David Melson

Repeal Amendment goes too far

Posted Monday, January 3, 2011, at 9:33 AM
View 8 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • Europe lacks the system of transfer payments (yes, even welfare payments) and federal taxation which has provided balance and stability (no riots yet) in the United States between bombed out areas like Flint, Michigan, and boom areas like parts of the so-called Sunbelt. This is why the Euro currency is on such a shaky ground because of a lack of a federal European government. But if the proposal you discuss is ever adopted, say hello to the fractious and fragmented Europeanized United States. The result will be the sure decline of our already declined nation.

    -- Posted by zzoop on Mon, Jan 3, 2011, at 10:44 AM
  • I don't see the downside in striping power from the Federal government and returning it to the states. If the federal government passes a law that two thirds of the states oppose, then the government does not have the consent of the governed and that is what our government is supposed to be. There needs to be more restraint on the Federal government to prevent them from dictating to the people.

    The U.S. senate was once composed of senators appointed by the state governments to represent the interest of their respective states. This was changed to allow for U.S. senators to be elected by popular vote and opened the door for winning elections based on whichever candidate was able to raise the most money for their campaigns to win these seats. It would seem to me that the states interest took second place to the financiers of those campaigns and that the checks and balances put in place to assure limited centralized governmental power was undermined at that point.

    Stripping power from the U.S. congress to pass laws that the states oppose would be step in the right direction placing more power back with the people where it belongs. I am much more willing and able to travel to Nashville to take part in the legislative process than I am to travel to Washington for the same purpose. Perhaps we would see a return to the phrase "The United States are.." Instead of "the United States is.."

    Representation of the people by the people, not Washington bureaucratic mandates.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Mon, Jan 3, 2011, at 10:45 AM
  • The Euro-Dollar has gained in strength steadily against the U.S. dollar ever since it was introduced. So much so, that there has been talk of developing an Amero-Dollar to combine South America, Mexico, U.S. and Canada under one currency to compete. There is also talk of a one world currency. I don't think that is a very good argument for balance and stability, greed is universal no matter what currency we use. How much freedom and soveriegnty has to be sacrificed to a central government in the name of balance and stability? What happens when that central government becomes the U.N.?

    The Europeanized U.S. is more in line with Centralized banking and socialist programs placing more and more power and resources into the hands of fewer and fewer people. That is not the direction I would like to see us go.

    -- Posted by Liveforlight on Mon, Jan 3, 2011, at 11:04 AM
  • I don't see it so much stripping power from Congress as it is states asserting the powers that they should have had all along. If U.S. Congressmen actually had the best interest of their constituents, rather than the balance of their re-election campaign accounts, in mind when they come up with these monstrous bills we wouldn't have to be overly concerned about what hare-brained idea they're cooking up next.

    -- Posted by Thom on Mon, Jan 3, 2011, at 11:12 AM
  • Unfortunately since Randy Barnett of Georgetown University isn't a legislator, the odds of him getting Congress to approve a bill (and the Knucklehead in charge to sign it) are less than winning the lotto.

    -- Posted by Thom on Mon, Jan 3, 2011, at 11:25 AM
  • I agree with Thom on this one. All the amendment would do is give a mechanism for states for exercise already guaranteed rights. State legislators are busy but much of that stems from trying to abide by unfunded mandates and regulations passed down from Washington. It would also make federal legislators less tone deaf when it comes to the fiscal health of the states they represent (see California).

    Hopefully some fresh faced senator or congressman will latch on to this idea. Stranger things have happened

    -- Posted by Tim Baker on Mon, Jan 3, 2011, at 11:46 AM
  • You really need to read the constitution, especially the 10th amendment.

    This country was founded with the intention of a small, weak, limited federal government, with most day to day operations handled by the states or individual communities.

    Stripping away about 75% of the federal government would be an excellent start.

    -- Posted by quietmike on Mon, Jan 3, 2011, at 3:51 PM
  • all this sounds like a lot of hate in lots of ways we all vote and then we follow the law sounds so simple to me. so what is the problem I vote every time we have an election. If things do not go the way I think it should have I have always respected the out-come and followed the law. What is the problem with us now days????? I support the Constitution and our soldiers who have protected it. All sour loose-rs should man up and grow up. We have a wonderful country, the best, and we should all be proud of it. I truly think we all have been blessed by God.

    -- Posted by gary ashley on Tue, Jan 11, 2011, at 5:04 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: