Quote:
Originally posted by Eupolis
==
So the gist of the article is, should we go back to doing #5 instead of #4? And I say, no, because I don't want states to be overly able to assert local interests over the best interests of the country. I'm all for states managing local matters locally, if it doesn't burden other parts of the country. But the more interconnected we become, the more consistent we need a lot of the laws to be. Also, there are a lot of large-scale nationwide problems that really are best handled on a nationwide level. I'm more comfortable dealing with the evolution of constitutional doctrine through the law than I am with the huge shift in balances a repeal of the 17th Amendment would entail.
|
Understood, and agreeed, especially on the interdependence thing, but I come from the traditionalist viewpoint that we live in a representative democracy, not a direct one. (For the non-polisci kids here, that means we pick peopl to make the tough decisons for us. Thats why we dont all just go on-line and vote on wither we want to approve the new trade treaty with France). I dont believe Mr. Smith was ever really intended to go to washington. If so, the framers wouldnt have put so many restrictions on franchise, and qualifications for office. Also, when the consitiutuion was written, the only involvment in the process the eligable voter had was direct election of his Representative in the house. As you know, we still dont have direct election of the president. So you look at the totality to get the implied intent. OF all three branches, our only direct involvment is 1/2 of 1/3. They knew the masses were nuts. We get all wound up aboiut stuff and wanna change stuff, immediately. Example, post Sept 11 attempts to restrict the rights of some citizens. They knew the less the comon man was involved, the better for us all. Most of us are the most comfortable with judicial review as a method of modification. But remember, its an elastic document, created for modification. Just because its only been amended what, once in our lifetimes, doesnt mean its not a vaild method for modification. Subtract the Bill of rights (first 10 ammendments for you canadians out there, they all came in together) and its been modified by ammendment on average, once every 12 years. Something to think about.
That having been said.. I do favor the extention of franchise to women and minorities, citizens 18 and up, and the vote to those who dont own real property... I dont want people to think my interpertation of the framers intent validates then existing social attitudes of racism and sexism.