Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[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.

I would disagree.

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

Well put.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

I not only know my neighbors but we all have each other's phone numbers, several have exchanged house keys, we take care of each other's fish ponds, yards, houses, pick up mail, etc., exchange Christmas cookies, and are otherwise there for each other when somebody needs an extra hand or borrow something or somebody's mother arrives and there is nobody to let her in the house or somebody needs guest parking space in our driveways.

How political anybody is, I don't have a clue because we don't discuss that with the neighbors. But I suspect they are at least as interested as we are because some do allow campaign signs in their yards. And no, they aren't all the same campaign signs.

But why does that matter? Those who are just doing what they have to do to live their lives and get through what they have to get through still have their opinions about what is good or bad, right and wrong. And most believe government is overstepping its authority and assuming power it was never intended to have:
62 Say Government Has Too Much Power in America Today - Rasmussen Reports

. . .Congress has chosen, for whatever reason, be it laziness or genuine respect of the Courts, to allow the Court to say what is law and what isn’t. Congress has neglected to challenge the Court’s determination to legislate, and has made enforcement available to the Judiciary. In the past, the judicial branch was in no way capable of enforcing their rulings, or even having their opinions deemed “rulings.” In regards to the 1832 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Worcester v. Georgia, Andrew Jackson is credited with saying, “John Marshall [the Supreme Court Chief Justice] has made his decision, now let him enforce it!” If Barack Obama were to say something along the lines of this to America’s current Chief Justice, John Roberts Jr., there would be mass hysteria of how President Obama disrespects the courts. . . .
The Judicial Branch Too Much Power Jason Marshall Rhetoric Civic Life Blog​

What most divides us is the concept of each state, group, individual having rights secured to live as it or he/she chooses vs those who want the government to order everybody to live as the government chooses.

 

[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.

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?

it cedrtainly wasnt 7 to 2, I think it was 5 to 4

 

[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.

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.

Perhaps it is as simple that when the SCOTUS referees or arbitrates a conflict, the decision only affects the parties in conflict and SCOTUS is diligent in applying the strict letter and intent of the Constitution or existing law to make that determination. If the law is silent, then so is the court.

But a decision between Citizen A and Citizen B should never then become the law for everybody else.

 

[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.

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?

well I do somewhat, but I consider it neighborly to leave them alone.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

it cedrtainly wasnt 7 to 2, I think it was 5 to 4

It was 5 to 4. It overturned a federal law and numerous state laws with one swooping and far reaching decision. Again you have five people who have lifetime appointments and who will suffer absolutely no disciplinary action or consequences of any kind deciding what the law of the entire land will be on SSM. Of course those who support SSM were elated and approve the ruling. But what if it had gone the other way and been 5/4 upholding the federal government's and the states' authority to ban SSM or, worse, just flat out banning SSM? Would that 5/4 split look so good then?

It doesn't matter whether the issue is SSM or contraceptives or abortion or the price of eggs in Peoria, it gives a tiny group of Americans enormous power to dictate to the entire country what the law of the land will be. And there is absolutely nothing that anybody--not the President, not the Legislature, or any department of government, or all 50 states put together can do about it.

We have laws that require 12 out of 12 jurors to determine the fate of a person accused of a crime. But a razor thin majority of one person can declare law that will affect every man, woman, and child in the entire country? How is that a good thing? And given that people are not appointed to the high court for their judicial temperament and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States, but are appointed because they support various sociopolitical issues, how is that a good thing?

To me that is an extremely dangerous thing.

 

[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?

well I do somewhat, but I consider it neighborly to leave them alone.

This is what I mean; communal America has gone bye bye. One of the side effects is that people don't talk politics around the water cooler or across the back-fence.

 

[candycorn]

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?

it cedrtainly wasnt 7 to 2, I think it was 5 to 4

It was 5 to 4. Again you have five people who have lifetime appointments and who will suffer absolutely no disciplinary action or consequences of any kind deciding what the law of the entire land will be on SSM. It doesn't matter whether the issue is SSM or contraceptives or abortion or the price of eggs in Peoria, it gives a tiny group of Americans enormous power to dictate to the entire country what the law of the land will be. And there is absolutely nothing that anybody--not the President, not the Legislature, or any department of government can do about it.

We have laws that require 12 out of 12 jurors to determine the fate of a person accused of a crime. But a razor thin majority of one person can declare law that will affect every man, woman, and child in the entire country? How is that a good thing?

To me that is an extremely dangerous thing.

The nation has survived 240 years or so with the system in place. No adjustment needed.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

it cedrtainly wasnt 7 to 2, I think it was 5 to 4

It was 5 to 4. Again you have five people who have lifetime appointments and who will suffer absolutely no disciplinary action or consequences of any kind deciding what the law of the entire land will be on SSM. It doesn't matter whether the issue is SSM or contraceptives or abortion or the price of eggs in Peoria, it gives a tiny group of Americans enormous power to dictate to the entire country what the law of the land will be. And there is absolutely nothing that anybody--not the President, not the Legislature, or any department of government can do about it.

We have laws that require 12 out of 12 jurors to determine the fate of a person accused of a crime. But a razor thin majority of one person can declare law that will affect every man, woman, and child in the entire country? How is that a good thing?

To me that is an extremely dangerous thing.

The nation has survived 240 years or so with the system in place. No adjustment needed.

If you refer to the OP, the system we have now was not the intended system and most certainly has not been the system before the late 20th Century.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

The recourse is SIMPLE. You change the constitution. If so many people are in favor of something else, then Congress and the states can change it.

It's called checks and balances. It's funny how many people simply don't understand how the US political system works.

Nothing worse than trying to fix a problem when you don't know how the thing works in the first place.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The nation has survived 240 years or so with the system in place. No adjustment needed.

And has seen the need to make plenty of adjustments. However some of those adjustments have led to major problems where democracy is down to an absolute minimum.

As a Chinese English language paper put it, Hong Kong has democracy, the people can vote, one vote, one person, even if they don't get to choose who to vote for (Beijing does), it's still democracy. It's the same in the US. You don't get to choose. Big money does.

 

[candycorn]

The nation has survived 240 years or so with the system in place. No adjustment needed.

And has seen the need to make plenty of adjustments.

We've made 28 amendments to the Constitution in 240 years. About one every 10 years. Hardly any of it has been changed.

However some of those adjustments have led to major problems where democracy is down to an absolute minimum.

Good thing we're a republic.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands....

As a Chinese English language paper put it, Hong Kong has democracy, the people can vote, one vote, one person, even if they don't get to choose who to vote for (Beijing does), it's still democracy. It's the same in the US. You don't get to choose. Big money does.

Sorry, nearly 100% of those elected were voted in by us. In the odd case they were not, it was due to the death of the person voted in or their leaving their term early.

Big money means little in most cases. Otherwise, Carly Fiorina would be a Senator. She lost. In the same election, another big money candidate, Meg Whitman, lost the governor race.
Romney was worth a quarter of a billion dollars and still lost one Primary contest to McCain and one general election to Obama.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We've made 28 amendments to the Constitution in 240 years. About one every 10 years. Hardly any of it has been changed.

But things have been changed. I mean, the 14th Amendment, the Bill of Rights etc were fundamental changes.

Good thing we're a republic.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands....

That's like saying that because someone is a man, that he can's be a beer drinker as well. Being a Republic doesn't exclude things like being a democracy on top of this. However the US is barely a democracy, however it is one which thinks it's transporting democracy around the world, in form of puppet govts who do what the US govt wants.

Sorry, nearly 100% of those elected were voted in by us. In the odd case they were not, it was due to the death of the person voted in or their leaving their term early.

Big money means little in most cases. Otherwise, Carly Fiorina would be a Senator. She lost. In the same election, another big money candidate, Meg Whitman, lost the governor race.
Romney was worth a quarter of a billion dollars and still lost one Primary contest to McCain and one general election to Obama.

I'm sorry, I don't think you get my point.

100% of those elected were voted in by the people who bothered to vote. That's not my point. In fact the point is that the US is barely a democracy in the fact that while the people have a vote, they don't get much of a choice.

As in Hong Kong's position. The people will be able to vote. China says "you will have democracy", however every person they can vote for will be a person who is presented by the CHINESE GOVERNMENT. So, they can choose which puppet of the Chinese govt will serve them. They don't want a Chinese puppet. So it's not democracy. Do you understand this point?

In the US the people are also able to vote for whoever is put before them. They are also able to stand for themselves. So there's a difference. That's where the difference ends. Many candidates rely on big money.

The Money Behind the Elections OpenSecrets

You can look for yourself on opensecrets and find out how much candidates get in donation money.

Members of the 114th Congress OpenSecrets

The Congressperson who raised the LEAST amount of money was Aumua Amata who raised $25,185 for their American Samoan seat. The next, was Guam, the next on mainland USA was Roger Wicker who raised $153,213, but SPENT $487,387. The least spent was Jose Serrano $165,918.

So, the least you need to spend to get into Congress in the 50 states is a lot of money. The most was Mitch McConnell of Kentucky with $28 million spent.

The question is, where does the money come from, and who are they voting for? The people or those who give them the money?

Mitch McConnell, Mr I receive a shed load of cash, he receives $4.5 million from the Securities and Investment industry, $2 million from the oil and gas industry, $2 million from lawyers, $1.7 from Health professionals.

No doubt he's thinking about these people more than the people of Kentucky when he votes in the Senate.

Advertising is a MASSIVE thing in US politics, especially in DC. Some people need to advertise themselves to death. On top of their own personal advertising that they spend their money on, there are also party funding which helps individual candidates too.

In a presidential year, like 2012 where $7 billion was spent, advertising goes through the roof. They spend so much of it. It's like idiots who buy Pepsi instead of Coca-Cola because they believe Pepsi is "their brand for their people" type of thing.

Is it democracy when you can choose between democrat or republican and both of the candidates have been bought by big money? I'd say not.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Sure, if the SC had, in 1868 or there abouts decided that the 14th Amendment really meant that states had to abide by "equality of the law" then gay marriage wouldn't have ever been an issue. Gay people would have been able to marry in every state from 1868 onwards.

I mean, after "All men are created equal" in 1776, you would never have though it'd take to 2015 to actually get that, would you? Or that slavery would have existed for 90 years, or that segregation would have existed another 90 years. But, the SC decided cases like Dred Scott and things like this. It's taken till now for them to actually put something in place which should have been in place before.

The ONLY reason it's a shock to some people is because those people seem to think the US Constitution should mean what the hell they want it to mean. It's not a shock to me, other than they actually did it. But those right wingers who seem to hate the constitution unless it gives them what they demand should be the case are whinging and moaning because they don't like change, even if they should have seen it coming and even if they should bloody well accept it.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Sure, if the SC had, in 1868 or there abouts decided that the 14th Amendment really meant that states had to abide by "equality of the law" then gay marriage wouldn't have ever been an issue. Gay people would have been able to marry in every state from 1868 onwards.

I mean, after "All men are created equal" in 1776, you would never have though it'd take to 2015 to actually get that, would you? Or that slavery would have existed for 90 years, or that segregation would have existed another 90 years. But, the SC decided cases like Dred Scott and things like this. It's taken till now for them to actually put something in place which should have been in place before.

The ONLY reason it's a shock to some people is because those people seem to think the US Constitution should mean what the hell they want it to mean. It's not a shock to me, other than they actually did it. But those right wingers who seem to hate the constitution unless it gives them what they demand should be the case are whinging and moaning because they don't like change, even if they should have seen it coming and even if they should bloody well accept it.

I would say that through its history the SC has been more wrong than right. 4 of them said this SSM ruling was wrong. To celebrate this as righting some long miss-justice is overwrought. Unlike interracial marriages....no one was throwing cohabiting gays in jail. And the lie was put to this claim of "equality" by the fact that singles were left out of the advocacy. NO tax benefits should be based solely on relationship status.

As Roberts said, Advocates have lost, and lost forever, the chance to do this the right way.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

it cedrtainly wasnt 7 to 2, I think it was 5 to 4

Sorry, wrong case! Yes, it was 5-4.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

The recourse is SIMPLE. You change the constitution. If so many people are in favor of something else, then Congress and the states can change it.

It's called checks and balances. It's funny how many people simply don't understand how the US political system works.

Nothing worse than trying to fix a problem when you don't know how the thing works in the first place.

It is not a matter of understanding how the system works. How does it help to change the Constitution if one or more branches of the government, including the High Court, chooses not to follow it?

 

[candycorn]

Good thing we're a republic.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands....

That's like saying that because someone is a man, that he can's be a beer drinker as well. Being a Republic doesn't exclude things like being a democracy on top of this. However the US is barely a democracy, however it is one which thinks it's transporting democracy around the world, in form of puppet govts who do what the US govt wants.

Not quiet. Its more like saying a man cannot be a man and a horse. Democracy is one form of government and a republic is another. We have a republic with some democratic outcroppings. As opposed to the democracy with some republican (small r) outcroppings that you seem to feel we have, should have, or did have at one time. For example, we elect representatives to speak for us. This is republicanism 101.

Sorry, nearly 100% of those elected were voted in by us. In the odd case they were not, it was due to the death of the person voted in or their leaving their term early.

Big money means little in most cases. Otherwise, Carly Fiorina would be a Senator. She lost. In the same election, another big money candidate, Meg Whitman, lost the governor race.
Romney was worth a quarter of a billion dollars and still lost one Primary contest to McCain and one general election to Obama.

I'm sorry, I don't think you get my point.

100% of those elected were voted in by the people who bothered to vote. That's not my point. In fact the point is that the US is barely a democracy in the fact that while the people have a vote, they don't get much of a choice.

As in Hong Kong's position. The people will be able to vote. China says "you will have democracy", however every person they can vote for will be a person who is presented by the CHINESE GOVERNMENT. So, they can choose which puppet of the Chinese govt will serve them. They don't want a Chinese puppet. So it's not democracy. Do you understand this point?

In the US the people are also able to vote for whoever is put before them. They are also able to stand for themselves. So there's a difference. That's where the difference ends. Many candidates rely on big money.

The Money Behind the Elections OpenSecrets

You can look for yourself on opensecrets and find out how much candidates get in donation money.

Members of the 114th Congress OpenSecrets

The Congressperson who raised the LEAST amount of money was Aumua Amata who raised $25,185 for their American Samoan seat. The next, was Guam, the next on mainland USA was Roger Wicker who raised $153,213, but SPENT $487,387. The least spent was Jose Serrano $165,918.

So, the least you need to spend to get into Congress in the 50 states is a lot of money. The most was Mitch McConnell of Kentucky with $28 million spent.

The question is, where does the money come from, and who are they voting for? The people or those who give them the money?

Mitch McConnell, Mr I receive a shed load of cash, he receives $4.5 million from the Securities and Investment industry, $2 million from the oil and gas industry, $2 million from lawyers, $1.7 from Health professionals.

No doubt he's thinking about these people more than the people of Kentucky when he votes in the Senate.

Advertising is a MASSIVE thing in US politics, especially in DC. Some people need to advertise themselves to death. On top of their own personal advertising that they spend their money on, there are also party funding which helps individual candidates too.

In a presidential year, like 2012 where $7 billion was spent, advertising goes through the roof. They spend so much of it. It's like idiots who buy Pepsi instead of Coca-Cola because they believe Pepsi is "their brand for their people" type of thing.

Is it democracy when you can choose between democrat or republican and both of the candidates have been bought by big money? I'd say not.

What you're speaking about is campaign finance reform; hardly anything that we need to tinker with the Constitution to remedy. The fix is pretty simple, for federal elections every 2 years, force the media to give away space in newspapers, magazines, internet pages and airtime on radio and TV for free. If you are a viable candidate via petition counts or some other barometer of broad support, you qualify for free ad space/time. If you have no chance to win nationally, the national networks are not responsible for covering you.

Local races/statewide races will depend on media outlets in those states.

As for big money selecting your slate of candidates, again, Romney lost in 2008 to McCain. Trump is not going to win this year and neither is Fiorina. I really don't know what else you expect. I suppose we could remedy all of this with laws that all political advertising must be free but it seems like a strange thing to do in a capitalist society.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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?

The recourse is SIMPLE. You change the constitution. If so many people are in favor of something else, then Congress and the states can change it.

It's called checks and balances. It's funny how many people simply don't understand how the US political system works.

Nothing worse than trying to fix a problem when you don't know how the thing works in the first place.

It is not a matter of understanding how the system works. How does it help to change the Constitution if one or more branches of the government, including the High Court, chooses not to follow it?

Who doesn't follow it? I don't see anyone not following. I see them using it for their own goals. I don't like that, however they're within the rules.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Sure, if the SC had, in 1868 or there abouts decided that the 14th Amendment really meant that states had to abide by "equality of the law" then gay marriage wouldn't have ever been an issue. Gay people would have been able to marry in every state from 1868 onwards.

I mean, after "All men are created equal" in 1776, you would never have though it'd take to 2015 to actually get that, would you? Or that slavery would have existed for 90 years, or that segregation would have existed another 90 years. But, the SC decided cases like Dred Scott and things like this. It's taken till now for them to actually put something in place which should have been in place before.

The ONLY reason it's a shock to some people is because those people seem to think the US Constitution should mean what the hell they want it to mean. It's not a shock to me, other than they actually did it. But those right wingers who seem to hate the constitution unless it gives them what they demand should be the case are whinging and moaning because they don't like change, even if they should have seen it coming and even if they should bloody well accept it.

I would say that through its history the SC has been more wrong than right. 4 of them said this SSM ruling was wrong. To celebrate this as righting some long miss-justice is overwrought. Unlike interracial marriages....no one was throwing cohabiting gays in jail. And the lie was put to this claim of "equality" by the fact that singles were left out of the advocacy. NO tax benefits should be based solely on relationship status.

As Roberts said, Advocates have lost, and lost forever, the chance to do this the right way.

Thank you for addressing the actual issue at hand here. And while I do not want us to get sidetracked into tax benefits for marrieds or yet another pro or con argument over SSM, I have no quarrel with a uniform tax code that encourages marriages without prejudice or favoritism because I believe the traditional marriage to be the most important and beneficial of all institutions and the very best circumstance for both gay and straight children, I can accept that as promoting the general welfare. It requires no contribution or unwilling participation by anybody and disadvantages nobody.

But I have never agreed with the federal government making ANY law regarding what marriage is or who can participate in it. I can find nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government that authority.

But once the federal government begins making laws regarding marriage, Chief Justice Roberts is right that marriage is now what the federal. government dictates what marriage is and is forever changed. And we have lost the chance to do it right.

Again had the vote been 5/4 the other way, I imagine those who are celebrating the decision would not be so agreeable that the decision was valid.

Does the Court get it wrong more often than right? I believe that every time the Court issues a decision that then becomes the law of the land, they are outside the Constitution and are therefore in the wrong.