Imagine - A new Constitution

Okay, I'm back and I've thought this over.....

First

Agreement or disagreement with a question is not a complicated matter. The explanation for the response may be, but not the response.

We were talking about the 16th, but if you want to drag in the 17th, okay.

...and second.....

My understanding of your position is that the Federal Government has too much power and this is leading to a national debt, or possibly an exorbitant debt.

This is because the 16th gave the Federal Government a politically expedient means of enforcing a power it already had, as stated in the Constitution, to levy an income tax.
Further, the 17th allowed for the direct election of Federal State Senators by the people, and not by the individual State Legislatures. I guess your contention is that the people of the state can not decide by themselves who should go to Washington, it should be left up to the State Legislatures to pick their own representatives, not the people. I don't know.

So let's see.... and I realize you probably will not agree or disagree with my understanding of what you are saying.....

1. The 16th allowed the Federal Government to accumulate a massive debt.

All we need to do is realize that the 16th Amendment was not in existence before 1913 and we were in debt. In fact the country was in debt when it was formed and has been in debt every year of its existence, but one.
This leads me to believe that the National Debt is not as bad as some would have us believe, as we have been in debt for over 200 years, and we are still here.
Further, the 1916 ratification of the 16th Amendment by a majority of the States had nothing to do, or very little at the most, with the size and continuation of the National Debt.

2. Somehow, when the citizens of any state go to Washington as the duly elected representatives of the people and are elected in a popular election by the people, they loose any connection with the people and become corrupt money grabbing slaves to special interest groups.

This does not happen to State Legislators, only Federal.

Therefore the state governments are always better then Federal Governments.

If it does happen, in the next election cycle the citizens will be smart enough to throw out their elected State representatives, but not smart enough to throw out their elected national representatives.

This requires a little deeper analysis.
What is being proposed is States' Rights. It has nothing do do with debt reduction. Debt reduction is the tool and illogical excuse for getting State's Rights.
Now States' Rights is another name for a Confederate Government as opposed to a Federal Government. A Confederate Government as in The Confederate States of America, an idea that was tried and led to the Civil War.

Look up what a Confederate Government is.

In a Confederate Government the National Government is stripped of almost all its' power except for Defense, Foreign Affairs, Currency; stuff like that.

This allows the States greater power to do whatever they want.
Don't like Headstart, out it goes. Same with immigration laws, pollution control, reading of the Bible in schools, the forty hour work week, OSHA, Child Labor laws, the FDA, anti-discrimination laws, etc.

Anything that requires a national morality, regulation, or enforcement is gone. Divide the nation and conquer it so that little petty backward groups can write micromanaging laws to enforce their ideas of what an ideal society should be.

IMHO

 

ThisIsWhyYoureWrong,

Again the Constitution, which set up a Federal government, has been in existence for over 200 years, and overall has served us pretty well. If you feel it needs revised there are mechanisms in place to do so. No need to throw it out and return to a Confederate government. How many Confederate governments throughout the modern world can you name? It is an outdated system.
The article was interesting, now tell me in your own words how it affects the need to write a new Constitution.

I have contented that having a the national debt may not be as bad as some would have us believe as we have had a National Debt for every year of our existence except one. I never said that a National Debt was not bad, I said it was not as bad, that is a statement of degrees.
I never said I would not like to see a reduction or even elimination of the Nation Debt. My point was that we have existed as a Federal Government while having a National Debt. A National Debt is no reason to disband a Federal Government and go to Confederate type Government.
What does rape have to do with the current discussion? Talk about non sequiturs, you will have to explain why my statement is a non sequitur and yours is not. Rape is bad therefore debts are bad?

If you want to attack my premise that the National Debt is being used as an excuse to go to a Confederate form of government, fair enough.

 

Indie,

I enjoy our discussions and accept that we can disagree and still converse in a reasonable manner.

The exchange of ideas is always a good thing if done in the correct spirit.