TexasCHLforum.com

The example just as easily could have been the Defense of Marriage Act. If repealed, the feds could then force states to recognize a gay marriage from another state even if the majority of states have laws or constitutional amendments defining marriage as one man and one woman. I'm not convinced those type of actions would have passed muster with the framers.

I like the idea of term limits, but think they would be more plausible if they applied to the legislation instead of the legislators. We have to hold the possibility of reelection over their heads or they would be even worse than they are now. Besides, they would never agree to limit their tenure but may agree to limit their effects.

If all legislation had a 'review by' date, we could always have the opportunity to fix those unforeseen problems that almost always arise. Bad legislation, let it die. Good legislation, vote to keep it around until the next term limit. Keep them busy reviewing and updating existing legislation and they have less time to infringe new ones upon us.

Jim, thanks for the input.

seamusTX wrote:You could have a situation where a Democratic legislature was trying to give orders to a Republican Senator, or the opposite.

The votes would be based on existing laws. I could see an issue if a legislature of one party created a law for the sole purpose of trying to force a Senator to vote a certain way.

There are plenty of issues that states wouldn't have existing laws to affect the vote. And unlike what was proposed in the Articles of Confederation, I wouldn't expect federal laws to originate in the states. I guess my purpose would be to have federal laws more narrowly focused to not override the majority of the states. In the CHL example any restrictions would have to be congruent with what exists in the majority of the states.

seamusTX wrote:The framers thought that the voters would be wise enough to elect honest, qualified candidates. ...

I guess they were wrong about that. Instead there are times when we get a whole barrel of bad apples.

Actually, I think the framers were smart to originally have the Senators appointed by state legislatures (Article I, Section 3) to counter balance the sentiment of the [uninformed/ignorant] voters. The 17th Amendment changed that and now here we are.

And what does this sentence in the 17A really mean?

The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

What are the requisite qualifications for electors? Is that something a state can define?

seamusTX wrote:The U.S. Constitution defines the requirements for Congressmen (age, citizenship, and residency) and the structure of Congress. The Supreme Court has ruled every time that the question has come up that the states cannot add requirements beyond what is in the U.S. Constitution.

Don't the requirements only address who can be a congressman and not what they are required to do?

seamusTX wrote:Furthermore, once a Senator or Representative is elected, he serves out his term unless he resigns or dies. He can stay home and drink beer all day, every day. He can even be convicted of a felony and go to prison. There is no way that the residents of his state can remove him from office or compel him to vote a certain way.

If the state has the authority to appoint a Senator, it should stand to reason they have the power to recall one.

seamusTX wrote:Many Congressmen use this liberty to pursue their personal agenda in Congress and more or less ignore what their constituents or their state legislature want.

This is what happens when people at all levels forget or ignore what the framers planned and do what seems expedient at the time.

That's the problem. Senators have authority with no responsibility or accountability until the next election cycle.

I understand the separation of powers but oftentimes it's the usurpation of powers. I agree states can’t override the federal laws but why should the fed be able to override the overwhelming majority of the states? The concealed carry was just an unlikely example. But it makes no sense that 35 states can have laws saying something is legal and the feds can change that. Regardless of political fallout, the feds could do this and the states have little recourse. I still think Senators, as the state's representatives, should somehow be required to vote in a way that is not counter to the state's laws or constitution.

The power of the Fed gov't has gotten out of hand and somehow needs to be reigned back in. Election finance laws heavily favor incumbents so it's very difficult to vote them out. Allowing the states to exert more control would reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests, hopefully reducing the corruption that too often accompanies unchecked power.

I think it's time to start the Tenth Amendment Party.

How is it that if Senators are supposed to represent a state, they can vote on federal legislation that is contrary to a state’s laws or constitution?

An easy example comes to mind. I’ve read Obama supports a federal ban on concealed carry. If a state has a law permitting it, shouldn’t a Senator be bound to vote in a way that supports the state’s law? I don’t understand how a Senator could support a ban if his/her state allows it.

If the majority of the states allow some form of concealed carry, a ban would never get through the Senate. Some types of restrictions might depending on what the majority of the states require, but an outright ban wouldn’t fly.

I realize there are a whole host of issues this would affect, sometimes to our benefit and sometimes not. But it may be a way to curb some of the overreach by the federal gov’t. To me if a state made this a requirement, it would be a way for it to reassert some authority as intended by the Tenth Amendment.

If someone can think of a good example why this wouldn't work, please post it as none immediately come to mind.