It seems to me (FWIW) that the gist of the structural amendments you propose is not to establish a "new role" for the States, but merely to repair the original constitutional architecture, the erosion of which has deprived the States of their due weight in the functioning of our constitutional, republican system as envisioned by the Framers. This mischievous, subversive destruction really got started with Amendment XVII. In short, the "Left progressive axe" was first successfully struck against the States, by eliminating their direct representation qua individual States in the national Congress. After a "long train of abuses," it is clear that U.S. senators no longer represent/speak for their States; nor do they speak for the citizens of their States (they are too far removed and thus unaccountable to them, for the reasons you powerfully cited in an earlier post on this thread). The upshot is, they only represent/speak for themselves; which boils down to their principal concern, which is reelection.
You cite Senator John McCain as a prime example. In the primaries, he runs to the right. In the general election, he moves to the middle, or even to the left. It's all about getting reelected. And since he can command donations from deep pockets, due to his long Washington experience and contacts with K Street, he doesn't have to rely on the nickel-and-dime contributions of his direct constituents. The upshot is, he gets reelected every time, on the strength of his own personal "legend." In short, John McCain represents no one other than himself, for the virtually exclusive benefit of his own future political fortunes....
It is time, and past time for these old lions to simply pass away. Unaccountable to anything beyond their own personal political survival, they do not serve either their State or the people of their State.
However, I think it would be nice if the people of the State that elected them had the right to recall them for due cause. Currently, i.e., in the post-Amendment XVII era, once elected, they are deemed "federal officers" that, under Article I, Section 5, cannot be challenged or removed by the people of the State that elected them. So, to whom are they accountable, since they are neither accountable to their State legislature nor to the people of their State?
So I think I prefer your original proposal, "States Rights and Control of States Rights," rather than your revised proposal, "A New Role for States in the US Constitution."
And the four heads you touch on — (1) Recall of US Senators (2) Repeal of the 17th (3) Term limits for US Senators and (4) State quash of specific federal matters —would seem to hold great promise for the restoration of the original federal architecture ordering State vis-a-vis national relations. Indeed, this balance of powers was the original prescription of federalism under the Constitution.
I'm praying for the success of the ALEC conference re: rules and procedures of a COS for Proposing Amendments. May God bless, Godspeed them. Please keep me posted, Hostage, of any breaking news you hear of.
Thank you ever so much for writing!!!
> “It seems to me (FWIW) that the gist of the structural amendments you propose is not to establish a “new role” for the States, but merely to repair the original constitutional architecture, the erosion of which has deprived the States of their due weight in the functioning of our constitutional, republican system as envisioned by the Framers.”
Yes, but not only to repair but also to enhance and ensure a direct role by voters through recall.
> “ This mischievous, subversive destruction really got started with Amendment XVII. In short, the “Left progressive axe” was first successfully struck against the States, by eliminating their direct representation qua individual States in the national Congress. After a “long train of abuses,” it is clear that U.S. senators no longer represent/speak for their States; nor do they speak for the citizens of their States (they are too far removed and thus unaccountable to them, for the reasons you powerfully cited in an earlier post on this thread). The upshot is, they only represent/speak for themselves; which boils down to their principal concern, which is reelection.”
Perfectly stated. And to achieve reelection they rely on moneyed interests who provide the resources to have a bigger megaphone, press script and propaganda network than any opponent including funds to buy votes from the party partner in the Uniparty (more on this below).
> :You cite Senator John McCain as a prime example. In the primaries, he runs to the right. In the general election, he moves to the middle, or even to the left. It’s all about getting reelected. And since he can command donations from deep pockets, due to his long Washington experience and contacts with K Street, he doesn’t have to rely on the nickel-and-dime contributions of his direct constituents. The upshot is, he gets reelected every time, on the strength of his own personal “legend.” In short, John McCain represents no one other than himself, for the virtually exclusive benefit of his own future political fortunes....”
John McCain’s campaign team also buys votes from democrat bosses during the republican primary in order to eliminate the conservative primary challenger. Arizona is a red conservative state and John McCain cannot survive a conservative challenge without enlisting help from democrat sources.
This is exactly how the Washington Cartel operates. We saw it clearly leaving no doubt in the Chris McDaniel v. Thad Cochran race for US Senator from Mississippi. Through open press reports and knowledgeable on the ground Freepers in Mississippi, Cochran’s people (backed and joined at the hip with the Barbour family) tried on the first round to take the election by fraud and lost but were close enough to try again in a recall. Barbour, McConnell and others in the Senate directed PACs to release funds to buy the black democrat vote who were bribed with ‘walking around money’ to show up at the GOP open primary and vote for Cochran. They ended up knocking McDaniel out of the race even though he won the first round and had he known of the fraud of that first round he would have acted sooner and denied a runoff opportunity to Cochran, and would as a result be a US Senator today. It is also worthwhile to note that Cochran, Barbour and others were at one time democrats who ‘switched’ during the Reagan Revolution because the writing was on the wall that being a democrat was a losing proposition no matter how one sliced it. In other words, they were corrupt democrats then, and they are corrupt democrats now but under cover of an ‘R’ label. This is a case where term limits would have been of great benefit.
> “So I think I prefer your original proposal, “States Rights and Control of States Rights,” rather than your revised proposal, “A New Role for States in the US Constitution.””
I’ll take your advice and stick with ‘States Rights and Control of States Rights’.