Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[WelfareQueen]

California was not going to work for me.....

I left.

That is the choice we make or don't make.

California didn't have to change for me and I didn't expect them to.

The point was that if a state does something you don't like...you can move to another state.

If the federal government is running the whole show....where do you move ?

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

Are you familiar with a movie called "The Lottery"?

Which one? The 1996 one about some bizarre ritual a town set up to avoid over population? Or the 2010 one about choice in education?

The 1996 movie.

We can always build any manner of straw man to illustrate why people should not be given liberty. But the devil is always in the details of whose rights will be considered protected rights and whose rights will be sacrificed in favor of others.

Its only a strawman until one party becomes so authoritarian. Like there are some political parties that make you have not one but two trans vaginal ultrasounds to exercise a right the Supreme Court confirmed that you had.

One prominent member of this party signed and Executive Order forcing 6th grade girls to undergo a battery of shots to prevent a type of cervical cancer--a kind that is almost 100% transmitted through sexual contact.

It's a very short walk from the State coming up with these cockamamie statutes to imprisonment and fines. Could you imagine a State wanting to pass counseling and forcing you to look at victims of gun violence before you bought a gun?

It wasn't all that long ago that conservative sects were drowning women they thought were witches.

And again who gets to decide what your rights will be? Would you want me to have the power to decide that for you? Or would you trust your family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens to choose what was most mutually beneficial for all?

A good place to start would be here:

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
As you stated, there will always be some room for debate around the details.

But in reality, we all pretty much know what they are...some here are just arguing for the sake of argument.

The bottom line is that a federal government given authority to dictate that may get it right. And it may get it very wrong. If it gets it wrong, again, then there is nowhere for us to go to organize the society we wish to have.

Every time the court or an election doesn't go in favor of one particular party/ideology or just when they get a hair up their butt, they wish to blow up the entire system and start over
Dear Liberals I Want a Divorce US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you don't like the rulings of the Supreme Court or how Congress is behaving, you have a vote to change it. This is the legitimate power to change things. Blacks were not happy with PvF, women waited until after blacks to get the right to vote. Gays have been waiting a couple of centuries to have their right to marry recognized by all 50 states as a matter of law. At some point in the future, the Congress will pass legislation allowing men (especially) and women to take paid time off of work during the first weeks of a newborn's life.

Living in a free society means that at some point you're going to be shocked and saddened by the actions of the rule makers be it Congress and their ability to write laws, the President and her/his ability to enforce laws, or the Courts with their ability to act as umpires of what is Constitutional. You roll with the punches.

Again....I want to emphasize....the Courts do not confer rights. That is not their job. They adjudicate existing law.

 

[dcraelin]

well no it actually wasnt, there was a more limited government in place, the Articles of Confederation. AND the bill of rights were amendments that weren't original to the Constitution.

What wasn't ?

The limited government that was put in place of the Constitution had the power to do what it empowered to do by the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation gave no authority to the Federal Government.

It doesn't take much to realize that the people were not willing to throw in the idea of state sovereignty as evidenced by the resistance to the Constitution and the selling job required by Madison & Co. in the Federalist Papers. Now, either our fourth president was a liar or he meant what he wrote when he stated:

The State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former.

*********************

Now while I don't get along with this whole nullification garbage or secession, I do believe that we were to have a limited federal government...again as Madison stated:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

you yourself called the federalist a selling job. The ideas in the federalist were almost immediately rejected by its own writers when they Okay-ed a national bank in one of the first sessions of the new Congress.

The idea wasn't rejected.

Hamilton was never a true believer.

The strong Centralists were booted big time in 1804 and disappeared until they returned in the 1930's.

probably few of the federalists were true believers....and they had large hand in drafting Constitution. So your premise is wrong.

It really does not matter. Madison penned it and that was the concept. End of that discussion.

To boot...Jefferson and Co crushed the Hamiltonian types in 1800. They were silent for over a century.

end of what discussion, Madison penned what?, the Constitution? only parts. Jefferson and CO were closer to right. But I think they would disagree with you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yeah, your human rights were not being violated by whatever you found objectionable.

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

Are you familiar with a movie called "The Lottery"?

Which one? The 1996 one about some bizarre ritual a town set up to avoid over population? Or the 2010 one about choice in education?

The 1996 movie.

We can always build any manner of straw man to illustrate why people should not be given liberty. But the devil is always in the details of whose rights will be considered protected rights and whose rights will be sacrificed in favor of others.

Its only a strawman until one party becomes so authoritarian. Like there are some political parties that make you have not one but two trans vaginal ultrasounds to exercise a right the Supreme Court confirmed that you had.

One prominent member of this party signed and Executive Order forcing 6th grade girls to undergo a battery of shots to prevent a type of cervical cancer--a kind that is almost 100% transmitted through sexual contact.

It's a very short walk from the State coming up with these cockamamie statutes to imprisonment and fines. Could you imagine a State wanting to pass counseling and forcing you to look at victims of gun violence before you bought a gun?

It wasn't all that long ago that conservative sects were drowning women they thought were witches.

And again who gets to decide what your rights will be? Would you want me to have the power to decide that for you? Or would you trust your family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens to choose what was most mutually beneficial for all?

A good place to start would be here:

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
As you stated, there will always be some room for debate around the details.

But in reality, we all pretty much know what they are...some here are just arguing for the sake of argument.

The bottom line is that a federal government given authority to dictate that may get it right. And it may get it very wrong. If it gets it wrong, again, then there is nowhere for us to go to organize the society we wish to have.

Every time the court or an election doesn't go in favor of one particular party/ideology or just when they get a hair up their butt, they wish to blow up the entire system and start over
Dear Liberals I Want a Divorce US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you don't like the rulings of the Supreme Court or how Congress is behaving, you have a vote to change it. This is the legitimate power to change things. Blacks were not happy with PvF, women waited until after blacks to get the right to vote. Gays have been waiting a couple of centuries to have their right to marry recognized by all 50 states as a matter of law. At some point in the future, the Congress will pass legislation allowing men (especially) and women to take paid time off of work during the first weeks of a newborn's life.

Living in a free society means that at some point you're going to be shocked and saddened by the actions of the rule makers be it Congress and their ability to write laws, the President and her/his ability to enforce laws, or the Courts with their ability to act as umpires of what is Constitutional. You roll with the punches.

Again....I want to emphasize....the Courts do not confer rights. That is not their job. They adjudicate existing law.

But we have to put that into perspective in light of the thread OP. Certainly the Founders did not expect any part of the federal government to confer rights, and certainly not the courts. The Constitution does not grant rights to anybody--it only prevents the federal government from infringing on rights the people already had, as well as spelling out what the authority and duties of the various branches of the federal government would be.

And the corruption of that concept by all three branches of the federal government is what prompted Michelsen's proposed amendment and that in turn inspired this thread..

 

[WelfareQueen]

Since SD didn't specify we have no way of knowing that. Maybe he thought they were, but to demand that California organize and operate as SD found satisfactory could have violated somebody else's human rights to have the society he/she wanted. But SD did not have to suck it up and accept it--he had the right and ability to move to another state more compatible with his chosen lifestyle.

But if the federal government was forcing an unsatisfactory situation on him, he would have nowhere to go without giving up his country. One state can screw things up and it affects that one state. When the federal government gets it wrong, it affects everybody.

The Founders knew that and that is why they demanded that the powers and authority given the federal government be strictly limited and few and clearly specified. The powers and authority given each individual state were numerous and unlimited.

That is what liberty looked liked to them. That is what liberty looks like to me.

Are you familiar with a movie called "The Lottery"?

Which one? The 1996 one about some bizarre ritual a town set up to avoid over population? Or the 2010 one about choice in education?

The 1996 movie.

We can always build any manner of straw man to illustrate why people should not be given liberty. But the devil is always in the details of whose rights will be considered protected rights and whose rights will be sacrificed in favor of others.

Its only a strawman until one party becomes so authoritarian. Like there are some political parties that make you have not one but two trans vaginal ultrasounds to exercise a right the Supreme Court confirmed that you had.

One prominent member of this party signed and Executive Order forcing 6th grade girls to undergo a battery of shots to prevent a type of cervical cancer--a kind that is almost 100% transmitted through sexual contact.

It's a very short walk from the State coming up with these cockamamie statutes to imprisonment and fines. Could you imagine a State wanting to pass counseling and forcing you to look at victims of gun violence before you bought a gun?

It wasn't all that long ago that conservative sects were drowning women they thought were witches.

And again who gets to decide what your rights will be? Would you want me to have the power to decide that for you? Or would you trust your family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens to choose what was most mutually beneficial for all?

A good place to start would be here:

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
As you stated, there will always be some room for debate around the details.

But in reality, we all pretty much know what they are...some here are just arguing for the sake of argument.

The bottom line is that a federal government given authority to dictate that may get it right. And it may get it very wrong. If it gets it wrong, again, then there is nowhere for us to go to organize the society we wish to have.

Every time the court or an election doesn't go in favor of one particular party/ideology or just when they get a hair up their butt, they wish to blow up the entire system and start over
Dear Liberals I Want a Divorce US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you don't like the rulings of the Supreme Court or how Congress is behaving, you have a vote to change it. This is the legitimate power to change things. Blacks were not happy with PvF, women waited until after blacks to get the right to vote. Gays have been waiting a couple of centuries to have their right to marry recognized by all 50 states as a matter of law. At some point in the future, the Congress will pass legislation allowing men (especially) and women to take paid time off of work during the first weeks of a newborn's life.

Living in a free society means that at some point you're going to be shocked and saddened by the actions of the rule makers be it Congress and their ability to write laws, the President and her/his ability to enforce laws, or the Courts with their ability to act as umpires of what is Constitutional. You roll with the punches.

Again....I want to emphasize....the Courts do not confer rights. That is not their job. They adjudicate existing law.

But we have to put that into perspective in light of the thread OP. Certainly the Founders did not expect any part of the federal government to confer rights, and certainly not the courts. The Constitution does not grant rights to anybody--it only prevents the federal government from infringing on rights the people already had, as well as spelling out what the authority and duties of the various branches of the federal government would be.

And the corruption of that concept by all three branches of the federal government is what prompted Michelsen's proposed amendment and that in turn inspired this thread..

You are correct with one small caveat. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were approved and ratified by We the People in State Legislatures. Those Rights were conferred by the People.

Any amendments must be ratified by We the People.

The concern expressed by Michelson is genuine. I don't agree with all aspects of his plan. But it definitely warrants discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Are you familiar with a movie called "The Lottery"?

Which one? The 1996 one about some bizarre ritual a town set up to avoid over population? Or the 2010 one about choice in education?

The 1996 movie.

We can always build any manner of straw man to illustrate why people should not be given liberty. But the devil is always in the details of whose rights will be considered protected rights and whose rights will be sacrificed in favor of others.

Its only a strawman until one party becomes so authoritarian. Like there are some political parties that make you have not one but two trans vaginal ultrasounds to exercise a right the Supreme Court confirmed that you had.

One prominent member of this party signed and Executive Order forcing 6th grade girls to undergo a battery of shots to prevent a type of cervical cancer--a kind that is almost 100% transmitted through sexual contact.

It's a very short walk from the State coming up with these cockamamie statutes to imprisonment and fines. Could you imagine a State wanting to pass counseling and forcing you to look at victims of gun violence before you bought a gun?

It wasn't all that long ago that conservative sects were drowning women they thought were witches.

And again who gets to decide what your rights will be? Would you want me to have the power to decide that for you? Or would you trust your family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens to choose what was most mutually beneficial for all?

A good place to start would be here:

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
As you stated, there will always be some room for debate around the details.

But in reality, we all pretty much know what they are...some here are just arguing for the sake of argument.

The bottom line is that a federal government given authority to dictate that may get it right. And it may get it very wrong. If it gets it wrong, again, then there is nowhere for us to go to organize the society we wish to have.

Every time the court or an election doesn't go in favor of one particular party/ideology or just when they get a hair up their butt, they wish to blow up the entire system and start over
Dear Liberals I Want a Divorce US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you don't like the rulings of the Supreme Court or how Congress is behaving, you have a vote to change it. This is the legitimate power to change things. Blacks were not happy with PvF, women waited until after blacks to get the right to vote. Gays have been waiting a couple of centuries to have their right to marry recognized by all 50 states as a matter of law. At some point in the future, the Congress will pass legislation allowing men (especially) and women to take paid time off of work during the first weeks of a newborn's life.

Living in a free society means that at some point you're going to be shocked and saddened by the actions of the rule makers be it Congress and their ability to write laws, the President and her/his ability to enforce laws, or the Courts with their ability to act as umpires of what is Constitutional. You roll with the punches.

Again....I want to emphasize....the Courts do not confer rights. That is not their job. They adjudicate existing law.

But we have to put that into perspective in light of the thread OP. Certainly the Founders did not expect any part of the federal government to confer rights, and certainly not the courts. The Constitution does not grant rights to anybody--it only prevents the federal government from infringing on rights the people already had, as well as spelling out what the authority and duties of the various branches of the federal government would be.

And the corruption of that concept by all three branches of the federal government is what prompted Michelsen's proposed amendment and that in turn inspired this thread..

You are correct with one small caveat. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were approved and ratified by We the People in State Legislatures. Those Rights were conferred by the People.

Any amendments must be ratified by We the People.

The concern expressed by Michelson is genuine. I don't agree with all aspects of his plan. But it definitely warrants discussion.

Did the people confer the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights? Or did they simply make extra sure that nobody would misinterpret that such rights already existed and the federal government would never be allowed to meddle with them? But you are right--the power conferred to all three branches of government were conferred by the people, the primary purpose of such government being to secure the rights/liberties of the people.

I am still thinking through Michelsen's proposal. At first blush I was mostly like the rest of you and emotionally and intellectually resisted it because of perceived implausibility. But I so agreed with perceptions, reasons, and reasoning for why such an amendment could be necessary, I chose to not reject it out of hand without giving it a fair hearing.

And the more this discussion progresses and considering the contributions of those of you who philosophically agree with Michelsen's analysis of the situation and compare that with the contributions of those who reject everything he has said or proposed, the more plausible that proposed amendment is becoming.

 

[candycorn]

Which one? The 1996 one about some bizarre ritual a town set up to avoid over population? Or the 2010 one about choice in education?

The 1996 movie.

We can always build any manner of straw man to illustrate why people should not be given liberty. But the devil is always in the details of whose rights will be considered protected rights and whose rights will be sacrificed in favor of others.

Its only a strawman until one party becomes so authoritarian. Like there are some political parties that make you have not one but two trans vaginal ultrasounds to exercise a right the Supreme Court confirmed that you had.

One prominent member of this party signed and Executive Order forcing 6th grade girls to undergo a battery of shots to prevent a type of cervical cancer--a kind that is almost 100% transmitted through sexual contact.

It's a very short walk from the State coming up with these cockamamie statutes to imprisonment and fines. Could you imagine a State wanting to pass counseling and forcing you to look at victims of gun violence before you bought a gun?

It wasn't all that long ago that conservative sects were drowning women they thought were witches.

And again who gets to decide what your rights will be? Would you want me to have the power to decide that for you? Or would you trust your family, friends, neighbors, fellow citizens to choose what was most mutually beneficial for all?

A good place to start would be here:

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
As you stated, there will always be some room for debate around the details.

But in reality, we all pretty much know what they are...some here are just arguing for the sake of argument.

The bottom line is that a federal government given authority to dictate that may get it right. And it may get it very wrong. If it gets it wrong, again, then there is nowhere for us to go to organize the society we wish to have.

Every time the court or an election doesn't go in favor of one particular party/ideology or just when they get a hair up their butt, they wish to blow up the entire system and start over
Dear Liberals I Want a Divorce US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you don't like the rulings of the Supreme Court or how Congress is behaving, you have a vote to change it. This is the legitimate power to change things. Blacks were not happy with PvF, women waited until after blacks to get the right to vote. Gays have been waiting a couple of centuries to have their right to marry recognized by all 50 states as a matter of law. At some point in the future, the Congress will pass legislation allowing men (especially) and women to take paid time off of work during the first weeks of a newborn's life.

Living in a free society means that at some point you're going to be shocked and saddened by the actions of the rule makers be it Congress and their ability to write laws, the President and her/his ability to enforce laws, or the Courts with their ability to act as umpires of what is Constitutional. You roll with the punches.

Again....I want to emphasize....the Courts do not confer rights. That is not their job. They adjudicate existing law.

But we have to put that into perspective in light of the thread OP. Certainly the Founders did not expect any part of the federal government to confer rights, and certainly not the courts. The Constitution does not grant rights to anybody--it only prevents the federal government from infringing on rights the people already had, as well as spelling out what the authority and duties of the various branches of the federal government would be.

And the corruption of that concept by all three branches of the federal government is what prompted Michelsen's proposed amendment and that in turn inspired this thread..

You are correct with one small caveat. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were approved and ratified by We the People in State Legislatures. Those Rights were conferred by the People.

Any amendments must be ratified by We the People.

The concern expressed by Michelson is genuine. I don't agree with all aspects of his plan. But it definitely warrants discussion.

Did the people confer the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights? Or did they simply make extra sure that nobody would misinterpret that such rights already existed and the federal government would never be allowed to meddle with them? But you are right--the power conferred to all three branches of government were conferred by the people, the primary purpose of such government being to secure the rights/liberties of the people.

I am still thinking through Michelsen's proposal. At first blush I was mostly like the rest of you and emotionally and intellectually resisted it because of perceived implausibility. But I so agreed with perceptions, reasons, and reasoning for why such an amendment could be necessary, I chose to not reject it out of hand without giving it a fair hearing.

And the more this discussion progresses and considering the contributions of those of you who philosophically agree with Michelsen's analysis of the situation and compare that with the contributions of those who reject everything he has said or proposed, the more plausible that proposed amendment is becoming.

Thanks for making my point for me. We needn't pretend that the previous 240 years didn't exist and re-invent the wheel. Human rights are human rights

 

[Foxfyre]

The 1996 movie.

Its only a strawman until one party becomes so authoritarian. Like there are some political parties that make you have not one but two trans vaginal ultrasounds to exercise a right the Supreme Court confirmed that you had.

One prominent member of this party signed and Executive Order forcing 6th grade girls to undergo a battery of shots to prevent a type of cervical cancer--a kind that is almost 100% transmitted through sexual contact.

It's a very short walk from the State coming up with these cockamamie statutes to imprisonment and fines. Could you imagine a State wanting to pass counseling and forcing you to look at victims of gun violence before you bought a gun?

It wasn't all that long ago that conservative sects were drowning women they thought were witches.

A good place to start would be here:

UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
As you stated, there will always be some room for debate around the details.

But in reality, we all pretty much know what they are...some here are just arguing for the sake of argument.

Every time the court or an election doesn't go in favor of one particular party/ideology or just when they get a hair up their butt, they wish to blow up the entire system and start over
Dear Liberals I Want a Divorce US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

If you don't like the rulings of the Supreme Court or how Congress is behaving, you have a vote to change it. This is the legitimate power to change things. Blacks were not happy with PvF, women waited until after blacks to get the right to vote. Gays have been waiting a couple of centuries to have their right to marry recognized by all 50 states as a matter of law. At some point in the future, the Congress will pass legislation allowing men (especially) and women to take paid time off of work during the first weeks of a newborn's life.

Living in a free society means that at some point you're going to be shocked and saddened by the actions of the rule makers be it Congress and their ability to write laws, the President and her/his ability to enforce laws, or the Courts with their ability to act as umpires of what is Constitutional. You roll with the punches.

Again....I want to emphasize....the Courts do not confer rights. That is not their job. They adjudicate existing law.

But we have to put that into perspective in light of the thread OP. Certainly the Founders did not expect any part of the federal government to confer rights, and certainly not the courts. The Constitution does not grant rights to anybody--it only prevents the federal government from infringing on rights the people already had, as well as spelling out what the authority and duties of the various branches of the federal government would be.

And the corruption of that concept by all three branches of the federal government is what prompted Michelsen's proposed amendment and that in turn inspired this thread..

You are correct with one small caveat. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were approved and ratified by We the People in State Legislatures. Those Rights were conferred by the People.

Any amendments must be ratified by We the People.

The concern expressed by Michelson is genuine. I don't agree with all aspects of his plan. But it definitely warrants discussion.

Did the people confer the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights? Or did they simply make extra sure that nobody would misinterpret that such rights already existed and the federal government would never be allowed to meddle with them? But you are right--the power conferred to all three branches of government were conferred by the people, the primary purpose of such government being to secure the rights/liberties of the people.

I am still thinking through Michelsen's proposal. At first blush I was mostly like the rest of you and emotionally and intellectually resisted it because of perceived implausibility. But I so agreed with perceptions, reasons, and reasoning for why such an amendment could be necessary, I chose to not reject it out of hand without giving it a fair hearing.

And the more this discussion progresses and considering the contributions of those of you who philosophically agree with Michelsen's analysis of the situation and compare that with the contributions of those who reject everything he has said or proposed, the more plausible that proposed amendment is becoming.

Thanks for making my point for me. We needn't pretend that the previous 240 years didn't exist and re-invent the wheel. Human rights are human rights

But until Americans are willing to allow EVERYBODY to enjoy human rights rather than only the sociopolitical groups they choose to favor, we will need protections and security of those rights. And whether the nation has been going along for 240 years or 2400 years, the fact is that neither you nor I nor the President nor the legislature nor the Supreme Court or any court is given authority to dictate what human rights will be observed and protected and which ones will not.

 

[candycorn]

Again....I want to emphasize....the Courts do not confer rights. That is not their job. They adjudicate existing law.

But we have to put that into perspective in light of the thread OP. Certainly the Founders did not expect any part of the federal government to confer rights, and certainly not the courts. The Constitution does not grant rights to anybody--it only prevents the federal government from infringing on rights the people already had, as well as spelling out what the authority and duties of the various branches of the federal government would be.

And the corruption of that concept by all three branches of the federal government is what prompted Michelsen's proposed amendment and that in turn inspired this thread..

You are correct with one small caveat. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were approved and ratified by We the People in State Legislatures. Those Rights were conferred by the People.

Any amendments must be ratified by We the People.

The concern expressed by Michelson is genuine. I don't agree with all aspects of his plan. But it definitely warrants discussion.

Did the people confer the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights? Or did they simply make extra sure that nobody would misinterpret that such rights already existed and the federal government would never be allowed to meddle with them? But you are right--the power conferred to all three branches of government were conferred by the people, the primary purpose of such government being to secure the rights/liberties of the people.

I am still thinking through Michelsen's proposal. At first blush I was mostly like the rest of you and emotionally and intellectually resisted it because of perceived implausibility. But I so agreed with perceptions, reasons, and reasoning for why such an amendment could be necessary, I chose to not reject it out of hand without giving it a fair hearing.

And the more this discussion progresses and considering the contributions of those of you who philosophically agree with Michelsen's analysis of the situation and compare that with the contributions of those who reject everything he has said or proposed, the more plausible that proposed amendment is becoming.

Thanks for making my point for me. We needn't pretend that the previous 240 years didn't exist and re-invent the wheel. Human rights are human rights

But until Americans are willing to allow EVERYBODY to enjoy human rights rather than only the sociopolitical groups they choose to favor, we will need protections and security of those rights. And whether the nation has been going along for 240 years or 2400 years, the fact is that neither you nor I nor the President nor the legislature nor the Supreme Court or any court is given authority to dictate what human rights will be observed and protected and which ones will not.

There is no finite pool of rights.

Just because Steve can marry Stephen now doesn't limit anyone else's rights in any way, shape, or form.

Just because IBM now has to extend spousal insurance if Steve works there and wants to put Stephen as his wife/SO, doesn't limit anyone else's rights in any way, shape, or form.

It would be helpful if people stopped pretending otherwise.

 

[WelfareQueen]

But we have to put that into perspective in light of the thread OP. Certainly the Founders did not expect any part of the federal government to confer rights, and certainly not the courts. The Constitution does not grant rights to anybody--it only prevents the federal government from infringing on rights the people already had, as well as spelling out what the authority and duties of the various branches of the federal government would be.

And the corruption of that concept by all three branches of the federal government is what prompted Michelsen's proposed amendment and that in turn inspired this thread..

You are correct with one small caveat. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were approved and ratified by We the People in State Legislatures. Those Rights were conferred by the People.

Any amendments must be ratified by We the People.

The concern expressed by Michelson is genuine. I don't agree with all aspects of his plan. But it definitely warrants discussion.

Did the people confer the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights? Or did they simply make extra sure that nobody would misinterpret that such rights already existed and the federal government would never be allowed to meddle with them? But you are right--the power conferred to all three branches of government were conferred by the people, the primary purpose of such government being to secure the rights/liberties of the people.

I am still thinking through Michelsen's proposal. At first blush I was mostly like the rest of you and emotionally and intellectually resisted it because of perceived implausibility. But I so agreed with perceptions, reasons, and reasoning for why such an amendment could be necessary, I chose to not reject it out of hand without giving it a fair hearing.

And the more this discussion progresses and considering the contributions of those of you who philosophically agree with Michelsen's analysis of the situation and compare that with the contributions of those who reject everything he has said or proposed, the more plausible that proposed amendment is becoming.

Thanks for making my point for me. We needn't pretend that the previous 240 years didn't exist and re-invent the wheel. Human rights are human rights

But until Americans are willing to allow EVERYBODY to enjoy human rights rather than only the sociopolitical groups they choose to favor, we will need protections and security of those rights. And whether the nation has been going along for 240 years or 2400 years, the fact is that neither you nor I nor the President nor the legislature nor the Supreme Court or any court is given authority to dictate what human rights will be observed and protected and which ones will not.

There is no finite pool of rights.

Just because Steve can marry Stephen now doesn't limit anyone else's rights in any way, shape, or form.

Just because IBM now has to extend spousal insurance if Steve works there and wants to put Stephen as his wife/SO, doesn't limit anyone else's rights in any way, shape, or form.

It would be helpful if people stopped pretending otherwise.

What about religious freedoms? Can those with religious objections be compelled into action?

 

[Foxfyre]

But we have to put that into perspective in light of the thread OP. Certainly the Founders did not expect any part of the federal government to confer rights, and certainly not the courts. The Constitution does not grant rights to anybody--it only prevents the federal government from infringing on rights the people already had, as well as spelling out what the authority and duties of the various branches of the federal government would be.

And the corruption of that concept by all three branches of the federal government is what prompted Michelsen's proposed amendment and that in turn inspired this thread..

You are correct with one small caveat. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were approved and ratified by We the People in State Legislatures. Those Rights were conferred by the People.

Any amendments must be ratified by We the People.

The concern expressed by Michelson is genuine. I don't agree with all aspects of his plan. But it definitely warrants discussion.

Did the people confer the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights? Or did they simply make extra sure that nobody would misinterpret that such rights already existed and the federal government would never be allowed to meddle with them? But you are right--the power conferred to all three branches of government were conferred by the people, the primary purpose of such government being to secure the rights/liberties of the people.

I am still thinking through Michelsen's proposal. At first blush I was mostly like the rest of you and emotionally and intellectually resisted it because of perceived implausibility. But I so agreed with perceptions, reasons, and reasoning for why such an amendment could be necessary, I chose to not reject it out of hand without giving it a fair hearing.

And the more this discussion progresses and considering the contributions of those of you who philosophically agree with Michelsen's analysis of the situation and compare that with the contributions of those who reject everything he has said or proposed, the more plausible that proposed amendment is becoming.

Thanks for making my point for me. We needn't pretend that the previous 240 years didn't exist and re-invent the wheel. Human rights are human rights

But until Americans are willing to allow EVERYBODY to enjoy human rights rather than only the sociopolitical groups they choose to favor, we will need protections and security of those rights. And whether the nation has been going along for 240 years or 2400 years, the fact is that neither you nor I nor the President nor the legislature nor the Supreme Court or any court is given authority to dictate what human rights will be observed and protected and which ones will not.

There is no finite pool of rights.

Just because Steve can marry Stephen now doesn't limit anyone else's rights in any way, shape, or form.

Just because IBM now has to extend spousal insurance if Steve works there and wants to put Stephen as his wife/SO, doesn't limit anyone else's rights in any way, shape, or form.

It would be helpful if people stopped pretending otherwise.

It limits others' rights if they are forced by law to participate in Stephen and Stephen's wedding when they do not wish to do so.

It limits IBM's rights to organize their business as they see fit when they are forced by law to grant a benefit to somebody.

It would be helpful if those demanding civil rights would acknowledge that.

When what we demand as human rights requires participation or contribution by anybody else, the law by default chooses who will be the winners and who will be the losers. One side will be required to serve the other. One side benefits and the others side has its rights to its own choices and property violated. The Founders intended that this should never be the prerogative of any part of the federal government as the federal government was to serve all impartially and without prejudice or favoritism of any kind and in a way that advantaged no citizen at the expense of another.

 

[candycorn]

MOD EDIT - Please review the rules for this thread. No insults please.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The vote is only as good as the people who receive it. When the people who receive it can do any damn thing they want to anybody, the vote is worthless.

And that, obviously, is in no way, shape, or form is the case today. Nor was it the case yesterday nor will it be tomorrow.

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

Do you think Obamacare will ever be repealed and other ideas will take over ?

If not, then I would ask where I move to get out from under that ?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

What wasn't ?

The limited government that was put in place of the Constitution had the power to do what it empowered to do by the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation gave no authority to the Federal Government.

It doesn't take much to realize that the people were not willing to throw in the idea of state sovereignty as evidenced by the resistance to the Constitution and the selling job required by Madison & Co. in the Federalist Papers. Now, either our fourth president was a liar or he meant what he wrote when he stated:

The State governments will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former.

*********************

Now while I don't get along with this whole nullification garbage or secession, I do believe that we were to have a limited federal government...again as Madison stated:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

you yourself called the federalist a selling job. The ideas in the federalist were almost immediately rejected by its own writers when they Okay-ed a national bank in one of the first sessions of the new Congress.

The idea wasn't rejected.

Hamilton was never a true believer.

The strong Centralists were booted big time in 1804 and disappeared until they returned in the 1930's.

probably few of the federalists were true believers....and they had large hand in drafting Constitution. So your premise is wrong.

It really does not matter. Madison penned it and that was the concept. End of that discussion.

To boot...Jefferson and Co crushed the Hamiltonian types in 1800. They were silent for over a century.

end of what discussion, Madison penned what?, the Constitution? only parts. Jefferson and CO were closer to right. But I think they would disagree with you.

Madison penned Federalist 45....tell me you think he was lying.

He also penned the 10th....was he lying ?

What would Jefferson disagree with ?

 

[candycorn]

And that, obviously, is in no way, shape, or form is the case today. Nor was it the case yesterday nor will it be tomorrow.

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

Do you think Obamacare will ever be repealed and other ideas will take over ?

If not, then I would ask where I move to get out from under that ?

No.
It doesn't violate your human rights.

 

[Foxfyre]

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

Do you think Obamacare will ever be repealed and other ideas will take over ?

If not, then I would ask where I move to get out from under that ?

No.
It doesn't violate your human rights.

Sure it does. When the government forces me to buy a product I would not choose for myself or I do not want, that definitely violates my human rights. And when the government forces me to subsidize others ordered by the government to buy a product so that they can buy it, that violates my human rights.

 

[dcraelin]

you yourself called the federalist a selling job. The ideas in the federalist were almost immediately rejected by its own writers when they Okay-ed a national bank in one of the first sessions of the new Congress.

The idea wasn't rejected.

Hamilton was never a true believer.

The strong Centralists were booted big time in 1804 and disappeared until they returned in the 1930's.

probably few of the federalists were true believers....and they had large hand in drafting Constitution. So your premise is wrong.

It really does not matter. Madison penned it and that was the concept. End of that discussion.

To boot...Jefferson and Co crushed the Hamiltonian types in 1800. They were silent for over a century.

end of what discussion, Madison penned what?, the Constitution? only parts. Jefferson and CO were closer to right. But I think they would disagree with you.

Madison penned Federalist 45....tell me you think he was lying.

He also penned the 10th....was he lying ?

What would Jefferson disagree with ?

Jefferson would disagree with you that the Constitution wasnt centralizing

Madison seems to have changed his mind....he basically rejected the federalists, & his fellow federalist writers jay and Hamilton to start the first republican party.

he hedges on his statements in the 10th, as is shown in a pic of him in my gallery I believe.

 

[Foxfyre]

The idea wasn't rejected.

Hamilton was never a true believer.

The strong Centralists were booted big time in 1804 and disappeared until they returned in the 1930's.

probably few of the federalists were true believers....and they had large hand in drafting Constitution. So your premise is wrong.

It really does not matter. Madison penned it and that was the concept. End of that discussion.

To boot...Jefferson and Co crushed the Hamiltonian types in 1800. They were silent for over a century.

end of what discussion, Madison penned what?, the Constitution? only parts. Jefferson and CO were closer to right. But I think they would disagree with you.

Madison penned Federalist 45....tell me you think he was lying.

He also penned the 10th....was he lying ?

What would Jefferson disagree with ?

Jefferson would disagree with you that the Constitution wasnt centralizing

Madison seems to have changed his mind....he basically rejected the federalists, & his fellow federalist writers jay and Hamilton to start the first republican party.

he hedges on his statements in the 10th, as is shown in a pic of him in my gallery I believe.

But don't we have to cut them some slack when they changed their mind about something? I even left the poll open on this thread so that people could change their mind and their poll choices as they thought this through. And I have noticed that some have taken advantage of that.

It took them eleven long years of debate, discussion, disagreement, agreement, compromise, etc. from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the document arising out of that Declaration that was finally signed by all but three of the Convention delegates. The concept of the United States of America was completely unique and untried--a brand new thing in the history of civilization. It was a grand experiment in which the people would govern themselves and not be governed by any dictator, monarch, pope. or other totalitarian authority. And they made sure they got it as right as they could before they signed it and offered it to the various states for ratification.

The fact that many did change their mind and choose to support or oppose various debated components of how that government would be structured I see as a great strength that contributed to the remarkable document they gave us.

Too few now appreciate what was intended by that remarkable document and too few have ever been taught what is true liberty and self governance as the Founders understood that. And once those in government learned to enrich and benefit themselves at our expense, they pretty well threw those original concepts out the window so they could force the people to serve them and whatever they wanted.

IMO, Michelsen's proposed amendment goes a long way toward correcting that unacceptable situation.

 

[dcraelin]

probably few of the federalists were true believers....and they had large hand in drafting Constitution. So your premise is wrong.

It really does not matter. Madison penned it and that was the concept. End of that discussion.

To boot...Jefferson and Co crushed the Hamiltonian types in 1800. They were silent for over a century.

end of what discussion, Madison penned what?, the Constitution? only parts. Jefferson and CO were closer to right. But I think they would disagree with you.

Madison penned Federalist 45....tell me you think he was lying.

He also penned the 10th....was he lying ?

What would Jefferson disagree with ?

Jefferson would disagree with you that the Constitution wasnt centralizing

Madison seems to have changed his mind....he basically rejected the federalists, & his fellow federalist writers jay and Hamilton to start the first republican party.

he hedges on his statements in the 10th, as is shown in a pic of him in my gallery I believe.

But don't we have to cut them some slack when they changed their mind about something? I even left the poll open on this thread so that people could change their mind and their poll choices as they thought this through. And I have noticed that some have taken advantage of that.

It took them eleven long years of debate, discussion, disagreement, agreement, compromise, etc. from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the document arising out of that Declaration that was finally signed by all but three of the Convention delegates. The concept of the United States of America was completely unique and untried--a brand new thing in the history of civilization. It was a grand experiment in which the people would govern themselves and not be governed by any dictator, monarch, pope. or other totalitarian authority. And they made sure they got it as right as they could before they signed it and offered it to the various states for ratification.

The fact that many did change their mind and choose to support or oppose various debated components of how that government would be structured I see as a great strength that contributed to the remarkable document they gave us.

Too few now appreciate what was intended by that remarkable document and too few have ever been taught what is true liberty and self governance as the Founders understood that. And once those in government learned to enrich and benefit themselves at our expense, they pretty well threw those original concepts out the window so they could force the people to serve them and whatever they wanted.

IMO, Michelsen's proposed amendment goes a long way toward correcting that unacceptable situation.

you've said this "11 long years" statement before, but more thought was put into our first real government, The Articles of Confederation, than the Constitution, especially in the judicial/dispute resolution area as many had an interest in disputes over western lands.

In my opinion, after reading a book about ratification, and considering lack of communication of the day, the Constitution was rushed into being. On the whole its been a good thing, but needs repair.

 

[Foxfyre]

It really does not matter. Madison penned it and that was the concept. End of that discussion.

To boot...Jefferson and Co crushed the Hamiltonian types in 1800. They were silent for over a century.

end of what discussion, Madison penned what?, the Constitution? only parts. Jefferson and CO were closer to right. But I think they would disagree with you.

Madison penned Federalist 45....tell me you think he was lying.

He also penned the 10th....was he lying ?

What would Jefferson disagree with ?

Jefferson would disagree with you that the Constitution wasnt centralizing

Madison seems to have changed his mind....he basically rejected the federalists, & his fellow federalist writers jay and Hamilton to start the first republican party.

he hedges on his statements in the 10th, as is shown in a pic of him in my gallery I believe.

But don't we have to cut them some slack when they changed their mind about something? I even left the poll open on this thread so that people could change their mind and their poll choices as they thought this through. And I have noticed that some have taken advantage of that.

It took them eleven long years of debate, discussion, disagreement, agreement, compromise, etc. from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the document arising out of that Declaration that was finally signed by all but three of the Convention delegates. The concept of the United States of America was completely unique and untried--a brand new thing in the history of civilization. It was a grand experiment in which the people would govern themselves and not be governed by any dictator, monarch, pope. or other totalitarian authority. And they made sure they got it as right as they could before they signed it and offered it to the various states for ratification.

The fact that many did change their mind and choose to support or oppose various debated components of how that government would be structured I see as a great strength that contributed to the remarkable document they gave us.

Too few now appreciate what was intended by that remarkable document and too few have ever been taught what is true liberty and self governance as the Founders understood that. And once those in government learned to enrich and benefit themselves at our expense, they pretty well threw those original concepts out the window so they could force the people to serve them and whatever they wanted.

IMO, Michelsen's proposed amendment goes a long way toward correcting that unacceptable situation.

you've said this "11 long years" statement before, but more thought was put into our first real government, The Articles of Confederation, than the Constitution, especially in the judicial/dispute resolution area as many had an interest in disputes over western lands.

In my opinion, after reading a book about ratification, and considering lack of communication of the day, the Constitution was rushed into being. On the whole its been a good thing, but needs repair.

But we have the founding documents that span that 11 years. Was the Constitution rushed into being? If you look at only the Constitutional Convention, you might could make that argument. But those who came to that table had indeed put 11 years of thought into it before they arrived there.

If subsequent governments had been of the caliber of those first governments operating under the Constitution, there would have been no problem. It worked as intended and did indeed keep the government mostly in check until the progressives of the very end of the 19th Century and early 20th Century--TR Roosevelt, Wilson, Taft--turned the Constitution on its head and wrote their own interpretation into it. Slowly at first and then building mass and velocity at an alarming rate, it has been going downhill from there.

Michelsen's proposed amendment is intended to start the process to 'mend' a broken Constitution.

 

[dcraelin]

end of what discussion, Madison penned what?, the Constitution? only parts. Jefferson and CO were closer to right. But I think they would disagree with you.

Madison penned Federalist 45....tell me you think he was lying.

He also penned the 10th....was he lying ?

What would Jefferson disagree with ?

Jefferson would disagree with you that the Constitution wasnt centralizing

Madison seems to have changed his mind....he basically rejected the federalists, & his fellow federalist writers jay and Hamilton to start the first republican party.

he hedges on his statements in the 10th, as is shown in a pic of him in my gallery I believe.

But don't we have to cut them some slack when they changed their mind about something? I even left the poll open on this thread so that people could change their mind and their poll choices as they thought this through. And I have noticed that some have taken advantage of that.

It took them eleven long years of debate, discussion, disagreement, agreement, compromise, etc. from the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the document arising out of that Declaration that was finally signed by all but three of the Convention delegates. The concept of the United States of America was completely unique and untried--a brand new thing in the history of civilization. It was a grand experiment in which the people would govern themselves and not be governed by any dictator, monarch, pope. or other totalitarian authority. And they made sure they got it as right as they could before they signed it and offered it to the various states for ratification.

The fact that many did change their mind and choose to support or oppose various debated components of how that government would be structured I see as a great strength that contributed to the remarkable document they gave us.

Too few now appreciate what was intended by that remarkable document and too few have ever been taught what is true liberty and self governance as the Founders understood that. And once those in government learned to enrich and benefit themselves at our expense, they pretty well threw those original concepts out the window so they could force the people to serve them and whatever they wanted.

IMO, Michelsen's proposed amendment goes a long way toward correcting that unacceptable situation.

you've said this "11 long years" statement before, but more thought was put into our first real government, The Articles of Confederation, than the Constitution, especially in the judicial/dispute resolution area as many had an interest in disputes over western lands.

In my opinion, after reading a book about ratification, and considering lack of communication of the day, the Constitution was rushed into being. On the whole its been a good thing, but needs repair.

But we have the founding documents that span that 11 years. Was the Constitution rushed into being? If you look at only the Constitutional Convention, you might could make that argument. But those who came to that table had indeed put 11 years of thought into it before they arrived there.

If subsequent governments had been of the caliber of those first governments operating under the Constitution, there would have been no problem. It worked as intended and did indeed keep the government mostly in check until the progressives of the very end of the 19th Century and early 20th Century--TR Roosevelt, Wilson, Taft--turned the Constitution on its head and wrote their own interpretation into it. Slowly at first and then building mass and velocity at an alarming rate, it has been going downhill from there.

Michelsen's proposed amendment is intended to start the process to 'mend' a broken Constitution.

I dont know who this Michelsen is...but I've already registered my opinion that it would cause gridlock.

The "founders" broke their promises to the people almost right out of the gate with the national bank.

The very existence of the Articles shows that they werent thinking about the final Constitutional form for 11 years. Yes some of them maybe had problems with the Articles right from the beginning but I think most were satisfied with that for some time.