Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[Syriusly]

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.

The consequences of #2 is pretty easy to see if we look back on history.

If this amendment in place- mixed race couples would have been banned from getting married in Virginia and Georgia until the mid 1990's.
If this amendment were in place- there would be states where guns were effectively banned from private ownership.
If this amendment were in place- Americans would not have had access to contraceptives in many states for another 20 years.

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

Actually that is a good point.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Syriusly]

I reject it. If you want to restore the state's rights to the Constitution you simply repeal the 17th Amendment. In the original Constitution the Senate was intended to be the voice and Ambassador from the State Legislatures. Under this system any Senator could be recalled if he went against the will of the State. So no Senator would go against the will of the elected state gov't unless they want to lose their job.

Via moving it to the election process, Senators can be easily bought off and the State Legislatures can do nothing to stop it. And so after getting elected they do as they please even if it's against the will of the people of their state.

How would the Amendment prevent that from happening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[eagle1462010]

I reject the Amendment totally.

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

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

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

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

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

Voting is a choice and must not be made mandatory.

Regards from Rosie

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

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

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

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

Regards from Rosie

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

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

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


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

The original vetting process via the Senate was intended to block unqualified Judges or those politically motivated.......It has failed because it has become too political.

 

[Foxfyre]

I reject it. If you want to restore the state's rights to the Constitution you simply repeal the 17th Amendment. In the original Constitution the Senate was intended to be the voice and Ambassador from the State Legislatures. Under this system any Senator could be recalled if he went against the will of the State. So no Senator would go against the will of the elected state gov't unless they want to lose their job.

Via moving it to the election process, Senators can be easily bought off and the State Legislatures can do nothing to stop it. And so after getting elected they do as they please even if it's against the will of the people of their state.

How would the Amendment prevent that from happening?

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

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

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

Again what is to prevent those with self serving interests to declare legal what they want to be legal and thereby bypass the intent of the Constitution?

Whats to prevent your 25% of states from doing same?

Its a terrible idea.

Why? If 25% of the states deem a government action to be unconstitutional, that is a LOT of people--roughly 82,500,000--who are being disenfranchised by perhaps a razor thin majority of elected representative or an ambitious president or the bare minimum to pass SCOTUS. It does not prevent other states from enacting the measure on their own, nor does it prevent Congress from redrafting the legislation to accomplish approval from the people. The idea behind the Constitution was that the people would govern and not an authoritarian monarch or pope or dictator or senate.

 

[eagle1462010]

I reject it. If you want to restore the state's rights to the Constitution you simply repeal the 17th Amendment. In the original Constitution the Senate was intended to be the voice and Ambassador from the State Legislatures. Under this system any Senator could be recalled if he went against the will of the State. So no Senator would go against the will of the elected state gov't unless they want to lose their job.

Via moving it to the election process, Senators can be easily bought off and the State Legislatures can do nothing to stop it. And so after getting elected they do as they please even if it's against the will of the people of their state.

How would the Amendment prevent that from happening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dcraelin]

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

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

 

[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.

The consequences of #2 is pretty easy to see if we look back on history.

If this amendment in place- mixed race couples would have been banned from getting married in Virginia and Georgia until the mid 1990's.
If this amendment were in place- there would be states where guns were effectively banned from private ownership.
If this amendment were in place- Americans would not have had access to contraceptives in many states for another 20 years.

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

Actually that is a good point.

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

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

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

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

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

Reject: the States are not Legal experts to declare the Constitutonality of a bill valid or invalid.

What would prevent the states from consulting legal experts? And where is it written that legal experts would not look to their own interests first? In effect the amendment would say that the government could not rule on its own legality as it would have the strong temptation to rule whatever government wants to do as legal for the government to do.

I'm not sure how to 25% becomes a ruling class when it comes to what's in the entire country's best interest. That sounds like the tyranny of the minority quite plainly to me

It requires a 2/3rds majority to propose a constitutional amendment and a 3/4ths majority to pass the amendment. Why would requiring a 3/4ths majority to pass a law to be enforced upon the people be any more oppressive?

 

[Syriusly]

How would the Amendment prevent that from happening?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

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

 

[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.

The consequences of #2 is pretty easy to see if we look back on history.

If this amendment in place- mixed race couples would have been banned from getting married in Virginia and Georgia until the mid 1990's.
If this amendment were in place- there would be states where guns were effectively banned from private ownership.
If this amendment were in place- Americans would not have had access to contraceptives in many states for another 20 years.

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

Actually that is a good point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dcraelin]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Syriusly]

The consequences of #2 is pretty easy to see if we look back on history.

If this amendment in place- mixed race couples would have been banned from getting married in Virginia and Georgia until the mid 1990's.
If this amendment were in place- there would be states where guns were effectively banned from private ownership.
If this amendment were in place- Americans would not have had access to contraceptives in many states for another 20 years.

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

Actually that is a good point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michelson offers his opinion- nothing more.

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

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

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

 

[eagle1462010]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.

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

and it still doesn't go to the intent to give a direct voice to the State Legislatures as intended. Federal Laws require compliance by the States and in some cases to change their very laws...........why shouldn't they be a part of it as they see what it will cost the State in compliance............the average Joe on the street doesn't have time to check that out........

It is their voice and now they really don't have that voice.

 

[dcraelin]

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

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

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

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

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

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