SecretMethod70

Oh, I agree that not much debating gets done in the House. I'm just saying there should be debating, and we should be making it more likely, not less likely, that it takes place.

Reducing the size of state legislative districts sounds like a more reasonable proposal, though I'd have to say I'm not nearly as familiar with the specifics of those when it comes to size, etc.

I go back and forth on the 17th amendment, but I definitely think it's something worthy of debate.

One interesting argument a friend of mine had in a recent debate I had with him over the 17th is that the best way to ensure states fight for and maintain their rights (because, we must recognize that states have less rights now because, for the most part, they've willingly allowed them to be taken or given away) is the make sure that states do not feel they have a significant voice in the federal government. Repealing the 17th could (and, likely, would) increase the illusion that states have significant influence in federal government, and should therefore not be too worried when federal government has power that the states do not.

(I should note, since I'm bringing this up, that I do think federal government needs to be larger than it was originally set up in the constitution, because our nation and world is increasingly interconnected, and our problems increasingly require the careful collaboration of those interconnected parts and the implementation of large scale solutions, but that is not to say that I don't also think there are plenty of things the federal government does that it does not need to do.)

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling