Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[candycorn]

For the 5th time, if you don't like the laws, use you right to vote to change them. If you think nobody is worthy of your vote, RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF.

Regardless, the Constitution has worked for 220+ years...leave it alone.

There are many of us who do not feel the Constitution is working well because there are too many people in government who neither respect it or give it much concern at all. The purpose of this thread is to discuss that. If you do not wish to discuss that I will wish you a pleasant evening and suggest any number of other threads out there that might be of greater interest.

And, again, what is wrong with voting them out of office?

Worked for our fathers.
Worked for their fathers.
Worked for their fathers too.

With each subsequent generation of politicians, they work to tighten the strangle-hold of elections and their assurances that they will win those elections.

A lone politician is unable to gather enough momentum to effect changes that are needed. Additionally, with a two party system, the parties ensure that the people who will be elected will aid them in continuing to tighten the noose around their hegemony. As it stands today, it takes an almost cataclysmic event to get real change in our government. Those in power know they have only to out wait the outrage and it goes back to business as usual.

Some of that is true. But it all happens with the vote. We are the ones electing representatives. If you don't think they've earned your vote....don't vote for them or, better yet, run yourself. This is what the founders did.

I'm not sure I want "real change" in our government. One thing I would like to see is constitutional provisions that force members of congress to vote on legislation the other House approved.

 

[dcraelin]

well that depends on the nature of the checks.....if you appeal to a larger majority, that is a true check........if you appeal to a minority...then it has a potential to be tyranny.

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law ............. to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

ROFL.. power to the tyranny of the majority!!

How so. I don't see that dcraelin arguing for a tyranny of the majority at all. He is presenting Jefferson's argument that the majority vote is imperfect in effect, but superior to any other form of government.

I am not sure these are Jefferson's words, but they do summarize where he was coming from:

The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people's voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority. This is not a perfect way of controlling government, but the alternatives--decisions made by a minority, or by one person--are even worse and are the source of great evil. To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction.​

Jefferson expressed this on dozens of occasions to numerous people. Some examples:

"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332

"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809. ME 16:456

"And where else will [Hume,] this degenerate son of science, this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?" --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:44

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337

"Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:321

BUT. . .Jefferson was not addressing compliance with the Constitution in those comments. Here he is:

"It was understood to be a rule of law that where the words of a statute admit of two constructions, the one just and the other unjust, the former is to be given them." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:326

"When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:418

"Where a phrase is susceptible of two meanings, we ought certainly to adopt that which will bring upon us the fewest inconveniences." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Apportionment Bill, 1792. ME 3:208

"The general rule [is] that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1816. ME 14:445

"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408

DC said "if you appeal to a larger majority, that is a true check." That is the very definition of tyranny of the majority. Minority be dammed power to the majority!!! Deny it if you will... but it's a plain fact. Not sure why you two don't understand, or at least don't echo the very simple concept of checks and balances.

its simple, if you appeal to a minority.........which minority do you appeal to?

The constitution is not about math, it's about protecting rights of individuals.

tell that to the slaves

 

[RKMBrown]

ROFL.. power to the tyranny of the majority!!

How so. I don't see that dcraelin arguing for a tyranny of the majority at all. He is presenting Jefferson's argument that the majority vote is imperfect in effect, but superior to any other form of government.

I am not sure these are Jefferson's words, but they do summarize where he was coming from:

The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people's voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority. This is not a perfect way of controlling government, but the alternatives--decisions made by a minority, or by one person--are even worse and are the source of great evil. To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction.​

Jefferson expressed this on dozens of occasions to numerous people. Some examples:

"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332

"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809. ME 16:456

"And where else will [Hume,] this degenerate son of science, this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?" --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:44

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337

"Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:321

BUT. . .Jefferson was not addressing compliance with the Constitution in those comments. Here he is:

"It was understood to be a rule of law that where the words of a statute admit of two constructions, the one just and the other unjust, the former is to be given them." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:326

"When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:418

"Where a phrase is susceptible of two meanings, we ought certainly to adopt that which will bring upon us the fewest inconveniences." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Apportionment Bill, 1792. ME 3:208

"The general rule [is] that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1816. ME 14:445

"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408

DC said "if you appeal to a larger majority, that is a true check." That is the very definition of tyranny of the majority. Minority be dammed power to the majority!!! Deny it if you will... but it's a plain fact. Not sure why you two don't understand, or at least don't echo the very simple concept of checks and balances.

its simple, if you appeal to a minority.........which minority do you appeal to?

The constitution is not about math, it's about protecting rights of individuals.

tell that to the slaves

What slaves? Do you know any slaves?

 

[dcraelin]

And, again, what is wrong with voting them out of office?

Worked for our fathers.
Worked for their fathers.
Worked for their fathers too.

C'mon...I mean seriously. Corruption (both large and small) is nothing new in our government. Somehow our lineage dealt with it through the power of the vote. Why can't we all of the sudden play by the same rules?

In this case the ‘corruption’ refers to the incorrect perception that the ‘original intent’ of the Constitution has been ‘corrupted,’ that current Constitutional jurisprudence is ‘false’ or ‘wrong,’ and that the courts are ‘ignoring’ the ‘will of the people,’ acting in manner not intended by the Founding Generation.

Well, yeah, I get that but Congress cannot be corrupt; it's members can. Courts cannot be corrupt, it's judges can. We've always have had corruption in these bodies...its nothing new. I've been told that the vote is now worthless because the system is corrupt. By definition; it cannot be corrupt because the system is people-based.

The structure of our system can be of such a form that it enables or fosters corruption.....so Congress can be corrupt, so the SC can be corrupt. ....

and they are......WE need to restructure government to give the people more power

Duh.

As long as humans are involved, there is a chance of corruption. In the past when we had corrupt legislators, we voted them out. Judges have been removed, not confirmed, etc... Nothing new under the sun except for the group that is screaming blood murder.

duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........

STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.

 

[dcraelin]

How so. I don't see that dcraelin arguing for a tyranny of the majority at all. He is presenting Jefferson's argument that the majority vote is imperfect in effect, but superior to any other form of government.

I am not sure these are Jefferson's words, but they do summarize where he was coming from:

The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people's voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority. This is not a perfect way of controlling government, but the alternatives--decisions made by a minority, or by one person--are even worse and are the source of great evil. To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction.​

Jefferson expressed this on dozens of occasions to numerous people. Some examples:

"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332

"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809. ME 16:456

"And where else will [Hume,] this degenerate son of science, this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?" --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:44

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337

"Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:321

BUT. . .Jefferson was not addressing compliance with the Constitution in those comments. Here he is:

"It was understood to be a rule of law that where the words of a statute admit of two constructions, the one just and the other unjust, the former is to be given them." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:326

"When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:418

"Where a phrase is susceptible of two meanings, we ought certainly to adopt that which will bring upon us the fewest inconveniences." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Apportionment Bill, 1792. ME 3:208

"The general rule [is] that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1816. ME 14:445

"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408

DC said "if you appeal to a larger majority, that is a true check." That is the very definition of tyranny of the majority. Minority be dammed power to the majority!!! Deny it if you will... but it's a plain fact. Not sure why you two don't understand, or at least don't echo the very simple concept of checks and balances.

its simple, if you appeal to a minority.........which minority do you appeal to?

The constitution is not about math, it's about protecting rights of individuals.

tell that to the slaves

What slaves? Do you know any slaves?

ha,........ your idea that the Constitution was about "protecting rights of individuals." is simply unhistorical nonsense.

 

[candycorn]

C'mon...I mean seriously. Corruption (both large and small) is nothing new in our government. Somehow our lineage dealt with it through the power of the vote. Why can't we all of the sudden play by the same rules?

In this case the ‘corruption’ refers to the incorrect perception that the ‘original intent’ of the Constitution has been ‘corrupted,’ that current Constitutional jurisprudence is ‘false’ or ‘wrong,’ and that the courts are ‘ignoring’ the ‘will of the people,’ acting in manner not intended by the Founding Generation.

Well, yeah, I get that but Congress cannot be corrupt; it's members can. Courts cannot be corrupt, it's judges can. We've always have had corruption in these bodies...its nothing new. I've been told that the vote is now worthless because the system is corrupt. By definition; it cannot be corrupt because the system is people-based.

The structure of our system can be of such a form that it enables or fosters corruption.....so Congress can be corrupt, so the SC can be corrupt. ....

and they are......WE need to restructure government to give the people more power

Duh.

As long as humans are involved, there is a chance of corruption. In the past when we had corrupt legislators, we voted them out. Judges have been removed, not confirmed, etc... Nothing new under the sun except for the group that is screaming blood murder.

duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........

STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.

I didn't read it closely. You didn't really contradict me; you stated your opinion. It's not worth blowing up the system, forcing super majorities, tinkering with the Constitution, etc...

If someone is corrupt, educate yourself and vote them out. Does wonders. Again, it's what our fathers did, what their fathers did, and what their fathers did. We can do the same thing.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Senate was designed to give the States a EQUAL Representation in our Gov't. It was put there to prevent MORE POPULATED STATES from enforcing their views on smaller population States.................It was designed to be a another Check on the Federal Gov't, where all States irregardless of population have the same voice...................

It was also called the COOLER...............It was there to SLOW THINGS DOWN................to not pass laws quickly that we would later regret.............in the heat of the moment or in a temporary frenzy due to circumstances.................It's there TO MAKE IT HARDER TO PASS LAWS..................To ensure this new law is necessary..................

And was specific to the voice of the State Legislatures...............I was proven wrong on the RECALL ISSUE..................but I think that even should be changed...................And then the Senators who would vote against the will of the State Gov't could be replaced as not representing the states views..................Under that purpose, it would make it harder for Senators to vote against the will of their people, because they would be fired for doing so................

So I still think the 17th should be repealed..........and it should be added to make it easier to Recall and Replace a Senator who strays from the public good of that State....................To buy him off, they would have to buy off the whole State Legislature or most....................and this would end some of the bull going up there now who just use lobbyist and large amount of money to get back in under the popular vote..............

The population are represented by direct vote in the House as intended under the Constitution..................Their rights have not been taken away by repealing the 17th.................especially considering that the State Reps have to be voted in as well.............and it is more localized there as intended..........

The Op, basically wants another Constitutional check to verify that the laws are Constitutional before going into effect...........and add another check to the system..............Having the States give a direct up our down vote on ONLY IT'S CONSTITUTIONALITY....................but this vetting already happens in the Senate Judiciary committee..............Improve the quality of Senators via election by the State Gov't, allow recall, and then GET RID OF THE RIFF RAF who go against the will of the States..............

 

[eagle1462010]

The Avalon Project Federalist No 63

Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people. To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions. As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn. In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind? What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions? Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.

Before such a revolution can be effected, the Senate, it is to be observed, must in the first place corrupt itself; must next corrupt the State legislatures; must then corrupt the House of Representatives; and must finally corrupt the people at large. It is evident that the Senate must be first corrupted before it can attempt an establishment of tyranny. Without corrupting the State legislatures, it cannot prosecute the attempt, because the periodical change of members would otherwise regenerate the whole body. Without exerting the means of corruption with equal success on the House of Representatives, the opposition of that coequal branch of the government would inevitably defeat the attempt; and without corrupting the people themselves, a succession of new representatives would speedily restore all things to their pristine order. Is there any man who can seriously persuade himself that the proposed Senate can, by any possible means within the compass of human address, arrive at the object of a lawless ambition, through all these obstructions?

In answer to all these arguments, suggested by reason, illustrated by examples, and enforced by our own experience, the jealous adversary of the Constitution will probably content himself with repeating, that a senate appointed not immediately by the people, and for the term of six years, must gradually acquire a dangerous pre-eminence in the government, and finally transform it into a tyrannical aristocracy.

Posted to back up some of what was said in my last post. Putting up obstructions to prevent corruption..............and as I said it would force the State Legislatures to be bought off as well.

 

[eagle1462010]

The Big Apple The Senate is the saucer into which we pour legislation to cool Senatorial saucer

Entry from December 07, 2009
“The Senate is the saucer into which we pour legislation to cool” (Senatorial saucer)
The “Senatorial saucer” conversation between George Washington and Thomas Jefferson is part of U.S. Senate legend. Jefferson had returned from France and was breakfasting with Washington. Jefferson asked Washington why he agreed to have a Senate.

“Why,” said Washington, “did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer before drinking it?”

“To cool it,” said Jefferson; “my throat is not made of brass.”

“Even so,” said Washington, “we pour our legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.”

The first evidence of this story appears in 1871. There were only a few witnesses to this conversation (if it took place), so the story might or might not be apocryphal. Some versions involve coffee, while other versions involve tea.



George Washington saying the Senate is the cooler..................Intended for cooler heads to prevail to ensure laws don't get passed that we would later regret.......
We need to ensure new laws are really needed................we have a lot already.......
And that the laws passed are the will of the people..............
The Senate's purpose is to slow it down and make sure we don't pass bad laws............

 

[dcraelin]

In this case the ‘corruption’ refers to the incorrect perception that the ‘original intent’ of the Constitution has been ‘corrupted,’ that current Constitutional jurisprudence is ‘false’ or ‘wrong,’ and that the courts are ‘ignoring’ the ‘will of the people,’ acting in manner not intended by the Founding Generation.

Well, yeah, I get that but Congress cannot be corrupt; it's members can. Courts cannot be corrupt, it's judges can. We've always have had corruption in these bodies...its nothing new. I've been told that the vote is now worthless because the system is corrupt. By definition; it cannot be corrupt because the system is people-based.

The structure of our system can be of such a form that it enables or fosters corruption.....so Congress can be corrupt, so the SC can be corrupt. ....

and they are......WE need to restructure government to give the people more power

Duh.

As long as humans are involved, there is a chance of corruption. In the past when we had corrupt legislators, we voted them out. Judges have been removed, not confirmed, etc... Nothing new under the sun except for the group that is screaming blood murder.

duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........

STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.

I didn't read it closely. You didn't really contradict me; you stated your opinion. It's not worth blowing up the system, forcing super majorities, tinkering with the Constitution, etc...

If someone is corrupt, educate yourself and vote them out. Does wonders. Again, it's what our fathers did, what their fathers did, and what their fathers did. We can do the same thing.

they may have thought they did...but things just keep on getting worse..its small corruptions piling up...small corruptions that arent going to turn a lot of voters away from the candidate of the party they out of habit always cheer-lead for.

now, I dont agree with forcing super-majorities.......I believe in appealing to larger majorities.

getting rid of the illogical current structure of the Senate

and perhaps as Franklin suggested, doing away with the presidency.....which ends up being just one cult-of-personality versus another

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, yeah, I get that but Congress cannot be corrupt; it's members can. Courts cannot be corrupt, it's judges can. We've always have had corruption in these bodies...its nothing new. I've been told that the vote is now worthless because the system is corrupt. By definition; it cannot be corrupt because the system is people-based.

The structure of our system can be of such a form that it enables or fosters corruption.....so Congress can be corrupt, so the SC can be corrupt. ....

and they are......WE need to restructure government to give the people more power

Duh.

As long as humans are involved, there is a chance of corruption. In the past when we had corrupt legislators, we voted them out. Judges have been removed, not confirmed, etc... Nothing new under the sun except for the group that is screaming blood murder.

duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........

STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.

I didn't read it closely. You didn't really contradict me; you stated your opinion. It's not worth blowing up the system, forcing super majorities, tinkering with the Constitution, etc...

If someone is corrupt, educate yourself and vote them out. Does wonders. Again, it's what our fathers did, what their fathers did, and what their fathers did. We can do the same thing.

they may have thought they did...but things just keep on getting worse..its small corruptions piling up...small corruptions that arent going to turn a lot of voters away from the candidate of the party they out of habit always cheer-lead for.

now, I dont agree with forcing super-majorities.......I believe in appealing to larger majorities.

getting rid of the illogical current structure of the Senate

and perhaps as Franklin suggested, doing away with the presidency.....which ends up being just one cult-of-personality versus another

I think Franklin was wrong about the presidency. He is one more check and balance against an overreaching Congress, but he should not be allowed to issue executive orders with the force of law on the people. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

Sometimes I wish the President could also veto the SCOTUS and force THEM to come up with a 3/4ths majority to override his veto. (That isn't a proposal--it's just a sentiment based on what I believe to be really unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions over the last several decades with no way to really remedy the damage done by those decisions.) We need a means to bust SCOTUS back to being the arbitrator and judge in disputes and disallowed from making new law. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

But we do need a CEO of the country to be held accountable to see that the various agencies of the government do their jobs competently, honestly, and legally. What DOES need to change is the Congress who sets up a massive expensive program and then leaves it to bureaucrats to write the rules and regulations to implement it, such rules and regulations that then have the force of law and are forced on the people by folks who were never elected to anything. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The structure of our system can be of such a form that it enables or fosters corruption.....so Congress can be corrupt, so the SC can be corrupt. ....

and they are......WE need to restructure government to give the people more power

Duh.

As long as humans are involved, there is a chance of corruption. In the past when we had corrupt legislators, we voted them out. Judges have been removed, not confirmed, etc... Nothing new under the sun except for the group that is screaming blood murder.

duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........

STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.

I didn't read it closely. You didn't really contradict me; you stated your opinion. It's not worth blowing up the system, forcing super majorities, tinkering with the Constitution, etc...

If someone is corrupt, educate yourself and vote them out. Does wonders. Again, it's what our fathers did, what their fathers did, and what their fathers did. We can do the same thing.

they may have thought they did...but things just keep on getting worse..its small corruptions piling up...small corruptions that arent going to turn a lot of voters away from the candidate of the party they out of habit always cheer-lead for.

now, I dont agree with forcing super-majorities.......I believe in appealing to larger majorities.

getting rid of the illogical current structure of the Senate

and perhaps as Franklin suggested, doing away with the presidency.....which ends up being just one cult-of-personality versus another

I think Franklin was wrong about the presidency. He is one more check and balance against an overreaching Congress, but he should not be allowed to issue executive orders with the force of law on the people. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

Sometimes I wish the President could also veto the SCOTUS and force THEM to come up with a 3/4ths majority to override his veto. (That isn't a proposal--it's just a sentiment based on what I believe to be really unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions over the last several decades with no way to really remedy the damage done by those decisions.) We need a means to bust SCOTUS back to being the arbitrator and judge in disputes and disallowed from making new law. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

But we do need a CEO of the country to be held accountable to see that the various agencies of the government do their jobs competently, honestly, and legally. What DOES need to change is the Congress who sets up a massive expensive program and then leaves it to bureaucrats to write the rules and regulations to implement it, such rules and regulations that then have the force of law and are forced on the people by folks who were never elected to anything. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

if you don't mention that what you support is very very conservative people will have no idea on God's green earth how one would implement such a proposal nor in what historical context the subject resides. You have made the subject utterly meaningless. Perhaps you think if you hide the labels used in the voting booth liberals will naturally be able to agree with you and then realize that they are conservatives after all? I can't imagine that working in 10000 years.

 

[Foxfyre]

Duh.

As long as humans are involved, there is a chance of corruption. In the past when we had corrupt legislators, we voted them out. Judges have been removed, not confirmed, etc... Nothing new under the sun except for the group that is screaming blood murder.

duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........

STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.

I didn't read it closely. You didn't really contradict me; you stated your opinion. It's not worth blowing up the system, forcing super majorities, tinkering with the Constitution, etc...

If someone is corrupt, educate yourself and vote them out. Does wonders. Again, it's what our fathers did, what their fathers did, and what their fathers did. We can do the same thing.

they may have thought they did...but things just keep on getting worse..its small corruptions piling up...small corruptions that arent going to turn a lot of voters away from the candidate of the party they out of habit always cheer-lead for.

now, I dont agree with forcing super-majorities.......I believe in appealing to larger majorities.

getting rid of the illogical current structure of the Senate

and perhaps as Franklin suggested, doing away with the presidency.....which ends up being just one cult-of-personality versus another

I think Franklin was wrong about the presidency. He is one more check and balance against an overreaching Congress, but he should not be allowed to issue executive orders with the force of law on the people. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

Sometimes I wish the President could also veto the SCOTUS and force THEM to come up with a 3/4ths majority to override his veto. (That isn't a proposal--it's just a sentiment based on what I believe to be really unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions over the last several decades with no way to really remedy the damage done by those decisions.) We need a means to bust SCOTUS back to being the arbitrator and judge in disputes and disallowed from making new law. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

But we do need a CEO of the country to be held accountable to see that the various agencies of the government do their jobs competently, honestly, and legally. What DOES need to change is the Congress who sets up a massive expensive program and then leaves it to bureaucrats to write the rules and regulations to implement it, such rules and regulations that then have the force of law and are forced on the people by folks who were never elected to anything. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

if you don't mention that what you support is very very conservative people will have no idea on God's green earth how one would implement such a proposal nor in what historical context the subject resides. You have made the subject utterly meaningless. Perhaps you think if you hide the labels used in the voting booth liberals will naturally be able to agree with you and then realize that they are conservatives after all? I can't imagine that working in 10000 years.

This thread is not about conservatives or liberals. This thread is about a concept. Michelsen's proposed amendment is only that: a proposal. It is not ready to be put to a vote. But so far, nobody has really offered up a comprehensive argument for why it would not be a good thing. Several object giving the power back to the states and there have been several objections based on gridlock, but so far nobody has been able to tell me WHY it would result in gridlock. And those who distrust state governments have yet to tell me why those in federal government are more honest and trustworthy.

But it has still been a mostly good discussion. Every now and then I even hold out hope that even people on a message board can really analyze an idea or concept without resenting those they disagree with and without dragging partisan politics into it.

 

[RKMBrown]

DC said "if you appeal to a larger majority, that is a true check." That is the very definition of tyranny of the majority. Minority be dammed power to the majority!!! Deny it if you will... but it's a plain fact. Not sure why you two don't understand, or at least don't echo the very simple concept of checks and balances.

its simple, if you appeal to a minority.........which minority do you appeal to?

The constitution is not about math, it's about protecting rights of individuals.

tell that to the slaves

What slaves? Do you know any slaves?

ha,........ your idea that the Constitution was about "protecting rights of individuals." is simply unhistorical nonsense.

Stand back ya jackwagon. You're in the presence of a true patriot.

 

[dcraelin]

The structure of our system can be of such a form that it enables or fosters corruption.....so Congress can be corrupt, so the SC can be corrupt. ....

and they are......WE need to restructure government to give the people more power

Duh.

As long as humans are involved, there is a chance of corruption. In the past when we had corrupt legislators, we voted them out. Judges have been removed, not confirmed, etc... Nothing new under the sun except for the group that is screaming blood murder.

duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........

STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.

I didn't read it closely. You didn't really contradict me; you stated your opinion. It's not worth blowing up the system, forcing super majorities, tinkering with the Constitution, etc...

If someone is corrupt, educate yourself and vote them out. Does wonders. Again, it's what our fathers did, what their fathers did, and what their fathers did. We can do the same thing.

they may have thought they did...but things just keep on getting worse..its small corruptions piling up...small corruptions that arent going to turn a lot of voters away from the candidate of the party they out of habit always cheer-lead for.

now, I dont agree with forcing super-majorities.......I believe in appealing to larger majorities.

getting rid of the illogical current structure of the Senate

and perhaps as Franklin suggested, doing away with the presidency.....which ends up being just one cult-of-personality versus another

I think Franklin was wrong about the presidency. He is one more check and balance against an overreaching Congress, but he should not be allowed to issue executive orders with the force of law on the people. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

Sometimes I wish the President could also veto the SCOTUS and force THEM to come up with a 3/4ths majority to override his veto. (That isn't a proposal--it's just a sentiment based on what I believe to be really unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions over the last several decades with no way to really remedy the damage done by those decisions.) We need a means to bust SCOTUS back to being the arbitrator and judge in disputes and disallowed from making new law. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

But we do need a CEO of the country to be held accountable to see that the various agencies of the government do their jobs competently, honestly, and legally. What DOES need to change is the Congress who sets up a massive expensive program and then leaves it to bureaucrats to write the rules and regulations to implement it, such rules and regulations that then have the force of law and are forced on the people by folks who were never elected to anything. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

I dont think people hold the president accountable on any real standard anyway. Its based on partisan cheerleading

But the propsal to have the president able to veto the SCOTUS is interesting and makes more sense than Mickelsons amendment.

Checks and balances tho are as Henry implied largely BS.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

without dragging partisan politics into it.

it is 100% about partisan politics. When you take the labels off it has no context and therefore no meaning at all. If your watch Bill O'Reilly he tries the exact same act and I guess it works for him?

 

[RKMBrown]

The constitution is not about math, it's about protecting rights of individuals.

tell that to the slaves

What slaves? Do you know any slaves?

ha,........ your idea that the Constitution was about "protecting rights of individuals." is simply unhistorical nonsense.

Stand back ya jackwagon. You're in the presence of a true patriot.

bravo, I actually had to look that up.........

youre not a true patriot, youre just a pompus ass

Tissue?

 

[eagle1462010]

Duh.

As long as humans are involved, there is a chance of corruption. In the past when we had corrupt legislators, we voted them out. Judges have been removed, not confirmed, etc... Nothing new under the sun except for the group that is screaming blood murder.

duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........

STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.

I didn't read it closely. You didn't really contradict me; you stated your opinion. It's not worth blowing up the system, forcing super majorities, tinkering with the Constitution, etc...

If someone is corrupt, educate yourself and vote them out. Does wonders. Again, it's what our fathers did, what their fathers did, and what their fathers did. We can do the same thing.

they may have thought they did...but things just keep on getting worse..its small corruptions piling up...small corruptions that arent going to turn a lot of voters away from the candidate of the party they out of habit always cheer-lead for.

now, I dont agree with forcing super-majorities.......I believe in appealing to larger majorities.

getting rid of the illogical current structure of the Senate

and perhaps as Franklin suggested, doing away with the presidency.....which ends up being just one cult-of-personality versus another

I think Franklin was wrong about the presidency. He is one more check and balance against an overreaching Congress, but he should not be allowed to issue executive orders with the force of law on the people. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

Sometimes I wish the President could also veto the SCOTUS and force THEM to come up with a 3/4ths majority to override his veto. (That isn't a proposal--it's just a sentiment based on what I believe to be really unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions over the last several decades with no way to really remedy the damage done by those decisions.) We need a means to bust SCOTUS back to being the arbitrator and judge in disputes and disallowed from making new law. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

But we do need a CEO of the country to be held accountable to see that the various agencies of the government do their jobs competently, honestly, and legally. What DOES need to change is the Congress who sets up a massive expensive program and then leaves it to bureaucrats to write the rules and regulations to implement it, such rules and regulations that then have the force of law and are forced on the people by folks who were never elected to anything. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

I dont think people hold the president accountable on any real standard anyway. Its based on partisan cheerleading

But the propsal to have the president able to veto the SCOTUS is interesting and makes more sense than Mickelsons amendment.

Checks and balances tho are as Henry implied largely BS.

Then the Senate couldn't pile up legislation in Harry Reid's Graveyard of bills proposed by the House................Whether I agree with the bills or not, and I agree with some of them stacked up, I agree with the intent to stop Partisan bills from getting passed................I want it hard to create new laws...............and I also want it hard for any of the 2 parties to have majority power in the House, Senate, and Executive Branches.............It is supposed to FORCE compromise, just as the Constitution was a compromise......................and hopefully get a Compromise bill that all would agree enough to say this is the right law for the purpose as intended...................

But now there is a divide along party lines......................and along these lines is how it goes down, and usually without the compromises as the Founders HOPED WE WOULD HAVE THE WISDOM TO DO...................and that part has failed...............to the point of My Way or the Highway in new legislation..............

The Checks are still there...........but not working the way it should be.................

In most cases, both sides are right...................and both sides are wrong................and the best answer is in the middle..............

Not Earmarks as bribes................bills should stand on their own merit alone or not be passed..............and if you have to bribe people to get a vote then that bill is not worth coming into law............and finally............those people shouldn't be in office if they think it is correct to bribe to get their votes....................It's wrong and part of the corruption we are trying to stop..................

We could ease this whole process on the OP................by pushing final ratification of laws by the states.............2/3rd's of the State legislature to Vett all new laws..................aka vote it up or down instead of the Senate or via the Senate recording the vote by voting in the Senate by instruction of the State Legislatures...............33 States need to approve the new law............................and now the States have their voice MOST CLEARLY HEARD..........

And on Judicial appointments..........................do the same thing.............2/3rd's to approve new Federal Judges.............and nominations to SCOTUS.......

 

[Foxfyre]

without dragging partisan politics into it.

it is 100% about partisan politics. When you take the labels off it has no context and therefore no meaning at all. If your watch Bill O'Reilly he tries the exact same act and I guess it works for him?

I will accept that as your opinion. I will not accept it as accurate.

 

[Foxfyre]

duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........

STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.

I didn't read it closely. You didn't really contradict me; you stated your opinion. It's not worth blowing up the system, forcing super majorities, tinkering with the Constitution, etc...

If someone is corrupt, educate yourself and vote them out. Does wonders. Again, it's what our fathers did, what their fathers did, and what their fathers did. We can do the same thing.

they may have thought they did...but things just keep on getting worse..its small corruptions piling up...small corruptions that arent going to turn a lot of voters away from the candidate of the party they out of habit always cheer-lead for.

now, I dont agree with forcing super-majorities.......I believe in appealing to larger majorities.

getting rid of the illogical current structure of the Senate

and perhaps as Franklin suggested, doing away with the presidency.....which ends up being just one cult-of-personality versus another

I think Franklin was wrong about the presidency. He is one more check and balance against an overreaching Congress, but he should not be allowed to issue executive orders with the force of law on the people. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

Sometimes I wish the President could also veto the SCOTUS and force THEM to come up with a 3/4ths majority to override his veto. (That isn't a proposal--it's just a sentiment based on what I believe to be really unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions over the last several decades with no way to really remedy the damage done by those decisions.) We need a means to bust SCOTUS back to being the arbitrator and judge in disputes and disallowed from making new law. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

But we do need a CEO of the country to be held accountable to see that the various agencies of the government do their jobs competently, honestly, and legally. What DOES need to change is the Congress who sets up a massive expensive program and then leaves it to bureaucrats to write the rules and regulations to implement it, such rules and regulations that then have the force of law and are forced on the people by folks who were never elected to anything. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.

I dont think people hold the president accountable on any real standard anyway. Its based on partisan cheerleading

But the propsal to have the president able to veto the SCOTUS is interesting and makes more sense than Mickelsons amendment.

Checks and balances tho are as Henry implied largely BS.

Then the Senate couldn't pile up legislation in Harry Reid's Graveyard of bills proposed by the House................Whether I agree with the bills or not, and I agree with some of them stacked up, I agree with the intent to stop Partisan bills from getting passed................I want it hard to create new laws...............and I also want it hard for any of the 2 parties to have majority power in the House, Senate, and Executive Branches.............It is supposed to FORCE compromise, just as the Constitution was a compromise......................and hopefully get a Compromise bill that all would agree enough to say this is the right law for the purpose as intended...................

But now there is a divide along party lines......................and along these lines is how it goes down, and usually without the compromises as the Founders HOPED WE WOULD HAVE THE WISDOM TO DO...................and that part has failed...............to the point of My Way or the Highway in new legislation..............

The Checks are still there...........but not working the way it should be.................

In most cases, both sides are right...................and both sides are wrong................and the best answer is in the middle..............

Not Earmarks as bribes................bills should stand on their own merit alone or not be passed..............and if you have to bribe people to get a vote then that bill is not worth coming into law............and finally............those people shouldn't be in office if they think it is correct to bribe to get their votes....................It's wrong and part of the corruption we are trying to stop..................

We could ease this whole process on the OP................by pushing final ratification of laws by the states.............2/3rd's of the State legislature to Vett all new laws..................aka vote it up or down instead of the Senate or via the Senate recording the vote by voting in the Senate by instruction of the State Legislatures...............33 States need to approve the new law............................and now the States have their voice MOST CLEARLY HEARD..........

And on Judicial appointments..........................do the same thing.............2/3rd's to approve new Federal Judges.............and nominations to SCOTUS.......

And how about it mandatory to have a 2/3rds or no less than 7 to 2 majority in order for SCOTUS to make a ruling? 5 to 4 is utterly ridiculous when it comes to constitutional integrity--how can something have constitutional integrity if half the justices disagree? Either they don't know their constitution or they are refusing to follow it.