The Repeal Amendment

[BanginJimmy]

I do not support it. The reason is simple. It adds another layer of gridlock and does not solve the problem. Our founding fathers setup the checks and balances that we need. If your Congress passes laws you do not like, vote them out. We gain nothing by overriding Washington after a law is passed. What we need to do is make certain that laws are structured on the proper levels. State laws should not be in the federal Congress, and federal laws are not in the juristiction of the states.

I disagree. The founding fathers could not have imagined a government where bribery was legal and done in the open. They couldnt imagine the power that special interests and lobbiests have on elected officials. Most of all, they gave elected officials too much credit in thinking that they would do what they campaigned to do and be who they presented themselves as. They imagined a citizen representative doing as their constituencies wanted, not basing their voting record on personal ideology.


We do vote them out when we have that chance, but we all know a politician will say anything and everything to get elected and to get re-elected. They have no conscience, they have no morals, and most dont even have common sense. All they have is ideology. When those people pass a law that the majority of Americans dont want, the states need the ability to band together and block it.

[David88vert]

I disagree. The founding fathers could not have imagined a government where bribery was legal and done in the open. They couldnt imagine the power that special interests and lobbiests have on elected officials. Most of all, they gave elected officials too much credit in thinking that they would do what they campaigned to do and be who they presented themselves as. They imagined a citizen representative doing as their constituencies wanted, not basing their voting record on personal ideology.


We do vote them out when we have that chance, but we all know a politician will say anything and everything to get elected and to get re-elected. They have no conscience, they have no morals, and most dont even have common sense. All they have is ideology. When those people pass a law that the majority of Americans dont want, the states need the ability to band together and block it.

I disagree. The founding fathers had previously seen the same sort of government in England, and were very familiar with the concept of bribery of government officials. The Constitutional Convention made many drafts and many revisions to the Constitution. The Convention started on May 25, 1787 and adjourned on September 17, 1787 - 116 days. They put a lot of thought into setting up the checks and balances. They chose to setup a republic rather than a democracy, and had the foresight to know that it would not be easy to keep intact.

The issue is that Congressional politicians vote based upon their party platform, rather than their constituents desires. The only way to resolve that is through election of officials not tied to the 2 party platforms, or a restructuring of the parties themselves.

Adding another layer of gridlock won't help, as the politicians would just reword a bill and pass it again - plus you would need the courts to intervene and determine if the states could overrule the federal government on each bill. Additionally, you should be aware that Congress bundles many laws into a bill. Some states will be for specific parts that benefit their state and against others - what's next? A line item veto for each state? The founding fathers knew that this was not practical - that's why they had 2 Senators to represent the states interests, and the Representatives were for the will of the people.

[BanginJimmy]

I disagree. The founding fathers had previously seen the same sort of government in England, and were very familiar with the concept of bribery of government officials. The Constitutional Convention made many drafts and many revisions to the Constitution. The Convention started on May 25, 1787 and adjourned on September 17, 1787 - 116 days. They put a lot of thought into setting up the checks and balances. They chose to setup a republic rather than a democracy, and had the foresight to know that it would not be easy to keep intact.

The issue is that Congressional politicians vote based upon their party platform, rather than their constituents desires. The only way to resolve that is through election of officials not tied to the 2 party platforms, or a restructuring of the parties themselves.

Adding another layer of gridlock won't help, as the politicians would just reword a bill and pass it again - plus you would need the courts to intervene and determine if the states could overrule the federal government on each bill. Additionally, you should be aware that Congress bundles many laws into a bill. Some states will be for specific parts that benefit their state and against others - what's next? A line item veto for each state? The founding fathers knew that this was not practical - that's why they had 2 Senators to represent the states interests, and the Representatives were for the will of the people.

I dont disagree, but I also dont agree. I founding fathers knew of corruption, bribery, and self serving rulers far more than we do today, but they believed that the checks they put in place would help to avoid much of that. They believed in citizen representatives that would serve their time then head back into the private world, not the career politicians that we have today.

As far as the bolded part, this no longer applies. When the 17th Amendment was adopted in 1913 the states lost their direct representation. Which means the states also lost their voice in DC.


Something I never knew, but I think it gives my case a bit more strength. Article V of the Constitution gives the states the ability to call for a convention to propose amendments. I wont bother typing out everything, I will just post the link to it, but if the proponents of a repeal amendment cannot get congress to act on it,they can go this route. If this route doesnt work, the Amendment would fail anyways, even if Congress passed it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convent...s_Constitution