Friday, March 11, 2011
Something I'd like to share about the attitudes we face.
Comment: I wrote this article (click on the link in the title) within the past few days and a friend posted it on her blog site. I think this is an important subject and something we should be both mindful of, and honest about, if any sort of repeal talk is to really going to take off.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
John:
Interesting post. I would point out that, maybe, had the 17th Amendment never passed, our court system may have never become the “activist” structure that it has.
Rosen (see the article posted on the right side of the weblog) points out how there was a shift in the “aristocratic” role of the Senate to Judiciary, because as the constituency changed from the “state” to the “people” the Senate became part of the “democratic” body with the House. This left a vacuum that was filled by the courts, and as time advanced from 1913 so did the role of the court legislating from the bench.
So quite possibly had the 17th Amendment never been enacted, this country would never have seen Roe v. Wade or any of the socialistic decisions that have also followed.
My background is not law but policy so I’ll hold fast there, but I do believe this is something that a sharp law student should consider researching.
Good points.
What i think we are seeing with some of these defundings and CBA's being voided is fascinating in the sense that a lot of people are receiving a harsh crash course in what building a life around the institutions that are gov't programs ... they are utterly at the mercy of the electorate ... interesting to hear and watch their take on "democracy" once "democracy" has ruled against them.
Post a Comment