Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[WelfareQueen]

I think the idea of the amendment has merit, but it is generally poorly written and conceived.

I also do not like the 25% of States threshold. That is far too low imho. You can then have regional factions nullifying law for sectional reasons (e.g. The Northeast or the South as an example).

 

[G.T.]

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

The Constitution says all three branches of Government and We the People have a co-equal responsibility to consider Constitutional questions.

Thats nice. They were also slave owners who treated women as second class citizens and they shitted in outhouses and smelled.

Not all people are good. What would you propose? Only allowing people you deem good to participate in the political process?

No offensive....but a very poor argument.

Well, it wasnt my argument so by all measures - none taken.

 

[WelfareQueen]

One of the dumbest amendments to come down the pike in a long time

Essentially more nullification nonsense

We are THE UNITED STATES, individual states or minority states should not have the power to nullify what they don't like

Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES, if they lose, they don't get to take their ball and go home

Your point does not address Judicial tyranny and the zero input We the People have in the Judicial process or in Judicial nullification.

The concept of Judicial Review does not exist in the Constitution and is flatly wrong imho.

Federal Judges can certainly point out when they feel a Law is at odds with the Constitution. But they cannot nullify a Law. Period.

You said the following: "Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES."

You are correct. So a simple question for you. What happens when Judicial Nullification destroys the will of the people as expressed through their duly appointed Congressional representatives? Is that legal? Is it proper?

Thank you.

Actually, yes

They have been able to nullify an unconstitutional law for 200 years

"We the people" do not get to vote on what rights other people are allowed
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper"

Actually no. The court gave itself the Power of Judicial Review long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established.

That power does not exist under the Constitution (as Foxy said). Only We the People can grant the Court that power. We the People never have.

That is the definition of tyranny.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You do realize by calling for the impeachment of Roberts and Kennedy for their decisions you are declaring your contempt for the Constitution and your unwillingness to follow it.

Utter nonsense.

Roberts openly declared that the statutes of law do not matter; in doing so he has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and should be removed from office - he is unfit to hold the position he occupies.

 

[Uncensored2008]

We can title this amendment the "We hate fag marriage amendment"

It allows states who hate fags to ignore laws enacted by the federal government or the courts and continue abusing Civil Rights

It is unfortunate that you were unable to draft a cogent or reasoned post to add to this thread.

 

[rightwinger]

One of the dumbest amendments to come down the pike in a long time

Essentially more nullification nonsense

We are THE UNITED STATES, individual states or minority states should not have the power to nullify what they don't like

Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES, if they lose, they don't get to take their ball and go home

Your point does not address Judicial tyranny and the zero input We the People have in the Judicial process or in Judicial nullification.

The concept of Judicial Review does not exist in the Constitution and is flatly wrong imho.

Federal Judges can certainly point out when they feel a Law is at odds with the Constitution. But they cannot nullify a Law. Period.

You said the following: "Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES."

You are correct. So a simple question for you. What happens when Judicial Nullification destroys the will of the people as expressed through their duly appointed Congressional representatives? Is that legal? Is it proper?

Thank you.

Actually, yes

They have been able to nullify an unconstitutional law for 200 years

"We the people" do not get to vote on what rights other people are allowed
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper"

Actually no. The court gave itself the Power of Judicial Review long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established.

That power does not exist under the Constitution (as Foxy said). Only We the People can grant the Court that power. We the People never have.

That is the definition of tyranny.

Judicial Review to determine the Constitutionality of laws has been in effect since Marbury vs Madison

It only becomes an issue once we have gay marriage?

 

[Foxfyre]

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

The Constitution says all three branches of Government and We the People have a co-equal responsibility to consider Constitutional questions.

Thats nice. They were also slave owners who treated women as second class citizens and they shitted in outhouses and smelled.

You won't find a society anywhere that doesn't get some things wrong and some things right. When the people are left alone to govern themselves they will get some things wrong. But they only screw up their own family or community or state, and not everybody else's. When the central government dictates what kind of society we are required to have, and gets it wrong, it screws up everybody.

 

[G.T.]

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

The Constitution says all three branches of Government and We the People have a co-equal responsibility to consider Constitutional questions.

Thats nice. They were also slave owners who treated women as second class citizens and they shitted in outhouses and smelled.

You won't find a society anywhere that doesn't get some things wrong and some things right. When the people are left alone to govern themselves they will get some things wrong. But they only screw up their own family or community or state, and not everybody else's. When the central government dictates what kind of society we are required to have, and gets it wrong, it screws up everybody.

The government is an extension of us via the vote.

The problem isnt the structure, its the ethics. I.e. lobby $$ and things of that nature.

 

[Foxfyre]

One of the dumbest amendments to come down the pike in a long time

Essentially more nullification nonsense

We are THE UNITED STATES, individual states or minority states should not have the power to nullify what they don't like

Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES, if they lose, they don't get to take their ball and go home

Your point does not address Judicial tyranny and the zero input We the People have in the Judicial process or in Judicial nullification.

The concept of Judicial Review does not exist in the Constitution and is flatly wrong imho.

Federal Judges can certainly point out when they feel a Law is at odds with the Constitution. But they cannot nullify a Law. Period.

You said the following: "Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES."

You are correct. So a simple question for you. What happens when Judicial Nullification destroys the will of the people as expressed through their duly appointed Congressional representatives? Is that legal? Is it proper?

Thank you.

Actually, yes

They have been able to nullify an unconstitutional law for 200 years

"We the people" do not get to vote on what rights other people are allowed
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper"

Actually no. The court gave itself the Power of Judicial Review long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established.

That power does not exist under the Constitution (as Foxy said). Only We the People can grant the Court that power. We the People never have.

That is the definition of tyranny.

Judicial Review to determine the Constitutionality of laws has been in effect since Marbury vs Madison

It only becomes an issue once we have gay marriage?

This thread is not about gay marriage other than in the much broader scope of judicial activism and what is and is not constitutional. Please desist in posts that derail this thread--there are dozens of threads out there in which to discuss the pros and cons of gay marriage. Rule one for this thread includes the requirement to stay on topic.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We can title this amendment the "We hate fag marriage amendment"

It allows states who hate fags to ignore laws enacted by the federal government or the courts and continue abusing Civil Rights

If I am issued a right to carry permit in one state....should it be recognized in every state?

Why not?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Judicial Review to determine the Constitutionality of laws has been in effect since Marbury vs Madison

It only becomes an issue once we have gay marriage?

Were you under the impression that Marbury was an article or amendment in the Constitution?

The court USURPED the power of judicial review. Congress can rectify by passing plain legislation that revokes this power from the court.

 

[WelfareQueen]

One of the dumbest amendments to come down the pike in a long time

Essentially more nullification nonsense

We are THE UNITED STATES, individual states or minority states should not have the power to nullify what they don't like

Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES, if they lose, they don't get to take their ball and go home

Your point does not address Judicial tyranny and the zero input We the People have in the Judicial process or in Judicial nullification.

The concept of Judicial Review does not exist in the Constitution and is flatly wrong imho.

Federal Judges can certainly point out when they feel a Law is at odds with the Constitution. But they cannot nullify a Law. Period.

You said the following: "Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES."

You are correct. So a simple question for you. What happens when Judicial Nullification destroys the will of the people as expressed through their duly appointed Congressional representatives? Is that legal? Is it proper?

Thank you.

Actually, yes

They have been able to nullify an unconstitutional law for 200 years

"We the people" do not get to vote on what rights other people are allowed
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper"

Actually no. The court gave itself the Power of Judicial Review long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established.

That power does not exist under the Constitution (as Foxy said). Only We the People can grant the Court that power. We the People never have.

That is the definition of tyranny.

Judicial Review to determine the Constitutionality of laws has been in effect since Marbury vs Madison

It only becomes an issue once we have gay marriage?

Oh no. I hate the idea of Judicial Review and have felt it is tyrannical for many years.

I understand you like the Court's decision on gay marriage....but this is the same SCOTUS that legally defined blacks as property (Dred Scott), and legally established Jim Crow (Plessy v Ferguson).

If We the People want the Court to have the power of Judicial Review, then let's do it legally. Amend the Constitution. Sounds fair....doesn't it?

 

[saveliberty]

Perhaps highly controversial opinions needs to pass by a super majority?

 

[Foxfyre]

One of the dumbest amendments to come down the pike in a long time

Essentially more nullification nonsense

We are THE UNITED STATES, individual states or minority states should not have the power to nullify what they don't like

Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES, if they lose, they don't get to take their ball and go home

Your point does not address Judicial tyranny and the zero input We the People have in the Judicial process or in Judicial nullification.

The concept of Judicial Review does not exist in the Constitution and is flatly wrong imho.

Federal Judges can certainly point out when they feel a Law is at odds with the Constitution. But they cannot nullify a Law. Period.

You said the following: "Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES."

You are correct. So a simple question for you. What happens when Judicial Nullification destroys the will of the people as expressed through their duly appointed Congressional representatives? Is that legal? Is it proper?

Thank you.

Actually, yes

They have been able to nullify an unconstitutional law for 200 years

"We the people" do not get to vote on what rights other people are allowed
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper"

Actually no. The court gave itself the Power of Judicial Review long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established.

That power does not exist under the Constitution (as Foxy said). Only We the People can grant the Court that power. We the People never have.

That is the definition of tyranny.

Judicial Review to determine the Constitutionality of laws has been in effect since Marbury vs Madison

It only becomes an issue once we have gay marriage?

But with Marbury vs Madison, SCOTUS assigned itself authority to perform judicial review. The problem with that is, there is no constitutional authority for SCOTUS to perform judicial review. And SCOTUS conveniently failed to provide any way to review SCOTUS decisions making of itself gods with uncontestable power to dictate anything they want to the rest of us.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps highly controversial opinions needs to pass by a super majority?

And that is exactly what Michelsen is arguing with his proposed amendment as shown in the OP.

 

[rightwinger]

One of the dumbest amendments to come down the pike in a long time

Essentially more nullification nonsense

We are THE UNITED STATES, individual states or minority states should not have the power to nullify what they don't like

Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES, if they lose, they don't get to take their ball and go home

Your point does not address Judicial tyranny and the zero input We the People have in the Judicial process or in Judicial nullification.

The concept of Judicial Review does not exist in the Constitution and is flatly wrong imho.

Federal Judges can certainly point out when they feel a Law is at odds with the Constitution. But they cannot nullify a Law. Period.

You said the following: "Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES."

You are correct. So a simple question for you. What happens when Judicial Nullification destroys the will of the people as expressed through their duly appointed Congressional representatives? Is that legal? Is it proper?

Thank you.

Actually, yes

They have been able to nullify an unconstitutional law for 200 years

"We the people" do not get to vote on what rights other people are allowed
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper"

Actually no. The court gave itself the Power of Judicial Review long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established.

That power does not exist under the Constitution (as Foxy said). Only We the People can grant the Court that power. We the People never have.

That is the definition of tyranny.

Judicial Review to determine the Constitutionality of laws has been in effect since Marbury vs Madison

It only becomes an issue once we have gay marriage?

This thread is not about gay marriage other than in the much broader scope of judicial activism and what is and is not constitutional. Please desist in posts that derail this thread--there are dozens of threads out there in which to discuss the pros and cons of gay marriage. Rule one for this thread includes the requirement to stay on topic.

This thread is more butthurt over gay marriage

More....I'm going to take my ball and go home

I don't like the court ruling so I want to pass a law nullifying the court. Why did you post this thread today and not last week?

 

[saveliberty]

Perhaps highly controversial opinions needs to pass by a super majority?

And that is exactly what Michelsen is arguing with his proposed amendment as shown in the OP.

As has been mentioned, Congress can simply make a law.

 

[Foxfyre]

Your point does not address Judicial tyranny and the zero input We the People have in the Judicial process or in Judicial nullification.

The concept of Judicial Review does not exist in the Constitution and is flatly wrong imho.

Federal Judges can certainly point out when they feel a Law is at odds with the Constitution. But they cannot nullify a Law. Period.

You said the following: "Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES."

You are correct. So a simple question for you. What happens when Judicial Nullification destroys the will of the people as expressed through their duly appointed Congressional representatives? Is that legal? Is it proper?

Thank you.

Actually, yes

They have been able to nullify an unconstitutional law for 200 years

"We the people" do not get to vote on what rights other people are allowed
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper"

Actually no. The court gave itself the Power of Judicial Review long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established.

That power does not exist under the Constitution (as Foxy said). Only We the People can grant the Court that power. We the People never have.

That is the definition of tyranny.

Judicial Review to determine the Constitutionality of laws has been in effect since Marbury vs Madison

It only becomes an issue once we have gay marriage?

This thread is not about gay marriage other than in the much broader scope of judicial activism and what is and is not constitutional. Please desist in posts that derail this thread--there are dozens of threads out there in which to discuss the pros and cons of gay marriage. Rule one for this thread includes the requirement to stay on topic.

This thread is more butthurt over gay marriage

More....I'm going to take my ball and go home

I don't like the court ruling so I want to pass a law nullifying the court. Why did you post this thread today and not last week?

I posted this thread this thread yesterday because that is when I first saw Michelsen's thesis which had nothing to do with and was not inspired by gay marriage. If you want to discuss gay marriage, then I concur with your choice to take your ball and go home or elsewhere.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps highly controversial opinions needs to pass by a super majority?

And that is exactly what Michelsen is arguing with his proposed amendment as shown in the OP.

As has been mentioned, Congress can simply make a law.

But if it has to produce a super majority to pass a law, it removes a large amount of the self-serving politics from the process. It would force elected officials to work together and come up with a law that represents and is of mutual benefit to a large majority of the people instead of a few pet constituencies. No longer would Congress be able to impose onerous taxes or regulations or requirements on us with a majority of a single vote or worse, by virtue of a voice vote in which nobody is held accountable.

 

[WelfareQueen]

One of the dumbest amendments to come down the pike in a long time

Essentially more nullification nonsense

We are THE UNITED STATES, individual states or minority states should not have the power to nullify what they don't like

Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES, if they lose, they don't get to take their ball and go home

Your point does not address Judicial tyranny and the zero input We the People have in the Judicial process or in Judicial nullification.

The concept of Judicial Review does not exist in the Constitution and is flatly wrong imho.

Federal Judges can certainly point out when they feel a Law is at odds with the Constitution. But they cannot nullify a Law. Period.

You said the following: "Each state is given representatives to represent their interests in the UNITED STATES."

You are correct. So a simple question for you. What happens when Judicial Nullification destroys the will of the people as expressed through their duly appointed Congressional representatives? Is that legal? Is it proper?

Thank you.

Actually, yes

They have been able to nullify an unconstitutional law for 200 years

"We the people" do not get to vote on what rights other people are allowed
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for supper"

Actually no. The court gave itself the Power of Judicial Review long after the Constitution and Bill of Rights were established.

That power does not exist under the Constitution (as Foxy said). Only We the People can grant the Court that power. We the People never have.

That is the definition of tyranny.

Judicial Review to determine the Constitutionality of laws has been in effect since Marbury vs Madison

It only becomes an issue once we have gay marriage?

But with Marbury vs Madison, SCOTUS assigned itself authority to perform judicial review. The problem with that is, there is no constitutional authority for SCOTUS to perform judicial review. And SCOTUS conveniently failed to provide any way to review SCOTUS decisions making of itself gods with uncontestable power to dictate anything they want to the rest of us.

That is exactly right, Foxy. Judicial Review often negates the will of the people and utterly circumvents the checks and balances within our system of Government.

With Judicial Review there is zero accountability to We the People...either directly or through our elected Representatives. It is deeply wrong.

I think the American People are getting increasingly frustrated with the Courts and the lack of accountability, which might be one of the reason for Michelsen's proposal.