oooooooooooooh now I get it:
The proposed amendment is meant as a way for the states to then veto what the president signs.
But it seems a bit redundant, given the nature of the electoral college, which requires a majority to elect the president.
In effect, the President is himself (or herself, snicker) the result of this amendment. He (she, heh heh heh) has the veto power to overrule Congress. Can there really be a scenario where 2/3 of the states are opposed to an elected president?
So you can’t come up with a better reason than “it’s what the framers would have wanted” either?
Wouldn’t the real question be, “who is deciding at the state level?”
Under the current system, state legislatures are elected at the same time as federal (right?). So presumably the federal elections are going to be similar to the state elections. Thus, if a particularly heinous bill is passed, it’s unlikely the states would differ enough to vote against it.
As an example, 26 states voted for Obama, 22 against. Is there a scenario were a president could win an election with only 16 states?
Well, yes, but it’s unlikely. You’d need CA, FL, IL, MA, NY, TX and PA, plus all of the Midwest and Atlantic South.
Not at all. I’m just pointing out the error in thinking that current system is not what they had in mind–that they did anticipate the overgrowth of the federal government, and they put in safeguards that were foolishly later removed.
There are lots of problems with an overreaching federal government. Unfunded mandates. Earmarking and pork barreling. One-size-fits all legislation that does not account for local situations. Etc, etc. This wouldn’t solve them, but it would improve them IMO. The fact that it’s closer to the framers’ intention is a plus.
Any down sides that you can think of? Or is it as simple as fed=bad, state=good?
You realize these problems are just as bad at the state level, yes?
Oh, nonsense! Take the Texas State Legislature! Please! (fud-a-bump TING!)
For the most part yes, but a few states hold state elections in odd-numbered years. New Jersey does and I think Louisiana does as well.
Louisiana, New Jersey, Virginia, and Mississippi (and the Northern Mariana Islands, which isn’t a state).
Sure. A lot of the changes that happened were the results of technology the framers couldn’t have anticipated; broadcasting, the Internet, etc. It’s no longer feasible to not have a standing army. Plenty of things.
But IMO, the pendulum has swung way too far towards centralized state power.
No.
Feel free to provide cites that states are putting unfunded mandates on localities just as often as Washington puts them on the states, that local earmarking is just as costly as the DC variety.
It’s not a matter of federal government being inherently bad; it’s that as a basic principle, all politicians are going to be less accountable the more removed they are from their constituents. Every time you go up the ladder, the politician is more and more removed from the needs of the actual citizenry. If we had a supranational government, I’d expect it to be even less responsive than our national government … and the EU experience seems to bear me out.
As an operating principle, I’d prefer all things be do be handled at the lowest possible level. States over federal whenever possible, localities over states, and individuals over government at all.
But I’m not here to argue political theory; I was just pointing out that the current balance of power was not, in fact, what the framers intended.
Are you talking to them now? If so, could you ask Thomas Jefferson about his macaroni and cheese recipe? Did he use bread crumbs on top? Where did he get his noodles? Did he ever make his own? I wish I could talk to dead people.
I suspect Arizona would be glad to stay out of illegal immigration, provided illegal immigrants stayed out of Arizona first.
Actual American political experience, though, shows that this view of government as most overbearing (federal) to least overbearing (local), on down to the individual, is problematic, in that states (and localities) have been in many cases more willing to run roughshod over individuals, with the federal government stepping in to protect individuals and unpopular minorities from overbearing local governments. A state or local community is more apt to be socially and culturally homogenous and therefore more willing to bring the power of the state (that is, the power of government in general) to bear against ethnic, religious, political, or other minorities.
I & Somalia against the world
I & my clan against Somalia
I & my family against the clan
I & my brother against the family
I against my brother
You could try reading what the framers wrote about their intentions. Or you could just engage in ignorant jeering.
That’s what James Madison wrote. Many left conflicting accounts or no accounts at all. Trying to determine the intent of people who have been dead three hundred years is an exercise in idiocy.
And insofar as such local roughshodding violates the constitution, it is indeed the place of the federal government to rein it in.
But no, I’m not quite persuaded that local governments are more willing to ride roughshod over individuals. Alabama was harsher to blacks than the federal government was … but the federal government was harsher than New Hampshire. It’s easy to pretend that America’s various ugly practices were perpetrated by ignorant localized rubes, but that isn’t the case at all. I suspect interned Japanese or massacred Native Americans are likely to be a bit skeptical of the comparative beneficence of the federal government.
Sorry, I don’t follow.