Replies

At the risk of being rude, I would like to jump in
regarding the links to previous posts and comments...

-1st link-
"we need to have state senators appointed by counties"

I am a firm believer in "state's rights" and while this might be a good idea for a state to do, and while a state should certainly be "free" to do it that way, I shy away from the federal government dictating how the states should run their state governments.

-2nd and 3rd and 4th links-
"the manner of treaty ratification"
"fixing the treaty power"
"international law to which we have been illegally subjected"
"flaw in Article II Section 2 on treaty ratification"

Yup, I agree, that needs to be addressed.

"the language of the Supremacy clause (fails to assure that treaties which usurp Constitutional limitation are rendered void)"
"amending the Supremacy Clause so that it is clear that a treaty that exceeds constitutionally enumerated powers truly IS unconstitutional"
"ambiguity in the Supremacy Clause"

Yup, that also needs to be addressed.

"assure that usurpation of power carries criminal penalties for officers of the government"

Good one, I have that on my list as well.

"amending Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 to render the threshold of Senate ratification equivalent to a Constitutional amendment; i.e., 3/4 of State legislatures"

I like it!
-
Mark's book threw out some ideas to help get the ball rolling.
He never intended for his ideas to be copy/paste to a convention of states, and he has often stated that.

So many problems, so little time!

I am a firm believer in "state's rights" and while this might be a good idea for a state to do, and while a state should certainly be "free" to do it that way, I shy away from the federal government dictating how the states should run their state governments.

Agreed. I was pointing out that it might take an amendment to undo Reynolds v. Sims and offered the suggestion as a way of illustrating the principle.

What did you think of the "cedo" in the hands of the VP (the last item in post 36)? I first thought of it back in 1985 when reading Farrand's Record. I think it could do a lot to make the Congress more accountable.

Mark's book threw out some ideas to help get the ball rolling. He never intended for his ideas to be copy/paste to a convention of states, and he has often stated that.

Good; I'm glad he's expressed the circumspection. I don't have the time to listen to his show and I'm doing too much research work to read his book. In fact, IMO what he is doing here is dangerous.

I was not impressed with those ideas and would not disparage my reputation going to press with half baked ideas on something so critical. I do think what I've offered here is simpler, perhaps more powerful, and more likely to get done. Still, I haven't published on the topic because I have not researched how I would construct such amendments. I don't think one should go to press and get THAT ball rolling without a clearer idea of what should be done how, and why.