The GOP's New Constitutional Amendment: Give States Veto Power Over Federal Laws

[Obama 2012 1,714]

If that amendment passes it will no longer be The "United" States of America

It ceased to be that a LONG time ago.

The moment the Federal Government started its power grab, we were not longer the United "States."

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Rubbish

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Rubbish

I've stated time and time again that the states no longer have a voice in Washington.

The moment the states lost their voice, is the moment the Feds gained too much power.

You cannot claim to the "United States" if they states have no voice.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

You've stated time and time again, therefore it must be true.

Err no.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I've stated time and time again that the states no longer have a voice in Washington.

How so? My state has elected two Senators that are tasked to represent the interests of this state in the US Senate. How about yours?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

How so? My state has elected two Senators that are tasked to represent the interests of this state in the US Senate. How about yours?

Senators are elected by the people today, therefore they work for the people, not the state.

Senators used to be chosen by the state to work for the state.

If Senators are elected by the people and people vote along party lines, then those senators are going to work for the people, not the interests of their state.

The 17th amendment ruined our Republic for what it was supposed to be.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As opposed to being chosen by some partisan hack for partisan reasons? Hardly a loss.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

"In conclusion, reading the second United Sates Constitution, I can't trust the current government because of the ratifications..." ~ Jerod Loughner

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Senators are elected by the people today, therefore they work for the people, not the state.

Senators used to be chosen by the state to work for the state.

If Senators are elected by the people and people vote along party lines, then those senators are going to work for the people, not the interests of their state.

The 17th amendment ruined our Republic for what it was supposed to be.

The states can't send anyone anywhere. The elected representatives of the states - be that the state legislatures or the governors - may send representatives. You then have still bodies of representatives that have been elected along party lines - based on your assumption - sending delegates. How would that provide any less a party line representation in the US Senate? I'd argue that you'd have more of a party-line representation in the Senate if the US Senators were not directly elected by the people. Case in point is Florida where we currently have representation that doesn't match the state party-line of the state government.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[Obama 2012 1,714]

As opposed to being chosen by some partisan hack for partisan reasons? Hardly a loss.

and obviously you don't understand squat about the intent of our system and the balance it was suppoed to provide.

When every single deciding office is elected by the people, you end up with tyranny of the majority.

Every last elected official in Washington is now chosen by the people, exactly what our founders did not want. They understood that a pure Democracy was dangerous. It's part of the reason why we don't have public votes on Federal laws either (though sometimes we might wish for it).

We were supposed to be a true representative republic, where all parties were represented in one way or another. We are far from that today.

[Danno 1,228]

It won't pass however...thank you check and balance

You are bound to be right in this case but these same checks and Balances would no doubt stop many of the freedoms found in the Constitution of they were proposed today.

IMagine if the Right to keep and bear arms were proposed today.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

and obviously you don't understand squat about the intent of our system and the balance it was suppoed to provide.

When every single deciding office is elected by the people, you end up with tyranny of the majority.

Every last elected official in Washington is now chosen by the people, exactly what our founders did not want. They understood that a pure Democracy was dangerous. It's part of the reason why we don't have public votes on Federal laws either (though sometimes we might wish for it).

We were supposed to be a true representative republic, where all parties were represented in one way or another. We are far from that today.

Political appointments made behind closed doors - yeah that's an improvement

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Political appointments made behind closed doors - yeah that's an improvement

Paul's all hung up over US Senators being elected in party-line votes and conveniently forgets that the state officials that would appoint the Senators are elected on the same party-line votes and would, naturally, appoint US Senators along - you guessed it - party-lines.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

So you asre saying that other amendments are because of "basic problems in the framework"? OK. I guess they are. We have a procedure to amend the constitution (except the Bill of Rights) and someone is proposing to use it. Good news. I don;t see a problem with this. The purpose of the constitution was to limit the power of the Federal Government. Further limits are a good thing.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Dear Pissed Off States,

You already have this power through the United States Senate. If you're not happy with your United States Senator, I suggest you vote him or her out and elect someone you like.

ETA: And if you feel the United States Senate has been irreparably corrupted by the influence of big money, then publicly fund all campaigns and watch the Tea Party be one of the big winners.

Just eliminate the direct election of Senators like the founding fathers intended. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Republicans say they've found the problem in America -- and that problem is the basic framework of the Union as we know it today.

A group of Republicans in the House and Senate are proposing an amendment to the Constitution that would allow a vote by two-thirds of the states' legislatures to override any federal law they did not agree with.

I like it.