An interesting article and thank you for providing. But it still doesn’t answer the basic question: where is the evidence that the states will act with any more restraint than the Federal government? That is to say, where is the evidence that states and localities are any less likely to smash down doors over relatively minor offenses (numerous states), ban certain classes of weapons (CT, NY), increase taxes (numerous states) conduct road side cavity searches (TX), etc?
You will find a double post by me on the linked thread, because I failed to go back enough pages to get back to this thread before posting. Sigh, nevertheless I repost here.
To: Jacquerie
I don’t think it matters that it took a year to get some engaged in the problems and intended consequences of the unconstitutional in principle seventeenth amendment. The fact that it changed the most important part of the Founder’s vision enumerated in the tenth amendment doesn’t seem to get much traction, but any interest in it’s dangers I appreciate.
The part of the amendment that gets my attention is those proposing it failed to take into account the term limits imposed on “REPRESEMTATIVES” by the Founding Fathers of two years, and allowed the six year term for a Senator chosen by State Legislatures to remain as a fixture. Categorically making the seventeenth amendment unconstitutional before it was ever ratified.
9 posted on Friday, April 25, 2014 7:23:51 AM by wita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies | Report Abuse]