Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[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.

Please describe and explain the national initiative option that the Swiss have.

 

[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?

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.

Well, I have no jurisdiction or ability to control what you do or do not see. Many of us do see the unconstitutional actions of government in all three branches, and we the people are helpless when they write unconstitutional rules.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

Please describe and explain the national initiative option that the Swiss have.

Popular initiative Switzerland - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it.

Basically the Swiss system is unlike any other system around. Their executive is not one person. It's seven people. The actual head of state is rotating among these seven people who are elected by the legislature. This sort of thing prevents personality politics taking over. No Hitler, no Obama, no Bush, just people who have worked their way up through the system, gained the respect of ALL of those people on their legislature for them to be promoted to the executive.

The Swiss people have a lot of say in the whole thing to. So, if the legislature or executive do something that is unpopular, the people can have a say.

There are referenda, usually about 4 or 5 a year. The problem here is that turnout for voting isn't very high, it gets below 50% at times and remains around the 50% mark, more or less, most of the time.

Then there are these Popular Initiatives which are basically the people suggesting laws.

So if they get 180,000 votes the initiative happens. If parliament doesn't like it they can't stop it happening but can organise a counter initiative. This cannot go about fundamental human rights. So, like the referenda on gay marriage, this would simply be rejected (if the Swiss recognised gay marriage as a fundamental right in their constitution)

This is generally used to change the constitution which requires a double majority. This is similar to a bicameral system. It's like the Senate and the House voting for something. The Senate will be a majority of states (in Switzerland Cantons) voting and the House will be a majority of the people.

This generally keeps politicians on edge. In the US this is not the case because they just need money, and less so public support (clearly I'm generalising), but in Switzerland it's about the people far, far more.

 

[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.

Well, I have no jurisdiction or ability to control what you do or do not see. Many of us do see the unconstitutional actions of government in all three branches, and we the people are helpless when they write unconstitutional rules.

This is a big problem in the US. People have a vote, but it's almost meaningless. Sure, they can change who is in government, to a certain extent. But with so many people voting based out of ignorance (ie, listening to advertising and the media rather than knowing what is going on) even if you know what you're voting for, chances are you won't actually get it anyway, unless you get lucky.

 

[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.

Please describe and explain the national initiative option that the Swiss have.

Popular initiative Switzerland - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about it.

Basically the Swiss system is unlike any other system around. Their executive is not one person. It's seven people. The actual head of state is rotating among these seven people who are elected by the legislature. This sort of thing prevents personality politics taking over. No Hitler, no Obama, no Bush, just people who have worked their way up through the system, gained the respect of ALL of those people on their legislature for them to be promoted to the executive.

The Swiss people have a lot of say in the whole thing to. So, if the legislature or executive do something that is unpopular, the people can have a say.

There are referenda, usually about 4 or 5 a year. The problem here is that turnout for voting isn't very high, it gets below 50% at times and remains around the 50% mark, more or less, most of the time.

Then there are these Popular Initiatives which are basically the people suggesting laws.

So if they get 180,000 votes the initiative happens. If parliament doesn't like it they can't stop it happening but can organise a counter initiative. This cannot go about fundamental human rights. So, like the referenda on gay marriage, this would simply be rejected (if the Swiss recognised gay marriage as a fundamental right in their constitution)

This is generally used to change the constitution which requires a double majority. This is similar to a bicameral system. It's like the Senate and the House voting for something. The Senate will be a majority of states (in Switzerland Cantons) voting and the House will be a majority of the people.

This generally keeps politicians on edge. In the US this is not the case because they just need money, and less so public support (clearly I'm generalising), but in Switzerland it's about the people far, far more.

Thanks for getting the info..............I wasnt talking about their lack of a president.........but that is interesting and similar to what Ben Franklin proposed for US.

Not sure I get what you mean on what it takes for changing Swiss Constitution, majority in all cantons and nationwide?....majority in majority of cantons?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Thanks for getting the info..............I wasnt talking about their lack of a president.........but that is interesting and similar to what Ben Franklin proposed for US.

Not sure I get what you mean on what it takes for changing Swiss Constitution, majority in all cantons and nationwide?....majority in majority of cantons?

I know you weren't talking about the executive not being one person, however I think it's essential to understand such things when you're dealing with issues like referenda and initiatives.

Often what happens is that people take one thing from a country like Switzerland and prance around saying the US should do this because it works in Switzerland without understand why it works in Switzerland. In the US it would be pretty difficult to implement.

Switzerland has a population of 8 million people. The US more than 300 million. It takes 180,000 people to get an initiative. In the US that would be about 7 million people. Not impossible but certainly would take a lot of effort. However they are used to their direct democracy and have had it for centuries. The American people are used to being told who to vote for and what to vote for.

Also, special interests in the US would drown out any voice that goes against their will. Look at the Iraq War in 2003, so much support for it, why? Because these special interests spent a long time making it happen. They've been plying the anti-Iran trade for a long time too. No doubt many Americans would be in favor of invading Iran without a clue about anything that happens in Iran except for the stuff they're told by the media.

As for the second point, Cantons are like States, only smaller, clearly. A majority of Cantons is required to change the Constitution. But ALSO a majority of the people is required too. Two votes happen, and there needs to be a majority of both in order for the Constitution to be passed. As there is in the US where you need a majority in the House and a majority of States (well 2/3s, but you get the point I hope).

 

[dcraelin]

Thanks for getting the info..............I wasnt talking about their lack of a president.........but that is interesting and similar to what Ben Franklin proposed for US.

Not sure I get what you mean on what it takes for changing Swiss Constitution, majority in all cantons and nationwide?....majority in majority of cantons?

I know you weren't talking about the executive not being one person, however I think it's essential to understand such things when you're dealing with issues like referenda and initiatives.

Often what happens is that people take one thing from a country like Switzerland and prance around saying the US should do this because it works in Switzerland without understand why it works in Switzerland. In the US it would be pretty difficult to implement.

Switzerland has a population of 8 million people. The US more than 300 million. It takes 180,000 people to get an initiative. In the US that would be about 7 million people. Not impossible but certainly would take a lot of effort. However they are used to their direct democracy and have had it for centuries. The American people are used to being told who to vote for and what to vote for.

Also, special interests in the US would drown out any voice that goes against their will. Look at the Iraq War in 2003, so much support for it, why? Because these special interests spent a long time making it happen. They've been plying the anti-Iran trade for a long time too. No doubt many Americans would be in favor of invading Iran without a clue about anything that happens in Iran except for the stuff they're told by the media.

As for the second point, Cantons are like States, only smaller, clearly. A majority of Cantons is required to change the Constitution. But ALSO a majority of the people is required too. Two votes happen, and there needs to be a majority of both in order for the Constitution to be passed. As there is in the US where you need a majority in the House and a majority of States (well 2/3s, but you get the point I hope).

I dont think the lack of a president is necessary for a national referendum or initiative, or augments it etc .....although like I said that is what Franklin wanted.

It would take more effort perhaps but we do have a national election every 4 years. Modern technology could help. AN initiative or referendum could pass in stages with a certain amount of states triggering regional votes that if pass would expand. A method has already been outlined by a group once led by Senator Gravel I believe.

Americans are generally non-interventionist....I doubt your Iran scenario.

so each canton has its own legislature, which must approve I take it.....still seems less restrictive than our own system.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I dont think the lack of a president is necessary for a national referendum or initiative, or augments it etc .....although like I said that is what Franklin wanted.

It would take more effort perhaps but we do have a national election every 4 years. Modern technology could help. AN initiative or referendum could pass in stages with a certain amount of states triggering regional votes that if pass would expand. A method has already been outlined by a group once led by Senator Gravel I believe.

Americans are generally non-interventionist....I doubt your Iran scenario.

so each canton has its own legislature, which must approve I take it.....still seems less restrictive than our own system.

I didn't say it was necessary. That wasn't the point. The point is that the Swiss do things differently because Switzerland is different.

Like I said, one of the problems even in Switzerland is that they have like 4 votes a year. Turn out is around 50%. In the US turn out every 4 years is at an acceptable level but nothing more than that. 4 times a year and you'd probably end up with turn out like 30% or less. Democracy?

An initiative is an interesting idea, but look at the groups who would use it to simply fight the other side. Partisan politics is insane in the US. The whole system with the executive and other parts of government mean that partisan politics is no where near as bad in Switzerland and that people have to work together, rather than against each other like in the US.

The religious right would be off making an initiative every three weeks about some nonsense or other. Switzerland has protections for fundamental rights. The US would certainly need this and certainly need to be clearer about what rights would be protected, as many hardly understand the Bill or Rights.

Americans are generally non-interventionist? Americans as in the American people or the American government?

I mean, the US govt has invaded Iraq, bombed Libya, helped a coup in Venezuela, put sanctions against Venezuela, put sanctions against Iran. Why? What links them all?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

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.

Well, I have no jurisdiction or ability to control what you do or do not see. Many of us do see the unconstitutional actions of government in all three branches, and we the people are helpless when they write unconstitutional rules.

I believe the problem is that we've lost track of what the branches were supposed to do.

The President was there to enforce the laws. He or she wasn't supposed to set the direction of the country.

That is the job of the House. And even then it was to be limited to the scope spelled out in the Constitution. It is amazing to me that so many think that the "General Welfare" clause is an open invitation to the federal government to get involved in anything and everything. We've lost that understanding.

The senate was appointed by the states so that it could keep an eye on the house. That way the house didn't do stuff to infringe on the powers of the states as were CLEARLY defined by the 10th amendment and elaborated upon by Madison, at length, in Federalist 44, 45, and 46 (meaning there should be no question as to what was intended).

The SCOTUS was to have no force. A SSM ruling like the one we got would never have occured to our founders. The idea was that the SCOTUS rule on anything within the scope of the Federal Government's powers (i.e. the first amendment). Never was it to stick it's nose into things like abortion or SSM.

The 14th amendment was and is a mess. It's a classic example of good intentions gone wrong. It does not do what people claim it does on either side. It is ambiguous.

But it gave sway to the idea supported by a SCOTUS judge in the 1930's that somehow the Bill of Rights should be incorporated on the states.

It's a sad tale.

 

[Foxfyre]

Still a really good discussion guys. Some interesting and thought provoking insights.

I agree that the USA is nothing like Switzerland with its relatively small area, small and very cohesive population. We are nothing like any other European nation and we were never intended to be--the Founders intended us to be different and unique from the get go and wanted the people of the USA to be in charge rather than dictator, pope, monarch, or other form of totalitarian government. But there are components of the Swiss model to admire most especially that the Swiss people do have a say in what their government is able to do to them.

This I believe is where Michelsen was coming from with his proposed amendment whether or not you can agree with the structure of the various sections of it.

He writes in his argument for his amendment:

. . .There was a legislative attempt some years back to require that each new bill state the Constitutional provision which permitted Congress to legislate in the particular area addressed. It was defeated. Despite having sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, most legislators do not feel constrained by the limited powers granted to the congress by the Constitution. Since most anything can pass for 'constitutional' with a broad enough reading of the Commerce Clause, legislators are more concerned with how voting for particular legislation will affect their chances of reelection, than they are about the legislation's constitutionality.

"The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it." — Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. . .​

So his 3/4th majority necessary to pass a bill challenged on a constitutional basis--you will note that it is only those challenged on such a basis that would require that super majority. That would require our law makers to at least consider the Constitution and be ready to defend their proposed law as Constitutional. Now they just pass them and don't really care if they are challenged or not. They figure SCOTUS will be as politically motivated as they are so they have a fighting chance to get a bad law through even if it is challenged in the courts.

Michelsen also observes, accurately I think, in that same part of his argument that there is little or no effort now to comply with the Constitution, and the legislature in effect rewrites it with many laws they make.

Michelsen is suggesting restoring integrity to the process. Almost everybody in this thread has rejected his amendment outright as 'implausible' or 'unworkable'. And therefore most have rejected his reasoning and purpose for it. Most have assumed nefarious or politically motivated reasons, none that hold up under closer scrutiny. Few have considered his reasoning for why he thinks such an amendment is advisable.

 

[dcraelin]

I dont think the lack of a president is necessary for a national referendum or initiative, or augments it etc .....although like I said that is what Franklin wanted.

It would take more effort perhaps but we do have a national election every 4 years. Modern technology could help. AN initiative or referendum could pass in stages with a certain amount of states triggering regional votes that if pass would expand. A method has already been outlined by a group once led by Senator Gravel I believe.

Americans are generally non-interventionist....I doubt your Iran scenario.

so each canton has its own legislature, which must approve I take it.....still seems less restrictive than our own system.

I didn't say it was necessary. That wasn't the point. The point is that the Swiss do things differently because Switzerland is different.

Like I said, one of the problems even in Switzerland is that they have like 4 votes a year. Turn out is around 50%. In the US turn out every 4 years is at an acceptable level but nothing more than that. 4 times a year and you'd probably end up with turn out like 30% or less. Democracy?

An initiative is an interesting idea, but look at the groups who would use it to simply fight the other side. Partisan politics is insane in the US. The whole system with the executive and other parts of government mean that partisan politics is no where near as bad in Switzerland and that people have to work together, rather than against each other like in the US.

The religious right would be off making an initiative every three weeks about some nonsense or other. Switzerland has protections for fundamental rights. The US would certainly need this and certainly need to be clearer about what rights would be protected, as many hardly understand the Bill or Rights.

Americans are generally non-interventionist? Americans as in the American people or the American government?

I mean, the US govt has invaded Iraq, bombed Libya, helped a coup in Venezuela, put sanctions against Venezuela, put sanctions against Iran. Why? What links them all?

Within my own state i've seen increased turnout when ballot issues are on the ballot because people see the direct impact, and like voting directly on issues. Low turnout isnt necessarily a bad thing.....some things people would not take and interest in and that is ok. I think the addition of such an option would lessen partisan politics.

Most of the pictures in my gallery deal with issue of democracy/republic.....Jefferson said the only sure guardian of the rights of man is the will of the majority. lex majoris partis.....

I agree with you on how interventionist our "leaders" have been.....but that isnt the american people as a whole, generally.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Within my own state i've seen increased turnout when ballot issues are on the ballot because people see the direct impact, and like voting directly on issues. Low turnout isnt necessarily a bad thing.....some things people would not take and interest in and that is ok. I think the addition of such an option would lessen partisan politics.

Most of the pictures in my gallery deal with issue of democracy/republic.....Jefferson said the only sure guardian of the rights of man is the will of the majority. lex majoris partis.....

I agree with you on how interventionist our "leaders" have been.....but that isnt the american people as a whole, generally.

And how often do people go out and vote? 4 times a year?

Support of the Iraq war in the US was quite high. Support in the UK was about 5%-10%.

Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq

"Seventy-two percent of Americans interviewed in a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Saturday and Sunday favor the war against Iraq, while 25% are opposed."

The Powell Doctrine has, as one of it's reasons for going to war, the support of the people. So, they make support. No hard if you have the media on your side constantly blurting out negative things about Iraq and Saddam and WMDs and things. The Whole WMD thing was made up, yet the American people took it hook line and sinker.

If you look at the media on Iran right now, it's all about these nuclear talks. The Nuclear issue for Iran is the same as the WMD issue for Iraq.

The US watched as Pakistan went and got nuclear weapons because they were "allies" at the time. I'd rather Iran having them, they're a far more stable country and less loony than the Pakistanis are.

Iran atomic bomb probe may be completed in 2015 IAEA - Yahoo News

Here's a news story on Iran and atomic bombs.

The whole issue basically associates Iran with nukes, and the US doesn't like nukes for countries that it may one day want to invade. Rhetoric is quite low seeing as Obama is in power and the right know they can't invade right now. However Iran still comes quite high up the list of foreign countries getting in the press.

 

[Foxfyre]

Within my own state i've seen increased turnout when ballot issues are on the ballot because people see the direct impact, and like voting directly on issues. Low turnout isnt necessarily a bad thing.....some things people would not take and interest in and that is ok. I think the addition of such an option would lessen partisan politics.

Most of the pictures in my gallery deal with issue of democracy/republic.....Jefferson said the only sure guardian of the rights of man is the will of the majority. lex majoris partis.....

I agree with you on how interventionist our "leaders" have been.....but that isnt the american people as a whole, generally.

And how often do people go out and vote? 4 times a year?

Support of the Iraq war in the US was quite high. Support in the UK was about 5%-10%.

Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq

"Seventy-two percent of Americans interviewed in a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Saturday and Sunday favor the war against Iraq, while 25% are opposed."

The Powell Doctrine has, as one of it's reasons for going to war, the support of the people. So, they make support. No hard if you have the media on your side constantly blurting out negative things about Iraq and Saddam and WMDs and things. The Whole WMD thing was made up, yet the American people took it hook line and sinker.

If you look at the media on Iran right now, it's all about these nuclear talks. The Nuclear issue for Iran is the same as the WMD issue for Iraq.

The US watched as Pakistan went and got nuclear weapons because they were "allies" at the time. I'd rather Iran having them, they're a far more stable country and less loony than the Pakistanis are.

Iran atomic bomb probe may be completed in 2015 IAEA - Yahoo News

Here's a news story on Iran and atomic bombs.

The whole issue basically associates Iran with nukes, and the US doesn't like nukes for countries that it may one day want to invade. Rhetoric is quite low seeing as Obama is in power and the right know they can't invade right now. However Iran still comes quite high up the list of foreign countries getting in the press.

But what the historians have always known, when you change the system, the people will change their behavior. We cannot know how the people would handle more responsibility and power if it is given to them. We only know how they handle not having it.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Well, I have no jurisdiction or ability to control what you do or do not see. Many of us do see the unconstitutional actions of government in all three branches, and we the people are helpless when they write unconstitutional rules.

I believe the problem is that we've lost track of what the branches were supposed to do.

The President was there to enforce the laws. He or she wasn't supposed to set the direction of the country.

That is the job of the House. And even then it was to be limited to the scope spelled out in the Constitution. It is amazing to me that so many think that the "General Welfare" clause is an open invitation to the federal government to get involved in anything and everything. We've lost that understanding.

The senate was appointed by the states so that it could keep an eye on the house. That way the house didn't do stuff to infringe on the powers of the states as were CLEARLY defined by the 10th amendment and elaborated upon by Madison, at length, in Federalist 44, 45, and 46 (meaning there should be no question as to what was intended).

The SCOTUS was to have no force. A SSM ruling like the one we got would never have occured to our founders. The idea was that the SCOTUS rule on anything within the scope of the Federal Government's powers (i.e. the first amendment). Never was it to stick it's nose into things like abortion or SSM.

The 14th amendment was and is a mess. It's a classic example of good intentions gone wrong. It does not do what people claim it does on either side. It is ambiguous.

But it gave sway to the idea supported by a SCOTUS judge in the 1930's that somehow the Bill of Rights should be incorporated on the states.

It's a sad tale.

The leader of the nation was to be the President (the Executive). This is why it is the only nationwide office that is elected.

Management of the nation was to be done by the Congress

The courts have never ruled on abortion or SSM; only the underpinnings of those issues. Roe isn't an abortion topic; it is a woman's right to privacy that was decided. The direct result was abortions being safe and legal (So the Supreme Court then took a case, one from Texas and one from Georgia, and the question was: Is there a right of privacy?)

Much in the same way the Title IX decision wasn't about women's sports being on par with male counterparts in public universities. It was equal. It was about granting equal opportunity to women in all disciplines. Sports is simply the most visible area.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Within my own state i've seen increased turnout when ballot issues are on the ballot because people see the direct impact, and like voting directly on issues. Low turnout isnt necessarily a bad thing.....some things people would not take and interest in and that is ok. I think the addition of such an option would lessen partisan politics.

Most of the pictures in my gallery deal with issue of democracy/republic.....Jefferson said the only sure guardian of the rights of man is the will of the majority. lex majoris partis.....

I agree with you on how interventionist our "leaders" have been.....but that isnt the american people as a whole, generally.

And how often do people go out and vote? 4 times a year?

Support of the Iraq war in the US was quite high. Support in the UK was about 5%-10%.

Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq

"Seventy-two percent of Americans interviewed in a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Saturday and Sunday favor the war against Iraq, while 25% are opposed."

The Powell Doctrine has, as one of it's reasons for going to war, the support of the people. So, they make support. No hard if you have the media on your side constantly blurting out negative things about Iraq and Saddam and WMDs and things. The Whole WMD thing was made up, yet the American people took it hook line and sinker.

If you look at the media on Iran right now, it's all about these nuclear talks. The Nuclear issue for Iran is the same as the WMD issue for Iraq.

The US watched as Pakistan went and got nuclear weapons because they were "allies" at the time. I'd rather Iran having them, they're a far more stable country and less loony than the Pakistanis are.

Iran atomic bomb probe may be completed in 2015 IAEA - Yahoo News

Here's a news story on Iran and atomic bombs.

The whole issue basically associates Iran with nukes, and the US doesn't like nukes for countries that it may one day want to invade. Rhetoric is quite low seeing as Obama is in power and the right know they can't invade right now. However Iran still comes quite high up the list of foreign countries getting in the press.

But what the historians have always known, when you change the system, the people will change their behavior. We cannot know how the people would handle more responsibility and power if it is given to them. We only know how they handle not having it.

Of course. However the US needs to change other things first before embarking on initiatives. PR for presidential elections would be a good place to start. Then perhaps for the House too. Also getting rid of the corruption that has been legitimised in politics, especially in DC.

 

[Foxfyre]

Within my own state i've seen increased turnout when ballot issues are on the ballot because people see the direct impact, and like voting directly on issues. Low turnout isnt necessarily a bad thing.....some things people would not take and interest in and that is ok. I think the addition of such an option would lessen partisan politics.

Most of the pictures in my gallery deal with issue of democracy/republic.....Jefferson said the only sure guardian of the rights of man is the will of the majority. lex majoris partis.....

I agree with you on how interventionist our "leaders" have been.....but that isnt the american people as a whole, generally.

And how often do people go out and vote? 4 times a year?

Support of the Iraq war in the US was quite high. Support in the UK was about 5%-10%.

Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq

"Seventy-two percent of Americans interviewed in a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Saturday and Sunday favor the war against Iraq, while 25% are opposed."

The Powell Doctrine has, as one of it's reasons for going to war, the support of the people. So, they make support. No hard if you have the media on your side constantly blurting out negative things about Iraq and Saddam and WMDs and things. The Whole WMD thing was made up, yet the American people took it hook line and sinker.

If you look at the media on Iran right now, it's all about these nuclear talks. The Nuclear issue for Iran is the same as the WMD issue for Iraq.

The US watched as Pakistan went and got nuclear weapons because they were "allies" at the time. I'd rather Iran having them, they're a far more stable country and less loony than the Pakistanis are.

Iran atomic bomb probe may be completed in 2015 IAEA - Yahoo News

Here's a news story on Iran and atomic bombs.

The whole issue basically associates Iran with nukes, and the US doesn't like nukes for countries that it may one day want to invade. Rhetoric is quite low seeing as Obama is in power and the right know they can't invade right now. However Iran still comes quite high up the list of foreign countries getting in the press.

But what the historians have always known, when you change the system, the people will change their behavior. We cannot know how the people would handle more responsibility and power if it is given to them. We only know how they handle not having it.

Of course. However the US needs to change other things first before embarking on initiatives. PR for presidential elections would be a good place to start. Then perhaps for the House too. Also getting rid of the corruption that has been legitimised in politics, especially in DC.

The nuts and bolts can be worked out once the power is restored to the people and the states. For far too long now, we Americans have been trying to change bad people by changing the system or changing bad systems by changing the people. What Michelsen is proposing is a whole new approach, or at least new to the last several generations.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Well, I have no jurisdiction or ability to control what you do or do not see. Many of us do see the unconstitutional actions of government in all three branches, and we the people are helpless when they write unconstitutional rules.

I believe the problem is that we've lost track of what the branches were supposed to do.

The President was there to enforce the laws. He or she wasn't supposed to set the direction of the country.

That is the job of the House. And even then it was to be limited to the scope spelled out in the Constitution. It is amazing to me that so many think that the "General Welfare" clause is an open invitation to the federal government to get involved in anything and everything. We've lost that understanding.

The senate was appointed by the states so that it could keep an eye on the house. That way the house didn't do stuff to infringe on the powers of the states as were CLEARLY defined by the 10th amendment and elaborated upon by Madison, at length, in Federalist 44, 45, and 46 (meaning there should be no question as to what was intended).

The SCOTUS was to have no force. A SSM ruling like the one we got would never have occured to our founders. The idea was that the SCOTUS rule on anything within the scope of the Federal Government's powers (i.e. the first amendment). Never was it to stick it's nose into things like abortion or SSM.

The 14th amendment was and is a mess. It's a classic example of good intentions gone wrong. It does not do what people claim it does on either side. It is ambiguous.

But it gave sway to the idea supported by a SCOTUS judge in the 1930's that somehow the Bill of Rights should be incorporated on the states.

It's a sad tale.

The leader of the nation was to be the President (the Executive). This is why it is the only nationwide office that is elected.

Management of the nation was to be done by the Congress

The courts have never ruled on abortion or SSM; only the underpinnings of those issues. Roe isn't an abortion topic; it is a woman's right to privacy that was decided. The direct result was abortions being safe and legal (So the Supreme Court then took a case, one from Texas and one from Georgia, and the question was: Is there a right of privacy?)

Much in the same way the Title IX decision wasn't about women's sports being on par with male counterparts in public universities. It was equal. It was about granting equal opportunity to women in all disciplines. Sports is simply the most visible area.

And yet there remains broad divides and huge resentment and almost no cultural agreement on much of anything. So we're doing something wrong. I think giving the power back to the states and the people probably won't make us agree on any more topics, but it will at least make us more tolerant of each other and more likely to allow everybody to do their own thing in the way that they deem best. And we will probably start looking for candidates that we can respect and admire and trust again instead of most people voting strict party lines in retaliation against the other party.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Well, I have no jurisdiction or ability to control what you do or do not see. Many of us do see the unconstitutional actions of government in all three branches, and we the people are helpless when they write unconstitutional rules.

I believe the problem is that we've lost track of what the branches were supposed to do.

The President was there to enforce the laws. He or she wasn't supposed to set the direction of the country.

That is the job of the House. And even then it was to be limited to the scope spelled out in the Constitution. It is amazing to me that so many think that the "General Welfare" clause is an open invitation to the federal government to get involved in anything and everything. We've lost that understanding.

The senate was appointed by the states so that it could keep an eye on the house. That way the house didn't do stuff to infringe on the powers of the states as were CLEARLY defined by the 10th amendment and elaborated upon by Madison, at length, in Federalist 44, 45, and 46 (meaning there should be no question as to what was intended).

The SCOTUS was to have no force. A SSM ruling like the one we got would never have occured to our founders. The idea was that the SCOTUS rule on anything within the scope of the Federal Government's powers (i.e. the first amendment). Never was it to stick it's nose into things like abortion or SSM.

The 14th amendment was and is a mess. It's a classic example of good intentions gone wrong. It does not do what people claim it does on either side. It is ambiguous.

But it gave sway to the idea supported by a SCOTUS judge in the 1930's that somehow the Bill of Rights should be incorporated on the states.

It's a sad tale.

Nonsense.

The branches of the Federal government are functioning exactly as the Framers had intended.

And that original intent:

A Constitutional Republic whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men.

A Constitution that safeguards the inalienable rights of every person in the Republic, rights that are immune from attack by the Federal government, state governments, and local governments.

A Constitution and its case law that is the supreme law of the land, as determined by the Federal courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, in accordance with the doctrine of judicial review that was well in place and practiced before and during the Foundation Era, and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

A National government controlled solely by the people, absent interference by the states, where the rights of citizens are paramount, and the states subordinate to those rights, where one's civil liberties are not subject to 'majority rule,' and the states have no power to decide whether the citizens residing in the states will or will not have their civil rights.

Consequently, the Obergefell ruling is consistent with the above intentions, consistent with the original intent of the Framers, and consistent with the rule of law safeguarding the inalienable rights of all Americans, because one does not forfeit his civil rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, including gay Americans.

Last, that the Court has ruled in a manner that upsets some, that conflicts with their personal and subjective beliefs and political dogma, is not 'justification' to 'amend' the Constitution in some manner inconsistent with the Framers' original intent – that being the primacy of the rule of law; and the people already 'have the power,' there is no need for 'restoration,' because with power comes responsibility, therefore, when the people err, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, those measures are lawfully and appropriately invalidated by the courts.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The nuts and bolts can be worked out once the power is restored to the people and the states. For far too long now, we Americans have been trying to change bad people by changing the system or changing bad systems by changing the people. What Michelsen is proposing is a whole new approach, or at least new to the last several generations.

What's being proposes is a system that ignores the problems. Like, your refrigerator breaks down so you go fix the boiler.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Well, I have no jurisdiction or ability to control what you do or do not see. Many of us do see the unconstitutional actions of government in all three branches, and we the people are helpless when they write unconstitutional rules.

I believe the problem is that we've lost track of what the branches were supposed to do.

The President was there to enforce the laws. He or she wasn't supposed to set the direction of the country.

That is the job of the House. And even then it was to be limited to the scope spelled out in the Constitution. It is amazing to me that so many think that the "General Welfare" clause is an open invitation to the federal government to get involved in anything and everything. We've lost that understanding.

The senate was appointed by the states so that it could keep an eye on the house. That way the house didn't do stuff to infringe on the powers of the states as were CLEARLY defined by the 10th amendment and elaborated upon by Madison, at length, in Federalist 44, 45, and 46 (meaning there should be no question as to what was intended).

The SCOTUS was to have no force. A SSM ruling like the one we got would never have occured to our founders. The idea was that the SCOTUS rule on anything within the scope of the Federal Government's powers (i.e. the first amendment). Never was it to stick it's nose into things like abortion or SSM.

The 14th amendment was and is a mess. It's a classic example of good intentions gone wrong. It does not do what people claim it does on either side. It is ambiguous.

But it gave sway to the idea supported by a SCOTUS judge in the 1930's that somehow the Bill of Rights should be incorporated on the states.

It's a sad tale.

The leader of the nation was to be the President (the Executive). This is why it is the only nationwide office that is elected.

Management of the nation was to be done by the Congress

The courts have never ruled on abortion or SSM; only the underpinnings of those issues. Roe isn't an abortion topic; it is a woman's right to privacy that was decided. The direct result was abortions being safe and legal (So the Supreme Court then took a case, one from Texas and one from Georgia, and the question was: Is there a right of privacy?)

Much in the same way the Title IX decision wasn't about women's sports being on par with male counterparts in public universities. It was equal. It was about granting equal opportunity to women in all disciplines. Sports is simply the most visible area.

And yet there remains broad divides and huge resentment and almost no cultural agreement on much of anything. So we're doing something wrong. I think giving the power back to the states and the people probably won't make us agree on any more topics, but it will at least make us more tolerant of each other and more likely to allow everybody to do their own thing in the way that they deem best. And we will probably start looking for candidates that we can respect and admire and trust again instead of most people voting strict party lines in retaliation against the other party.

Allowing intolerance and persecution to stand is not acceptable.

If you're Chevron and you have a dynamite office manager who really knows how to guide a staff or a roughneck who knows how to motivate a crew and you want to send him/her to another state to improve an office or under-producing well, you'd like to be able to do that without these persons having qualms about whether their lifestyle choices would be breaking the law in that state. So, because of some bizarre action by the legislature, Chevron misses out on the opportunity to improve their business.

Or, if you need open heart surgery and the leading specialist is homosexual and chooses not to fly to Texas where the law could be made to lynch "fags" I guess you'll just die or rely on a less-skilled surgeon?

Or, as political winds change, what was acceptable in 2015 is suddenly outlawed in 2020..I guess you will just have to move away or rely on the mercy of the newly installed regime to be "accepted"....

And if that new regime is not happy with you and your lesbian lover raising your child...can they take your kid away from you?

This is why human rights should never be put to popular vote.