This is the first of a three part series.
Comment: This is certainly a contentious issue; one of which we consider conscientiously in our attempt to repeal the 17th Amendment. This is a highly charged period of time in our history as the speaker said, which is brought to new heights by the availability of the vast communication, networking and media tools found on the internet.
While I can't speak for all the "Repealers" out there, nor will I, I believe that the 17th can be repealed, but only when there is a sizable group among the American people that soundly rejects the influence, both regulatory and monetary, of the Federal Government, will we garner enough people that can change the makeup of the legislators at every level of government, who will then seek to restore a balance of power between the states and national government and of limited government, then by repealing the 17th through Congress and ratified by the state legislatures.
This seems to me to be the safest course of action we should take without putting the country into a charged situation where the US Constitution is so radically changed our country would cease to be.
1 comment:
In a perfect world, I'd agree with you, but I think it is a mistake to unilaterally take a constitutionally viable option off the table.
The concept of a Con-Con has to be seen and treated as a check the states can exercise on Congress, esp in a instance such as this. While I appreciate the practicability of the argument, if we are using terms such as "oligarchs" and "unchecked power" and "unconstitutional" in this debate, if states' rights and suffrage are so pertinent to rectifying those conditions, we do ourselves and our arguments a serious disservice to dismiss the Con-Con.
Post a Comment