One of the topics that stuck with me as I read through this was the horror of the 50 states exercising a degree of foreign policy separate from Washington. While many voiced how this didnt sit well with them due to citizenship reverting to an earlier model, and I understand that the Times is not, in fact, endorsing this, lets consider a few things: 1) That due to concerns about the 14th Amendment (which many of the concerns discussed above branched off to), this is undesirable. Yet the idea that the states as states are effectively disenfranchised by the 17th Amendment is exactly what gives this whole line of thought life. 2) That the Times has noted how the ideas behind Obamacare were initially pursued by several states. While it did so to score points against Mitt Romney and Massachusetts Romneycare, it was never really addressed as to why what was a state-level initiative needed to be usurped by Congress ... or that well over 20 states voiced some level of displeasure through lawsuits or other actions. Again, the states as states operating as disenfranchised parties against legislation that came out of the Senate, their original forum, as if to add insult to injury. Over 20 states ... reasonably, at least 40 senators potentially voting against Obamacare ever leaving their chamber. Millions in litigation fees in the midst of a economic downturn never being spent in what ultimately was a legal and political crap-shoot that ultimately cost the President and his party the House. 3) That on gun control it was noted by the Times how the states were once trusted to almost exclusively legislate on the matter. 4) That the House is currently entertaining turning sizable portions of the environmental issues the nation faces over to the states. 5) Add to this the no-confidence votes noted as appearing in the op-ed page about voters and specifically their perceived inability to cast informed votes for senators this November. Consider all of this. This isnt me saying it. It is the New York Times saying it. Yet they simply choose to not consider what their own conclusions keep alluding to when it comes to the 17th Amendment. nytimes/roomfordebate/2014/06/24/is-state-citizenship-the-answer-to-immigration-reform
Posted on: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 08:59:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015