Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (766424)	1/28/2014 2:46:39 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575955

First, you have to keep in mind that the "Liberty Amendments" are one man's view -- and he has himself stated that they are HIS ideas, but not to be considered as THE ideas. The concept is that the COS will determine what amendments are put forth for consideration. >> The reason why the 17th amendment was passed was because it was too easy to buy Senate seats. No, not really. The real [compelling] reason was that states occasionally ended up without representation when Senate seats became vacant for extended periods of times, while legislatures couldn't or didn't figure out how to fill them. At one point, 1/3 of Oregon's legislature refused to take their oath of office to prevent the opposition from being able to elect their senator. The progressive motivation, of course, had a different intent, but the only real argument in favor of it was the one above. But it is fair to say that repeal of the 17th Amendment will be difficult because it is really hard to explain to people why it was a mistake in the first place. It will be perceived as moving away from democracy and people [individuals] will want to know why THEIR power is being circumvented. The answer is that the Senate was always designed to represent the states, not the individuals who make up states. Your argument, that Senators were easier to "buy" before the 17th is silly; look at the makeup of the Senate today. Hell, all of those on the Left have been bought and many on the Right as well. >> Number 3 is a non-starter What you list as number 3 actually has a number of components, the most controversial of which would surely be the point you made. Levin also suggested ending lifetime appointments replacing them with 12-year terms and allowing a 3/5 vote of states to overturn Supreme Court decisions. I'm personally undecided as to whether this would be a good thing, although I can't see any reason for lifetime appointments of justices at this point. >> What if we had such a limit when WWII started? Levin's proposal dealt with this type of situation. >> Limiting taxation to 15% is a stupid idea. Okay, then you don't have to support it. I think it is a great idea. There is no need for a government bigger than that. The main point is this is one guy's perspective. Some, all, or none of these may be adopted and considered for ratification. But the states at least ought to come together and see what suggestions come out of it. Maybe nothing happens and the country just goes on down the ridiculous path we're on. The main thing is that states ought to take advantage of this provision the FF were thoughtful enough to include.