Burnt Orange Report

At least both houses of the Illinois Legislature* are likely to remain controlled by the Democrats after the election.
Even if Keyes' proposed repeal of the 17th amendment miraculously passed in the next few weeks, he would STILL lose.

* Barack Obama being part of the Democratic majority in the Illinois Senate. :P

Well, I always thought Alan Keyes was crazy; now I have empirical evidence (that and the "Over the Rainbow" video.

Keyes seems to be of the "we should leave things exactly as they were in 1789" school. Yes the founding fathers came up with a really impressive system of governance, but to assume that we should never change it is stupid. Keyes is basically making the assumption that all the generations after the founders are less intelligent and capable and deciding how to govern themselves. Keyes may think that about himself, but he doesn't speak for everyone. Also, does he not realize that many of the founders would have thought of Keyes as either property or a second class citizen who should have almost no rights? Things can get better, Alan. We can improve things. What a nut.

Is Keyes' position to repeal the 17th amendment an attempt to return to "Halcyon days of yore," or instead one step towards the Republican dream of abloshing popular sovereignty? What is next? Only voting rights for white, male, property owners?

One more thing - Keyes' ostensible reason is that, "The popular election of senators upset the balance of federalism when the senators are directly elected because the state government as such no longer plays any role in the deliberations at the federal level."

He fails to understand that "States" and the "Federal Government" do not have rights as if they were coherent entities. People, and only people, have rights. (The Premable to our Consitution deliberately begins with "We the People," NOT "We the States" as some of those members of the Constitutional Convention advocated).

"We the People" have organized ourselves in a governance structure that allows for our voices to be heard through elected representatives at two levels - but it does not mean that these bodies of collective representative voices have rights inherently. (The moniker of "State's Rights" has ostensibly been an advocation for local control - in reality it has been a justification for slavery and Jim Crow - How many "State's Rights" advocates [i.e. conservatives] advocate the ability to MA to have gay mariage, or CA to legalize marijuana, or OR to permit euthansia?)

Ultimately, if there has been a progression of Federal dominance over State authority it has been because the majority of Americans have desired it. If not, then "We the People" would have elected representatives to Congress who held different views and not allowed it to happen.

Back to the Framers, eh? Then Ambassador Keyes gets to be a slave . . . maybe he needs to rethink his options.