Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[Sun Devil 92]

Please proceed.................on how those states having very high populations should decide the fate and laws for all, including states that disagree................and that 50 plus 1 would not create the tyranny of a simple majority to nearly the same amount of people who disagree.

Those states wouldnt "decide the fate" under my proposal, any more anyway than they do now..........Who do you think runs the country.? The elites of the eastern seaboard states have outsized influence, ...that is for sure. If you lump the eastern seaboard states together they have outsized influence in both the house AND the Senate.....and also because of electoral college the presidency.

extreme examples never are usefull.....50%+1 ...ehh....might happen.............and it is an unstable majority that is likely to change, and so voters in such a split constituency are likely to shy away from extreme laws

A temporary majority now leads to extreme laws..............under the current system.............the Checks and Balances are there in an attempt to prevent a temporary majority from staying in power...........It was purposely designed to make it hard to do so..............and the Senate is part of that purpose...........as is giving the power to stop legislation by the minority opinion by giving equal reps in the Senate as compared to much larger States in the Senate.

The Founders made it more difficult for stupid laws to be passed for a reason.........and their reasons are in the Federalist papers which include this point...........

The people have allowed our reps in gov't to be bought off without replacing them......which is the main problem today........Not removing a lynch pin of the CHECKS AND BALANCES as prescribed by the Founders.

Patrick Henry ridiculed the idea of "checks and balances" with good reason......it was merely a l gloss over a consolidated system,"big government" system.

The peoples delusions, are part of the problem, yes....but so is the system itself......which allows influence seekers to hide behind "checks and balances" and committees and "minority" rights etc. etc.

The filibuster is NOT in the Constitution

see my picture gallery which has founding quotes dealing with this issue.....especially Madison who hedges on his opinion in the federalist papers.

The final passage was a compromise............and giving the states equal votes as a protection and check was part of it.........some wanted the Executive to have more power......some wanted a pure democracy.........and some wanted a republic..............

The final compromise was a Republic................and it works as long as we vote in the right people........which we have not done.

In the recent Arizona case the SC basically puts to rest your mistaken idea that their is a difference between a republic and a democracy.

The final Compromise was MAYBE needed then, Madison argued against this make-up of the Senate. as did Wilson another very learned founder (some say the most learned) . It is certainly not needed now. Most people would welcome a more fair,.... rational Senate.

Even prior to the revolution the British realized the stupidity of the small states being separately governed. Pennsylvania governed Delaware...and New Hampshire was governed by Massachusetts, as I recall the history. There is perhaps too much history to consolidate them now.....but could set up quasi states for federal purposes that would make the Senate fairer.

It's not a matter of being needed then or now.

States would NEVER turn over their voice to someone else.

Without this compromise, there would be no U.S.A.

And bigger states are never going to "govern" smaller states. You'd be better off just reducing the number of states.....

Which would be a stupid idea at best.

What would make more sense would be to break up states like CA, NY, PA, and FL into more states

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Please proceed.................on how those states having very high populations should decide the fate and laws for all, including states that disagree................and that 50 plus 1 would not create the tyranny of a simple majority to nearly the same amount of people who disagree.

Those states wouldnt "decide the fate" under my proposal, any more anyway than they do now..........Who do you think runs the country.? The elites of the eastern seaboard states have outsized influence, ...that is for sure. If you lump the eastern seaboard states together they have outsized influence in both the house AND the Senate.....and also because of electoral college the presidency.

extreme examples never are usefull.....50%+1 ...ehh....might happen.............and it is an unstable majority that is likely to change, and so voters in such a split constituency are likely to shy away from extreme laws

A temporary majority now leads to extreme laws..............under the current system.............the Checks and Balances are there in an attempt to prevent a temporary majority from staying in power...........It was purposely designed to make it hard to do so..............and the Senate is part of that purpose...........as is giving the power to stop legislation by the minority opinion by giving equal reps in the Senate as compared to much larger States in the Senate.

The Founders made it more difficult for stupid laws to be passed for a reason.........and their reasons are in the Federalist papers which include this point...........

The people have allowed our reps in gov't to be bought off without replacing them......which is the main problem today........Not removing a lynch pin of the CHECKS AND BALANCES as prescribed by the Founders.

Patrick Henry ridiculed the idea of "checks and balances" with good reason......it was merely a l gloss over a consolidated system,"big government" system.

The peoples delusions, are part of the problem, yes....but so is the system itself......which allows influence seekers to hide behind "checks and balances" and committees and "minority" rights etc. etc.

The filibuster is NOT in the Constitution

see my picture gallery which has founding quotes dealing with this issue.....especially Madison who hedges on his opinion in the federalist papers.

The final passage was a compromise............and giving the states equal votes as a protection and check was part of it.........some wanted the Executive to have more power......some wanted a pure democracy.........and some wanted a republic..............

The final compromise was a Republic................and it works as long as we vote in the right people........which we have not done.

In the recent Arizona case the SC basically puts to rest your mistaken idea that their is a difference between a republic and a democracy.

The final Compromise was MAYBE needed then, Madison argued against this make-up of the Senate. as did Wilson another very learned founder (some say the most learned) . It is certainly not needed now. Most people would welcome a more fair,.... rational Senate.

Even prior to the revolution the British realized the stupidity of the small states being separately governed. Pennsylvania governed Delaware...and New Hampshire was governed by Massachusetts, as I recall the history. There is perhaps too much history to consolidate them now.....but could set up quasi states for federal purposes that would make the Senate fairer.

Cite the case and the basis for your claim.

 

[dcraelin]

Those states wouldnt "decide the fate" under my proposal, any more anyway than they do now..........Who do you think runs the country.? The elites of the eastern seaboard states have outsized influence, ...that is for sure. If you lump the eastern seaboard states together they have outsized influence in both the house AND the Senate.....and also because of electoral college the presidency.

extreme examples never are usefull.....50%+1 ...ehh....might happen.............and it is an unstable majority that is likely to change, and so voters in such a split constituency are likely to shy away from extreme laws

A temporary majority now leads to extreme laws..............under the current system.............the Checks and Balances are there in an attempt to prevent a temporary majority from staying in power...........It was purposely designed to make it hard to do so..............and the Senate is part of that purpose...........as is giving the power to stop legislation by the minority opinion by giving equal reps in the Senate as compared to much larger States in the Senate.

The Founders made it more difficult for stupid laws to be passed for a reason.........and their reasons are in the Federalist papers which include this point...........

The people have allowed our reps in gov't to be bought off without replacing them......which is the main problem today........Not removing a lynch pin of the CHECKS AND BALANCES as prescribed by the Founders.

Patrick Henry ridiculed the idea of "checks and balances" with good reason......it was merely a l gloss over a consolidated system,"big government" system.

The peoples delusions, are part of the problem, yes....but so is the system itself......which allows influence seekers to hide behind "checks and balances" and committees and "minority" rights etc. etc.

The filibuster is NOT in the Constitution

see my picture gallery which has founding quotes dealing with this issue.....especially Madison who hedges on his opinion in the federalist papers.

The final passage was a compromise............and giving the states equal votes as a protection and check was part of it.........some wanted the Executive to have more power......some wanted a pure democracy.........and some wanted a republic..............

The final compromise was a Republic................and it works as long as we vote in the right people........which we have not done.

In the recent Arizona case the SC basically puts to rest your mistaken idea that their is a difference between a republic and a democracy.

The final Compromise was MAYBE needed then, Madison argued against this make-up of the Senate. as did Wilson another very learned founder (some say the most learned) . It is certainly not needed now. Most people would welcome a more fair,.... rational Senate.

Even prior to the revolution the British realized the stupidity of the small states being separately governed. Pennsylvania governed Delaware...and New Hampshire was governed by Massachusetts, as I recall the history. There is perhaps too much history to consolidate them now.....but could set up quasi states for federal purposes that would make the Senate fairer.

It's not a matter of being needed then or now.

States would NEVER turn over their voice to someone else.

Without this compromise, there would be no U.S.A.

And bigger states are never going to "govern" smaller states. You'd be better off just reducing the number of states.....

Which would be a stupid idea at best.

What would make more sense would be to break up states like CA, NY, PA, and FL into more states

That (breaking up states) was what I was talking about with quasi-states. Although Im not convinced states would never partially turn their voice over to a larger quasi-state IF it was part of a larger compromise.

 

[dcraelin]

dont know for sure the official name, arizona v arizona ? the recent case on redistricting committees. There was a case out of Colorado that more directly dealt with the issue but the court sent that back down as I understand it, in light of the opinion in Arizona v arizona. which affirms the states use of initiative to set up a redistricting council.

 

[Foxfyre]

Off topic: Just long enough to praise those of you are not always agreeing, but who are presenting perhaps one of best debates I have seen EVER at USMB. Kudos. . . .

Back on topic: Carry on. Ya'll are doing great and you're making me really think about my own positions on this.

 

[Foxfyre]

Those states wouldnt "decide the fate" under my proposal, any more anyway than they do now..........Who do you think runs the country.? The elites of the eastern seaboard states have outsized influence, ...that is for sure. If you lump the eastern seaboard states together they have outsized influence in both the house AND the Senate.....and also because of electoral college the presidency.

extreme examples never are usefull.....50%+1 ...ehh....might happen.............and it is an unstable majority that is likely to change, and so voters in such a split constituency are likely to shy away from extreme laws

A temporary majority now leads to extreme laws..............under the current system.............the Checks and Balances are there in an attempt to prevent a temporary majority from staying in power...........It was purposely designed to make it hard to do so..............and the Senate is part of that purpose...........as is giving the power to stop legislation by the minority opinion by giving equal reps in the Senate as compared to much larger States in the Senate.

The Founders made it more difficult for stupid laws to be passed for a reason.........and their reasons are in the Federalist papers which include this point...........

The people have allowed our reps in gov't to be bought off without replacing them......which is the main problem today........Not removing a lynch pin of the CHECKS AND BALANCES as prescribed by the Founders.

Patrick Henry ridiculed the idea of "checks and balances" with good reason......it was merely a l gloss over a consolidated system,"big government" system.

The peoples delusions, are part of the problem, yes....but so is the system itself......which allows influence seekers to hide behind "checks and balances" and committees and "minority" rights etc. etc.

The filibuster is NOT in the Constitution

see my picture gallery which has founding quotes dealing with this issue.....especially Madison who hedges on his opinion in the federalist papers.

The final passage was a compromise............and giving the states equal votes as a protection and check was part of it.........some wanted the Executive to have more power......some wanted a pure democracy.........and some wanted a republic..............

The final compromise was a Republic................and it works as long as we vote in the right people........which we have not done.

In the recent Arizona case the SC basically puts to rest your mistaken idea that their is a difference between a republic and a democracy.

The final Compromise was MAYBE needed then, Madison argued against this make-up of the Senate. as did Wilson another very learned founder (some say the most learned) . It is certainly not needed now. Most people would welcome a more fair,.... rational Senate.

Even prior to the revolution the British realized the stupidity of the small states being separately governed. Pennsylvania governed Delaware...and New Hampshire was governed by Massachusetts, as I recall the history. There is perhaps too much history to consolidate them now.....but could set up quasi states for federal purposes that would make the Senate fairer.

Cite the case and the basis for your claim.

And thank to you SD because you too have provided considerable food for though for the thread. But you can civilly ask dcraelin if he has a specific case, etc. for his argument. But you cannot require or demand it per Rule #3 of the thread. Thanks.

 

[Foxfyre]

Some of you are especially resisting Michelsen's suggestion that a super majority in both houses be required to pass any law that a third of either House deems to be unconstitutional. (Personally I think a super majority should be required to pass anything that has the force of law and that affects the states and/or private citizens.)

And here is his argument that prompted that part of his proposal:

Amending, The Right Way

Article V explains how the Constitution may be amended. It states (emphasis added):

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by theLegislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

As you can see, the constitution may be amended by The People (in the form of the congress) and by The States (state legislatures or state constitutional conventions). Large majorities (called a "supermajority") are required both to bring a proposed amendment to a vote (two-thirds) and to approve a new amendment (three-fourths). It is clear that the founders did not want amending the highest law of the land to be easy or trivial.

Amending, The Wrong Way
The Constitution is routinely, and easily 'amended' by the congress. When the Congress passes an unconstitutional law, it has the very same effect as if the Congress had amended the Constitution without the consent of the states — government assumes powers not granted to it by the states in the Constitution. Passing unconstitutional laws is very easy. Once passed, repealing unconstitutional laws is very, very hard.​

The Social Security law for instance is deemed the law of the land by just about everybody. Who among us would consider it not having the same force of law as anything the Constitution requires? Many a politician has faltered and lost his/her seat in Congress or failed to win one purely because of an unpopular stance on Social Security.

And yet it appears absolutely nowhere in the Constitution.

The Social Security Act could be technically declared null and void by a simple voice vote of both houses of Congress and a signature by the President. Would a 3/4th majority of Congress to do that not be a really good idea? (It did receive more than 3/4ths majority in both houses when it passed.)

Further changes in the law, adding more and more people to be included in the act, etc., however, have been accomplished with far narrower margins.

But do you folks really think a controversial law like DOMA or The Affordable Care Act or the Patriot Act should pass via a simple majority? How healthy can a law be if 151 million Americans are happy with it but 150 million Americans are angry and feel disenfranchised?

 

[Derideo_Te]

And yet it appears absolutely nowhere in the Constitution.

Irrelevant.

The Law of the Land comprises far more than just what is in the Constitution.

Both legislation and case law are part and parcel of the Law of the Land.

The means to object to legislation that anyone objects to, irrespective of how small that number of people that may be, is what the courts are for.

How many people did it take to file the objection to the wording in the ACA regarding State exchanges? It only needs a single individual to have standing.

Had they prevailed they would have effectively negated the entire body of the ACA.

So the OP premise that there now needs to be "super majorities" in both houses to pass legislation is little more than a means to hamstring Congress IMO.

And it begs the questions. Why does anyone want to do so? What is their agenda? What is their motivation? Who is supporting this agenda? How will they benefit? How will it impact We the People? How can we be certain that it will be beneficial rather than detrimental to We the People?

If there are not satisfactory answers to those questions then we are not doing our due diligence for our own benefit. I don't know the answers to any of them but unless they are answered I would be highly skeptical of these proposals that appear unnecessary and overly burdensome.

Mostly the proposals don't address the question posed by the OP. Namely how to restore power to the people. If we are going to have an amendment to do so then shouldn't it be focused on leveling the playing field so that those with the most money don't get to buy elections? Isn't that what needs to be done first?

 

[candycorn]

The only power we need is already in our hands. The vote.
We do not know how to use it.

It's that simple.

 

[dcraelin]

The only power we need is already in our hands. The vote.
We do not know how to use it.

It's that simple.

its use is manipulated by a two-party system that usually gives no real choice.

we need a national initiative option such as the Swiss have, to bypass the crooks in DC.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Citizen Warren Michelsen, believes all branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--of the U.S. federal government have overstepped their constitutional authority, he proposes that the American people move to restore the power to self govern that the Constitution originally intended.

A recent Harris poll suggests a majority of Americans agree with him: Supreme Court SCOTUS lifetime appointment Harris

He has provided an in depth, lengthy and well thought out argument to support his opinion here: Amending the Constitution

His basic thesis is that five out of nine Supreme Court justices should not have the uncontested power to determine the fate or destiny of all the people, nor should the federal government at any level have the sole power to judge the legality of government action at any level. Further the federal government should be required to provide much more consensus as to the legality of the legislation it passes before that legislation is imposed upon the people.

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed to restore power to the people:

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.

Section 3. Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.​

The OP at this time is not ready to declare an opinion on whether Michelsen is right in part or in whole about that, but rather would throws it open for consideration, evaluation, and discussion. Disclosure: This discussion has been offered at a different site in addition to this one as as an experiment.

QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED:

Do you or do you not wholly or in part support Michelsen's proposed Amendment as written to limit the power of government and return that power to the people? Why or why not.?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic please with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any person, group, demographic, state, ideology, or political party allowed. The topic is summarized in the Question to be discussed and can include any of the statements or arguments provided in the OP or the two links provided.

2. To avoid getting bogged down in semantics, as deemed necessary, the OP reserves the right to define words, terms, or phrases for the purposes of this discussion only.

3. Links are not required to participate in this discussion, but if they are used, please provide a brief synopsis of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

This is so ridiculous and so avoids the problems that are at the heart of the system.

The problem isn't the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is a check and a balance.

Most people who are annoyed with the Supreme Court are annoyed because they did something they don't like. They're not looking properly at whether they've gone over their power, they don't care to understand.

It's usual in many things, it's about self interest.

If people want people power they need to have things like the Swiss system. But no one talks about that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Citizen Warren Michelsen, believes all branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--of the U.S. federal government have overstepped their constitutional authority, he proposes that the American people move to restore the power to self govern that the Constitution originally intended.

A recent Harris poll suggests a majority of Americans agree with him: Supreme Court SCOTUS lifetime appointment Harris

He has provided an in depth, lengthy and well thought out argument to support his opinion here: Amending the Constitution

His basic thesis is that five out of nine Supreme Court justices should not have the uncontested power to determine the fate or destiny of all the people, nor should the federal government at any level have the sole power to judge the legality of government action at any level. Further the federal government should be required to provide much more consensus as to the legality of the legislation it passes before that legislation is imposed upon the people.

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed to restore power to the people:

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.

Section 3. Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.​

The OP at this time is not ready to declare an opinion on whether Michelsen is right in part or in whole about that, but rather would throws it open for consideration, evaluation, and discussion. Disclosure: This discussion has been offered at a different site in addition to this one as as an experiment.

QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED:

Do you or do you not wholly or in part support Michelsen's proposed Amendment as written to limit the power of government and return that power to the people? Why or why not.?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic please with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any person, group, demographic, state, ideology, or political party allowed. The topic is summarized in the Question to be discussed and can include any of the statements or arguments provided in the OP or the two links provided.

2. To avoid getting bogged down in semantics, as deemed necessary, the OP reserves the right to define words, terms, or phrases for the purposes of this discussion only.

3. Links are not required to participate in this discussion, but if they are used, please provide a brief synopsis of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

This is so ridiculous and so avoids the problems that are at the heart of the system.

The problem isn't the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is a check and a balance.

Most people who are annoyed with the Supreme Court are annoyed because they did something they don't like. They're not looking properly at whether they've gone over their power, they don't care to understand.

It's usual in many things, it's about self interest.

If people want people power they need to have things like the Swiss system. But no one talks about that.

The Supreme Court was intended to be the highest court to referee and be arbiter of disputes. It was not intended to be a legislative body with more power and authority to dictate legislation than that given to the people's elected representatives.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Citizen Warren Michelsen, believes all branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--of the U.S. federal government have overstepped their constitutional authority, he proposes that the American people move to restore the power to self govern that the Constitution originally intended.

A recent Harris poll suggests a majority of Americans agree with him: Supreme Court SCOTUS lifetime appointment Harris

He has provided an in depth, lengthy and well thought out argument to support his opinion here: Amending the Constitution

His basic thesis is that five out of nine Supreme Court justices should not have the uncontested power to determine the fate or destiny of all the people, nor should the federal government at any level have the sole power to judge the legality of government action at any level. Further the federal government should be required to provide much more consensus as to the legality of the legislation it passes before that legislation is imposed upon the people.

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed to restore power to the people:

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.

Section 3. Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.​

The OP at this time is not ready to declare an opinion on whether Michelsen is right in part or in whole about that, but rather would throws it open for consideration, evaluation, and discussion. Disclosure: This discussion has been offered at a different site in addition to this one as as an experiment.

QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED:

Do you or do you not wholly or in part support Michelsen's proposed Amendment as written to limit the power of government and return that power to the people? Why or why not.?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic please with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any person, group, demographic, state, ideology, or political party allowed. The topic is summarized in the Question to be discussed and can include any of the statements or arguments provided in the OP or the two links provided.

2. To avoid getting bogged down in semantics, as deemed necessary, the OP reserves the right to define words, terms, or phrases for the purposes of this discussion only.

3. Links are not required to participate in this discussion, but if they are used, please provide a brief synopsis of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

This is so ridiculous and so avoids the problems that are at the heart of the system.

The problem isn't the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is a check and a balance.

Most people who are annoyed with the Supreme Court are annoyed because they did something they don't like. They're not looking properly at whether they've gone over their power, they don't care to understand.

It's usual in many things, it's about self interest.

If people want people power they need to have things like the Swiss system. But no one talks about that.

The Supreme Court was intended to be the highest court to referee and be arbiter of disputes. It was not intended to be a legislative body with more power and authority to dictate legislation than that given to the people's elected representatives.

It's not a legislative body. It didn't make legislation.

It said that the constitution had been interpreted wrongly, and so said that it should be interpreted properly. This is not legislative power, it's judicial power.

The Supreme Court is the interpreter of the Constitution. Without the Supreme Court Congress could make any law it likes, if it got enough votes the President couldn't even overrule it. So, the Supreme Court is a check and balance.

It's been like that for a long time. But a lot of people seem to pretend the Supreme Court is making law somehow. It's not.

14th Amendment says people should have equality of the law. If Mississippi makes a law which takes the equality of the law away from people, such a law should be declared unconstitutional. It was. The Supreme Court is not making law, it's telling Mississippi and other places their law is unconstitutional.

Simples.

 

[Foxfyre]

Citizen Warren Michelsen, believes all branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--of the U.S. federal government have overstepped their constitutional authority, he proposes that the American people move to restore the power to self govern that the Constitution originally intended.

A recent Harris poll suggests a majority of Americans agree with him: Supreme Court SCOTUS lifetime appointment Harris

He has provided an in depth, lengthy and well thought out argument to support his opinion here: Amending the Constitution

His basic thesis is that five out of nine Supreme Court justices should not have the uncontested power to determine the fate or destiny of all the people, nor should the federal government at any level have the sole power to judge the legality of government action at any level. Further the federal government should be required to provide much more consensus as to the legality of the legislation it passes before that legislation is imposed upon the people.

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed to restore power to the people:

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.

Section 3. Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.​

The OP at this time is not ready to declare an opinion on whether Michelsen is right in part or in whole about that, but rather would throws it open for consideration, evaluation, and discussion. Disclosure: This discussion has been offered at a different site in addition to this one as as an experiment.

QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED:

Do you or do you not wholly or in part support Michelsen's proposed Amendment as written to limit the power of government and return that power to the people? Why or why not.?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic please with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any person, group, demographic, state, ideology, or political party allowed. The topic is summarized in the Question to be discussed and can include any of the statements or arguments provided in the OP or the two links provided.

2. To avoid getting bogged down in semantics, as deemed necessary, the OP reserves the right to define words, terms, or phrases for the purposes of this discussion only.

3. Links are not required to participate in this discussion, but if they are used, please provide a brief synopsis of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

This is so ridiculous and so avoids the problems that are at the heart of the system.

The problem isn't the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is a check and a balance.

Most people who are annoyed with the Supreme Court are annoyed because they did something they don't like. They're not looking properly at whether they've gone over their power, they don't care to understand.

It's usual in many things, it's about self interest.

If people want people power they need to have things like the Swiss system. But no one talks about that.

The Supreme Court was intended to be the highest court to referee and be arbiter of disputes. It was not intended to be a legislative body with more power and authority to dictate legislation than that given to the people's elected representatives.

It's not a legislative body. It didn't make legislation.

It said that the constitution had been interpreted wrongly, and so said that it should be interpreted properly. This is not legislative power, it's judicial power.

The Supreme Court is the interpreter of the Constitution. Without the Supreme Court Congress could make any law it likes, if it got enough votes the President couldn't even overrule it. So, the Supreme Court is a check and balance.

It's been like that for a long time. But a lot of people seem to pretend the Supreme Court is making law somehow. It's not.

14th Amendment says people should have equality of the law. If Mississippi makes a law which takes the equality of the law away from people, such a law should be declared unconstitutional. It was. The Supreme Court is not making law, it's telling Mississippi and other places their law is unconstitutional.

Simples.

And I think I have made an adequate argument for how the high court (and others) do legislate from the bench.

But the question from the concept of the OP remains: what recourse do we have when the High Court gets it wrong? Who has the authority to discipline the court?

 

[Derideo_Te]

And I think I have made an adequate argument for how the high court (and others) do legislate from the bench.

The court has no such powers.

But the question from the concept of the OP remains: what recourse do we have when the High Court gets it wrong? Who has the authority to discipline the court?

It is true that the SC does occasionally make mistakes.

Dredd Scott and Citizens United being classic examples.

What usually happens is that other suits reach the bench in the course of time and those justices have the opportunity to overturn the earlier decisions.

But for those who can't wait Congress can pass legislation that balances out the harm done by the erroneous decision.

This is how the check and balance system works.

There is no need for the illegal "nullification" proposed in the OP since the existing system is set up to correct the mistakes that it makes from time to time.

 

[dcraelin]

Citizen Warren Michelsen, believes all branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--of the U.S. federal government have overstepped their constitutional authority, he proposes that the American people move to restore the power to self govern that the Constitution originally intended.

A recent Harris poll suggests a majority of Americans agree with him: Supreme Court SCOTUS lifetime appointment Harris

He has provided an in depth, lengthy and well thought out argument to support his opinion here: Amending the Constitution

His basic thesis is that five out of nine Supreme Court justices should not have the uncontested power to determine the fate or destiny of all the people, nor should the federal government at any level have the sole power to judge the legality of government action at any level. Further the federal government should be required to provide much more consensus as to the legality of the legislation it passes before that legislation is imposed upon the people.

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed to restore power to the people:

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.

Section 3. Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.​

The OP at this time is not ready to declare an opinion on whether Michelsen is right in part or in whole about that, but rather would throws it open for consideration, evaluation, and discussion. Disclosure: This discussion has been offered at a different site in addition to this one as as an experiment.

QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED:

Do you or do you not wholly or in part support Michelsen's proposed Amendment as written to limit the power of government and return that power to the people? Why or why not.?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic please with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any person, group, demographic, state, ideology, or political party allowed. The topic is summarized in the Question to be discussed and can include any of the statements or arguments provided in the OP or the two links provided.

2. To avoid getting bogged down in semantics, as deemed necessary, the OP reserves the right to define words, terms, or phrases for the purposes of this discussion only.

3. Links are not required to participate in this discussion, but if they are used, please provide a brief synopsis of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

This is so ridiculous and so avoids the problems that are at the heart of the system.

The problem isn't the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is a check and a balance.

Most people who are annoyed with the Supreme Court are annoyed because they did something they don't like. They're not looking properly at whether they've gone over their power, they don't care to understand.

It's usual in many things, it's about self interest.

If people want people power they need to have things like the Swiss system. But no one talks about that.

The Supreme Court was intended to be the highest court to referee and be arbiter of disputes. It was not intended to be a legislative body with more power and authority to dictate legislation than that given to the people's elected representatives.

It's not a legislative body. It didn't make legislation.

It said that the constitution had been interpreted wrongly, and so said that it should be interpreted properly. This is not legislative power, it's judicial power.

The Supreme Court is the interpreter of the Constitution. Without the Supreme Court Congress could make any law it likes, if it got enough votes the President couldn't even overrule it. So, the Supreme Court is a check and balance.

It's been like that for a long time. But a lot of people seem to pretend the Supreme Court is making law somehow. It's not.

14th Amendment says people should have equality of the law. If Mississippi makes a law which takes the equality of the law away from people, such a law should be declared unconstitutional. It was. The Supreme Court is not making law, it's telling Mississippi and other places their law is unconstitutional.

Simples.

If doing their job properly the SC would only have an impact on the margins............large policy changes such as gay marriage are rightly left with the people.

perhaps its as simple as requiring a super-majority SC ruling when they would overturn a State Constitutional provision......or when a law has been passed within a state directly by the people.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Citizen Warren Michelsen, believes all branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--of the U.S. federal government have overstepped their constitutional authority, he proposes that the American people move to restore the power to self govern that the Constitution originally intended.

A recent Harris poll suggests a majority of Americans agree with him: Supreme Court SCOTUS lifetime appointment Harris

He has provided an in depth, lengthy and well thought out argument to support his opinion here: Amending the Constitution

His basic thesis is that five out of nine Supreme Court justices should not have the uncontested power to determine the fate or destiny of all the people, nor should the federal government at any level have the sole power to judge the legality of government action at any level. Further the federal government should be required to provide much more consensus as to the legality of the legislation it passes before that legislation is imposed upon the people.

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed to restore power to the people:

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.

Section 3. Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.​

The OP at this time is not ready to declare an opinion on whether Michelsen is right in part or in whole about that, but rather would throws it open for consideration, evaluation, and discussion. Disclosure: This discussion has been offered at a different site in addition to this one as as an experiment.

QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED:

Do you or do you not wholly or in part support Michelsen's proposed Amendment as written to limit the power of government and return that power to the people? Why or why not.?

RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:

1. Stay on topic please with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any person, group, demographic, state, ideology, or political party allowed. The topic is summarized in the Question to be discussed and can include any of the statements or arguments provided in the OP or the two links provided.

2. To avoid getting bogged down in semantics, as deemed necessary, the OP reserves the right to define words, terms, or phrases for the purposes of this discussion only.

3. Links are not required to participate in this discussion, but if they are used, please provide a brief synopsis of what the member will learn if they click on the link.

This is so ridiculous and so avoids the problems that are at the heart of the system.

The problem isn't the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is a check and a balance.

Most people who are annoyed with the Supreme Court are annoyed because they did something they don't like. They're not looking properly at whether they've gone over their power, they don't care to understand.

It's usual in many things, it's about self interest.

If people want people power they need to have things like the Swiss system. But no one talks about that.

The Supreme Court was intended to be the highest court to referee and be arbiter of disputes. It was not intended to be a legislative body with more power and authority to dictate legislation than that given to the people's elected representatives.

It's not a legislative body. It didn't make legislation.

It said that the constitution had been interpreted wrongly, and so said that it should be interpreted properly. This is not legislative power, it's judicial power.

The Supreme Court is the interpreter of the Constitution. Without the Supreme Court Congress could make any law it likes, if it got enough votes the President couldn't even overrule it. So, the Supreme Court is a check and balance.

It's been like that for a long time. But a lot of people seem to pretend the Supreme Court is making law somehow. It's not.

14th Amendment says people should have equality of the law. If Mississippi makes a law which takes the equality of the law away from people, such a law should be declared unconstitutional. It was. The Supreme Court is not making law, it's telling Mississippi and other places their law is unconstitutional.

Simples.

If doing their job properly the SC would only have an impact on the margins............large policy changes such as gay marriage are rightly left with the people.

perhaps its as simple as requiring a super-majority SC ruling when they would overturn a State Constitutional provision......or when a law has been passed within a state directly by the people.

Isn't that exactly what happened in the SSM case?

A vote of 7 to 2?

Doesn't that count as a "super majority" to override those states who had violated the Federal Constitution when they changed their state constitution to illegally define marriage as being opposites sexes only?

 

[candycorn]

The only power we need is already in our hands. The vote.
We do not know how to use it.

It's that simple.

its use is manipulated by a two-party system that usually gives no real choice.

we need a national initiative option such as the Swiss have, to bypass the crooks in DC.

Not true. We have the power. We do almost nothing other than show up on election day. Hence we don't know how to use it.

Few of us attend any campaign events.
Persons here (proudly) proclaim they don't watch debates.I imagine these people are more involved than some others.
Fewer of us work for campaigns
Still fewer attempt to draft anyone we admire into public service (did you know that it used to be considered rude to campaign for yourself?)

But what is even more disconcerting from the standpoint of the OP is that communal America is all but dead. Nobody I know belongs to a lodge, few belong to a community group like the KOC or Shriners, not many go to church much less take part in activities outside of Sunday.

Do you know your neighbors?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The only power we need is already in our hands. The vote.
We do not know how to use it.

It's that simple.

I would disagree.

Configuring what we vote for (and what they vote for) is a significant power too.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The only power we need is already in our hands. The vote.
We do not know how to use it.

It's that simple.

its use is manipulated by a two-party system that usually gives no real choice.

we need a national initiative option such as the Swiss have, to bypass the crooks in DC.

Not true. We have the power. We do almost nothing other than show up on election day. Hence we don't know how to use it.

Few of us attend any campaign events.
Persons here (proudly) proclaim they don't watch debates.I imagine these people are more involved than some others.
Fewer of us work for campaigns
Still fewer attempt to draft anyone we admire into public service (did you know that it used to be considered rude to campaign for yourself?)

But what is even more disconcerting from the standpoint of the OP is that communal America is all but dead. Nobody I know belongs to a lodge, few belong to a community group like the KOC or Shriners, not many go to church much less take part in activities outside of Sunday.

Do you know your neighbors?

Have you ever read the book Bowling Alone ?

It is a fascinating (but somewhat difficult) read. Putnam is a statistician.....what can I say.

He later followed with book entitled Better Together.

His fundamental premise is the concept of Social Capital.

I highly recommend it. The title is actually a derivation from an anecdotal story that supports the concept of Social Capital.