On Sunday, February 22, 2009 George F. Will wrote an article for the Washington Post entitled "Will: The Continuing Fall of Federalism". It was also printed in The State a Columbia, South Carolina newspaper. This article was written to get the author opinion across about the proposed amendment to the 17Th amendment.
In light of recent events some senator want to amened or repeal the 17Th amendment. They want a special election or senate to decide who will replace senators who leave or die during their term. Right now the governor of that particular state can appoint whom ever they chose in most states.
I believe that in most cases governors are trust worthy enough, at least I hope, to appoint the best person.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Assignment # 5 D DeWitt
The Continuing fall of federalism by George F. Will of the Washington Post directs his attention to an audience who is concern with the fall of federalism and perhaps those that are anti-federalist. This article brings forth the changes of the first Amendment and the 17th Amendment. He illustrates how the framers established election of senators by state legislators, and Feingold- McCain to amend the 17th Amendment. However, George Will suggest that the amendment be repeal. In short, 17 th Amendment suggest that the executive authority shall issue writs of election to fill vacancies, and the Amended Amendment suggest no person shall be a senator from a state unless such person has been elected by the people.
Although the Framers gave three political components, separation of powers to have check and balance Mr. Feingold and with McCain support decides to tamper with the structure of the Constitution. Like as of this present time many Amendments are being tamper with to suggest the Framers mind set can only deal with their era and not our generation. However, Will in some quotes agree with change, but his concern is how much change does America need from its original design and purpose. I agree that to much progressiveness will cause the intent of the Framer to be demolition and we can not allow that to happen. I believe these laws are in place and if we can always change them to better suit us we will always apologize as will Feingold; George Will suggest.
Although the Framers gave three political components, separation of powers to have check and balance Mr. Feingold and with McCain support decides to tamper with the structure of the Constitution. Like as of this present time many Amendments are being tamper with to suggest the Framers mind set can only deal with their era and not our generation. However, Will in some quotes agree with change, but his concern is how much change does America need from its original design and purpose. I agree that to much progressiveness will cause the intent of the Framer to be demolition and we can not allow that to happen. I believe these laws are in place and if we can always change them to better suit us we will always apologize as will Feingold; George Will suggest.
Assignment #5 J. Linton
- The article was written by George F. Will for The State. The article was written to express the way that the amendment was ratified during the senate. An apology would of been better than the way they tried to hide the fact that they messed up on the finance. The senate did not want to admit that they had to come up with a plan to protect themselves from financial bust. The article was written to the audience that wanted to listen to the mess up of the senate. The authors basic argument was to explain the mess up that the senate made on ratifing the amendment.
Assignment #5 T. Whiteaker
This article was written by George F. Will of the Washington Post. This article titled,"Will: The continuing fall of federealism" was posted on thestate.com on February 22. Mr Will is writing this opinion article to all Americans voicing his disgust with a lot of US Senators. Specifically, I think hes writing towards a more liberal audience like himself with his constant bashing of conservative republicans.
However, I do agree with his statement that says the Constitution should not be touched. In order for the Constitution to be changed it should go through the natural process of being ratified like our fore-fathers intended it to be. He writes that he wants Senators to be elected all at one time because doing it state by state is a long and difficult process. He feels that the more the Constitution is changed the more federalism will continue to fall. I believe he has a very good point and that changing the Constitution should only happen after the proper steps have been taken.
However, I do agree with his statement that says the Constitution should not be touched. In order for the Constitution to be changed it should go through the natural process of being ratified like our fore-fathers intended it to be. He writes that he wants Senators to be elected all at one time because doing it state by state is a long and difficult process. He feels that the more the Constitution is changed the more federalism will continue to fall. I believe he has a very good point and that changing the Constitution should only happen after the proper steps have been taken.
Assigment #5 H. VanDyke
This article was written by a man named George F. Will. Will is a writter for the Washington Post. This article appeared on a website called The State.com which is a South Carolina based website. This article was written to inform people in general about the proposed rattification of the seventeenth amendment of the constitution proposed by Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold and suppoted by Republican presidential nominee John McCain. The seventeenth amendment states that when a senate vacancy occurs the exective authority of the affected state shall isue writs of the election to fill such vacancies: provided that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments untill the people fill the vacancies by election. Senator Feingold states that the state "needs to be as resposive to the people as possible."
Senator Feingold wants to make some small changes to the amendment senator Feigold proposes that the amenment be changed in this regard, he states that "No person shall be a Senator from a state unless such person has been elected by the people thereof, when vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the senate, the executive authority of each state shall issue writs of elections to fill such vacancies."
I dont see that much difference between Mr. Feingolds proposal and the original amendment. while i think that its a good proposal i dont think that the original needs to be changed because they are both very similiar. I think that the constitution is fine the way it is. The author of this article also shares this opinion that the constitution should be left alone. The author points out that the amendment would also call for if something happened to president obama that the people would have the authority to choose the next president. i think the president has the right to choose who will be the next president of the united states if something were to happen to him.
Senator Feingold wants to make some small changes to the amendment senator Feigold proposes that the amenment be changed in this regard, he states that "No person shall be a Senator from a state unless such person has been elected by the people thereof, when vacancies happen in the representation of any state in the senate, the executive authority of each state shall issue writs of elections to fill such vacancies."
I dont see that much difference between Mr. Feingolds proposal and the original amendment. while i think that its a good proposal i dont think that the original needs to be changed because they are both very similiar. I think that the constitution is fine the way it is. The author of this article also shares this opinion that the constitution should be left alone. The author points out that the amendment would also call for if something happened to president obama that the people would have the authority to choose the next president. i think the president has the right to choose who will be the next president of the united states if something were to happen to him.
Assignment #5 DSinatra
This article was written by George F. Will, a writer for the Washington Post, and was posted on thestate.com last Sunday, February 22. The author is voicing his concern to all of us, as American citizens, regarding the importance of both federalism and the integrity of our national constitution. Apparently, there are senators (namely, McCain and Feingold) that believe we ought to change the 17th amendment and therefore enforce the practices filling senate seats of 4 states onto the other 46.
I find this infuriating. While I am at a point where I disagree almost completely with how our own state is currently being ran, I do believe in federalism. I agree with this author that there was a specific reason the House, the Senate, and the President were all given different electors. We must retain these procedures in order to maintain our governmental system of checks and balances.
I find this infuriating. While I am at a point where I disagree almost completely with how our own state is currently being ran, I do believe in federalism. I agree with this author that there was a specific reason the House, the Senate, and the President were all given different electors. We must retain these procedures in order to maintain our governmental system of checks and balances.
Assignment #5 AHarrison
On Sunday, Feb. 22, 2009, an article by a Mr. George F. Will (of the Washington Post) was posted on TheState.com website. And, the item is entitled Will: The continuing fall of federalism The item was written with the purpose of being an outlet for the author to share his opinions about the constitution, etc. Hence, it seems as through this article is primarily an opinion-piece, with its ultimate goal being to produce public arousal. In other words, by sharing his opinion, the authur of the article hopes to cause more people to see things the way he does. And, being that he is so obviously fixed in his views---and even a bit anti-liberal---it goes without saying that the article would of course, be directed toward a more like-minded audience; which in his case, would probably be people who are more along the lines of conservatism.
With the subject of the article being Wisconsin senator, Russ Feingold, and his desire to change the 17th Amendment, it is clear that the author's aim is to argue against it. In the article, it states at many times that Russ Feingold is of the progressive ideology. Thus, he believes that the constitution is never off-limits to change. Basically, the article is an argument against changes to the Constitution (and more specifically, changes to the 17th Amendment). Again, on the one hand, there is Russ Feingold---who of course is for it, and then there is the author, Goerge F. Will---who is against it. Therefore, it stands to reason that being for change is a more liberal view, whereas being against change is a more conservative view. Also, as part of the author's argument, he believes that the sort of change which Feingold (and his backer, McCain) advocate is essentially a threat to Federalism (including the checks and balances wherein the Framers had implemented). Thus, in its most basic sense, this article is an argument about allowing more direct democracy (which means giving the people more voting power), vs. sticking with the way things are.
With the subject of the article being Wisconsin senator, Russ Feingold, and his desire to change the 17th Amendment, it is clear that the author's aim is to argue against it. In the article, it states at many times that Russ Feingold is of the progressive ideology. Thus, he believes that the constitution is never off-limits to change. Basically, the article is an argument against changes to the Constitution (and more specifically, changes to the 17th Amendment). Again, on the one hand, there is Russ Feingold---who of course is for it, and then there is the author, Goerge F. Will---who is against it. Therefore, it stands to reason that being for change is a more liberal view, whereas being against change is a more conservative view. Also, as part of the author's argument, he believes that the sort of change which Feingold (and his backer, McCain) advocate is essentially a threat to Federalism (including the checks and balances wherein the Framers had implemented). Thus, in its most basic sense, this article is an argument about allowing more direct democracy (which means giving the people more voting power), vs. sticking with the way things are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)