Well, you basically give states a de facto veto with a 2/3rds majority, when, in order to amend the Constitution, you need three-quarters of the states. So this gives powers to the states below that which was put forth to amend the Constitution, and I don't know if I want to mess with those numbers. Instead, we should work to make the 10th Amendment mean something again. No changes to the Constitution needed.
The proposed amendment does nothing whatsoever to change, alter, or revise any aspect of the process of Amending the COnstitution. This ONLY has to do with repeal of legislation or regulation. To repeat, ONLY legislation or regulation. NOT the Constitution.
In my opinion, all this would be made unnecessary if the 17th Amendment were repealed so that the Senate could fulfill its intended purpose as the voice of the respective States in the Federal legislative process.
The proposed amendment does nothing whatsoever to change, alter, or revise any aspect of the process of Amending the COnstitution. This ONLY has to do with repeal of legislation or regulation. To repeat, ONLY legislation or regulation. NOT the Constitution.
In my opinion, all this would be made unnecessary if the 17th Amendment were repealed so that the Senate could again fulfill its intended purpose as the voice of the respective States in the Federal legislative process.