Bob Beauprez: Repeal the 17th Amendment

The latest example of GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez getting nutty during his years out of the spotlight. In this August 2010 interview on WWL Radio in New Orleans, Louisiana, Beauprez talks with host Spud McConnell about repealing the 17th Amendment–the century-old provision mandating the direct election of Senators by popular vote:

MCCONNELL: Forty states to my knowledge, so I mean there's several states looking at this, but also many many states who are looking at this, uh sending, uh, have already sent resolutions to the Beltway to say, re-read the 10th Amendment, you're overstepping your grounds. And in a discussion I had about that, I had a constitutional law professor on say, when Louisiana does that, we should include in there that we want to go back to where states actually elected their Senators…

BEAUPREZ: Oh yeah.

MCCONNELL: And sent them up there, and then that way, the state legislature, if there was some stuff going on in Washington they didn't like, they could actually, uh, withdraw their Senators, bring them back like an ambassador is brought back for consultations, and, and keep them out of any elections or any votes that are going on up there so that I think would give the states considerably more power inside the Beltway. What do you think about that?

BEAUPREZ: I couldn't agree more. [Pols emphasis] I think states lost an enormous amount of their leverage, their accountability, when the 17th Amendment–I think I've got my numbers right…

MCCONNELL: I think it's 17th, I didn't say it because I couldn't remember…

BEAUPREZ: Was passed and, there is, I think it's, and I don't know that there's enough focus and enough attention on it yet to really get it changed back to the way it was, but I think it's a growing movement, I agree with you Spud.

Repealing the 17th Amendment was a goal of the Tea Party in 2009-2010, albeit not as popular as the move to interpret the 10th Amendment as the only one that matters (excepting the 2nd Amendment of course). Ken Buck was at one point a supporter of repealing the 17th Amendment, until he realized fairly late in his 2010 campaign for the U.S. Senate that wanting to get rid of the very same election one is competing in doesn't exactly ingratiate one's self with the voters.

It's another fringy moment to add to the growing collection, like Beauprez's 2012 interview where he claims President Barack Obama is "pushing the boundaries" toward "civil war," his "birther" pandering in 2010, writing in his 2009 book that climate change is "a complete hoax foisted on most of the world,", and more recent comments about how Sharia law is "creeping in" in Colorado.

Are there more? Probably, folks. In fact, we're willing to bet on it. We would consider just about any of these to be completely disqualifying in a general election. The question is, are sane Republicans paying attention now?

18 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. JeffcoBlueJeffcoBlue says:

    Because the last thing we need is the rabble electing our Senators. That's how we got Barack Hussein Obama to begin with!

    Way to go, Both Ways Bob, way to go.

  2. DawnPatrol says:

    Could Beauprez possibly be a bigger horse's ass? The cowardice, stupidity and fraud running rampant in the Colorado GOP is breathtaking.

  3. bullshit!bullshit! says:

    Sometimes the voters just don't know what's best for them, eh Bob?

  4. VoyageurVoyageur says:

    The states naming senators gave us the likes of the Great Triumvirate: Henry Clay, Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun.  Direct election brought us Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Jim DeMint.   Can I think about this one a while?

  5. IndyNinjaIndyNinja says:

    The 17th amendment question is a fun one to beat somebody up over, and it plays extraordinarily well in TV ads. 

    But I wish it didn't, because I think it is a fair debate, that is not as simple as "so-and-so wants to take away your right to vote for your Senator".

    I think there is a lot of merit to the old way of electing the Senate. I think it would make them much more accountable, for one thing. 

    It's hard to say how it would effect the issue of money in politics. When your voter base is only 100 people, you certainly don't need to raise a million dollars a month to campaign to them. But maybe the money would just shift to the state legislative races instead, distrorting those races and making them all about federal issues, instead of local ones. 

    But the point is that I wish we could honestly have that debate. But it will never happen when everyone who brings it up is figuratively lynched on TV. 

    • Urban Snowshoer says:

      Call me cynical but pushing for the repeal the 17th Amendment is  a bit like advocating for electing judges. It's almost always the the losing side that advocates for it–this is especially true for electing judges–because the
      the current way of doing things is leaving them out of power or not resulting in favorable court rulings.  As consequence the losing side  wants to repeal the 17th amendment or elect judges, in the hope that it result in more favorable candidates or legal rulings.

      The advocates of either repealing the 17th Amendment or electing judges, often hide behind the veil of  democracy or fairness, but in reality it's almost always about getting back into power, nothing else. 


      • BlueCatBlueCat says:

        Well, since it's never going to happen they can advocate for repealing the 17th all they want. Voters are never going to turn the clock back that far. What's more, the people pushing it know it's never going to happen. It's just pandering to a select portion of the wacko base as opposed to the whole wacko base they pander to when they refuse to say Obama is a perfectly legit American born citizen. What good BWB thinks it does him for statewide in Colorado is beyond me (nowhere near a majority of Colorado Republicans are on board with this one) but nobody has ever accused him of being overly bright.

  6. gertie97 says:

    If the Teabaggers don't like GOP backroom deals now, they'll just love the backroom wheelings-and-dealings in the rats nest known as the legislature to elect a senator for them.

    Gawd. Can't these people put even two dots in a row?

    • mamajama55mamajama55 says:

      I'm with Gertie. I don't see how appointing Senators possibly ensures less corruption or better governance. Ref: Blagogevich, Rob.

      The constitutional amendments were put in for good reason, and no, I don't think I am an "originalist", whatever that is.

  7. ElliotFladenElliotFladen says:

    So, you guys are beating up Beauprez for supporting an amendment that would ensure Udall's reelection?  Seriously????

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.