Ken Buck Clarifies Position: He Doesn't Want To Repeal 17th Amendment

Newly nominated Colorado Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck clarified on Friday a statement he had more than a year ago in which he said he supported efforts to repeal the amendment allowing for the popular election of candidates like him to the United States Senate.

In a brief phone call to the Huffington Post, Buck said that he did not favor repealing the 17th Amendment, which allows the public, not state legislatures, to vote on who represents them in the Senate. As late as June 2009, Buck had held the opposite view, telling the Pikes Peak Economics Club, that the American public needed to be educated "about the populist nature of the 17th Amendment and how it has taken us down the wrong path."

"I don't know that we get [repeal] tomorrow, but I think we get there in the very near future when people understand just what a horrendous effect the 17th amendment has been on the federal government's spending."

Reached by phone on Friday afternoon, Buck explained that immediately after delivering those remarks, he rethought his position on the 17th Amendment debate. Since then, he stressed, he has been opposed to the notion of repeal.

"It is not a position I still hold and it wasn't a position I held a day later when I called back the guy who asked the question and talked to him about the issue and reflected more on it," Buck said. "It doesn't make sense to repeal the 17th amendment and I have said it a dozen of times."

The idea of repealing the 17th Amendment is a favorite among Tea Party goers in addition to being treated with credence by some of the GOP's intellectual heavyweights who see it as a way to shift the balance of power (or at least political oversight) back to state authorities.

Among office seekers, however, the irony of asking people to vote for you so that you could do away with -- a portion of -- the popular vote has been too obvious to brush aside. In backing away from his previous support, Buck joined several other GOP candidates who flirted with the notion of 17th Amendment repeal only to ultimately abandon it at a later date. The list includes Steve Stivers in Ohio, and Vaughn Ward, an Idaho Republican who lost his primary race to a more devoted 17th Amendment repealer. One candidate who has not moderated his support for the idea is, Mike Lee, the Utah Republican who appears to be a shoo-in for the Senate.

Comments

[Charley Miller]

05:38 AM on 09/02/2010

Listen, I am on the ballot for the US Senate in Colorado as "Unaffiliated", now you can understand why my tageline is "Stop the Insanity."

http://charleymiller2010.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/cmbusinesscard-3-5inx2in-h-front.jpg

The Buck N' Bennet show is so outragous it goes from the so far right that he almost fell of the right side of reality Buck to the lame duck Senator Bennet who can't shake that rubber stamping away from incessive Robo-calls from President Obama.

Both have an "Very Unfavorable Rating" that seems to be increasing dramatically each time the national pollsters sample the State of Colorado.

Maybe someone can clue me in, I never ran for politics, and everyone I am meeting is saying its totally out of control, that someone has to "Fix the economic mess & end the free rides." Where are these guys going to? Can you stomach this kind of conversations at a debate?

charleymiller2010

[rupert12]

01:06 AM on 08/19/2010

All this talk of repealing amendments is just ridiculous posturing. The only amendment that was ever repealed is alcohol prohibition (#18), and it took another amendment to accomplish it (#21).

Good luck with that.

[RayCSpringfield]

10:14 AM on 08/18/2010

Ken Buck was elected the District Attorney for Weld County, Colorado in 2004. He raided a tax service in Greeley, Colorado and seized more than 5,000 tax files. The American Civil Liberties Union sued Buck's office for violating the privacy of the service's clients and after an appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court costing the county approximately $150,000, the raid was deemed unconstitutional. This comes from Wikipedia.



Does the man believe in freedom ?Does he respect the Bill of Rights?



Sen. Michael Bennet does.

[runtwelds]

10:22 AM on 08/17/2010

if this isn't proof that the teabaggers just flip out over whatever their handlers tell to, I don't what is. walking contradictions all of them.

[mgbrand]

04:25 AM on 08/17/2010

It is not that radical to support repealing the 17th Amendment folks. Most of the arguments in support of the 17th Amendment are based upon giving the people more power over who represents them in Washington. Great, that is why the House of Representatives exist. Why does the Senate also need to be directly elected?

State governments now have no formal representation at the federal level. What has resulted is a slew of unfunded mandates imposed on states, forcing state legislators to bow to federal law rather than effectively address their constituents' concerns within the state. How is that a good thing? Talk to any state legislator, Democrat or Republican, they will tell you the same thing. They have to allocate limited funds because of law, often to the detriment of a program or project within the state that has the popular support of the people in that state. Not a good thing.

That is something that could be fought by repealing the 17th Amendment. The people would still elect their representatives in the House, and states would gain their badly needed seat at the table again.

Here is some more food for thought. If we should elect both Senators and Representatives, why do we need both houses? Seems kind of redundant to have two houses elected by the same group, doesn't it? Especially since it just means there are more corrupt politicians to deal with...

[Sundalecat]

10:43 PM on 08/16/2010

This has got to be the stupist thing I have ever heard.

[thebigbike]

02:27 PM on 08/16/2010

nah, now he only wants to repeal 1 through 14

[PresidentRobertBooth]

02:15 PM on 08/16/2010

Good ole' Republicans


They love the US Constitution so much, they want to cut out most of it.

[Ionakr]

01:30 PM on 08/16/2010

Bottom line is the Republicans want us to scrap the entire Constitution with the exception of the "Right to Bear Arms". Of course they would love for the people to not have a say as to who will represent them on the Hill. The House and Senate have totally forgotten that they represent US the People and not themselves. They only care about what is best for them financially and not was is best for their States. It is obvious by what they are doing. I'm not saying all of them are like that but basically all Republicans are and a handful of Dems. They need to shut up about what our forefathers wanted especially when they want to go against it.

[Reiziger]

01:01 PM on 08/16/2010

So a guy who corked his mouth of on the idiocy of allowing the unwashed masses to directly elect their Senators claims now to have taken that position recklessly, without giving the underlying issues much thought, thereby demonstrating - without the least sense of irony - the point he was making when he first made that statement.

That's funny.

[duhtruth]

12:24 PM on 08/16/2010

That is some good news. The Rethugs are rumored to have initiated a plan to rewrite the constitiution. Maybe they are having second thoughts.

[hrpmap]

12:28 PM on 08/16/2010

You are being a drama queen. Rewrite the constitution, is that what you think has happened with each of the many times an amendment has been accomplished? You do know that amendment and the right to change them are a part of the constituion? And if it is now somehow unAmerican to do so Why?

[duhtruth]

03:19 PM on 08/16/2010

Sorry for your outrage but drama is extremely useful as you can see by the result that I received from you. The Rethugs are great defenders of the Constitiution and our founding fathers when it tends to suit them. In cases when it doesn't, they are indignant. They don't seem to go back and understand what the basis for original documents and amendments were nor do they care. Oh, change or proposed change is great when it is well intentioned and not discriminatory. However, I never tend to place those attributes on the Rethugs.

[hrpmap]

12:10 PM on 08/16/2010

Of course he doesn't support going back to a system where he works for the people of the state he is from. Why would he, that would mean he would have to dod the will of the people he works for. He would have to give up the postition of being above the states and their people. The founders wisdom would be in play and the Senate politicians be once again under the State Governors, where they really belong. Imagine the lobbyist money that would no longer be in play under a retirn to the original concept. The effect would be that the people of the states would be required listening to.

[tjconkster]

12:03 PM on 08/16/2010

Geroge Carlin was an Icon...and his commentary is as relevant today as it was then..

The Truth About Republicans by..George Carlin
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsBfqrNoFXQ

[tenndemo]

11:45 AM on 08/16/2010

That whole Constitution thingy is so inconvenient to tea baggers.

[Carlos Manuel]

09:34 AM on 08/16/2010

Keep em confused