crap shoot,repeal problems

A quote: "For those of you who have not followed the Con-Con battles of the past three decades, the basic problem with Congress calling a constitutional convention at the request of 34 or more states in accordance with Article V of the Constitution is that leading constitutional scholars and judges have pointed out that the agenda of such a constitutional convention could not be specified by the state legislatures who would have started the whole process in motion in the first place. In brief, a constitutional convention could become a "runaway" convention similar to our original Constitution Convention in 1787 and come up with a radically new constitution, not just a few specific amendments. Even Article V's additional requirement that three fourths of the states must ratify any amendments emanating from a constitutional convention is not sufficient safeguard against a runaway convention given the biased media and political elites that would be involved in the whole process."

At present, there are dozens of Constitutional Amendments being proposes to the public. Virtually every one runs through the U.S. Congress. Asking our elected Congress officials to regulate themselves, is similar to asking a den of foxes to guard the farmer's chicken coop.

Our repealxvii campaign relies on each state. The imitative comes out a state's legislature and Attorney General. Our focus is on a single issue driven Constitutional Amendment: Repeal the Seventeenth.

We do not want, call for or believe the necessity for an open, general Constitutional Convention.

Another legal expert, John W Dean notes
(from http://writ.corporate.findlaw.com/dean/20020913.html )
…..Professor Zywicki offers an explanation for the Amendment's enactment that makes much more sense. He contends that the true backers of the Seventeenth Amendment were special interests, which had had great difficulty influencing the system when state legislatures controlled the Senate. (Recall that it had been set up by the Framers precisely to thwart them.) They hoped direct elections would increase their control, since they would let them appeal directly to the electorate, as well as provide their essential political fuel - money.

This explanation troubles many. However, as Zywicki observes, "[a]thought some might find this reality 'distasteful,' that does not make it any less accurate."

Other voices for repeal include Senator Zell Miller (D-GA), Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), Representative David Dreier (R-CA), Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), Representative John Conyers (D-MI),Columnist George Wills, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Alan Keys, Tom DeLay, plus others.

Concerning the federal government's giant power grab, Supreme Court Justice G. Byreyer's opinion on Printz v the United States, 1197, wrote..." undue centralization of national power..."

The bigger our federal bureaucracy grows, the greater the corruption.
Compelling benefits for undoing five decades of federal power are:

Restore the original intent of U.S. Senators: an advisory board
Cut federal bureaucracy in the Senate and reduce committees, spilling into the Executive Branch.
Restore States guaranteed powers under Amendment Ten.
Give the voters a more direct and powerful voice in who their Senators shall be. ( At present, Senators disappear for six years, until next election cycle.)
Make Senators accountable to their State Legislators, who have the ability to recall them.
The people's disenchantment with their Senator would be aired locally! The distance for affirmative action is as close as the state capitol and its legislature. Senators would represent their state and the people's need within that state.
More Money to the States: An important component that will prove beneficial to the several states is taxes! Each State needs money; better to keep monies at home than to send to the federal government in far away D.C. Allow the voters with in each state to elect officials who can best allocate tax revenues for their individual state
Money is the key factor in growth and it is the key motivator for the several states. Each State needs money, and they need it yesterday. The repeal of the 17^th, as a stand-alone Constitutional Amendment, gets them no money. But a combination where the states control tax money as well as their U.S. Senator necessitates the power and the programs returning to the states. Each States would become a capitalistic entity, competing with one another for business and people’s purchasing power. From a completive, capitalistic perspective, State would reduce their size and scope of their governments
All politics is local! Prior to ratifying the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, citizens saw more of their Senators. They voted for their choice, and state legislatures appointed the popular choice.. The best know example is the famous Lincoln and Douglas debates; Lincoln lost to Douglas, who was appointed to the Senate by the Illinois State legislature.

Call for a Constitutional Convention to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment through state legislatures.

Site Map