Someone on FourthTurning came up with a very sensible idea. It was that the only time the federal government should interfere with state law is if the state is violating the Bill of Rights. (This does not restrict the power of the feds to regulate air traffic, public health, etc...we're talking about laws affecting individual liberties.) And that every Constitutional amendment from #1 on down should carry the proviso, now used for the newest ones, that "the Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment."
Of course, that give rise to the question "What if we pass an amendment as contrary to our rights as Prohibition?" But considering how slow and difficult the process is (for good reason!) I'm not worried about that.
Speaking of which: in the 1970s I campaigned for the Equal Rights Amendment, which was defeated as too radical (being seriously pre-seasonal?). If it were put forth again today, it would be considered seriously redundant, our culture having moved far past both the amendment and the objections to it over 30 years. "We'll have women in combat!" conservatives protested. Well, whether or not that's a good idea (who'll keep things going at home in case of all-out crisis?), it's here. And women from the conservative parts of the country are enlisting at fairly decent rates.
Pat Living in a fantasy world - you say that like it's a bad thing. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
