Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[Foxfyre]

This proposed amendment essentially cuts off the power to the Supreme Court of the United States and turns that power over to states with partisan leadership. Is this born of a fit of pique? The court's decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United seemed to please the Right Wing, but the extension of freedom to the LGBT community and the decision to uphold the federally subsidized exchanges keeping the ACA on the books were seen as disastrous to them. Should the tyranny of the majority rule, or judicial excellence rule? That, as they say, is the question.

Our Nation was set up for Majority Rule. That's Democracy. At least we can vote the bastards out if we want to.

Judicial excellence?

Can't vote those bastards out. Therefore, their power needs to be tightly regulated and under the full checks and balances of the Constitution.

Let's say our nation was set up as a majority rule Democracy. And let's say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was subject to the same restrictions set up in the amendment as listed in the OP.

Do you imagine that the freedoms set forth in the Civil Rights Act would ever come to fruition? Do you suppose the freedoms set forth in the latest decision extending marriage equality would happen? And to what end? To what purpose should these liberties and freedoms be denied?

The majority can oppress without consequence. We need level heads to shine freedom while the majority sneers at it.

Ah.....all the Civil Rights laws were passed by Congress (i.e. Sanctioned by We the People through our elected representatives).

Second, many State Legislatures had already passed Gay marriage laws....again reflecting the will of We the People.

Sorry....your point completely misses the mark.

Under this proposed amendment, the various states could decide whether or not they will comply with the law.. The Civil Rights Act was designed to implement a standard of equal justice throughout the land. These states resisted the act. These states implemented Jim Crow laws that the Civil Rights Act was designed to eliminate.

If such states could look at the law of the land as a mere suggestion, and if such states had already demonstrated a lack of understanding the definition of freedom, why on God's green earth would they suddenly chose to enforce a law which they could legally disregard?

Okay...I see your point now. Per the OP I disagree that with a threshold of 25% of the States negating a ruling or Law. I think the threshold is far too low.

50% seems reasonable to me. I would keep the 3/4ths of States rule in amending the Constitution.

He didn't say so, but Michelsen almost certainly set that 25% as a logical benchmark with a super majority of Congress required to pass a controversial law, i.e. one some states were challenging as unconstitutional.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The Bill of Rights was intended to put prohibitions and restraints on the central government. Not the people in the various states.

Recognizing the flaw in that prescription, the 14th was passed to extend those prohibitions to the legislatures of the many states.

Look at the wording of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment restricts Congress and Congress only from making such law or law. It does not restrict the various states or local communities in any way.

So the Fourteenth amendment was intended to expand the First Amendment et al as a requirement for state law, but because of so many unattractive unintended consequences that resulted, few amendments have resulted in so much ambiguity or controversy as the Fourteenth. There has been such uneven application that it has rendered the amendment arbitrary and subject to myriad whims, interpretations, and applications by the courts. The Second and Fifth Amendments have pretty much been sidestepped in the Fourteenth. A good discussion can be seen on that here:
Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights

All this is to say that the people have no liberty at all if they have no power or ability to challenge or dispute bad federal law.

I'm not sure I follow your leap from the universality of rights via the 14th, to the lack of ability to dispute bad law?

Let's take a really bad federal law, Roe V. Wade. This is bad law because it was not passed by the legislature nor signed into law by the POTUS - it is the epitome of bad law. So do the states have the ability to dispute it?

Quite absolutely.

Federal - Senate Passes Human Trafficking Bill With Abortion Restrictions On Victims

Texas - Senate panel passes abortion restrictions - Longview News-Journal - Longview TX

Arkansas - Arkansas Passes First Abortion Restriction of 2015 American Civil Liberties Union

Tennesee - Tennessee abortion measure passes

Kansas - Kansas Senate Passes New Abortion Restrictions

Bad law can and will be challenged. The ACA will undergo never ending challenge. What Roberts did was inexcusable, but the challenges to bad law crafted by the SCOTUS will be legion.

 

[dcraelin]

There is no constitutional provision that prohibits California from imposing whatever regulations it wants on guns, including prohibiting them within its state lines. The people were intended to have the liberty or order whatever society they wanted and if they were dumb enough to want a gun free society, that was their prerogative to have. What the people of California cannot do, however, is demand that anybody else do what California decides to do.

The Second Amendment says that the Federal Government shall make no law infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments leave that matter strictly up to the states.

The 14th Amendment extends that protection to the people of all states though, so California MUST abide by the Constitution. If this were not the case, then the Bill of Rights would only protect those in the District of Columbia or in National Parks.

not really, each state has its own bill of rights within its own Constitution

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

not really, each state has its own bill of rights within its own Constitution

17 of 50 states have expressly defined bills of rights.

State constitution United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[dcraelin]

[

not really, each state has its own bill of rights within its own Constitution

17 of 50 states have expressly defined bills of rights.

State constitution United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Where do you see that?.......in the fourth paragraph or so it implies they all have them

"expressly defined"?....so some have them inexpressly defined?

 

[mudwhistle]

What's an Amendmint?

Is it a religious mint Catholics eat after dinner?

 

[Syriusly]

Okay

A dictatorship is the absolute rule by one person. No legislature, no courts- except as controlled by the Dictator. Dictators do not need to obey any law and are not subject to any law. A Dictator is not elected to be a dictator.

In our country- the Supreme Court is appointed by the President one by one- and confirmed by the Senate. Justice's do not select themselves. Nor does any Justice have absolute power- the Supreme Court can only act with a majority vote.

Nor does the Supreme Court have any ability to decide what laws it wants to review- the Supreme Court can only hear a case that has been heard by other courts. For instance- no matter how much a majority of Justice's may wish to decide who won the 2014 Superbowl- they have no legal ability to do so.

What the Supreme Court can do is decide on the Constitutionality of legislation that has passed, or criminal decisions reached by other courts. Justices are subject to the law- if they break the law, the Legislature can impeach them, and upon successful impeachment and conviction, they can then be tried for that crime.

The Supreme Court is made up of people who are given lifetime membership on the Court and who cannot be disciplined or removed from the court without a long, bloody, and messy process that Congress does not have the will to go through. There are no consequences for those on the court no matter how wrong they get it. Just five of them are required to change the lives of the American people in major and often permanent ways and nobody is given oversight over their decisions or any power to change their decisions. And they are increasingly appointed not for their judicial restraint and wisdom, but for their partisan and/or ideological views and willingness to bypass the executive branch and Congress with judicial activism. There is no way for the Supreme Court to be required to obey the Constitution.

That is about as close to a dictatorship as it gets. We need to demand more protection for the American people.

Really- you didn't read a word I wrote did you?

Frankly- you just don't like how the Supreme Court operates- there is nothing 'dictatorial' about it.- point by point:

• The Supreme Court is made up of people who are given lifetime membership on the Court- Not given- but appointed by our legally elected President- and confirmed by elected Senators- Dictators do not go through this process
  
• and who cannot be disciplined or removed from the court without a long, bloody, and messy process that Congress does not have the will to go through.- What you are describing is your dissatisfaction with how the writers of the Constitution set up the process- and again- Justices can be removed, and there is a Democratic process to so- Dictators have no such process for removal.
  
• There are no consequences for those on the court no matter how wrong they get it. Who would decide if they are wrong? Do you really want a court scared that if they make an unpopular decision that they would go to jail? Justices can be removed from the court- or Congress could change the law to provide that Justices have terms- this has been discussed and Congress has not chosen to do so.
  
• Just five of them are required to change the lives of the American people in major and often permanent ways and nobody is given oversight over their decisions or any power to change their decisions. - Do you want a Court over the Supreme Court? Someone has to be the ultimate reviewer of what is Constitutional- the choices are the courts- Congress(who rights the laws and would love to be able to declare its laws Constitutional) or the President? And again- not dictatorial- because unlike a Dictator- we the people can pass an initiative to change any Supreme Court decision- re: the 13th Amendment.
  
• And they are increasingly appointed not for their judicial restraint and wisdom, but for their partisan and/or ideological views and willingness to bypass the executive branch and Congress with judicial activism. And how does that make them dictators? They are still 9 people and a majority of them must agree on a decision- Dictators don't need a majority of anyone
  
• There is no way for the Supreme Court to be required to obey the Constitution. The Supreme Court is tasked with deciding what is Constitutional- who would you have decide that the Supreme Court is not obeying the Constitution? Another court? Congress? the President?

I disagree with the Supreme Court often- as do many people- but someone has to decide on Constitutional issues- and deciding them does not make them dictators- that is pure hyperbole.

Sorry but I will be reporting ad hominem posts. And referring to what I did or did not read or what I do or do not like is ad hominem and expressly forbidden in Rule #1 for this thread.

The amendment proposed by Michelsen would not allow SCOTUS total authority to dictate what is and is not constitutional with no way to challenge them or discipline them when what they rule is clearly not constitutional. It would give the people authority to challenge bad rulings. It would prevent five people from being able to make a law of the land in a way that nobody would be able to challenge or contest.

Not the people- State governments.

It would allow any state to act in an unconstitutional fashion as it sees fit. It would allow any State to ignore any decision, and deny any person their Constitutional rights.

Lets say for instance that the State of California passes a law outlawing the private ownership of guns.

The law reaches the Supreme Court and the Court quickly, and by a 9-0 margin overturns such an idiotic and Unconstitutional law.

California however could ignore the ruling and continue to take the guns of Californians.

It is a proposal for States to be able to ignore the U.S. Constitution.

There is no constitutional provision that prohibits California from imposing whatever regulations it wants on guns, including prohibiting them within its state lines. The people were intended to have the liberty or order whatever society they wanted and if they were dumb enough to want a gun free society, that was their prerogative to have. What the people of California cannot do, however, is demand that anybody else do what California decides to do.

The Second Amendment says that the Federal Government shall make no law infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments leave that matter strictly up to the states.

And the 14th Amendment specifically notes that the Bill of Rights applies to the States.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

You are willing to have States who can choose to legalize slavery, ban gun ownership, ban free speech, ban contraceptives, hell ignore habeas corpus.

I am not.

 

[Ernie S.]

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

In most cases they SHOULD have the power to nullify anything not mentioned in the enumerated powers.

The Constitution does not give the federal government power over health care Marriage, Education or waterways that do not cross state boundaries.
The federal government should have no say in what happens to a toad that only lives in Oregon or a fish that only lives in Fairfield County Connecticut.
Nothing in the US Constitution gives the federal government power to demand a health insurance policy I provide for my employees cover abortion or birth control.

 

[Ernie S.]

Do you want a Court over the Supreme Court? Someone has to be the ultimate reviewer of what is Constitutional- the choices are the courts- Congress(who rights the laws and would love to be able to declare its laws Constitutional) or the President? And again- not dictatorial- because unlike a Dictator- we the people can pass an initiative to change any Supreme Court decision- re: the 13th Amendment.

In a perfect world SCOTUS would be the final judge, but it's obviously a far from perfect world.
I would argue that an act of law is either Constitutional or it is not constitutional.
The fact that most decisions are 5-4 or 6-3 shouts that SCOTUS can not be the ultimate answer. Until you remove partisan politics and replace it with logic and original intent I won't trust the Court as the final authority.
I'm beginning to feel a lot better about the proposed amendment.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

How is extending freedom to "a tiny minority" result in tyranny from that minority?

I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else.

IOW you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority and if you are not allowed that right you feel your liberty is being taken from you. Correct?

Rule #1 for the thread prohibits you from stating what you think I want. Please refrain from such ad hominem remarks as what I want is not the topic of this thread.

The amendment that Michelsen is proposing would give the various states authority to protect their own liberties and order their societies as they chose when they believed the government had overstepped its constitutional authority. And if 25% of the states believed their constitutional protections had been taken away by the federal government, they would not be subject to the tyranny of a majority and the Congress would have to go back to the drawing board and address the concerns of that 25%. Also there would be nothing to prevent any of the states from enacting the challenged federal law as a state law if they liked it.

Who, other than you, brought up tyranny of a minority? Maybe I missed something. Or were you violating rule #1 by stating that if you are not for tyranny of a majority you are for tyranny of a minority in view of his statement that he's against tyranny of a majority? Otherwise what do you mean by is tyranny of a minority more acceptable than tyranny of a majority?

Coaching a question as a hidden violation of a rule... meh. do you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority? Do you feel that if you are not allowed that right your liberty is being taken from you?

I can be for or against tyrannies of any kind or express my opinions about majority or minority views until the cows come home without violating my own rules in any way. What I can't do is tell you want you think or want or assign motive to what you post on whatever topic.

You can ask a member to clarify his/her reasoning for this or that statement, but you can't assume what he meant by making the statement.

You can say conservatives support smaller government and more self governance as opposed to liberals who tend to support big government solutions and more rules and regulations for the people. That is neither insulting or ad hominem on the face of it. Nor would be an objective rebuttal to that point of view if you objected to it. But if you say conservatives selfishly support. . . or liberals foolishly support. . . .that is insulting and ad hominem and would violate the rules of this thread.

Focus on the argument and leave the member or the motives of the group making the argument strictly out of it, and you are good to go on this thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

How is extending freedom to "a tiny minority" result in tyranny from that minority?

I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else.

Which have been restricted? Are folks no longer able to speak publically without government interdiction? Have churches been shut down by government fiat?

In the broader sense it is the federal government that is essentially unchallenged when it imposes requirements or rules or regulations or taxes on us all. Let's don't get bogged down in individual laws or decisions here but keep the focus on the big picture and the powers of government.

For instance, what necessary law that will apply to all the people should not require a 3/4ths majority of the people's representatives if such law is going to be enforceable? And how does a minority of a half dozen states who do not agree with the constitutionality of a law prevent the rest of the states enacting it for themselves?

Are you taxed without representation? Do we not hold elections every two years for congress, every six for the senate and every four for the presidency? We have a representative republic, not a pure democracy. We elect representatives to conduct the business of governance for us. And, if we find ourselves to be dissatisfied with the governance they perform, we can, by voting, remove them from office and elect someone with whom we feel we are more in line with. I have been suffering in a congressional district that elects the radical right wing. I am not satisfied with my representation. But I can canvass, support and vote for his replacement when the election cycle rolls around again.

Congress does what it does. Sometimes effectively, sometimes it resorts to gridlock, filibuster and partisanship which accomplishes nothing. But I rely on elections to make the change. Relying on a handful of states to enforce the law of the land results in anarchy. Change the laws via the system we have relied upon since the constitution was ratified.

Yes. I am hugely taxed and regulated without representation. Congress has long abandoned it constitutional responsibilities to represent us but hands its authority over to the courts and bureaucrats who write their own rules and regs including mandatory payments (taxes) that have the force of law. Congress has little or no involvement in that process.

One of the better discussions about this that I have found is summarized here:

. . .The term“administrative state” or“regulatory state” is used frequently but often inaccurately. To what does it actually refer? Broadly speaking, the term“administrative state” describes our contemporary situation, in which the authority to make public policy is unlimited, centralized, and delegated to unelected bureaucrats. . . .

. . .The Progressives were led by reformers such as Theodore Roosevelt; Woodrow Wilson; Herbert Croly, co-founder of The New Republic and author of The Promise of American Life ; and Frank Goodnow, a prominent professor of public administration who taught at Columbia and was president of Johns Hopkins University.16 Like the Grangers, these Progressives aimed to expand national power, but their ends were very different from those of the Grangers. Many of them were educated in 19th century German philosophy, particularly Hegelian idealism. All of them were heavily influenced by this new philosophy of government and sought to implement that new philosophy in America.

In a nutshell, these American Progressives applied the political philosophy of Hegelian idealism to mean the following:

• Individuals do not possess natural rights; rights and liberty are granted by government.
• The purpose of rights is not to promote the pursuit of individual happiness, but to allow individuals to dedicate themselves to the collective good of the whole society.
• For government to assist in achieving this dedication to the collective good, it had to be centralized at the national level, expanded dramatically, and involved in regulating most (if not all) of the economic and social decisions made by citizens.
• In order to administer this dramatically expanded government, federalism, limited government, and the separation of powers had to be scrapped in favor of rule by enlightened, intelligent experts located in administrative agencies. . . . From Administrative State to Constitutional Government

 

[presonorek]

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.

Section 2 is already in force. States and local governments are not required to enforce unconstitutional laws.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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.

How about instead, any rule ya don't like ya don't have to follow?

 

[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.

Section 2 is already in force. States and local governments are not required to enforce unconstitutional laws.

While it is true that most enforcement bodies don't bother with enforcing non compliance with politically incorrect laws--certainly our President has employed a great deal of license in that regard--I don't know whether they could legally be required to do so.

For instance the non compliance by several South Carolina academics who refused to enforce the state law that universities must teach basic Constitution and Founding documents as a requirement for graduation:

. . .Section 59-29-120 of the South Carolina Code requires students be taught the “essentials of the United States Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers,” and goes on to provide that “no student in any such school, college, or university may receive a certificate of graduation without previously passing a satisfactory examination upon the provisions and principles” of those documents. A number of South Carolina universities do not require students to take such courses or pass such an exam—most notably the state’s flagship institution: the University of South Carolina. . . .
University President Calls Law Requiring Study of Constitution Archaic​

The article says the President of USC says the law is unconstitutional. If so, then would not laws requiring teaching of Evolution or any other controversial subjects also be unconstitutional?

Can you expand on your opinion that the states do not have to comply with unconstitutional law? I mean on what basis do you make that argument?

 

[RKMBrown]

How is extending freedom to "a tiny minority" result in tyranny from that minority?

I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else.

IOW you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority and if you are not allowed that right you feel your liberty is being taken from you. Correct?

Rule #1 for the thread prohibits you from stating what you think I want. Please refrain from such ad hominem remarks as what I want is not the topic of this thread.

The amendment that Michelsen is proposing would give the various states authority to protect their own liberties and order their societies as they chose when they believed the government had overstepped its constitutional authority. And if 25% of the states believed their constitutional protections had been taken away by the federal government, they would not be subject to the tyranny of a majority and the Congress would have to go back to the drawing board and address the concerns of that 25%. Also there would be nothing to prevent any of the states from enacting the challenged federal law as a state law if they liked it.

Who, other than you, brought up tyranny of a minority? Maybe I missed something. Or were you violating rule #1 by stating that if you are not for tyranny of a majority you are for tyranny of a minority in view of his statement that he's against tyranny of a majority? Otherwise what do you mean by is tyranny of a minority more acceptable than tyranny of a majority?

Coaching a question as a hidden violation of a rule... meh. do you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority? Do you feel that if you are not allowed that right your liberty is being taken from you?

I can be for or against tyrannies of any kind or express my opinions about majority or minority views until the cows come home without violating my own rules in any way. What I can't do is tell you want you think or want or assign motive to what you post on whatever topic.

You can ask a member to clarify his/her reasoning for this or that statement, but you can't assume what he meant by making the statement.

You can say conservatives support smaller government and more self governance as opposed to liberals who tend to support big government solutions and more rules and regulations for the people. That is neither insulting or ad hominem on the face of it. Nor would be an objective rebuttal to that point of view if you objected to it. But if you say conservatives selfishly support. . . or liberals foolishly support. . . .that is insulting and ad hominem and would violate the rules of this thread.

Focus on the argument and leave the member or the motives of the group making the argument strictly out of it, and you are good to go on this thread.

The opposing force to tyranny of the majority is liberty. Liberty for all includes liberty for those in a minority as opposed to liberty only for the majority. Liberty is not tyranny of the minority. That is a meme espoused by authoritarians who believe that liberty is the liberty to take liberty away from those minority groups that they don't like.

 

[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.

How about instead, any rule ya don't like ya don't have to follow?

Certainly problems with Michelsen's admendment are fair game to expose and argue against. But he didn't say that any rule somebody doesn't like doesn't have to be followed. The state has to show how the rule does not comply with the existing Constitution in order to be able to disregard it with immunity.

 

[Foxfyre]

I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else.

IOW you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority and if you are not allowed that right you feel your liberty is being taken from you. Correct?

Rule #1 for the thread prohibits you from stating what you think I want. Please refrain from such ad hominem remarks as what I want is not the topic of this thread.

The amendment that Michelsen is proposing would give the various states authority to protect their own liberties and order their societies as they chose when they believed the government had overstepped its constitutional authority. And if 25% of the states believed their constitutional protections had been taken away by the federal government, they would not be subject to the tyranny of a majority and the Congress would have to go back to the drawing board and address the concerns of that 25%. Also there would be nothing to prevent any of the states from enacting the challenged federal law as a state law if they liked it.

Who, other than you, brought up tyranny of a minority? Maybe I missed something. Or were you violating rule #1 by stating that if you are not for tyranny of a majority you are for tyranny of a minority in view of his statement that he's against tyranny of a majority? Otherwise what do you mean by is tyranny of a minority more acceptable than tyranny of a majority?

Coaching a question as a hidden violation of a rule... meh. do you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority? Do you feel that if you are not allowed that right your liberty is being taken from you?

I can be for or against tyrannies of any kind or express my opinions about majority or minority views until the cows come home without violating my own rules in any way. What I can't do is tell you want you think or want or assign motive to what you post on whatever topic.

You can ask a member to clarify his/her reasoning for this or that statement, but you can't assume what he meant by making the statement.

You can say conservatives support smaller government and more self governance as opposed to liberals who tend to support big government solutions and more rules and regulations for the people. That is neither insulting or ad hominem on the face of it. Nor would be an objective rebuttal to that point of view if you objected to it. But if you say conservatives selfishly support. . . or liberals foolishly support. . . .that is insulting and ad hominem and would violate the rules of this thread.

Focus on the argument and leave the member or the motives of the group making the argument strictly out of it, and you are good to go on this thread.

The opposing force to tyranny of the majority is liberty. Liberty for all includes liberty for those in a minority as opposed to liberty only for the majority. Liberty is not tyranny of the minority. That is a meme espoused by authoritarians who believe that liberty is the liberty to take liberty away from those minority groups that they don't like.

I have no idea what you mean by that, but unless you figure out how to relate it to the OP, it is probably more suitable for a separate discussion in a different thread.

 

[RKMBrown]

IOW you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority and if you are not allowed that right you feel your liberty is being taken from you. Correct?

Rule #1 for the thread prohibits you from stating what you think I want. Please refrain from such ad hominem remarks as what I want is not the topic of this thread.

The amendment that Michelsen is proposing would give the various states authority to protect their own liberties and order their societies as they chose when they believed the government had overstepped its constitutional authority. And if 25% of the states believed their constitutional protections had been taken away by the federal government, they would not be subject to the tyranny of a majority and the Congress would have to go back to the drawing board and address the concerns of that 25%. Also there would be nothing to prevent any of the states from enacting the challenged federal law as a state law if they liked it.

Who, other than you, brought up tyranny of a minority? Maybe I missed something. Or were you violating rule #1 by stating that if you are not for tyranny of a majority you are for tyranny of a minority in view of his statement that he's against tyranny of a majority? Otherwise what do you mean by is tyranny of a minority more acceptable than tyranny of a majority?

Coaching a question as a hidden violation of a rule... meh. do you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority? Do you feel that if you are not allowed that right your liberty is being taken from you?

I can be for or against tyrannies of any kind or express my opinions about majority or minority views until the cows come home without violating my own rules in any way. What I can't do is tell you want you think or want or assign motive to what you post on whatever topic.

You can ask a member to clarify his/her reasoning for this or that statement, but you can't assume what he meant by making the statement.

You can say conservatives support smaller government and more self governance as opposed to liberals who tend to support big government solutions and more rules and regulations for the people. That is neither insulting or ad hominem on the face of it. Nor would be an objective rebuttal to that point of view if you objected to it. But if you say conservatives selfishly support. . . or liberals foolishly support. . . .that is insulting and ad hominem and would violate the rules of this thread.

Focus on the argument and leave the member or the motives of the group making the argument strictly out of it, and you are good to go on this thread.

The opposing force to tyranny of the majority is liberty. Liberty for all includes liberty for those in a minority as opposed to liberty only for the majority. Liberty is not tyranny of the minority. That is a meme espoused by authoritarians who believe that liberty is the liberty to take liberty away from those minority groups that they don't like.

I have no idea what you mean by that, but unless you figure out how to relate it to the OP, it is probably more suitable for a separate discussion in a different thread.

I'm sorry I thought you said "I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else."

 

[Foxfyre]

Rule #1 for the thread prohibits you from stating what you think I want. Please refrain from such ad hominem remarks as what I want is not the topic of this thread.

The amendment that Michelsen is proposing would give the various states authority to protect their own liberties and order their societies as they chose when they believed the government had overstepped its constitutional authority. And if 25% of the states believed their constitutional protections had been taken away by the federal government, they would not be subject to the tyranny of a majority and the Congress would have to go back to the drawing board and address the concerns of that 25%. Also there would be nothing to prevent any of the states from enacting the challenged federal law as a state law if they liked it.

Who, other than you, brought up tyranny of a minority? Maybe I missed something. Or were you violating rule #1 by stating that if you are not for tyranny of a majority you are for tyranny of a minority in view of his statement that he's against tyranny of a majority? Otherwise what do you mean by is tyranny of a minority more acceptable than tyranny of a majority?

Coaching a question as a hidden violation of a rule... meh. do you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority? Do you feel that if you are not allowed that right your liberty is being taken from you?

I can be for or against tyrannies of any kind or express my opinions about majority or minority views until the cows come home without violating my own rules in any way. What I can't do is tell you want you think or want or assign motive to what you post on whatever topic.

You can ask a member to clarify his/her reasoning for this or that statement, but you can't assume what he meant by making the statement.

You can say conservatives support smaller government and more self governance as opposed to liberals who tend to support big government solutions and more rules and regulations for the people. That is neither insulting or ad hominem on the face of it. Nor would be an objective rebuttal to that point of view if you objected to it. But if you say conservatives selfishly support. . . or liberals foolishly support. . . .that is insulting and ad hominem and would violate the rules of this thread.

Focus on the argument and leave the member or the motives of the group making the argument strictly out of it, and you are good to go on this thread.

The opposing force to tyranny of the majority is liberty. Liberty for all includes liberty for those in a minority as opposed to liberty only for the majority. Liberty is not tyranny of the minority. That is a meme espoused by authoritarians who believe that liberty is the liberty to take liberty away from those minority groups that they don't like.

I have no idea what you mean by that, but unless you figure out how to relate it to the OP, it is probably more suitable for a separate discussion in a different thread.

I'm sorry I thought you said "I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else."

I was defending a previous statement with that line. Context is everything.

But the fact is a tiny minority of five SCOTUS justices, people who may not give a damn about the Constitution or existing law or individual or collective liberties, can have authority to make whatever opinion they wish that could restrict the liberties of anybody. And SCOTUS has been allowed to declare what will be the uncontested law of the land which gives it unlimited power in a way that the Founders never intended that it would have.

Likewise a tiny minority of bureaucrats can write rules and regulations that are given force of law and can be imposed to grant special privileges or restrict freedoms. And this will be done without any representation of our interests whatsoever.

Whatever issues with Michelsen's proposed amendment any of us might have, it would go a long way to correct this situation.

 

[RKMBrown]

Who, other than you, brought up tyranny of a minority? Maybe I missed something. Or were you violating rule #1 by stating that if you are not for tyranny of a majority you are for tyranny of a minority in view of his statement that he's against tyranny of a majority? Otherwise what do you mean by is tyranny of a minority more acceptable than tyranny of a majority?

Coaching a question as a hidden violation of a rule... meh. do you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority? Do you feel that if you are not allowed that right your liberty is being taken from you?

I can be for or against tyrannies of any kind or express my opinions about majority or minority views until the cows come home without violating my own rules in any way. What I can't do is tell you want you think or want or assign motive to what you post on whatever topic.

You can ask a member to clarify his/her reasoning for this or that statement, but you can't assume what he meant by making the statement.

You can say conservatives support smaller government and more self governance as opposed to liberals who tend to support big government solutions and more rules and regulations for the people. That is neither insulting or ad hominem on the face of it. Nor would be an objective rebuttal to that point of view if you objected to it. But if you say conservatives selfishly support. . . or liberals foolishly support. . . .that is insulting and ad hominem and would violate the rules of this thread.

Focus on the argument and leave the member or the motives of the group making the argument strictly out of it, and you are good to go on this thread.

The opposing force to tyranny of the majority is liberty. Liberty for all includes liberty for those in a minority as opposed to liberty only for the majority. Liberty is not tyranny of the minority. That is a meme espoused by authoritarians who believe that liberty is the liberty to take liberty away from those minority groups that they don't like.

I have no idea what you mean by that, but unless you figure out how to relate it to the OP, it is probably more suitable for a separate discussion in a different thread.

I'm sorry I thought you said "I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else."

I was defending a previous statement with that line. Context is everything.

But the fact is a tiny minority of five SCOTUS justices, people who may not give a damn about the Constitution or existing law or individual or collective liberties, can have authority to make whatever opinion they wish that could restrict the liberties of anybody. And SCOTUS has been allowed to declare what will be the uncontested law of the land which gives it unlimited power in a way that the Founders never intended that it would have.

Likewise a tiny minority of bureaucrats can write rules and regulations that are given force of law and can be imposed to grant special privileges or restrict freedoms. And this will be done without any representation of our interests whatsoever.

Whatever issues with Michelsen's proposed amendment any of us might have, it would go a long way to correct this situation.

Ok.. so we are deflecting / moving the goal posts to the SCOTUS. I disagree, the SCOTUS does not have unlimited power. For example, if congress does not like us having liberty to get married, they can take it away with an amendment. See 16th amendment as an example of taking liberty away from the people. But they do not have unlimited power either. A super majority of the states have to approve.