Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[Sun Devil 92]

True republicanism curbs the excesses of democracy through checks and balances, and the judiciary is an essential one of these. A "more perfect union" was never intended to be such that any disgruntled party take their ball and go home any time they don't get their way.

There was no "way to ger".

It was never intended that internal affairs be the subject of the federal legislature. They were essentially there to keep the playing field level and to prevent states from bullying each other. Beyond that, they were to have a part time job making treaties and printing money.

Nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause clearly illustrates the Framers' intent that the Federal government act at the behest of the American people to ensure that the rights and well-being of American citizens residing in the states are safeguarded and immune from attack by the states; the Founding Generation pursued a single National government created by the people, where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government. (US Term Limits v. Thornton)

Garbage.

The Supremacy Clause illustrates no such thing. The federal government was to act on behest of the United States....a more perfect Union.

What moron does not understand that the federal government is just as likely to attack the rights of it's members as are the states.

We are talking intent which you totally got wrong.

With regard to Thorton:

1. It is well within the purview of the Federal Government to set standards for the election of it's members.

2. This was decided some 200 years after the Constitution. So you can wipe your ass with the dicta from that decision when trying to utilize it to defend "intent".

 

[Sun Devil 92]

True republicanism curbs the excesses of democracy through checks and balances, and the judiciary is an essential one of these. A "more perfect union" was never intended to be such that any disgruntled party take their ball and go home any time they don't get their way.

There was no "way to ger".

It was never intended that internal affairs be the subject of the federal legislature. They were essentially there to keep the playing field level and to prevent states from bullying each other. Beyond that, they were to have a part time job making treaties and printing money.

That is what the Anti-federalists wanted. But they lost. Tough titties

How long will we have to continue to make up for the inadequacies of your education ?

The Anti Federalists at the extreme did not want to do away with the Articles Of Confederation.

They didn't win that argument.

However, they are the ones responsible for the pushing our Bill Of Rights out of concern for the trajectory of a stronger central government.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

True republicanism curbs the excesses of democracy through checks and balances, and the judiciary is an essential one of these. A "more perfect union" was never intended to be such that any disgruntled party take their ball and go home any time they don't get their way.

There was no "way to ger".

It was never intended that internal affairs be the subject of the federal legislature. They were essentially there to keep the playing field level and to prevent states from bullying each other. Beyond that, they were to have a part time job making treaties and printing money.

Nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause clearly illustrates the Framers' intent that the Federal government act at the behest of the American people to ensure that the rights and well-being of American citizens residing in the states are safeguarded and immune from attack by the states; the Founding Generation pursued a single National government created by the people, where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government. (US Term Limits v. Thornton)

US Term Limits vs Thornton was strictly a ruling that said the states could not impose restrictions on the U.S. Congress greater than those imposed by the Constitution itself. By that ruling, SCOTUS declared Arkansas's attempt to impose term limits on its own representatives illegal. Personally I think SCOTUS was wrong in that ruling as it has been wrong on numerous rulings over the years.

But the case had nothing to do with protecting the rights and well-being of American citizens in general.

Michelsen's proposed amendment however would have given the people power to overrule SCOTUS had they chosen to do so.

Term limits should come into being via a Constitutional Amendment.

Frankly, I don't know how we don't have a clamor for one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

True republicanism curbs the excesses of democracy through checks and balances, and the judiciary is an essential one of these. A "more perfect union" was never intended to be such that any disgruntled party take their ball and go home any time they don't get their way.

There was no "way to ger".

It was never intended that internal affairs be the subject of the federal legislature. They were essentially there to keep the playing field level and to prevent states from bullying each other. Beyond that, they were to have a part time job making treaties and printing money.

Nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause clearly illustrates the Framers' intent that the Federal government act at the behest of the American people to ensure that the rights and well-being of American citizens residing in the states are safeguarded and immune from attack by the states; the Founding Generation pursued a single National government created by the people, where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government. (US Term Limits v. Thornton)

Garbage.

The Supremacy Clause illustrates no such thing. The federal government was to act on behest of the United States....a more perfect Union.

What moron does not understand that the federal government is just as likely to attack the rights of it's members as are the states.

We are talking intent which you totally got wrong.

With regard to Thorton:

1. It is well within the purview of the Federal Government to set standards for the election of it's members.

2. This was decided some 200 years after the Constitution. So you can wipe your ass with the dicta from that decision when trying to utilize it to defend "intent".

Sun Devil is generally correct, in that the national government was formed to take care of the united needs of the various state. They recognized that the states would be responsible for protecting the citizens' needs. What is not mentioned here is that the states' failure to do so kept creating crises and dilemmas the which a national government was willing to abrogate former duties and obligations of the states to itself.

We are not going back to those earlier times, and the citizens as a great whole have no desire to return to property requirements for voting, capital absolute dominance of labor, segregation, genderism, etc. Those days are gone forever.

 

[Agit8r]

True republicanism curbs the excesses of democracy through checks and balances, and the judiciary is an essential one of these. A "more perfect union" was never intended to be such that any disgruntled party take their ball and go home any time they don't get their way.

There was no "way to ger".

It was never intended that internal affairs be the subject of the federal legislature. They were essentially there to keep the playing field level and to prevent states from bullying each other. Beyond that, they were to have a part time job making treaties and printing money.

That is what the Anti-federalists wanted. But they lost. Tough titties

How long will we have to continue to make up for the inadequacies of your education ?

The Anti Federalists at the extreme did not want to do away with the Articles Of Confederation.

They didn't win that argument.

However, they are the ones responsible for the pushing our Bill Of Rights out of concern for the trajectory of a stronger central government.

Numerous factions pushed for the Bill of Rights. Some Antis had some influence, but it shouldn't be exaggerated.

 

[Agit8r]

True republicanism curbs the excesses of democracy through checks and balances, and the judiciary is an essential one of these. A "more perfect union" was never intended to be such that any disgruntled party take their ball and go home any time they don't get their way.

There was no "way to ger".

It was never intended that internal affairs be the subject of the federal legislature. They were essentially there to keep the playing field level and to prevent states from bullying each other. Beyond that, they were to have a part time job making treaties and printing money.

Nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause clearly illustrates the Framers' intent that the Federal government act at the behest of the American people to ensure that the rights and well-being of American citizens residing in the states are safeguarded and immune from attack by the states; the Founding Generation pursued a single National government created by the people, where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government. (US Term Limits v. Thornton)

Garbage.

The Supremacy Clause illustrates no such thing. The federal government was to act on behest of the United States....a more perfect Union.

What moron does not understand that the federal government is just as likely to attack the rights of it's members as are the states.

We are talking intent which you totally got wrong.

With regard to Thorton:

1. It is well within the purview of the Federal Government to set standards for the election of it's members.

2. This was decided some 200 years after the Constitution. So you can wipe your ass with the dicta from that decision when trying to utilize it to defend "intent".

Sun Devil is generally correct, in that the national government was formed to take care of the united needs of the various state. They recognized that the states would be responsible for protecting the citizens' needs. What is not mentioned here is that the states' failure to do so kept creating crises and dilemmas the which a national government was willing to abrogate former duties and obligations of the states to itself.

We are not going back to those earlier times, and the citizens as a great whole have no desire to return to property requirements for voting, capital absolute dominance of labor, segregation, genderism, etc. Those days are gone forever.

Regardless, the 14th Amendment gave the Federal Government power to regulate the abuses of state governments, and gave Congress the power to address them legislatively. So I don't see that such could even plausible be what they are arguing about. I assume it's about internal improvements or something. Couldn't really decipher for certain...

 

[JakeStarkey]

True republicanism curbs the excesses of democracy through checks and balances, and the judiciary is an essential one of these. A "more perfect union" was never intended to be such that any disgruntled party take their ball and go home any time they don't get their way.

There was no "way to ger".

It was never intended that internal affairs be the subject of the federal legislature. They were essentially there to keep the playing field level and to prevent states from bullying each other. Beyond that, they were to have a part time job making treaties and printing money.

Nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause clearly illustrates the Framers' intent that the Federal government act at the behest of the American people to ensure that the rights and well-being of American citizens residing in the states are safeguarded and immune from attack by the states; the Founding Generation pursued a single National government created by the people, where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government. (US Term Limits v. Thornton)

Garbage.

The Supremacy Clause illustrates no such thing. The federal government was to act on behest of the United States....a more perfect Union.

What moron does not understand that the federal government is just as likely to attack the rights of it's members as are the states.

We are talking intent which you totally got wrong.

With regard to Thorton:

1. It is well within the purview of the Federal Government to set standards for the election of it's members.

2. This was decided some 200 years after the Constitution. So you can wipe your ass with the dicta from that decision when trying to utilize it to defend "intent".

Sun Devil is generally correct, in that the national government was formed to take care of the united needs of the various state. They recognized that the states would be responsible for protecting the citizens' needs. What is not mentioned here is that the states' failure to do so kept creating crises and dilemmas the which a national government was willing to abrogate former duties and obligations of the states to itself.

We are not going back to those earlier times, and the citizens as a great whole have no desire to return to property requirements for voting, capital absolute dominance of labor, segregation, genderism, etc. Those days are gone forever.

Regardless, the 14th Amendment gave the Federal Government power to regulate the abuses of state governments, and gave Congress the power to address them legislatively. So I don't see that such could even plausible be what they are arguing about. I assume it's about internal improvements or something. Couldn't really decipher for certain...

Term limits for Congressmen would put them under the thumb of the electorate, and that would be a good thing.

Think about it. Reagan could have had a third term if he were eligible, and we would have had a president with dementia. Bill Clinton is so popular, that if he were eligible, he would be running for his seventh straight term and winning easily.

And the fact neither Ronnie nor Willie could or can do that illustrates that our Senators and Representatives have the potential to be Legislative Dictators. Think not? Consider the GOP dictatorship in Utah's legislature and that of the Dems in California.

I am all for an amendment for term limits.

 

[Slyhunter]

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

no, voters are powerless when neither side is for them, like it is now. Trump will fix that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The 14th Amendment codified the fundamental principle acknowledged during the Foundation Era that citizens' rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

And that includes state and local governments, where neither has the authority to deny the American citizens residing in the states their inalienable rights, as one does not 'forfeit' his rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, and citizens' rights are not subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans have the fundamental right to move freely about the country, and with them go their inalienable rights, to every state and jurisdiction, where one's rights are immune from attack by the state, as safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.

 

[Foxfyre]

True republicanism curbs the excesses of democracy through checks and balances, and the judiciary is an essential one of these. A "more perfect union" was never intended to be such that any disgruntled party take their ball and go home any time they don't get their way.

There was no "way to ger".

It was never intended that internal affairs be the subject of the federal legislature. They were essentially there to keep the playing field level and to prevent states from bullying each other. Beyond that, they were to have a part time job making treaties and printing money.

Nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause clearly illustrates the Framers' intent that the Federal government act at the behest of the American people to ensure that the rights and well-being of American citizens residing in the states are safeguarded and immune from attack by the states; the Founding Generation pursued a single National government created by the people, where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government. (US Term Limits v. Thornton)

US Term Limits vs Thornton was strictly a ruling that said the states could not impose restrictions on the U.S. Congress greater than those imposed by the Constitution itself. By that ruling, SCOTUS declared Arkansas's attempt to impose term limits on its own representatives illegal. Personally I think SCOTUS was wrong in that ruling as it has been wrong on numerous rulings over the years.

But the case had nothing to do with protecting the rights and well-being of American citizens in general.

Michelsen's proposed amendment however would have given the people power to overrule SCOTUS had they chosen to do so.

Term limits should come into being via a Constitutional Amendment.

Frankly, I don't know how we don't have a clamor for one.

Because there are so many pros and cons. Some are pretty sure that term limits would just rotate the permanent political class in and out of Washington rather than encourage new blood to come in--it would do little to curtail the more evil influences of power and money. And there are those who say that the world has become so complex and complicated that experience in government is crucial to deal with it. And there are good arguments on all sides of that.

Personally I think if we just made it impossible for Congress or anybody else to benefit anybody, including themselves, if everybody was not equally benefited regardless of socioeconomic class and also they could not exempt themselves from any laws or policy they passed, that would take care of the problem. Only true public servants who wished to serve the country and make a difference would run for political office. When it worked as the Founders intended, legislators served a time in government and then went home to live under the laws and regulations they passed. There was no government pension or health plan or any other benefits of any kind, let alone the lucrative lifetime benefits they enjoy now.

Michelsen's amendment would be a start and I think another one or two will also be necessary to restore that kind of integrity in government.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

True republicanism curbs the excesses of democracy through checks and balances, and the judiciary is an essential one of these. A "more perfect union" was never intended to be such that any disgruntled party take their ball and go home any time they don't get their way.

There was no "way to ger".

It was never intended that internal affairs be the subject of the federal legislature. They were essentially there to keep the playing field level and to prevent states from bullying each other. Beyond that, they were to have a part time job making treaties and printing money.

Nonsense.

The Supremacy Clause clearly illustrates the Framers' intent that the Federal government act at the behest of the American people to ensure that the rights and well-being of American citizens residing in the states are safeguarded and immune from attack by the states; the Founding Generation pursued a single National government created by the people, where the states are prohibited from interfering with the relationship between the people and their National government. (US Term Limits v. Thornton)

Garbage.

The Supremacy Clause illustrates no such thing. The federal government was to act on behest of the United States....a more perfect Union.

What moron does not understand that the federal government is just as likely to attack the rights of it's members as are the states.

We are talking intent which you totally got wrong.

With regard to Thorton:

1. It is well within the purview of the Federal Government to set standards for the election of it's members.

2. This was decided some 200 years after the Constitution. So you can wipe your ass with the dicta from that decision when trying to utilize it to defend "intent".

Sun Devil is generally correct, in that the national government was formed to take care of the united needs of the various state. They recognized that the states would be responsible for protecting the citizens' needs. What is not mentioned here is that the states' failure to do so kept creating crises and dilemmas the which a national government was willing to abrogate former duties and obligations of the states to itself.

We are not going back to those earlier times, and the citizens as a great whole have no desire to return to property requirements for voting, capital absolute dominance of labor, segregation, genderism, etc. Those days are gone forever.

Regardless, the 14th Amendment gave the Federal Government power to regulate the abuses of state governments, and gave Congress the power to address them legislatively. So I don't see that such could even plausible be what they are arguing about. I assume it's about internal improvements or something. Couldn't really decipher for certain...

Move the goalposts much ?

The 14th was passed when ? About 100 years post the Constitution.

When arguing "intent", you don't get to claim the 14th.

Agreed it changed the playing field (although the SCOTUS didn't see it that way for a long time).

But we were talking the original Supremacy Clause.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The 14th Amendment codified the fundamental principle acknowledged during the Foundation Era that citizens' rights are inalienable, they can be neither taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man.

And that includes state and local governments, where neither has the authority to deny the American citizens residing in the states their inalienable rights, as one does not 'forfeit' his rights merely as a consequence of his state of residence, and citizens' rights are not subject to 'majority rule.'

Americans have the fundamental right to move freely about the country, and with them go their inalienable rights, to every state and jurisdiction, where one's rights are immune from attack by the state, as safeguarded by the 14th Amendment.

The 14th amendment was necessary (according the interpretation by the far left) to patch up what wasn't in the original document. There is no "intent" you can point to that covers all rights. The inalienable rights you mention are very few and do not include things like marriage (and spare the twisted connection argument).

One can forfeit a great many rights or be subject to a great many laws just by belonging to a state. Pre Roe, five states allowed abortion. That was through 1972. So, yes you could.

You keep calling out this attack by the state. It's borderline hysteria on your part.

 

[dcraelin]

remember citizens united..................the court is a joke

And having it be a 7-2 decision means that it wouldn't be a joke in your eyes.

Would Brown be less integral with a 5-4?

I'm guessing no.

no it would still be a poor joke,....... if passed

less intergral?...........an attempt at a joke?

you managed to find a case where the court stumbled on the right choice apparently. I dont know how much it passed by.

If it were a joke, I apologize. I mean, would a 5-4 decision on Brown have less integrity than the 9-0 decision that it was? I don't think so.

depends on what you mean by integrity.....in some ways the constitution itself may lack integrity.........its the courts role to interpret the contract not manipulate it to come up with PC decisions.

The process runs and it only has as much integrity as those who participate in it have.

I may not like the Warren Court. I may think that some decisions are activism.

But that is the process.....without it....what would we be.

I abide the Warren Court decisions...they help form the laws of this land.

the structure that allows abuse is responsible in some part, too much power in the hands of too few.

With a better structure we would be better.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

And having it be a 7-2 decision means that it wouldn't be a joke in your eyes.

Would Brown be less integral with a 5-4?

I'm guessing no.

no it would still be a poor joke,....... if passed

less intergral?...........an attempt at a joke?

you managed to find a case where the court stumbled on the right choice apparently. I dont know how much it passed by.

If it were a joke, I apologize. I mean, would a 5-4 decision on Brown have less integrity than the 9-0 decision that it was? I don't think so.

depends on what you mean by integrity.....in some ways the constitution itself may lack integrity.........its the courts role to interpret the contract not manipulate it to come up with PC decisions.

The process runs and it only has as much integrity as those who participate in it have.

I may not like the Warren Court. I may think that some decisions are activism.

But that is the process.....without it....what would we be.

I abide the Warren Court decisions...they help form the laws of this land.

the structure that allows abuse is responsible in some part, too much power in the hands of too few.

With a better structure we would be better.

We are wonderful when we pay attention to the fact that Liberty does not just happen.

The "power in the hands of a few" issue is written all over our history books.

And we probably suffer that now even in the U.S.

I have no issues with our current structure. I do have issues with the rather lazy way my fellow Americans treat the liberties that have been won and preserved for them.

 

[westwall]

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.

No, IMO a Constitutional Convention is an invitation to disaster.

 

[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.

No, IMO a Constitutional Convention is an invitation to disaster.

\

But nobody has called for a constitutional convention. The Constitution has been amended numerous time with no constitutional convention called to do it.

 

[dcraelin]

no it would still be a poor joke,....... if passed

less intergral?...........an attempt at a joke?

you managed to find a case where the court stumbled on the right choice apparently. I dont know how much it passed by.

If it were a joke, I apologize. I mean, would a 5-4 decision on Brown have less integrity than the 9-0 decision that it was? I don't think so.

depends on what you mean by integrity.....in some ways the constitution itself may lack integrity.........its the courts role to interpret the contract not manipulate it to come up with PC decisions.

The process runs and it only has as much integrity as those who participate in it have.

I may not like the Warren Court. I may think that some decisions are activism.

But that is the process.....without it....what would we be.

I abide the Warren Court decisions...they help form the laws of this land.

the structure that allows abuse is responsible in some part, too much power in the hands of too few.

With a better structure we would be better.

We are wonderful when we pay attention to the fact that Liberty does not just happen.

The "power in the hands of a few" issue is written all over our history books.

And we probably suffer that now even in the U.S.

I have no issues with our current structure. I do have issues with the rather lazy way my fellow Americans treat the liberties that have been won and preserved for them.

our structure allows in part the power to be concentrated in the hands of the few

people are people......

in some ways I see it as lazy ...to blame lazy people..........

 

[Sun Devil 92]

If it were a joke, I apologize. I mean, would a 5-4 decision on Brown have less integrity than the 9-0 decision that it was? I don't think so.

depends on what you mean by integrity.....in some ways the constitution itself may lack integrity.........its the courts role to interpret the contract not manipulate it to come up with PC decisions.

The process runs and it only has as much integrity as those who participate in it have.

I may not like the Warren Court. I may think that some decisions are activism.

But that is the process.....without it....what would we be.

I abide the Warren Court decisions...they help form the laws of this land.

the structure that allows abuse is responsible in some part, too much power in the hands of too few.

With a better structure we would be better.

We are wonderful when we pay attention to the fact that Liberty does not just happen.

The "power in the hands of a few" issue is written all over our history books.

And we probably suffer that now even in the U.S.

I have no issues with our current structure. I do have issues with the rather lazy way my fellow Americans treat the liberties that have been won and preserved for them.

our structure allows in part the power to be concentrated in the hands of the few

people are people......

in some ways I see it as lazy ...to blame lazy people..........

Please explain the system you would put in place to keep from concentrating power in the hands of a few.

I can guess what elements it will contain......

Let's hear it.

 

[Foxfyre]

depends on what you mean by integrity.....in some ways the constitution itself may lack integrity.........its the courts role to interpret the contract not manipulate it to come up with PC decisions.

The process runs and it only has as much integrity as those who participate in it have.

I may not like the Warren Court. I may think that some decisions are activism.

But that is the process.....without it....what would we be.

I abide the Warren Court decisions...they help form the laws of this land.

the structure that allows abuse is responsible in some part, too much power in the hands of too few.

With a better structure we would be better.

We are wonderful when we pay attention to the fact that Liberty does not just happen.

The "power in the hands of a few" issue is written all over our history books.

And we probably suffer that now even in the U.S.

I have no issues with our current structure. I do have issues with the rather lazy way my fellow Americans treat the liberties that have been won and preserved for them.

our structure allows in part the power to be concentrated in the hands of the few

people are people......

in some ways I see it as lazy ...to blame lazy people..........

Please explain the system you would put in place to keep from concentrating power in the hands of a few.

I can guess what elements it will contain......

Let's hear it.

The Constitution was designed to create a structure that would accomplish just that. The Founders wanted a new kind of nation--the first in the history of the world--in which the government would be assigned all the power it was allowed by the people and then the people, with their rights secured, would be free to live as they chose to live free of dictates of monarch or dictator or feudal lord or pope or archbishop or any other authoritarian government. The power would be given to the people themselves to organize their societies as they saw fit and live their lives as they chose to live them. The power would reside with all the people and not with the government.

I am reasonable certain that is what Michelsen had in mind to begin to restore with his proposed amendment.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The process runs and it only has as much integrity as those who participate in it have.

I may not like the Warren Court. I may think that some decisions are activism.

But that is the process.....without it....what would we be.

I abide the Warren Court decisions...they help form the laws of this land.

the structure that allows abuse is responsible in some part, too much power in the hands of too few.

With a better structure we would be better.

We are wonderful when we pay attention to the fact that Liberty does not just happen.

The "power in the hands of a few" issue is written all over our history books.

And we probably suffer that now even in the U.S.

I have no issues with our current structure. I do have issues with the rather lazy way my fellow Americans treat the liberties that have been won and preserved for them.

our structure allows in part the power to be concentrated in the hands of the few

people are people......

in some ways I see it as lazy ...to blame lazy people..........

Please explain the system you would put in place to keep from concentrating power in the hands of a few.

I can guess what elements it will contain......

Let's hear it.

The Constitution was designed to create a structure that would accomplish just that. The Founders wanted a new kind of nation--the first in the history of the world--in which the government would be assigned all the power it was allowed by the people and then the people, with their rights secured, would be free to live as they chose to live free of dictates of monarch or dictator or feudal lord or pope or archbishop or any other authoritarian government. The power would be given to the people themselves to organize their societies as they saw fit and live their lives as they chose to live them. The power would reside with all the people and not with the government.

I am reasonable certain that is what Michelsen had in mind to begin to restore with his proposed amendment.

Unfortunately, it has failed in that regard.

Our government has reached the point where it takes the power it wants.

We have no way to stop it.