Posted on 01/04/2015 5:31:40 PM PST by Jim Robinson
The 2014 midterm elections gave state Republicans their largest political majorities of the modern political era. In Governor races, the GOP picked up a net 2 states, against expectations of a 2-seat loss. The party also holds 68 of the nation’s 98 partisan legislative chambers, a grip on state government not seen since the 1920s. In only seven deeply blue states do Democrats control both the legislature and the Governor’s mansion. Republicans hold or share control in every other state.
Conservatives rightfully worry that Republicans in Washington will pursue a modest agenda with their Congressional majorities, but the states provide fertile ground for a broad reform legislation. In recent years, Republicans and conservatives have won public sector reforms in Wisconsin, broad tax reform in a number of states, and have led three states—Indiana, Oklahoma, and South Carolina—out of the Common Core education regime.
A number of other states will likely also take aim at Common Core and the creeping federal involvement in education. Common Core is, in many respects, an outgrowth of Bush’s No Child Left Behind Law. Budget pressures may fuel states’ natural tendency to limit federal encroachment of a function traditionally reserved for state and local governments.
While political fights over Common Core and new laws to apply stricter safety standards on abortion clinics will capture the most headlines, moves on state budgets and taxes could have the most lasting consequences. At least a dozen states, including Missouri, Arizona, Arkansas, and North Carolina, will push income tax cuts and reform. Illinois’ new Republican Governor’s top priority is reforming the state’s nearly bankrupt public pension system.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Not exactly. The mistake the South made was firing upon Fort Sumter. If they had only neutralized it or starved the Union Troops out.
Thank you; what did you think of the other six proposals?
In this regard, I prefer the situation here in Tennessee, where there is simply no such thing as a state income tax. (In fact, it is entirely outlawed by the state constitution.)
Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.
<>It doesn’t matter how many laws you pass or how many amendments you write. THEY’RE NOT FOLLOWING WHAT IS WRITTEN NOW<>
The only worthwhile amendments are structural, those that cannot be ignored any easier than even calendar year elections. If the states pass an amendment which grants themselves power to overturn congressional law on 2/3 vote, there is nothing that anyone in Rome-on-the-Potomac can do to foil it.
The Framers relied on governmental structure, the division of power, including a senate of the states, rather than the goodness of men to secure freedom. Think about it.
“Conservatives rightfully worry...Republicans”,
There, cleaned it up a bit.
Sorry, you’re a bit off there.
The final judge (the ‘umpire’ as you put it) are We the People. We are the ONLY entities with Rights, We created gov’t (as per the Preamble), We delegated certain powers to make it ALL happen....not some unelected, over-educated, self-pompous dictator in black robes.
No ‘re-affirmation’ will return the Republic to its once former glory. It’s akin to the current ‘gun control’ debate....pass THESE laws, on top of the 1600+ pages, and THAT will (somehow) stop the lawless.
If ‘shall not be infringed’ could not be more crystal, or (SOMEHOW) a SINGLE Clause (Commerce) usurping the whole of Constitution, what the hell are another 10 extra Amendments or more legalize (that they can wiggle out from with more verbiage/pretzel logic) going to do???
> I agree with Sections VII - IX wholeheartedly. It’s time to take away their self designed exemptions and selective enforcement for their fellow ogliarchs. They need to live according to their own laws.
Thank you; what did you think of the other six proposals?
They were all good. I just enjoyed VII - IX best...: )
Sections 2 and 3 of Post #36 are adapted from Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments. Section 1 is different.
I am trying to see that repeal of the 17th is feasible and I am not able to. It’s a tough sell to take away someone’s right to vote even if that vote is a farce. And I am not sure that state legislators would support repeal of the 17th. I have no information about that.
As Publius has commented in the past, the rationale for the 17th was not entirely empty but the solution merely moved the problem (corruption) from statehouses to K Street. The motives for the 17th may have been well-founded but the solution was awful and the consequences disastrous.
So supposing IF state legislators were able to convince voters that a repeal of the 17th was in the public interest, THEN the underlying problems of the Pre-17th Era would resurface, don’t you think? That’s why I wrote in Post #36 that a clause to impede or prevent state level corruption in the business of its relations with its Senators in Congress has merit but could open up a can of worms and bog down the whole process in a debate about campaign finance.
The 17th can always be repealed later if enough states have convinced voters that they can be trusted to select, appoint and ‘manage’ their Senators in Congress. In my view states will need strong anti-corruption laws in order to make the argument that the 17th should be repealed.
Having an amendment with Section 1 of Post #36 allows EITHER the State Legislature OR a state voter referendum to remove a US Senator. It gives power back to the states but also allows the State’s voters to check the State Legislature through referendum should the state legislature fall into corrupt practices.
But should you hear of any group of state legislators that are supporting a repeal of the 17th, please let me know.
Not true. They follow the structural parts just fine. So that's the goal: change the structure to put power back in the hands of the states.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The reason you are getting nowhere with your argument is because it's NOT TRUE. The left is NOT ignoring the law or the constitution otherwise we would not be talking on this board. If they were "ignoring" the constitution we would no longer be armed, they would have sent goons to collect all the guns but they haven't, why? Because they can't just ignore the constitution. Even the leftist stacked courts rule against the left quite often. They are finding loopholes and endruns around the constitution and the law but that is not the same as "ignoring" as you say.
It's you that's not seeing things clearly, if you take a step back you will see why amendments will close the loopholes opened by the left and restore liberty.
Correct. All peaceful means must be exhausted before we resort to "other" means.
"But Obama has had NO opposition to any major part of his agenda and some of that agenda has been to undermine the US Constitution.
0bama has plenty of opposition. Just not in Washington. That's what Article V is all about.
"Now that he's stacked the court with like minded goons and cowed any Congressional opposition...well, I don't expect anything to change.
Exactly why we need to bypass those institutions.
"More than likely, these Constitutional processes will be struck down as unConstitutional by big liberal judges (or something else)...
Well, you may be right. But is that a reason not to try? If this doesn't work, the "other" option is still available.
I’m not convinced that we NEED any more Amendments. If only politicians would follow the Constitution we wouldn’t have a lot of the problems we have today.
They’re not adhering to the Constitution now. What makes you think they will after an Article Five?
Post #12.
Read it and my question still stands.
Post #46.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.