>>Interesting. Just to make sure... I am not opposed to changes but I am more than a little concerned that in today's political climate that more emphasis would be placed on creating a system that benefitted one party over another rather than holding forth the good of the nation as a whole.
>
>To that point, I would answer: What may be good for the gander today may be good for the goose tomorrow, and both parties know this. Any attempt to divide in one direction can very easily return to haunt the divisors.
>
>For example, look at the 27th Amendment (I'm guessing #): Repubs were so sick of FDR that they (primarily) imposed term limits on the presidency. Then in the Reagan era, there was much internal moaning about the darned Amendment :) So, you never know what'll happen, and both parties are now quite careful not to take things too far, that may later reverse positions. And when one side does go too far, the electorate is smart enough to remedy things in coming elections < s >


Bruce,

Oh, sure, you're quite correct IMO.

I'd like to ditch the 17th ammendment that made Senators popularly elected.

However, it seems to me Bruce that the real problem here lies not with the laws but with the general sense that we have lost the notion that while something may be legalright to do.

Witness the legal shenanigans of the current occupant of the White House quibbling over the definition of the word "is". Certainly in my mind a perfect example of the triumph of existential thought where truth is as each individual defines it subjectively rather than the classic notion that truth exists quite apart from my apprehension (or leck thereof) of it.