Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[Syriusly]

Again what is to prevent those with self serving interests to declare legal what they want to be legal and thereby bypass the intent of the Constitution? The Amendment gives no state authority over any other state or the federal government or Constitutional law. It only provides the states the power to object to what the legal scholars in that state deem to be decidedly unconstitutional.

No form of Gov't will work unless ruled by ethical men and women.....Once they lose their ethics then no law or amendment will change the outcome.............and 25% is insane............

Which is why my position to fix state's rights is to repeal the 17th.............so they are the direct arm of the State Legislatures

Because we can't trust voters as much as state legislatures?

Here we go again.............The State Gov't is already voted in by the people........The Congressmen were already voted in by the people.................The Senate was to be the voice of the legislature.........a ambassador of the State Gov't...........by removing that responsibility you have not given the state legislature their voice as prescribed in the original constitution.

IT'S PURPOSE...........is to put the State Legislature DIRECTLY into the checks and balances of the Federal Gov't.

Again- why do you trust the State legislators more than the voters?

Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

 

[dcraelin]

I like the idea of restoring power to the people.................but dont really see it in this proposal............some provisions look as if they would just cause gridlock

to restore power to the people you need a provision that on certain minority support against a bill it could be referred to a larger pool of voters.....a national referendum........or perhaps, as long as they meet certain ratios of representation, things could be referred to state legislatures.

The entire basis of rights being put to a popular vote is wrong in and of itself....i.e. the thread's inspiration itself.

Gay marriage isnt something that should be or ever should have been voted on, how immoral of a free country.

I disagree with that...........voting is how we got our original Bill of Rights.............Jefferson said the will of the majority.lex majoris partis...is the only sure guardian of the rights of man.........see my gallery for that and other quotes on the subject.

Its easily invalidated by logic by simply pointing to slavery. Or any other civil rights abuses perpetuated at one time BY said majority.

slave owners were always a minority I believe ...a powerful minority.....a nationwide vote at the time of our founding would have been against slavery most likely.

to invalidate your point I could point to the courts of the time...who not only didnt oppose slavery...they often made things worse.

 

[G.T.]

I like the idea of restoring power to the people.................but dont really see it in this proposal............some provisions look as if they would just cause gridlock

to restore power to the people you need a provision that on certain minority support against a bill it could be referred to a larger pool of voters.....a national referendum........or perhaps, as long as they meet certain ratios of representation, things could be referred to state legislatures.

The entire basis of rights being put to a popular vote is wrong in and of itself....i.e. the thread's inspiration itself.

Gay marriage isnt something that should be or ever should have been voted on, how immoral of a free country.

I disagree with that...........voting is how we got our original Bill of Rights.............Jefferson said the will of the majority.lex majoris partis...is the only sure guardian of the rights of man.........see my gallery for that and other quotes on the subject.

Its easily invalidated by logic by simply pointing to slavery. Or any other civil rights abuses perpetuated at one time BY said majority.

slave owners were always a minority I believe ...a powerful minority.....a nationwide vote at the time of our founding would have been against slavery most likely.

to invalidate you point I could point to the courts of the time...who not only didnt oppose slavery...they often made things worse.

This would take research.....lots of it. Have to revisit.

 

[eagle1462010]

No form of Gov't will work unless ruled by ethical men and women.....Once they lose their ethics then no law or amendment will change the outcome.............and 25% is insane............

Which is why my position to fix state's rights is to repeal the 17th.............so they are the direct arm of the State Legislatures

Because we can't trust voters as much as state legislatures?

Here we go again.............The State Gov't is already voted in by the people........The Congressmen were already voted in by the people.................The Senate was to be the voice of the legislature.........a ambassador of the State Gov't...........by removing that responsibility you have not given the state legislature their voice as prescribed in the original constitution.

IT'S PURPOSE...........is to put the State Legislature DIRECTLY into the checks and balances of the Federal Gov't.

Again- why do you trust the State legislators more than the voters?

Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

 

[Darkwind]

I reject the Amendment totally.

Every voter uses their power to determine their Representative and their Senators every two and six years respectively.

Every voter uses their power to determine the President every four years.

As needed, representatives of the voters, i.e. the President with the oversight and consent of the Senate, appoint Supreme Court Justices.

We are a Republic, with representatives we have chosen acting on our behalf.

The O N LY way voters are made powerless as to the U.S. Government is when voters choose not to vote.

Voting is a choice and must not be made mandatory.

Regards from Rosie

What authority do you think the amendment takes away from the people's representatives?

The power of the SCOTUS, as given to that body thru the U.S. Constitution, to interpret the Constitutionality of laws.

As stated above, the Justices are the experts. Not state.bodies nor state judiciaries that are under Supreme Court jurisdiction.

This amendment aims to gut the SCOTUS and fools no one.

Regards from Rosie

I do not agree that they are complete experts on the issue......they are now appointed by their party affiliations and tendencies to how they will vote..................It's clear when we have so many split votes on heavy political issues..........the vetting of these now is a complete and utter joke................but it is still much better than the proposed Amendment.

They are appointed for life to prevent intimidation of losing votes for a reason................so they will not be tainted by the threat of losing their job..................It's not perfect...........and the vetting is not perfect............but the Founding Fathers did the best that could be done in this aspect............and I see no reason to change it.

An interesting question is why not let lawyers and judges do a natl vote to determije the 9justices....theyd be most qualified as far as being educated as to who is most impartial in the field....


And an even more interesting question- if that vote qouldnt be impartial due to politics.....that renders our entire legal system, i.e. the basis of a country, invalid and we're back to zero.

In My opinion, the legal system has already rendered itself invalid as it looks after its own interests ahead of the interests of the nation. The only thing worse than the current system is no system at all.

 

[Foxfyre]

It wouldn't, but the proposed Amendment that States can simply reject anything passed with only 25% saying no.............that's ridiculous................screening every bill before voting.............is already done in the committees to pass muster before the votes...including the whether it violates the Constitution...............

And pretty much every rep and state have sufficient Constitutional lawyers to check these bills out before a vote.

The original Constitution put limits on the power of the Gov't........leaving most of it to be handled by the States..........Once we strayed from that purpose we screwed it up.

Again what is to prevent those with self serving interests to declare legal what they want to be legal and thereby bypass the intent of the Constitution? The Amendment gives no state authority over any other state or the federal government or Constitutional law. It only provides the states the power to object to what the legal scholars in that state deem to be decidedly unconstitutional.

No form of Gov't will work unless ruled by ethical men and women.....Once they lose their ethics then no law or amendment will change the outcome.............and 25% is insane............

Which is why my position to fix state's rights is to repeal the 17th.............so they are the direct arm of the State Legislatures

Because we can't trust voters as much as state legislatures?

Here we go again.............The State Gov't is already voted in by the people........The Congressmen were already voted in by the people.................The Senate was to be the voice of the legislature.........a ambassador of the State Gov't...........by removing that responsibility you have not given the state legislature their voice as prescribed in the original constitution.

IT'S PURPOSE...........is to put the State Legislature DIRECTLY into the checks and balances of the Federal Gov't.

Again- why do you trust the State legislators more than the voters?

Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.

If I am not mistaken, I believe both are elected by the voters?

 

[Darkwind]

I like the idea of restoring power to the people.................but dont really see it in this proposal............some provisions look as if they would just cause gridlock

to restore power to the people you need a provision that on certain minority support against a bill it could be referred to a larger pool of voters.....a national referendum........or perhaps, as long as they meet certain ratios of representation, things could be referred to state legislatures.

Not sure I'm following what appears to be an interesting observation here. Could you explain more fully?

If say a law passes the Senate and House has a certain level of opposition......The opponents would have a chance and a window of opportunity to invoke the vote of a larger pool of voters, as outlined above.

if a bill has lets say 40% opposition in the house.....those members could ask for a vote of all the state legislatures......if that vote went against the bill...it would be defeated despite it support n Congress.

I have elsewhere outlined an expanded house of representatives that were "stay-at-home" types who could perform just such a duty.

I'd have to consider this, but it has merit and could be a workable solution.

 

[Care4all]

Because we can't trust voters as much as state legislatures?

Here we go again.............The State Gov't is already voted in by the people........The Congressmen were already voted in by the people.................The Senate was to be the voice of the legislature.........a ambassador of the State Gov't...........by removing that responsibility you have not given the state legislature their voice as prescribed in the original constitution.

IT'S PURPOSE...........is to put the State Legislature DIRECTLY into the checks and balances of the Federal Gov't.

Again- why do you trust the State legislators more than the voters?

Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

 

[Foxfyre]

I like the idea of restoring power to the people.................but dont really see it in this proposal............some provisions look as if they would just cause gridlock

to restore power to the people you need a provision that on certain minority support against a bill it could be referred to a larger pool of voters.....a national referendum........or perhaps, as long as they meet certain ratios of representation, things could be referred to state legislatures.

Not sure I'm following what appears to be an interesting observation here. Could you explain more fully?

If say a law passes the Senate and House has a certain level of opposition......The opponents would have a chance and a window of opportunity to invoke the vote of a larger pool of voters, as outlined above.

if a bill has lets say 40% opposition in the house.....those members could ask for a vote of all the state legislatures......if that vote went against the bill...it would be defeated despite it support n Congress.

I have elsewhere outlined an expanded house of representatives that were "stay-at-home" types who could perform just such a duty.

The idea is that the federal legislators would be much more in tune with the sentiment and cause and effect as seen by the state legislators and, because so much more power would automatically be transferred to the people, the state legislators would be much more responsive to the people they technically are suppose to answer to.

I personally think it would largely dismantle the permanent political class in Washington and we would have public servants again instead of self serving professional politicians and bureaucrats doing whatever they choose knowing nobody will stop them.

 

[eagle1462010]

Here we go again.............The State Gov't is already voted in by the people........The Congressmen were already voted in by the people.................The Senate was to be the voice of the legislature.........a ambassador of the State Gov't...........by removing that responsibility you have not given the state legislature their voice as prescribed in the original constitution.

IT'S PURPOSE...........is to put the State Legislature DIRECTLY into the checks and balances of the Federal Gov't.

Again- why do you trust the State legislators more than the voters?

Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

They can be voted out..........yes............after the term.................years later............

Under the old they could be recalled immediately and fired within days if they voted against the State Legislature.
You vote in the State Legislature............so you don't trust those you vote in there...........perhaps they need to be recalled by the people................no

 

[Darkwind]

Here we go again.............The State Gov't is already voted in by the people........The Congressmen were already voted in by the people.................The Senate was to be the voice of the legislature.........a ambassador of the State Gov't...........by removing that responsibility you have not given the state legislature their voice as prescribed in the original constitution.

IT'S PURPOSE...........is to put the State Legislature DIRECTLY into the checks and balances of the Federal Gov't.

Again- why do you trust the State legislators more than the voters?

Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

State legislators are more responsive to the will of their constituents than nations legislator.

If a state legislature has a partisan agenda, it is because the people want that agenda.

As it stands now, (your assertion not withstanding), Senators do NOT answer to their constituents (the people of their State) but to the monied interests. A lot of that corruption can be eliminated by returning the Senate back to doing the bidding of their State.

 

[Darkwind]

Again- why do you trust the State legislators more than the voters?

Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

They can be voted out..........yes............after the term.................years later............

Under the old they could be recalled immediately and fired within days if they voted against the State Legislature.
You vote in the State Legislature............so you don't trust those you vote in there...........perhaps they need to be recalled by the people................no

State Legislators are (allegedly) doing the will of the people who elect them.

If we say they are not, then we can with 100% assurance, say that NONE of them are, State or Federal.

 

[Foxfyre]

And using the same argument, Dred Scott and Plessy, absolutely horrible SCOTUS rulings, would not have had to be enforced in the states who did not agree with them.

Actually that is a good point.

And there is where we could start- if the states had refused to obey Dred Scott..- and agreed upon abomination of a ruling, 25% of the country-
the Confederate States- would have declared that decision null and void.

Leaving us back where were were- where individual states do whatever they want regardless of the Bill of Rights- and blocks of states can block enforcement of the Constitution.

Ah, but the Bill of Rights is already part of the Constitution so the states would have no jurisdiction to override any part of that. It is only laws and rulings outside of the existing constitution that the people themselves could determine whether such laws or rulings were constitutional or not.

The proposed amendment does not give the people authority to override the Constitution. It only gives them power to enforce it.

Again- the Supreme Court decides when a law violates the Bill of Rights or not- and the proposed initiative would allow States to ignore a Supreme Court ruling- which would result in States being able to ignore the Bill of Rights.

But who has the authority to judge the judges on the Supreme Court?

Michelsen offers this observation on Page 2 of his argument linked in the OP:. . .

• There are many unconstitutional laws on the books
• It is far too easy to pass unconstitutional laws. We must make it harder to do.
• It is practically impossible to repeal or overturn unconstitutional laws. We must make it easier to do.
• The Supreme Court has been a willing accomplice to the federal government's unceasing expansion of power. As a branch of the federal government itself, permitting the Supreme Court to review laws for constitutionality is letting the fox guard the hen house.
• The power of Judicial Review is a power that was usurped by the Supreme Court; it is not a power granted to the court by the Constitution. . .

Michelson offers his opinion- nothing more.

Nothing about his proposal would stop unconstitutional laws- it would instead make it easier for State governments to have unconstitutional state laws.

How do we overturn an 'unconstitutional law'? That is what the Supreme Court functions as- it is the court of last recourse, if the Legislative doesn't do its job correctly.

Nothing Michelsen offers is a superior method of ensuring that laws are constitutional. They just offer States a way of ignoring laws they do not want to follow- which could be anything from gun laws to voting rights laws.

Michelsen was not arguing for how to make laws more constitutional. He is proposing a way to prevent unconstitutional laws from being passed.

And of course it is his opinion. Is not what you post your opinion? That is what discussion is. It is an exchange of opinion in an effort to think an idea through. I tend to get a little testy when people try to dismiss an idea as 'just somebody's opinion' as if that is somehow different from other concepts. I am not going to dismiss your arguments on the sole basis that they are your opinion. They either have merit or they will not hold up under scrutiny.

I am asking that Michelsen's ideas be given respect sufficient to determine if they have merit or will not hold up under scrutiny. That is what this thread is all about.

 

[Syriusly]

Again- why do you trust the State legislators more than the voters?

Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

State legislators are more responsive to the will of their constituents than nations legislator.

If a state legislature has a partisan agenda, it is because the people want that agenda.

As it stands now, (your assertion not withstanding), Senators do NOT answer to their constituents (the people of their State) but to the monied interests. A lot of that corruption can be eliminated by returning the Senate back to doing the bidding of their State.

And we know that because......how?

 

[Darkwind]

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

State legislators are more responsive to the will of their constituents than nations legislator.

If a state legislature has a partisan agenda, it is because the people want that agenda.

As it stands now, (your assertion not withstanding), Senators do NOT answer to their constituents (the people of their State) but to the monied interests. A lot of that corruption can be eliminated by returning the Senate back to doing the bidding of their State.

And we know that because......how?

It has always been the case. Power held at a distance is unscalable by the people...power held closer to home is enmeshed in the day to day. When Senators and Congress people of State legislatures live at home, or at most are only a few hundred miles way, they can be confronted and challenged more readily.

In addition, at the state level, it takes far fewer resources to challenge an incumbent (to the order of 100's of thousands of dollars as opposed to millions of dollars) on issues and actions. If a State legislator goes against his or her constituents, the effect is immediately known and does not have to filter through a national body or a national media.

 

[Staidhup]

No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.

 

[Syriusly]

Because we can't trust voters as much as state legislatures?

Here we go again.............The State Gov't is already voted in by the people........The Congressmen were already voted in by the people.................The Senate was to be the voice of the legislature.........a ambassador of the State Gov't...........by removing that responsibility you have not given the state legislature their voice as prescribed in the original constitution.

IT'S PURPOSE...........is to put the State Legislature DIRECTLY into the checks and balances of the Federal Gov't.

Again- why do you trust the State legislators more than the voters?

Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

I see nothing in the Constitution which allowed for that.


The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

 

[Foxfyre]

Here we go again.............The State Gov't is already voted in by the people........The Congressmen were already voted in by the people.................The Senate was to be the voice of the legislature.........a ambassador of the State Gov't...........by removing that responsibility you have not given the state legislature their voice as prescribed in the original constitution.

IT'S PURPOSE...........is to put the State Legislature DIRECTLY into the checks and balances of the Federal Gov't.

Again- why do you trust the State legislators more than the voters?

Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

No they don't. The process to recall an errant senator is long, expensive, and rarely successful. And because they are elected to six year years and can count on the people's memories to be exceedingly short, they are just as self serving as any other members of the permanent political class in Washington.

 

[Care4all]

Again- why do you trust the State legislators more than the voters?

Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.

Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.

???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.

Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.

but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...

senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?

They can be voted out..........yes............after the term.................years later............

Under the old they could be recalled immediately and fired within days if they voted against the State Legislature.
You vote in the State Legislature............so you don't trust those you vote in there...........perhaps they need to be recalled by the people................no

i just googled it...the us constitution made no recall provision for senators or congressmen....

THAT INCLUDES the state legislators....according to the constitution?

NEITHER can recall them from what I have read so far, so your argument doesn't work anymore, about the state legislators recalling them if they don't do as they say....

 

[eagle1462010]

Senate Judiciary Committee legal definition of Senate Judiciary Committee

This committee is part of the current vetting process............as it is in many matters.........
Made up of the Senators with the most Judicial Experience.................

They don't decide.................they recommend.........but the process has become politicized to uselessness.