I’d rather just get rid of the 17th amendment. Let senators be chosen by the state legislature (rather than by popular vote) and the Senate will end up supporting the interest of their state. That’s what you’re looking for, right?
You should also look at various web sites and organizations supporting a renewed commitment to the 10th Amendment. The discussion on those sites is compelling. Start with http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/.
The 10th amendment has often been cited as a basis to challenge Obamacare, but given the vast expansion of the Commerce Clause and even something called the "Dormant Commerce Clause" and the "Necessary and Proper" clause, Supreme Court precedent is not favorable.
Just enforce the 10th Amendment.
Rather, the States should fund the federal government for the purposes outlined in the Constitution, and no others. Any other stuff the State governments want to do, they may do within their borders.
If we want to talk about amending the Constitution, let’s talk about doing it right...
“In the three years following the elections, nine constitutional amendments were ratified by the state legislatures in rapid succession. The Document went through some major changes.
The 27th Amendment granted blanket immunity from prosecution for any crimes committed before or during the Second Civil War to anyone who actively fought for the resistance.
The 28th Amendment repealed the 14th and 26th Amendments. It also made full state Citizenship a right of birth, only applicable to native-born Citizens who were the children of Citizens. It allowed immigrants to buy state citizenship. It clarified “United States Citizenship” as only having effect when state Citizens traveled outside the nation’s borders, and outlawed titles of nobility such as “esquire”.
The 29th Amendment banned welfare and foreign aid, removed the United States from the UN and most foreign treaties, capped Federal spending at 2 percent of GDP, capped the combined number of foreign troops in the fifty states and on Federal territory at one thousand men, and limited the active duty Federal military to a hundred thousand men, except in time of declared war.
The 30th Amendment amplified the 2nd Amendment, confirming it as both an unalienable individual right and as a state right, repealed the existing Federal gun-control laws, preempted any present or future state gun-control laws, and reinstituted a decentralized militia system.
The 31st Amendment repealed the 16th Amendment, and severely limited the ability of the Federal government to collect any taxes within the 50 states. Henceforth, the Federal government’s budget could be funded only by tariffs, import duties, and bonds.
The 32nd Amendment outlawed deficit spending, put the new United States currency back on a bimetallic gold and silver standard, and made all currency “redeemable on demand”.
The 33rd Amendment froze salaries at six thousand dollars a year for House members and ten thousand for Senators, limited campaign spending for any federal office to five thousand per term, and repealed the 17th Amendment, returning Senators to election by their state legislatures.
The 34th Amendment restored the pre-Erie Railroad v. Thompkins system of Common Law, invalidated most Federal court decisions since 1932, and clarified the inapplicability of most Federal statutes on state Citizens in several states.
The 35th Amendment reinstated the allodial land-title system. Under a renewed Federal Land Patent system the amendment mandated the return of 92 percent of the Federal lands to private ownership through public sales at one dollar in silver coin per acre.
The nation’s economy was slowly restored. But with the nine new amendments, the scope of government- both state and Federal- was greatly reduced from its pre-Crunch proportions. Small government was almost universally seen as good government. For the first time since before the First Civil War, it became the norm to again refer to the nation plurally as “these United States”, rather than singularly as “The United States”. the change was subtle, but profound”
“Patriots”, by James Wesley Rawles, “The Amendments” pp 381-382
Good Food for Thought...buy the book.
Until such a time as we rein in the federal judiciary, any amending would be a wasted effort.
Ummmm, where in the Constitution does it say that Feds can “fund” a State a state at all?
Agreed. And thanks to Bean Counter for that superb post!
The Constitution most certainly needs some fine-tuning, particularly the Commerce Clause and a reconsideration of the 16th and 17th amendments. (There are other changes needed but I’ll leave them to our ConLaw scholars.)
The amendment process is what makes the Constitution a “living document” and not the weathervane whims of activist judges. We can change it, and we should change it when the need arises, which now seems to be the case.
I’d like to see all sorts of amendments proposed, to make corrections and clarifications. If the people don’t want these amendments, the measures can be easily killed by the three-quarters state vote requirement. If nothing else it would get people thinking about the Constitution and how it affects us.
I expect Congress to battle tooth and nail against many of these corrections (unless we REALLY clean house in November) so give some serious thought to calling a Constitutional Convention, so we can ram the changes down THEIR throats for a change!
As for the “dangers” of a Constitutional Convention, I’m not really worried. I can’t think of anybody with the brains or the stones to try and rewrite the Constitution. (And the required ratification by the states would keep any radical ideas from becoming law, in any case.) The Founders wisely added the Constitutional Convention for exactly the problem we now have — An out-of-control Congress and a government at the edge of tyranny!
So yeah, I’m all in favor of making amendments! Bring ‘em on and let’s start the discussions!