Star One Smart Blog's

From Erick Erickson at RedState...

The Senate of the United States just voted to table Jim DeMint’s proposed amendment that would prevent cash for cloture compromises.

As you will recall, Ben Nelson was bribed by Harry Reid to vote for the health care bill via targeted earmarks that will only benefit Nebraska.
DeMint asked for the Senate to suspend its rules to consider his amendment, which would prohibit such deals in the future.

Ben Nelson voted against Jim DeMint’s amendment, but when he realized the Democrats already had the votes to kill it, he raced back up to the clerk and changed his vote so the final record shows Nelson sided with DeMint.
Unfortunately for Ben Nelson, I have obtained the actual factual roll call sheet.

Click here to see the actual roll call vote Senator Ben (Cheap Date or Whore?) Nelson changed to save face.

I don't think good Nebraskans will keep this hairpiece in office any longer than necessary.

Do we have any U.S. Senators who aren't crooked to some degree?

Seems every time I read and learn more about our current political system, I'm less and less impressed.

It's time for a constitutional convention, to return State's Rights, and to heel this massive, bloated, out-of-control Federal government.  A remarkable concept, espoused in the Wall Street Journal...

The States Can Check Washington's Power

For nearly a hundred years, federal power has expanded at the expense of the states—to a point where the even the wages and hours of state employees are subject to federal control. Basic health and safety regulations that were long exercised by states under their "police power" are now dominated by Washington.
The courts have similarly distorted the Constitution by inventing new constitutional rights and failing to limit governmental power as provided for in the document. The aggrandizement of judicial power has been a particularly vexing challenge, since it is inherently incapable of correction through the normal political channels.

There is a way to deter further constitutional mischief from Congress and the federal courts, and restore some semblance of the proper federal-state balance. That is to give to states—and through them the people—a greater role in the constitutional amendment process.

The idea is simple, and is already being mooted in conservative legal circles. Today, only Congress can propose constitutional amendments—and Congress of course has little interest in proposing limits on its own power. Since the mid-19th century, no amendment has actually limited federal authority.

But what if a number of states, acting together, also could propose amendments?

In essence, 2/3rds of the states could summon a constitutional convention, to propose an amendment whereby states could propose constitutional amendments without having to call a constitutional convention. In theory, the several states could amend the constitution to thwart the power of the obviously out-of-control federal powers; returning at least some of these powers to the states.

Think of that...power returned to the states, closer to...home. Closer to the citizens.

There's fear of what might happen if we ever have another constitutional convention. Most of that fear comes from the federal level, because these beauracrats love their powers. However...

Even to propose such a course might seem imprudent—but then again, the Framers of the U.S. Constitution never thought the balance of powers between states and the federal government would ever get so profoundly distorted. James Madison dismissed claims that the new federal government could displace the states as "chimerical fears," assuring his readers in The Federalist Papers that "[t]he powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite." Indeed, the Framers considered a "vertical" separation of powers—between federal and state authority—just as important as guaranteeing the success of liberty as the "horizontal" separation of powers between the president, Congress and the courts.

True enough, re-establishing a proper balance—where, as Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers, Washington is responsible "principally [for] external objects" and the states for "all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people"—will not be easy.

The gain will be substantial. Although it seems that permitting the states to propose amendments is a small thing, especially because ratification would still require three-fourths of the states to agree, it would shift the power calculus—and create a potential for action that the president, Congress and courts could never ignore as they consider the proper boundaries of their own authority.

Moreover, the effort to enable the states to check Washington's power would provide a constructive outlet for much of the growing anger—specially evident in phenomena such as the "tea party" movement—toward the political elites of both parties. It is not a partisan proposal and is difficult to oppose. The purpose is to move significant authority closer to the electorate, but in a measured, "conservative" manner that is in no sense "populist."

Yes, there's much growing anger.

Summon a constitutional convention. Let's get this mess straightened out, restore power to the states, strengthen the weakened constitution, and end the dirty socialist takeover of our little country!

---