The Repeal Amendment

[BanginJimmy]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailycaller/...congresssoon_1



What are your thoughts?


I love it. I believe the States should have the ability to band together and limit the power of the federal government. It can also provide a 4th level of checks and balances that is separated from the DC political machines and put it into the hands of elected officials that are far more receptive to their constituencies.

[David88vert]

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.

[bu villain]

Agree completely with David on this one. If your representative in congress isn't receptive to their constituents, then why do they keep getting voted back in?

[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

[David88vert]

I understand that the states do not elect their own senators anymore but my point is that the founding fathers built in enough checks that we don't need to be redundant.

We need to simply use the system in place properly to hold our politicians accountable.

[bu villain]

Also what is to stop state legislators from being bribed/lobbied?

If a politician gets elected and doesn't live up to the principles they ran on, then it doesn't matter what excuses they give next election, vote them out. Too many people only looking for a D or an R next to a name and not giving a second thought to what their representative is actually doing in Washington.

[Total_Blender]

I think the way to check the influence of corporations and lobbyists would be to repeal the Citizens United decision and restructure campaign finance to where all funding is out in the open. Any person, corporation, or organization that donates campaign cash or produces advertising supporting or criticizing a candidate would be a matter of open records.

For example, I'd really like to know who the people are behind the awfully "governmental" sounding "US Chamber of Commerce" group that funds Agent Orange (Boehner) and a lot of other GOP candidates. I know that one of "the Chamber's" main activities other than political influence is helping corporations to outsource. But as to who is in charge of this mysterious group and where their $$ comes from, that remains a mystery.

[David88vert]

I think the way to check the influence of corporations and lobbyists would be to repeal the Citizens United decision and restructure campaign finance to where all funding is out in the open. Any person, corporation, or organization that donates campaign cash or produces advertising supporting or criticizing a candidate would be a matter of open records.

For example, I'd really like to know who the people are behind the awfully "governmental" sounding "US Chamber of Commerce" group that funds Agent Orange (Boehner) and a lot of other GOP candidates. I know that one of "the Chamber's" main activities other than political influence is helping corporations to outsource. But as to who is in charge of this mysterious group and where their $$ comes from, that remains a mystery.

Obama promised campaign finance reform when he started to run, and then changed his tune when he knew it would negatively impact him.
http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/ar...-financing.php

Now, he wants to implement it, now that it could benefit him and the Democrats again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/27/us...s/27obama.html


So, I have a question. If it is ok for labor unions to support a candidate and run ads - and NOT disclose their funding sources - why can't a business?

Also, why is it bad for big business to speak up for what benefits them? What makes it "bad" for them to try to get the benefits that they want, but it is "good" for small businesses and individuals to do so?

[bu villain]

I agree with Blender about the court's decision being unfortunate. There is nothing wrong with corporations (big or small) letting politicians know what would be good or bad for them. The problem is that they are able to drown out the voices of individuals. I feel this way whether its labor unions or a multinational corporation.

[David88vert]

I agree with Blender about the court's decision being unfortunate. There is nothing wrong with corporations (big or small) letting politicians know what would be good or bad for them. The problem is that they are able to drown out the voices of individuals. I feel this way whether its labor unions or a multinational corporation.

That is why it is necessary to elect new officials in periodically. No politician should be in Congress for 30+ years, and no party should be in charge of a branch for too long either. Absolute power breeds absolute corruption.

[preferredduck]

i like this idea, everything has changed drastically in 220 years and i think sometimes modifying things is not a bad idea. as the article said the states are the whole reason there is even a federal gov't today, and in all reality the checks and balances have been beent big time in the last 20 years by D's and R's.