Smart investors hedge their investments. Having too much money in one fund can come back and haunt you. This is why we need to diversify our federal delegation:
Salt Lake Tribune
Utah's voice a whimper in noisy Congress' halls
Only 3 states' delegations have less national muscle than ours, rankings say
WASHINGTON - It's a rough life when your congressional delegation can get bullied by Delaware's, or have sand kicked in its face by Vermont's. And what do you do when Wyoming takes your congressman's lunch money? It's not easy for weaklings of Washington, but it's the life of the Utah delegation, according to a new ranking of clout in the 110th Congress by Roll Call, a newspaper that covers Congress. The state finished 47th overall in the ratings, a showing that results from the delegation's small size and its Republican-dominated makeup in the new Democratic Congress. "It definitely hurts to get kicked around by South Dakota and Maine.... Read more....
4 comments:
America needs Utah; we should have elected Lavar to shake things up.
Utah needs America; we should have elected Christain Burridge, Steve Olsen, and of course Pete Ashdown.
one way to solve this problem would be to repeal the seventeenth amendment
Repeal Seventeenth Amendment
By John MacMullin
With respect to states' rights, it should be readily apparent to all that state governments cannot exert any meaningful influence or control over the federal government, judiciary, or any other federal institution.
Let us state the problem precisely. At the present time, there are no checks and balances available to the states over federal power or over Congress itself in any area. However, in the history of our country, it was not always this way. In the original design by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution, there was an effective check on Congress through the state legislatures' power to appoint (and remove) U.S. Senators. As such, the core of the problem with state's rights issues lies in the passage of the 17th Amendment which abrogated the state legislatures' right to appoint U.S. Senators in favor of popular election of those officials. This amendment created a fundamental structural problem which, irrespective of the political party in office, or the laws in effect at any one time, will result in excessive federal control in every area. It also results in a failure in the federalist structure, federal deficit spending, inappropriate federal mandates, and the evaporation of state influence over national policy.
The reason for the passage of the 17th Amendment should be stated. The 17th Amendment was passed because of a procedural problem in the original concept and not because of a need to alter the balance of power. The procedural problem consisted of frequent deadlocks when the state legislatures were trying to select a senator. When deadlocked, a state would go without representation in the Senate. For instance, in the very first Congress, the State of New York went without representation in the Senate for three months. Additionally, numerous other problems resulted from the efforts to resolve individual deadlocks. The problem of deadlocked legislatures continued unabated from 1787 until 1913. The seventeenth amendment, calling for popular election of senators, fixed the procedural problems, but also inappropriately and unintentionally altered the balance of power. Instead, the 17th Amendment should have fixed the procedural problems and left the balance of power between the states and the federal government intact.
For more information, I respectfully refer you to a law review article that I wrote, Amplifying the Tenth Amendment, 31 ARIZ. L. REV. 915 (1989). This article was cited as "worth reading" by the National Law Journal, in its March 5, 1990, publication. Additionally, I direct you to two books written by George Haynes titled "The Senate of the United States" published in 1938, and "The Election of Senators" published in 1906. I believe that you will find that these references are well worth reading.
In my opinion, the 17th Amendment should be repealed. This would reinstate the states' linkage to the federal political process and would, thereby, have the effect of elevating the present status of the state legislatures from that of lobbyists, to that of a partner in the federal political process. The state legislatures would then have the ability to decentralize power when appropriate. It would give state legislatures direct influence over the selection of federal judges and the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary and much greater ability to modify federal court orders. This structure would allow the flow of power between the states and the federal government to ebb and flow as the needs of our federal republic change. The existing relationship, combined with the effect of the Supremacy Clause, is guaranteed to concentrate power into the hands of the federal government with little or no hope of return.
With that, the state governments should be focusing an effort to repeal the 17th Amendment, not on passing legislation or engaging in irrelevant activities, that are more than likely useless over the long term and probably also over the short.
I hereby request that our legislature devote the rest of the remaining session to working on a repeal of the 17th Amendment. We wouldn't end up much different, Senate-wise, and it would mitigate the damage they'll do otherwise. Besides, it's a great idea--states won't be limited to micromanaging cities and counties any more; now they can try to tell the feds what to do, too.
Post a Comment