It is refreshing to see that some of our combatants are now ready to get back on track. I like that. Regrettably, it took us over 30 posts to get to that point. Were it not for the fact that I feel a compelling urge to respond to at least some of the more important comments here, I too would like nothing better than to focus on the defeat of the King Bill and I will do that shortly.
While entire websites could be devoted to this debate, I will do something that goes against my very nature - be brief.
Since time, and my promise to be brief, do not allow a full discussion of all of the amendments, I will only focus on the Thirteenth (slavery), especially since it was Randy’s choice to bring this into the conversation to begin with. If you recall my earlier comments, I said that the Constitution was never meant to be a living document interpreted using current thinking or fads, or current morals (or a lack thereof) or opinion polls. I sincerely hope that no one would ever suggest that the impetus behind the Thirteenth Amendment was a fad, an opinion poll, a lack of morals, or some current new thought. The thirteenth Amendment was the product of significantly more, and that was the point of my comments
Where we have gone astray here is that this discussion had its origin in a debate over progressives and in that context I have maintained that the well known goals of this group have too often been to do damage to the Constitution, based on a fluctuating set of morals (or lack thereof), opinion polls and fad thinking. The belief that the Constitution is a living document is the gateway for the left to make changes to the Constitution that do not equal or come close to the reasons for the Thirteenth Amendment.
Advocates of a “living” Constitution believe the Constitution is outdated and unable to grow and adapt to the times. The amendment procedure detailed in Article V belies such claims. As Madison explains in The Federalist, the amendment procedure allows subsequent generations to correct errors and make whatever "useful alterations will be suggested by experience." Yet at the same time, the difficulty of constitutional amendment prevents the Constitution from being deprived "of that veneration, which time bestows on everything, and without which the wisest and freest governments would not possess the requisite stability." By design, the amendment process requires extensive deliberation and ensures that amendments are the settled opinion of the American people. It is not a living document.
Now back to the proposed King legislation;
1. Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsW5AjS65U0
2. Current status of bill (4/6/11): On 2/28/2011 it was referred to House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology.
3. List of co-sponsors. If you have enough ink in your pen, write them all.
Rep Berkley, Shelley [NV-1] - 2/14/2011
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] - 3/3/2011
Rep Clarke, Yvette D. [NY-11] - 2/10/2011
Rep Ellison, Keith [MN-5] - 2/17/2011
Rep Grimm, Michael G. [NY-13] - 2/10/2011
Rep Jackson Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 3/30/2011
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 3/30/2011
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 2/17/2011
Rep Latham, Tom [IA-4] - 3/29/2011
Rep Long, Billy [MO-7] - 2/10/2011
Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] - 3/30/2011
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] - 3/29/2011
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] - 2/10/2011
Rep Richardson, Laura [CA-37] - 2/14/2011
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] - 2/10/2011
Rep Thompson, Bennie G. [MS-2] - 2/10/2011
and 17th. Add a new one or at least a new law with term limits for both houses of Congress.
. 
