1989] AMPLIFYING THE TENTH AMENDMENT 937
fall into several categories, including those describing express limitations on the powers of Congress203 through the Commerce Clause,204 the tenth amendment,205 or the Necessary and Proper clause.206 Other proposals suggest structural changes such as expanding the judicial power of the Supreme Court to allow it to make final determinations of authority between the states and the federal government,207 restructuring the political process to allow state legislatures to void the acts of Congress,208 or modifying the Constitution to allow the states to initiate constitutional amendments.209 Other suggestions include giving the states more influence over the federal political process by allowing them to remove senators210 and limiting the ability of Congress to place pervasive conditions on grants in aid.211 A final suggestion is to repeal the seventeenth amendment and to replace it with a procedure that addresses the original problem of deadlocks in the senatorial selection process.
While a constitutional amendment could re-establish the fundamentals of federalism, the passage of an amendment would require far more effort on the part of the states. It would require two-thirds of the states to pass applications for a constitutional convention and, potentially, to draft a uniform amendment. Thereafter, it may be necessary to assure that Congress either calls a convention or passes the amendment. Finally, the amendment would have to be ratified by the state legislatures or by state conventions.212 All told, the passage of an amendment would require a considerable amount of work.
A third alternative, perhaps taken in combination with the first two, is that the states could enter into national politics as aggressively as any other lobbyists.213 While this alternative has been described as "politics as usual,"214 and unquestionably leaves the states subject to the will of Congress,215 the states may also be able to structure a lobbyist organization that is more effective and better financed than most special interest groups.216 Furthermore, their efforts may also extend to lobbying the President, before and after elections, to insure that the appointees to the Supreme Court are
call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which . . . shall be valid . . . when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as . . . may be proposed by the Congress; . . ." U.S. CONST. ART. V.
203. REFLECTIONS, supra note 66, at 45.
204. Id. at 46.
205. Id. at 44.
207. Id. at 43.
208. Id. at 49.
209. G. Busbee, Proposal to Clarify Article V Constitutional Convention Provisions (Feb. 3, 1988) (Memorandum to the National Governors' Association Advisory Committee on Federalism).
210. "[S]ome tribunal other than the Senate [must] be provided for trying impeachments of senators." R.BYRD, DECISION AT RICHMOND JUNE 1788, at 162 (1986). Patrick Henry first made this suggestion.
211. REFLECTIONS, supra note 66, at 47.
212. U.S. CONST. ART. V.
213. REFLECTIONS, supra note 66, at 41.
214. Id. at 42.
215. New York, 326 U.S. at 594-95 (Douglas, J., dissenting).
216. REFLECTIONS, supra note 66, at 5-6; Garcia, 469 U.S. at 552.