In my evening reading I discovered an Ohio blog called "Repeal the 17th Amendment" . You know I'm a big believer in "original intent". I think the effect of deviations from the original constitution are not always good, and the 16th and 17th Amendments have certainly had less than universally positive results.
We like to encourage discussion and debate. This is an idea worth intellectual consideration. If you think legislative election of Senators completely unrealistic just remember, there was a time when direct election of senators was considered an absurdly unrealistic hypothetical.
13 comments:
I looked at that site. I got as far as the claim that " our Constitution cannot be spoiled by bombs, the courts, or the President; only through legislation."
I can see problems already, even for you, Sporer. Can't the President usurp power? Can't the courts be accused of legislating?
Why is the elected Senate the biggest threat to democracy? I'll read some more but color me skeptical.
Recent headlines threaten Edwards' main campaign theme
Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Democrat John Edwards has eloquently established his credentials as an advocate for the poor with a presidential campaign focused on the devastating effects of poverty in America.
But the former North Carolina senator's populist drive has hit a series of troubling land mines: a pair of $400 haircuts, a $500,000 paycheck from a hedge fund, and now a $55,000 payday for a speech on poverty to students at UC Davis.
The problem now facing the Democratic presidential candidate is whether the pileup of headlines, including the latest regarding hefty fees from university speeches reported Monday by The Chronicle, threatens to obliterate Edwards' dominant campaign theme. The former senator, who has been portrayed as the champion of the poor and the son of a humble mill worker, now faces the possibility that voters will have a different image: that of a millionaire trial lawyer who talks one way and lives another.
Do you suppose those hefty hefty speaking fees paid for by taxpayers at those universities was simply a way to donate to Edwards campaign without technically giving him campaign cash?
And, if he's getting that much money for sharing his thoughts with us, why did his campaign cash pay $800 for two haircuts?
Edwards is really the front man for George Soros and the Unions to which he owes much.
i work in the securities industry. we sell hedge funds. hedge funds are only suitable usually for the already wealthy. In addition, they are usually only suitable for sophisticated investors.
Hmmm....just how does Edwards intend to benefit the poor with that experience? It seems to only have benefited himself.
and, if he's getting $500,000 to represent a hedge fund for the ultra high net worth investor, then why did his campaign cash pay $800 for the two haircuts rather than paid out of his own substantial personal fortune?
The Oversight Congress: Trouble for Bush
By: Josephine Hearn and Jim VandeHei
May 23, 2007 09:08 AM EST
The new Democratic majority's zeal for congressional investigations goes well beyond Alberto Gonzales and the fired federal prosecutors.
Aided by a new investigative team including a former mob prosecutor and a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter, Democrats have launched more than three dozen probes of the administration ranging from the White House to obscure agency heads. The House Oversight Committee alone has conducted 20 investigations.
With few legislative accomplishments in hand -- and only a few prospects in the offing -- it seems plain the 110th is shaping up as "The Oversight Congress."
Hemorroid : a mass of dilated veins in swollen tissue at the margin of the anus or nearby within the rectum -- usually used in plural; called also piles.
May 22, 2007
Democrats Drop Troop Pullout Dates From Iraq Bill
By CARL HULSE
WASHINGTON, May 22 — Congressional Democrats relented today on their insistence that a war spending measure sought by President Bush also set a date for withdrawing troops from Iraq.
The decision to back down, described by senior lawmakers and aides, was a wrenching reversal for some Democrats, who saw their election triumph as a call to force an end to the war.
The concession to the president was proving so difficult for the Democratic leadership that by this afternoon, the lawmakers had not yet publicly acknowledged that the timelines would disappear.
House Democrats were preparing to advance two separate measures, to enable antiwar lawmakers to support popular domestic spending but not the money for the war.
The agreement with the White House and Republicans would be tied to approval of as much as $20 billion in domestic spending sought by Democrats, as well as an increase in the minimum wage.
Republican leaders said that would be hard for some lawmakers in their party to accept, but that they would probably allow it in exchange for the war spending.
Well, Sporer, looks like you bit off more "intellectual consideration" than your gotcha readers can handle when you proposed this constitutional debate on the 17th amendment.
Why am i not surprised?
French President Nicholas Sarkozy called Wednesday for sanctions on Iran to be tightened if the country does not adhere to the West's demands to cease its nuclear agenda.
If Iran attains nuclear weapons, Sarkozy warned, a road to an arms race will be paved that could endanger Israel and southeast Europe, he said during an interview with a German magazine.
Sarkozy announced that France will join the official US-led struggle against head of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohamed ElBaradei, who recommended that Iran be allowed to enrich uranium in some of its nuclear plants.
On Tuesday, American officials urged allies to back a formal protest against ElBaradei, saying his comments could hurt UN Security Council efforts to pressure Teheran over its enrichment program
The Huffington Post's Thomas de Zengotita even praises the long term Dem strategy on the issue: "But for those progressives who want to ensure a Democratic sweep in '08, here's the deal. ...
What House Democrats are trying to guarantee is this: the Iraq war belongs to Bush and the Republican Party now -- and so it must when the election of 2008 rolls around.
Cynical? Indifferent to the suffering of US troops and Iraqi civilians? You bet.
Welcome to the political world of grown-ups who hold office and have institutional responsibility."
Spotlight, as a fairly new reader I think you have missed something about my blog.
We want to encourage public debate about politics. Our society needs it, for damn sure.
The daily posts are my topics-the ideas that run through my mind with sufficient importance to motivate my fingers to type.
The comments belong to you, the readers. You all may want to talk about something completely different, and that's OK too. I amy join the debate, might not.
So don't feel constrained by my comments if you want to strike up a debate of some public policy/political issue.
So start typing, cry havoc and let lose the dogs of war my friend.
It is sort or an esoteric topic, but I do wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of the 17th Amendment.
Thanks for checking out my weblog, Repeal the 17th Amendment. I hope that you will take the time and read the journal articles that I have linked to, which are on the right hand side of the page.
In response to your first commenter, I would say that the president can certainly do things that are harmful to the country and the office holder can violate the US Constitution, something the founders had anticipated happening, but only Congress can destroy the law, because legislation is its central role. To demonstrate this I would urge you to look into the changes recent made to the Insurrection Act of 1807. Certainly Bush signed the modifications in to law, but 100 percent of the Senate and 398 member of the House wrote the adopted this modification subsequently giving the office of the president enormous powers.
http://repealthe17thamendment.blogspot.com/2007/04/congress-modified-insurrection-act.html
Also, it was the Congress that passed the 16th and 17th Amendments. Neither of these amendments came from the States.
I would add that I am only average guy concerned with this issue. So I can’t speak from a legal perspective. My pursuit is to call to your attention the issue.
Thanks,
BD
Post a Comment