- Boards
- Current Events
- 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!) |
|
- 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 |
|
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
|
|
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 |
|
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? |
|
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. 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? 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. 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. |
|
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. 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.
(edited 1 hour ago)quote
|
|
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. 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. 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) |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
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. 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. |
|
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. 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.
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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 |
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
What's a state legislature and are they elected by people?
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
|
|
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? 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. |
|
Antifar posted...
scar the 1 posted...What's a state legislature and are they elected by people? 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.
|
|
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
|
|
ChromaticAngel posted...
Questionmarktarius posted...He's right you know. 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. |
|
Antifar posted...
scar the 1 posted...If the house of representatives is filled by popular election, why also the senate? Also a good point.
Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.
|
- Boards
- Current Events
- Mike Huckabee wants the 17th amendment gone
