Hey...Sway...that proves my point...you are FOR things that 75% would reject!
Beez....I'd settle for 2 out of 5!
Actually I am just throwing those out there to make the point that not all issues are defined by being conservative or liberal and that we might find a bunch of things to pretty much agree on that would allow our government to work better and which might acknowledge some of the changes since 1787 in society and technology (i.e. when war can begin and be over in a matter of hours...the advice and consent of congress is rather impractical yet today we have pretty much ceded the ability to make war for extended periods to the president.) Shouldn't the constitution speak to that issue?
It takes 2/3 of the state legislatures to CALL for a convention and 3/4's of them to pass the amendments so I am little concerned about anything less than the will of the VAST majority of the people being passed. There are things we might all agree on though even between libs and conservatives
1. Term limits?
2. Line item veto for the President
3. An abortion amendment that would balance between the far ends of the pro and con arguments and remove that issue from future elections.
4. A requirement that any troops fighting abroad must receive a majority up or down vote by congress within 45 days.
5. The requirement that federal court appointees are automatically confirmed if not brought to a vote withing 60 days of being proposed.
Just to name a few things we might be able to find 75% of the state legislatures and the vast majority of people supporting if carefully written.
I'll use number three as an example of the fecklessness of the constitutional amendment in most cases......were there a position that would balance between the far ends of the abortion issue we'd have already achieved it and thus, no amendment would be necessary. Attempting to resolve that matter, such that it goes away, will not be done by process-which is all an amendment really is-but by consensus. And that consensus, when it occurs, will be reflected in the polls. When the American opinion on the matter has coalesced around one position significantly it will be reflected in the electoral polls. And then we'll move towards it being more of a settled issue. The obstacle to such clear cut resolutions is that most issues are not 75/25 issues. They're more like 5:4 or 4:3 decisions. a decision but not a clear-cut mandate for a position.
The temptation to place ourselves in a more pure democracy, via the referendum and amendment processes, may seem desirable on the face of it but it ignores the fact that we're a representative democracy for a reason. We acknowledge that the popular consensus can, on occasion, be a very scary thing. Thus our strength is in our inefficiency at delivering the people's will! Our system has a, "wait'a minute" built right into it.
The ironic thing about all these issues listed is that most of them are a result of the "imperial presidency" which we've had since at least Nixon. Power not plausibly exercised is no power at all. The Congress prefers to cede power to gain political standing while also ceding it's constitutional prerogatives. Thus being able to carp about a war becomes actually more important than actually stopping that war.
__________________
“Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it.” Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
So...you'd rather have an unlimited right to abortion for all time based on a 5:4 court decision than a policy that sets some realistic limits that most would agree with that you can ONLY get via amendment?
I have to agree with Sway. As the homosexual marriage issues shows quite plainly, the will of the majority is meaningless in matters sacrosant to liberal orthodoxy. The only way these kind of issues will ever disappear is when the liberal dogma is triumphant.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
So...you'd rather have an unlimited right to abortion for all time based on a 5:4 court decision than a policy that sets some realistic limits that most would agree with that you can ONLY get via amendment?
The Court has not granted an unlimited right to an abortion. (just to clear up where we're at now.)
I believe that as standards continue to evolve, some might say devolve or regress, the court will revisit Roe v Wade and reverse itself, placing the issue back before the states where it belongs. It is my humble opinion, no matter how much I oppose Roe, that this is where the issue belongs. I continue to feel that a constitutional amendment in this area has much more potential for disaster than it warrants risking.
I strongly believe that the federal government has absolutely no role to play in this debate. The Constitution makes no provision for the government to have a role in it and, thus, for the federal government to adopt one thwarts the original intent of the Constitution. The federal government is not empowered to set speed limits on our highways. I see no reason they should be empowered to set medical and moral standards either. These are local and state issues, just like speed limits. I'd refer you to the federal government's attempt to eliminate alcohol consumption for an example of the constitutional amendment process in action.
__________________
“Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it.” Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
Madison opposed the Bill of Rights. He opposed it because he felt the matter was already covered by the Constitution itself. There was no need to enumerate rights because the Constitution delineates what the government can do. If the Constitution doesn't say that the government can do something then the Constitution specifically states that, whatever that something is, the government is prohibited from doing it.
What article of the Constitution are drivers licenses in? My point is that just because the constitution does not cover it, doesn't have anything to do with reality. If we trace these drivers licenses back to regulation for the "common good", then how many other things can we cram into this point of view (or allready have been) and who's to say what's correct or not correct?
Hate to tell you this Rick, but drivers licenses are covered by Article 4, as they are a state function, not a national or federal one.
One has to wonder, after your previous posts concerning matters constitutional, if you are actually familiar with the document.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
Sway...I should have left abortion off the possible amendments list. No sense revisiting this discussion again on this thread as it has its own. FWIW...I agree that it presently should be a STATE issue since the constitution is silent...but disagree that makes any sense for so fundamental an issue to be subject to where you reside and whether you can afford a bus ticket to another state. I believe we need an amendment on this and I know we disagree.
Sway...I should have left abortion off the possible amendments list. No sense revisiting this discussion again on this thread as it has its own. FWIW...I agree that it presently should be a STATE issue since the constitution is silent...but disagree that makes any sense for so fundamental an issue to be subject to where you reside and whether you can afford a bus ticket to another state. I believe we need an amendment on this and I know we disagree.
Putting aside the abortion debate as irrelevant to our purposes here, I would offer that there are very few laws that differ so significantly between the several states as to make life radically different from one state to another for most people. By way of support for the this proposition I offer Tropic's last post where he mistakenly conveys the impression that the Fed's have a right to involve themselves with the issuing of driver's licenses. Most states require similar standards for the obtaining of driver's licenses but, that is a long way from saying that they are one and the same, or even meet a national standard.
I trust the states to do what is appropriate in their individual cases on matters such as abortion and driver's licenses. There is also a practical benefit to this as we end up with 50 different ideas on what may be appropriate versus potentially one, one-size-fits-all law that is wrong for most. Ironically, some of the other constitutional amendment issues that Cam mentioned were developed as ideas first within the individual states. We have ample confidence to trust the wisdom of the individual states over the collective wisdom of the federal government. It's also easier to correct mistakes at the state level than at the federal level but then, I guess that brings us back to the abortion debate, doesn't it?
__________________
“Scientists are people who build the Brooklyn Bridge and then buy it.” Wm. F. Buckley, Jr.
Last edited by sailaway21 : 12-31-2008 at 10:20 PM.
The main problem is the use of the Judiciary Branch as legislative.
__________________
John
Ontario 32 - Aria
Free, is the heart, that lives not, in fear.
Full, is the spirit, that thinks not, of falling.
True, is the soul, that hesitates not, to give.
Alive, is the one, that believes, in love. JCP
