On the 17th ...

I’m a people person.

I like meeting new people and getting to know them. I like people who take an interest in getting to know me.

For a variety of reasons, I’ve met a lot of new people lately and am really enjoying the “getting to know you” process that inevitably occurs.

As a result, I’ve answered questions in the last week about where I live, what kind of movies I like, what my favorite bands are, etc.

One question I was asked, though, isn’t typically in the list with favorite color or the nocturnal habits of my hedgehog; “Which of the Constitution’s 27 Amendments do you want repealed?”

That question came to me via Facebook, the social website that has taken the place of real social interaction.

Specifically, the question was, “so which of the Constitution’s 27 amendments do you want repealed? Because that’s the thing about the tea party types — they want to return to the founders, who by the way did not prohibit slavery, or child labor, or cruel and unusual punishment. Ironically, limiting the powers of the federal government to only those specifically granted by the Constitution was not granted until the 10th amendment, so better not repeal that one ...”

I think the United States is the greatest country in the history of civilization, but that doesn’t mean that we’re perfect.

There are actually three amendments I’d repeal; the 12th, the 16th and the 17th.

For those of you without a pocket Constitution (in other words, everyone but Bob Confer), the 12th Amendment revises the presidential election process, the 16th creates the IRS and income tax and the 17th revises how senators are elected.

Of the three, the one I like least is the 17th because it is the one that most dilutes the states’ powers. You may recall I’m a huge proponent of states’ rights. Actually the conversation that brought on the question of what amendments I’d repeal was born with a discussion on the holy grail of states’ rights, the 10th Amendment.

Prior to 1913, United States senators were not directly elected. You wouldn’t find them on a ballot. They were appointed by the legislatures of the states themselves.

Over time, a movement grew suggesting that U.S. senators didn’t represent the people and eventually direct election won out.

The problem I have with the whole thing is that U.S. senators aren’t supposed to represent the people. That’s what the House of Representatives is for. The Senate is supposed to represent the states.

China has official representation in Washington, but the state of New York does not. It all seems quite silly to me.

As for the 12th and the 16th, I’ll tackle those amendments in the future. Maybe here in this column. Maybe on my blog at www.scottleffler.com, which you’re always encouraged to check out. After all, I do like social interaction, me being a people person and all.

In opposition to hypocrites

Antidisestablishmentarianism.

It's a long word. One of the longest in the English language. Growing up it was one of my mother's favorites, although I have no idea why.

It comes up at random in conversation because it's fun to say … and it's a real word, unlike Supercalifragilisticexpialodocious. That said, Antidisestablishmentarianism has really outlived it's purpose, aside from being fun to say at parties.

It refers to opposing the removal of there being a state sanctioned church. What with the separation of church and state here in the United States, it really never meant anything here. It was an England thing back in the 19^th century.

However, if you break it down, it can still hold meaning here and now. It could refer to those who are opposed to those who are opposed to the establishment. Anti-protesters, more or less.

And oddly enough, as much as I'm opposed to the establishment, I'm also an antidisestablishmentarianist, at least locally.

I have many friends in many political circles in and around Buffalo and Western New York. Democrats. Republicans. Liberals. Conservatives. Elected officials. Rabble-rousers and gadflies. They all think they're doing the right thing. And I respect them all on principle, even if I disagree with their intended goals.

There's one group I have the hardest time respecting, though. And that's those who comprise those political circles, but pretend not to. I don't like the players who tell you to hate the game, even though they're the ones making the rules for the game. They're simultaneously the establishment … and the disestablishment, profiting from the system while complaining about it. I won't specifically name any individuals or groups, but if you pay attention, you can likely come up with your own.

These people wear one hat on Monday, reaping the rewards of a political system that pays to be friends and family with the chosen few. And on Tuesday they go to luncheons, coffee clutches and town hall meetings deriding the system they themselves benefited from just a day before.

On Wednesday, they bemoan political strip-mining. And on Thursday plunder from the system, doing the very things they were complaining about one day earlier.

They write the laws then complain about them and tell you that there's nothing they can do.

They're not based in principle at all. They simply know how to work the system.

There are some people who complain because it's their only weapon. They go to town board meetings and speak their peace. They take their three allotted minutes and attempt to get their point across. To them, I say, kudos.

Others might disagree with that, saying that the complainers should be ignored unless they're willing to run for office and buck the system from within. Of course, those are usually the ones who are within the system, who have no desire to have the system bucked.

Be careful who you lend support to. Make sure they're doing what they say they're doing, and not simply talking out both sides of their mouths, like so many of the disestablishmentarianists.

This goes double for any elected official who complains about the system … or tells you they only have one vote and there's nothing they can do to help matters. Anyone within the system who tells you they're powerless ought to be stripped of the position.