Posted on 08/19/2013 10:03:35 PM PDT by Steve Schulin
One of the proposed Constitutional amendments in Mark Levin's new book specifies that Congress can overturn a Supreme Court opinion. But the amendment also specifies that if, within 24 months, Congress doesn't so overturn a Supreme Court opinion, then the opinion becomes definitive. It's that last part that seems a big step in the wrong direction to me.
Under the current Constitution, a Mayor, County Executive, Governor or President's duty to support the Constitution would not be defined by a court opinion or by Congress. But under Mr. Levin's proposed amendment, executives would have to let these other branches tell him what the Constitution means. The Constitution is clear, for example, in specifying that no person shall be deprived of their life without due process. Roe v Wade opinion denies the personhood of a whole group of persons. If the Supreme Court were to repeat that aspect of the opinion after Mr. Levin's proposed amendment took effect, and if Congress remained silent on the matter for two years, we'd be stuck with a (mis)interpretation of the Constitution which involves alienating the unalienable right to life.
I'm glad that Mr. Levin is trying to get We the People to restore much of what has been lost over many decades. But this one particular amendment strikes me as being worse than the most onerous transgressions he so appropriately castigates.
(Excerpt) Read more at americaspartynews.com ...
The campaign warchest is not a trivial thing. Senators in "safe" states use this money to fund sycophants in the House through campaign donations. That is a powerful power from the 17th.
Eliminate the 17th amendment, and you eliminate the need to raise campaign funds, since the elections go away. It will be harder for Senators to be kingmakers.
-PJ
-PJ
The reason that people contribute to federal campaigns in the first place is probably because they have never been taught that one of the few powers that the feds actually have to regulate intrastate commerce is to regulate postal services. And corrupt candidates for federal office probably don't think twice about promising low-information voters federal government programs to get themselves elected, programs which the federal government actually has no constitutional authority to regulate, tax and spend for.
As a side note concerning talk about term limits, I understand that before 17A was ratified that some states had problems finding citizens who were willing to be federal senators.
Finally, I will support repeal of 16&17. But let's not miss possible 2014 opportunity to elect conservative congressional supermajority to clean up mess in DC in the meanwhile.
While I do support certain amendments to the existing Constitution: the repeal of the ill-advised, ill-conceived Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments, and the inclusion of a provision protecting one man-one woman marriage, to name three - only one of which Levin mentions, I believe - I think there is something infinitely more important: and that is electing representatives who will actually keep their sacred oaths to support and defend the Constitution we've already got. You can amend the document until kingdom come, but what does it matter if they won't follow it anyhow?
-- George Washington"[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths ... ?"
God bless you abundantly, my FRiend.
The Federal Government has reached the saturation point with dishonest people. It can't be reformed through the normal electoral process. Fully sixty percent or more of the congress would have to be replaced which is impossible because the framers designed the system to change slowly.
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.