs on removing him? does anything stop that from happening?
He would make his mark, if not on this tree, then on that wall; if not with teeth and claws, then with penknife and razor.
scar the 1 43 minutes ago#32
What's a state legislature and are they elected by people?
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
E32005 40 minutes ago#33
Medz2017 39 minutes ago#34
Republicans always wanting a bigger government
Hi
Antifar 38 minutes ago#35
scar the 1 posted...
What's a state legislature and are they elected by people?

Essentially, each state has their own version of congress, with districts electing legislators to represent them.
kin to all that throbs
Antifar posted...
scar the 1 posted...
What's a state legislature and are they elected by people?

Essentially, each state has their own version of congress, with districts electing legislators to represent them.

None of them are even really obligated to be popularly elected, but they all are anyway.
A couple or three only have one house, and I seem to recall Louisiana being especially different somehow.
scar the 1 34 minutes ago#37
Antifar posted...
scar the 1 posted...
What's a state legislature and are they elected by people?

Essentially, each state has their own version of congress, with districts electing legislators to represent them.

Well to be fair, I think Questionmarktarius makes a good point then. If the house of representatives is filled by popular election, why also the senate?
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
Antifar 30 minutes ago#38
scar the 1 posted...
If the house of representatives is filled by popular election, why also the senate?

Because popular elections are a good way to appoint representatives. The Senate's purpose differs in that it gives each state equal representation, and its members serve longer terms, giving them more leeway from their constituents. To say nothing of the different tacts required in representing Michigan as opposed to representing Flint.
kin to all that throbs
ElatedVenusaur 28 minutes ago#39
ChromaticAngel posted...
Questionmarktarius posted...
He's right you know.
The reason the Senate exists is to represent the states, while the House represents the people. Having two "popular" houses pretty much misses the point of having either.


That's not what they're representing. They are representing that 1 state = any other state in terms of legislative voting power. the house represents that states with more people should have more say in legislative power.

senates represent states equally, house represents them with a weighting in proportion to their population rank.

The House doesn't really work that way anymore, seeing as they've been shuffling around the same 438 seats since 1910. It's become increasingly unrepresentative and doesn't favor populous states nearly as much as intended.
scar the 1 28 minutes ago#40
Antifar posted...
scar the 1 posted...
If the house of representatives is filled by popular election, why also the senate?

Because popular elections are a good way to appoint representatives. The Senate's purpose differs in that it gives each state equal representation, and its members serve longer terms, giving them more leeway from their constituents. To say nothing of the different tacts required in representing Michigan as opposed to representing Flint.

Also a good point.
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
  1. Boards
  2. Current Events 
  3. Mike Huckabee wants the 17th amendment gone