Posted on 07/30/2017 1:30:46 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
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.
The 17th Amendment was ratified in 1913 and established the popular election of senators. Previously, senators were elected by state legislatures.
@GovMikeHuckabee Time to repeal 17th Amendment. Founders had it right-Senators chosen by state legislatures. Will work for their states and respect 10th amid
The Senate's "skinny repeal" of ObamaCare failed late Thursday night by a vote of 51-49. The bill would have repealed major parts of the Affordable Care Act, including the individual mandate and would have defunded Planned Parenthood. The vote failed after three Republican senators, John McCain (Ariz.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Susan Collins (Maine), defected and voted against the bill.
“We must now return to the correct way of legislating and send the bill back to committee, hold hearings, receive input from both sides of the aisle, heed the recommendations of nation’s governors, and produce a bill that finally delivers affordable health care for the American people,” McCain said in a statement after the vote.
With the latest vote's failure, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said said "it is time to move on" for the GOP.
"What we tried to accomplish for the American people was the right thing for the country," McConnell said early Friday. "I think the American people are going to regret that we couldn't find another way forward."
Huckabee slammed on Twitter the Republicans who sunk the repeal plans:
@GovMikeHuckabee CNN reports Dems will give Lifetime Achievement Award to Murkowski Collins and McCain. Schumer so happy he cried.
I did likewise. And you are correct.
Yup!
I tell you what, when I heard some woman reply to the question as to who she would vote for in a past election (I think it was Bubba’s) she said because he was cute I knew we were in deep doo-doo then. How many times since have looks and sexiness been a deciding factor in some women’s votes? Some people just don’t deserve to vote.
Yup. As a female, I have to admit my conservative vote doesn’t count if I’m outnumbered 2:1 by stupid women, or whatever the ratio is. Many are uninformed and vote for what’s cool in their circle.
Every local protest I see against Trump or conservative issues seems to be “manned” by mostly women.
It’s a huge problem that no politician will ever touch.
Why is that a problem? The people of the State are the ones who elected their legislature, so, in selecting US Senators from the party which controls the state legislature, that would be perfectly reasonable.
If the 17th amendment were not in effect, and the original method of selecting US Senators were in effect, the US Senate would have about 66 Republicans by virtue of the fact that the GOP controls 33 state legislatures—32 bicameral legislatures and one unicameral legislature (Nebraska)—and President Trump would have a strong governing majority in the Senate to implement his agenda.
Repeal of the 17th would be one of my biggest motivations for supporting a convention of states. There should definitely be a push for this among conservatives, and it's a perfect example of the reason that excessive democracy can be counterproductive.
Instead of having a majority in the Senate which is proportional to the composition of the state legislatures, an ego-driven, corruption-riddled situation has evolved—one which easily exceeds negative reasons for which the 17th Amendment was ostensibly adopted in the first place.
Additionally—as chauvinist as it sounds and, indeed, is—there's no doubt that this nation would be in better shape for conservatism if women didn't have the right to vote. It's obvious—in general—that they are simply more susceptible to emotional manipulation than men. I wish to God it weren't true, but it's undeniable. Sorry, girls.
I know that there are a lot of conservative women out there, but the ones that aren't are just destroying this country by allowing emotion to dictate their voting preferences. Indeed, without women, the modern Democratic party wouldn't have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning. Flame suit on.
Repeal the 17th - yes, yes, yes!!!!
With enactment of the 17th, States lost tremendous power which the central government took over with glee!!
The HOR, on the other hand, does seem to occasionally get nominees who got the nomination on their own merit.
JMHO
It became corrupt and full of smokey backroom dealing with bribes and back-scratching.
Let Senators get voted by the people - but they would have to win a majority of the counties within their state. It would be an electoral college sort of. This would eliminate the urban centers from picking the winners and losers.
The actual ratio is about 60:40 on a percent basis or 3:2. I know women can’t do math so broke it down for you. Mansplaining.
/OBVIOUSLY JOKING - you’re a Freeper and therefore by definition intelligent. Also caught the Gnu ref in your name. You in IT?
A convention of states would be the worst possible idea. In these past six months, we’ve seen how corrupt through-and-through everything about the US government is. I’d worry that a lot of coup members who haven’t had to show their true colors would end up controlling it.
Agree 100%.
But the repeal will NEVER start in Congress. Article V is the only hope for our Republic.
PS one of the smartest mathematicians/physicists/engineers I have ever worked with was a woman. (She was all three.) Several other women I’ve known were at least close. Gee, guess how they voted? Hint: on our side.
I am talking about prior to the passage of the 17th Amendment. If you pick up a history book the reasons cited for the 17th Amendment were corrupted state legislators.
In pre-17th Amendment days influencing the people was still important. The Lincoln-Douglas debates was not to crowd of legislators but to a crowd of ordinary people who would influence those legislators.
Other then that, I am not quite sure of your point.
Obama added more to our debt than any president in history. But the real difference is - the other debt presidents at least gave us something for our money. What did Zero-ama give us? He said he was borrowing for “shovel- ready jobs” infrastructure. Even O himself was later forced to admit there hadn’t been any. Yet, our $$ is still gone and O was never required to even tell us what he did with it - Swiss bank? Cayman Islands tax shelter fund? We know he gave billions and billions to his Muslim terrorist bff’s like Iran and Abbas PLO and Isis and Muslim brotherhood? And the rest of our money??? Gone. Vaporized. Magic. Poof! And congress and media don’t even ask Boo about it
Very well stated IMHO.
Barbie says math is hard, so I appreciate that!
Nope, not IT.
While I agree, women need to understand that one of the very few constitutionally enumerated federal powers that their 19th Amendment-protect right to vote actually won for them with respect to having a voice in shaping federal domestic policy is to help decide how the US Mail Service (1.8.7) is run.
In other words, nearly all federal social spending programs that they trade their votes for are actually based on unique state powers and uniquely associated state revenues that the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification feds have stolen from the states, state revenues stolen by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
The constitutional reality is that the Founding States had expected all legal voters to work with their state lawmakers, not the feds, for the state social spending programs that they want. This is evidenced by the following excerpts.
"Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious freedom [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801.
"... the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Federal Constitution, is in the States, and not in the Federal Government [emphasis added]." —Rep. John Bingham, Congressional Globe, 1866. (See middle of third column.)
Drain the swamp sewer! Drain the sewer!
Remember in November 2018 !
Since corrupt Congress is the biggest part of the sewer (imo) that Trump wants to drain, it is actually up to patriots to drain the sewer in the 2018 elections, patriots supporting Trump by electing as many new members of Congress as they can who will support Trump.
In the meanwhile, patriots need to make sure that there are plenty of Trump-supporting candidates on the primary ballots.
Patriots need to qualify candidates by asking them why the Founding States made the Constitution’s Section 8 of Article I; to limit (cripple) the federal government’s powers.
Patriots also need to make sure that candidates are knowledgeable of the Supreme Court's clarifications of the federal government’s limited powers listed in this post.
Also, unlike incumbent members of Congress who wrongly remained silent while misguided state officials abridged the constitutionally enumerated rights of citizens during the lawless Obama Administration, patriots need to make sure that candidates on the 2018 primary ballots commit to the following.
Candidates need to commit to making and enforcing 14th Amendment-related laws to prosecute misguided state officials who use state powers to abridge constitutionally enumerated protections, 1st Amendment-protected religious expression and free speech for example, such actions prohibited by Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.
”14th Amendment, Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Again, drain the sewer! Drain the sewer!
My wife has said she would give up her right to vote if it would keep all other women from being able to vote.
I’m for it, but:
It would only basically achieve one thing, getting a lot of the money out of senate races.
There are some states that would have a much different senate membership if the legislatures appointed: VA, for example. But in AZ, I seriously doubt the state legislature would have tossed out McTurd for anyone else, let alone Kelli Ward. Ditto Flakey.
The MAJOR advantage of repeal of the 17th would be that senators would once again at least somewhat take the view that they were representing their STATE and not “the people” of the state, which should produce some strengthening of federalism. But it’s not a panacea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.