Tonight ends our discussion on the Liberty Amendments. And I want to end it by me giving my position on the amendments and giving you a chance to discuss it. The prospect of the states calling for an Article V convention is an intriguing one. There has never been such a convention nor do I believe one has ever been attempted. Therefore, there are no rules or precedents that detail exactly how one would come together. With the state of the country as it presently is, it may well be time to try one of these conventions. I certainly sympathize with the thoughts of a run-away convention (after all, that’s how we got this Constitution!) but I really think it would be nigh near impossible to get ¾ of the states to go along with extreme amendments. (on both sides of the ideological spectrum) But here are my thoughts on Levin’s proposed amendments: #1 – Term Limits. There are good arguments on both sides of this debate. But, I continue to feel that an active and engaged citizenry is the best term limit. When term limits are in place, it really places the strength and power of government in the hands of an unelected bureaucracy. To me, that is not preferable to the system we currently have and Levin gave no reasons that his amendment would not allow for the problem above. Therefore, I would not be in favor of amendment #1. #2 – Repeal 17th Amendment. I thought there were some great arguments made against repeal. Namely the fact that Ted Cruz (and others like him) would probably have never been elected under the old system. That is a great argument. However, I think the system of federalism the founding fathers set up was predicated on the states having a voice in the federal government. The states’ ability to choose their senators helped give them a voice. Since the 17th Amendment was enacted, I think the states have lost that voice dramatically. If we are to get back on course and balance, I think a repeal of the 17th Amendment would be a good place to start. #3 – Restoring the judiciary. This is a difficult one for me. I see Levin’s argument and definitely think there is merit to it. On the other hand, I see the concerns that such an amendment might bring on. At the end of the day, I would lean more towards supporting an amendment such as this one, with the caveat that the idea needs more vetting and fuller development. #4 – Limiting Taxing and Spending. – I think the federal government ought to balance its budget the same way many states have to do. I don’t think there should ever be a time when one body of Congress goes over 1000 days without submitting a budget. So, although I may not be on board with all of Levin’s numbers in this amendment, I do think a measure to ensure fiscal responsibility is needed. #5 – Limiting bureaucracy. I like this amendment but with one change. I would have a committee on each side of the Capitol review agencies every three years to determine their usefulness going forward. I think a rotation of every three years is reasonable and needed. This is a good idea overall. #6 – Defining the Commerce Clause – The Supreme Court has taken us so far afield of what the Commerce Clause actually meant, that it might be good to go back and define terms a bit more. An amendment such as this one would clearly define the parameters of the Commerce Clause and I believe that is sorely needed today. #7 – Limiting federal power over private property. I think most all of us can agree that the Kelo decision was wrong and that the government should never be able to take private property for private economic development. #8 – Allowing State Legislatures to Amend the Constitution. This one seems redundant to me. We already have that mechanism in place – which we are discussing right now! #9 – State Authority to Override Congress. I see where Levin is going with this amendment, and I think it is intriguing. However, this one to me, like the one above seems to already have a basis in our present Constitution. While the states cannot jointly override Congress at this point, they can send representatives to Washington who wish to do so and campaign on overturning certain federal laws. #10 – Voter ID. This was a great discussion and I really appreciated people’s insights. This has been another difficult one for me, but I think I like the approach that the states are responsible for elections (as stated in the Constitution) and it should be up to them to decide the parameters for voting in the state. Again, I know there are good arguments on the other side, but the above expresses my position as of this writing. Thanks again to everyone who has participated in the discussion. We shall see where this all leads. And feel free to touch on anything I have written above. Have a great start to the next week and God bless!
Posted on: Sun, 06 Oct 2013 01:54:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015