Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[Foxfyre]

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.

Who he is isn't important or even relevent I think because we aren't debating the merits of Michelsen but rather the merits or lack there of re his proposed amendment.

And the intent of the amendment I see as deliberate gridlock to take away power from a self serving and irresponsible government so that the people then have that power. In order for the government to accomplish anything, they would have to do as the Founders did to achieve the original Constitution and provide their arguments for why a new or different law is necessary, a good thing, and keeps to the spirit of liberty and self government. It would have to reach sufficient consensus that it was representing most of the people or it would not be able to act at all in most matters.

I just cannot see how that would not be a good thing.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Who he is isn't important or even relevent I think because we aren't debating the merits of Michelsen but rather the merits or lack there of re his proposed amendment.

And the intent of the amendment I see as deliberate gridlock to take away power from a self serving and irresponsible government so that the people then have that power. In order for the government to accomplish anything, they would have to do as the Founders did to achieve the original Constitution and provide their arguments for why a new or different law is necessary, a good thing, and keeps to the spirit of liberty and self government. It would have to reach sufficient consensus that it was representing most of the people or it would not be able to act at all in most matters.

I just cannot see how that would not be a good thing.

well you keep bringing up his name.....if not relevant dont do it. Gridlock doesn't necessarily take away power from self serving government, it could just as well take it away from the people.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Who he is isn't important or even relevent I think because we aren't debating the merits of Michelsen but rather the merits or lack there of re his proposed amendment.

And the intent of the amendment I see as deliberate gridlock to take away power from a self serving and irresponsible government so that the people then have that power. In order for the government to accomplish anything, they would have to do as the Founders did to achieve the original Constitution and provide their arguments for why a new or different law is necessary, a good thing, and keeps to the spirit of liberty and self government. It would have to reach sufficient consensus that it was representing most of the people or it would not be able to act at all in most matters.

I just cannot see how that would not be a good thing.

well you keep bringing up his name.....if not relevant dont do it. Gridlock doesn't necessarily take away power from self serving government, it could just as well take it away from the people.

It is relevent because it is the topic of this thread. I don't know any other way to describe Michelsen's proposed amendment than to call it Michelsen's proposed amendment.

Please explain though how gridlock can take anything away from the people? The whole idea of self governance is that the government neither furnishes nor takes anything away from the people. To prevent confiscation of the people's power, resources, or property, sometimes gridlock is the only protection we have.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Who he is isn't important or even relevent I think because we aren't debating the merits of Michelsen but rather the merits or lack there of re his proposed amendment.

And the intent of the amendment I see as deliberate gridlock to take away power from a self serving and irresponsible government so that the people then have that power. In order for the government to accomplish anything, they would have to do as the Founders did to achieve the original Constitution and provide their arguments for why a new or different law is necessary, a good thing, and keeps to the spirit of liberty and self government. It would have to reach sufficient consensus that it was representing most of the people or it would not be able to act at all in most matters.

I just cannot see how that would not be a good thing.

well you keep bringing up his name.....if not relevant dont do it. Gridlock doesn't necessarily take away power from self serving government, it could just as well take it away from the people.

It is relevent because it is the topic of this thread. I don't know any other way to describe Michelsen's proposed amendment than to call it Michelsen's proposed amendment.

Please explain though how gridlock can take anything away from the people? The whole idea of self governance is that the government neither furnishes nor confiscates the people's power, resources, or property. Sometimes gridlock is the only protection we have.

Oh please, you know government actions sometimes actually do help people, or have that potential. if an epidemic happens and the government could supply antidotes...gridlock would prevent taking life-saving action.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Who he is isn't important or even relevent I think because we aren't debating the merits of Michelsen but rather the merits or lack there of re his proposed amendment.

And the intent of the amendment I see as deliberate gridlock to take away power from a self serving and irresponsible government so that the people then have that power. In order for the government to accomplish anything, they would have to do as the Founders did to achieve the original Constitution and provide their arguments for why a new or different law is necessary, a good thing, and keeps to the spirit of liberty and self government. It would have to reach sufficient consensus that it was representing most of the people or it would not be able to act at all in most matters.

I just cannot see how that would not be a good thing.

well you keep bringing up his name.....if not relevant dont do it. Gridlock doesn't necessarily take away power from self serving government, it could just as well take it away from the people.

It is relevent because it is the topic of this thread. I don't know any other way to describe Michelsen's proposed amendment than to call it Michelsen's proposed amendment.

Please explain though how gridlock can take anything away from the people? The whole idea of self governance is that the government neither furnishes nor confiscates the people's power, resources, or property. Sometimes gridlock is the only protection we have.

Oh please, you know government actions sometimes actually do help people, or have that potential. if an epidemic happens and the government could supply antidotes...gridlock would prevent taking life-saving action.

So could a no vote. Or no action. Or tying the acquisition of antidotes to some other kind of pet project, etc. etc. etc. I would hate to design an entire government around the possibility that the government might have to acquire a large quantity of antidote in the extremely remote chance that such antidote would not be available to the private sector and the government must therefore be prevented from gridlock. The only way I know to prevent any gridlock at all is to do away with a Congress and just rely on some sort of dictator.

Michelsen's proposed amendment, IMO however, would require elected representatives to work to achieve consensus and agreement on how to do what the government must do.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Who he is isn't important or even relevent I think because we aren't debating the merits of Michelsen but rather the merits or lack there of re his proposed amendment.

And the intent of the amendment I see as deliberate gridlock to take away power from a self serving and irresponsible government so that the people then have that power. In order for the government to accomplish anything, they would have to do as the Founders did to achieve the original Constitution and provide their arguments for why a new or different law is necessary, a good thing, and keeps to the spirit of liberty and self government. It would have to reach sufficient consensus that it was representing most of the people or it would not be able to act at all in most matters.

I just cannot see how that would not be a good thing.

well you keep bringing up his name.....if not relevant dont do it. Gridlock doesn't necessarily take away power from self serving government, it could just as well take it away from the people.

It is relevent because it is the topic of this thread. I don't know any other way to describe Michelsen's proposed amendment than to call it Michelsen's proposed amendment.

Please explain though how gridlock can take anything away from the people? The whole idea of self governance is that the government neither furnishes nor confiscates the people's power, resources, or property. Sometimes gridlock is the only protection we have.

Oh please, you know government actions sometimes actually do help people, or have that potential. if an epidemic happens and the government could supply antidotes...gridlock would prevent taking life-saving action.

So could a no vote. Or no action. Or tying the acquisition of antidotes to some other kind of pet project, etc. etc. etc. I would hate to design an entire government around the possibility that the government might have to acquire a large quantity of antidote in the extremely remote chance that such antidotes would not be available to the private sector.

that is just one of many possible examples.....

anyway "gridlock" such as the one this amendment would design...only ever works for the special interests.

 

[Foxfyre]

Who he is isn't important or even relevent I think because we aren't debating the merits of Michelsen but rather the merits or lack there of re his proposed amendment.

And the intent of the amendment I see as deliberate gridlock to take away power from a self serving and irresponsible government so that the people then have that power. In order for the government to accomplish anything, they would have to do as the Founders did to achieve the original Constitution and provide their arguments for why a new or different law is necessary, a good thing, and keeps to the spirit of liberty and self government. It would have to reach sufficient consensus that it was representing most of the people or it would not be able to act at all in most matters.

I just cannot see how that would not be a good thing.

well you keep bringing up his name.....if not relevant dont do it. Gridlock doesn't necessarily take away power from self serving government, it could just as well take it away from the people.

It is relevent because it is the topic of this thread. I don't know any other way to describe Michelsen's proposed amendment than to call it Michelsen's proposed amendment.

Please explain though how gridlock can take anything away from the people? The whole idea of self governance is that the government neither furnishes nor confiscates the people's power, resources, or property. Sometimes gridlock is the only protection we have.

Oh please, you know government actions sometimes actually do help people, or have that potential. if an epidemic happens and the government could supply antidotes...gridlock would prevent taking life-saving action.

So could a no vote. Or no action. Or tying the acquisition of antidotes to some other kind of pet project, etc. etc. etc. I would hate to design an entire government around the possibility that the government might have to acquire a large quantity of antidote in the extremely remote chance that such antidotes would not be available to the private sector.

that is just one of many possible examples.....

anyway "gridlock" such as the one this amendment would design...only ever works for the special interests.

You'll have to explain a rationale for that. I have already explained my take on it that it would require Congress to represent all the people and not such the favored few or special interests. When the people and/or their elected representative are given a degree of power of veto, it becomes much more difficult to pass legislation that the people don't want.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Taxes, by definition, subsidize society as a whole.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Taxes, by definition, subsidize society as a whole.

Only if society as a whole benefits from the taxes collected.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Taxes, by definition, subsidize society as a whole.

Only if society as a whole benefits from the taxes collected.

Well, that makes zero sense. But in the case of the ACA, since having more insured people than fewer =total society benefit.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Taxes, by definition, subsidize society as a whole.

Only if society as a whole benefits from the taxes collected.

Well, that makes zero sense. But in the case of the ACA, since having more insured people than fewer =total society benefit.

Not when so many people lost their insurance coverage, lost their doctors, lost their preferred medical facilities, incurred higher costs for less service, and watch the whole process push the deficits and debt further into the stratosphere. Sure those who are benefitting at the expense of others are pleased and happy with the ACA. But it is extremely difficult to find people who are not being subsidized who feel benefitted in any way from what is one of the worst laws to be forced on the people by the government in a long time.

The ACA could have been stopped in its tracks if Michelsen's proposed amendment had been in effect.

 

[dcraelin]

well you keep bringing up his name.....if not relevant dont do it. Gridlock doesn't necessarily take away power from self serving government, it could just as well take it away from the people.

It is relevent because it is the topic of this thread. I don't know any other way to describe Michelsen's proposed amendment than to call it Michelsen's proposed amendment.

Please explain though how gridlock can take anything away from the people? The whole idea of self governance is that the government neither furnishes nor confiscates the people's power, resources, or property. Sometimes gridlock is the only protection we have.

Oh please, you know government actions sometimes actually do help people, or have that potential. if an epidemic happens and the government could supply antidotes...gridlock would prevent taking life-saving action.

So could a no vote. Or no action. Or tying the acquisition of antidotes to some other kind of pet project, etc. etc. etc. I would hate to design an entire government around the possibility that the government might have to acquire a large quantity of antidote in the extremely remote chance that such antidotes would not be available to the private sector.

that is just one of many possible examples.....

anyway "gridlock" such as the one this amendment would design...only ever works for the special interests.

You'll have to explain a rationale for that. I have already explained my take on it that it would require Congress to represent all the people and not such the favored few or special interests. When the people and/or their elected representative are given a degree of power of veto, it becomes much more difficult to pass legislation that the people don't want.

whenever you require a super-majority you in effect empower a minority.....

Patrick Henry commented on the super-majority required to amend the Constitution.....I believe he said it empowered a contemptible minority.

now, legislatures can be unrepresentative...as I believe ours on the national level, (and at most state levels) is. The protection against this should be appeal to a larger majority.... statewide voters, nationwide voters. or perhaps as I've suggested elsewhere a larger body of stay-at-home representatives which more closely matches the original rep to citizen ratio.

 

[candycorn]

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.

Taxes, by definition, subsidize society as a whole.

Only if society as a whole benefits from the taxes collected.

Well, that makes zero sense. But in the case of the ACA, since having more insured people than fewer =total society benefit.

Not when so many people lost their insurance coverage, lost their doctors, lost their preferred medical facilities, incurred higher costs for less service, and watch the whole process push the deficits and debt further into the stratosphere. Sure those who are benefitting at the expense of others are pleased and happy with the ACA. But it is extremely difficult to find people who are not being subsidized who feel benefitted in any way from what is one of the worst laws to be forced on the people by the government in a long time.

The ACA could have been stopped in its tracks if Michelsen's proposed amendment had been in effect.

Your opinion is noted. But that is all it is, your opinion. As if the price of insurance didn't go up ever before the ACA. You're benefiting from no lifetime maximums and that you're not refused coverage because of a PEC. It's not difficult at all to point to someone who hasn't benefited.

 

[Foxfyre]

It is relevent because it is the topic of this thread. I don't know any other way to describe Michelsen's proposed amendment than to call it Michelsen's proposed amendment.

Please explain though how gridlock can take anything away from the people? The whole idea of self governance is that the government neither furnishes nor confiscates the people's power, resources, or property. Sometimes gridlock is the only protection we have.

Oh please, you know government actions sometimes actually do help people, or have that potential. if an epidemic happens and the government could supply antidotes...gridlock would prevent taking life-saving action.

So could a no vote. Or no action. Or tying the acquisition of antidotes to some other kind of pet project, etc. etc. etc. I would hate to design an entire government around the possibility that the government might have to acquire a large quantity of antidote in the extremely remote chance that such antidotes would not be available to the private sector.

that is just one of many possible examples.....

anyway "gridlock" such as the one this amendment would design...only ever works for the special interests.

You'll have to explain a rationale for that. I have already explained my take on it that it would require Congress to represent all the people and not such the favored few or special interests. When the people and/or their elected representative are given a degree of power of veto, it becomes much more difficult to pass legislation that the people don't want.

whenever you require a super-majority you in effect empower a minority.....

Patrick Henry commented on the super-majority required to amend the Constitution.....I believe he said it empowered a contemptible minority.

now, legislatures can be unrepresentative...as I believe ours on the national level, (and at most state levels) is. The protection against this should be appeal to a larger majority.... statewide voters, nationwide voters. or perhaps as I've suggested elsewhere a larger body of stay-at-home representatives which more closely matches the original rep to citizen ratio.

Patrick Henry was the most outspoken anti-federalist critic of the Constitution period. He felt it gave too much power to the federal government and too little to the states and to the people. He was the leader and most influential person in the movement to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, however.

Immediately following his concerns re the amendment process written into the Constitution, he added this:

. . .What, sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the bill of rights of Virginia which relates to this: 3d clause:�that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. "Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

Virginia Declaration of Rights

6.1

This, sir, is the language of democracy�that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen. . . .
henry​

Given his track record and the writings and transcripts of speeches he left us, I believe he would have been supportive of Michelsen's amendment.

 

[dcraelin]

Oh please, you know government actions sometimes actually do help people, or have that potential. if an epidemic happens and the government could supply antidotes...gridlock would prevent taking life-saving action.

So could a no vote. Or no action. Or tying the acquisition of antidotes to some other kind of pet project, etc. etc. etc. I would hate to design an entire government around the possibility that the government might have to acquire a large quantity of antidote in the extremely remote chance that such antidotes would not be available to the private sector.

that is just one of many possible examples.....

anyway "gridlock" such as the one this amendment would design...only ever works for the special interests.

You'll have to explain a rationale for that. I have already explained my take on it that it would require Congress to represent all the people and not such the favored few or special interests. When the people and/or their elected representative are given a degree of power of veto, it becomes much more difficult to pass legislation that the people don't want.

whenever you require a super-majority you in effect empower a minority.....

Patrick Henry commented on the super-majority required to amend the Constitution.....I believe he said it empowered a contemptible minority.

now, legislatures can be unrepresentative...as I believe ours on the national level, (and at most state levels) is. The protection against this should be appeal to a larger majority.... statewide voters, nationwide voters. or perhaps as I've suggested elsewhere a larger body of stay-at-home representatives which more closely matches the original rep to citizen ratio.

Patrick Henry was the most outspoken anti-federalist critic of the Constitution period. He felt it gave too much power to the federal government and too little to the states and to the people. He was the leader and most influential person in the movement to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, however.

Given his track record and the writings and transcripts of speeches he left us, I believe he would have been supportive of Michelsen's amendment.

your partially right.....but in light of the "contemptible minority" statement I dont think your right on Michelson's amendment

 

[dcraelin]

Oh please, you know government actions sometimes actually do help people, or have that potential. if an epidemic happens and the government could supply antidotes...gridlock would prevent taking life-saving action.

So could a no vote. Or no action. Or tying the acquisition of antidotes to some other kind of pet project, etc. etc. etc. I would hate to design an entire government around the possibility that the government might have to acquire a large quantity of antidote in the extremely remote chance that such antidotes would not be available to the private sector.

that is just one of many possible examples.....

anyway "gridlock" such as the one this amendment would design...only ever works for the special interests.

You'll have to explain a rationale for that. I have already explained my take on it that it would require Congress to represent all the people and not such the favored few or special interests. When the people and/or their elected representative are given a degree of power of veto, it becomes much more difficult to pass legislation that the people don't want.

whenever you require a super-majority you in effect empower a minority.....

Patrick Henry commented on the super-majority required to amend the Constitution.....I believe he said it empowered a contemptible minority.

now, legislatures can be unrepresentative...as I believe ours on the national level, (and at most state levels) is. The protection against this should be appeal to a larger majority.... statewide voters, nationwide voters. or perhaps as I've suggested elsewhere a larger body of stay-at-home representatives which more closely matches the original rep to citizen ratio.

Patrick Henry was the most outspoken anti-federalist critic of the Constitution period. He felt it gave too much power to the federal government and too little to the states and to the people. He was the leader and most influential person in the movement to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, however.

Immediately following his concerns re the amendment process written into the Constitution, he added this:

. . .What, sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the bill of rights of Virginia which relates to this: 3d clause:�that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. "Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

Virginia Declaration of Rights

6.1

This, sir, is the language of democracy�that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen. . . .
henry​

Given his track record and the writings and transcripts of speeches he left us, I believe he would have been supportive of Michelsen's amendment.

didnt see this when wrote last post......how can you possibly read this and think he would have favored the amendment.....I think it shows he would/t have.

"a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

"that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this!"

 

[Foxfyre]

So could a no vote. Or no action. Or tying the acquisition of antidotes to some other kind of pet project, etc. etc. etc. I would hate to design an entire government around the possibility that the government might have to acquire a large quantity of antidote in the extremely remote chance that such antidotes would not be available to the private sector.

that is just one of many possible examples.....

anyway "gridlock" such as the one this amendment would design...only ever works for the special interests.

You'll have to explain a rationale for that. I have already explained my take on it that it would require Congress to represent all the people and not such the favored few or special interests. When the people and/or their elected representative are given a degree of power of veto, it becomes much more difficult to pass legislation that the people don't want.

whenever you require a super-majority you in effect empower a minority.....

Patrick Henry commented on the super-majority required to amend the Constitution.....I believe he said it empowered a contemptible minority.

now, legislatures can be unrepresentative...as I believe ours on the national level, (and at most state levels) is. The protection against this should be appeal to a larger majority.... statewide voters, nationwide voters. or perhaps as I've suggested elsewhere a larger body of stay-at-home representatives which more closely matches the original rep to citizen ratio.

Patrick Henry was the most outspoken anti-federalist critic of the Constitution period. He felt it gave too much power to the federal government and too little to the states and to the people. He was the leader and most influential person in the movement to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, however.

Given his track record and the writings and transcripts of speeches he left us, I believe he would have been supportive of Michelsen's amendment.

your partially right.....but in light of the "contemptible minority" statement I dont think your right on Michelson's amendment

It is important to understand that the 'contemptible minority' Henry spoke of was a contemptible minority of those in government who were unwilling to relinquish inappropriate power blocking the efforts of the whole to do so. Henry never was able to come up with a better plan, however, so he objected outright to a federal constitution period.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights of course preceded and provided the guidelines for the federal Bill of Rights. The Heritage Foundation has done a good job of explaining the concept behind the Virginia Declaration of Rights and how it was intended that the people retain the power and ability to require the government to be responsive to the will of the people. Since Michelsen's proposed amendment largely does that, I have to believe Patrick Henry would approve of it, most especially if he was dropped into the current sociopolitical mess that we currently have.
Virginia Declaration of Rights

 

[Foxfyre]

So could a no vote. Or no action. Or tying the acquisition of antidotes to some other kind of pet project, etc. etc. etc. I would hate to design an entire government around the possibility that the government might have to acquire a large quantity of antidote in the extremely remote chance that such antidotes would not be available to the private sector.

that is just one of many possible examples.....

anyway "gridlock" such as the one this amendment would design...only ever works for the special interests.

You'll have to explain a rationale for that. I have already explained my take on it that it would require Congress to represent all the people and not such the favored few or special interests. When the people and/or their elected representative are given a degree of power of veto, it becomes much more difficult to pass legislation that the people don't want.

whenever you require a super-majority you in effect empower a minority.....

Patrick Henry commented on the super-majority required to amend the Constitution.....I believe he said it empowered a contemptible minority.

now, legislatures can be unrepresentative...as I believe ours on the national level, (and at most state levels) is. The protection against this should be appeal to a larger majority.... statewide voters, nationwide voters. or perhaps as I've suggested elsewhere a larger body of stay-at-home representatives which more closely matches the original rep to citizen ratio.

Patrick Henry was the most outspoken anti-federalist critic of the Constitution period. He felt it gave too much power to the federal government and too little to the states and to the people. He was the leader and most influential person in the movement to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, however.

Immediately following his concerns re the amendment process written into the Constitution, he added this:

. . .What, sir, is the genius of democracy? Let me read that clause of the bill of rights of Virginia which relates to this: 3d clause:�that government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community. "Of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of mal-administration; and that whenever any government shall be found inadequate, or contrary to those purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

Virginia Declaration of Rights

6.1

This, sir, is the language of democracy�that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this! How different from the sentiments of freemen. . . .
henry​

Given his track record and the writings and transcripts of speeches he left us, I believe he would have been supportive of Michelsen's amendment.

didnt see this when wrote last post......how can you possibly read this and think he would have favored the amendment.....I think it shows he would/t have.

"a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal."

"that a majority of the community have a right to alter government when found to be oppressive. But how different is the genius of your new Constitution from this!"

See Post #377

 

[dcraelin]

that is just one of many possible examples.....

anyway "gridlock" such as the one this amendment would design...only ever works for the special interests.

You'll have to explain a rationale for that. I have already explained my take on it that it would require Congress to represent all the people and not such the favored few or special interests. When the people and/or their elected representative are given a degree of power of veto, it becomes much more difficult to pass legislation that the people don't want.

whenever you require a super-majority you in effect empower a minority.....

Patrick Henry commented on the super-majority required to amend the Constitution.....I believe he said it empowered a contemptible minority.

now, legislatures can be unrepresentative...as I believe ours on the national level, (and at most state levels) is. The protection against this should be appeal to a larger majority.... statewide voters, nationwide voters. or perhaps as I've suggested elsewhere a larger body of stay-at-home representatives which more closely matches the original rep to citizen ratio.

Patrick Henry was the most outspoken anti-federalist critic of the Constitution period. He felt it gave too much power to the federal government and too little to the states and to the people. He was the leader and most influential person in the movement to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, however.

Given his track record and the writings and transcripts of speeches he left us, I believe he would have been supportive of Michelsen's amendment.

your partially right.....but in light of the "contemptible minority" statement I dont think your right on Michelson's amendment

It is important to understand that the 'contemptible minority' Henry spoke of was a contemptible minority of those in government who were unwilling to relinquish inappropriate power blocking the efforts of the whole to do so. Henry never was able to come up with a better plan, however, so he objected outright to a federal constitution period.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights of course preceded and provided the guidelines for the federal Bill of Rights. The Heritage Foundation has done a good job of explaining the concept behind the Virginia Declaration of Rights and how it was intended that the people retain the power and ability to require the government to be responsive to the will of the people. Since Michelsen's proposed amendment largely does that, I have to believe Patrick Henry would approve of it, most especially if he was dropped into the current sociopolitical mess that we currently have.
Virginia Declaration of Rights

I agree with first sentence of first paragraph, but that is why I think Henry would oppose the amendment as written.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Taxes, by definition, subsidize society as a whole.

Only if society as a whole benefits from the taxes collected.

Well, that makes zero sense. But in the case of the ACA, since having more insured people than fewer =total society benefit.

Not when so many people lost their insurance coverage, lost their doctors, lost their preferred medical facilities, incurred higher costs for less service, and watch the whole process push the deficits and debt further into the stratosphere. Sure those who are benefitting at the expense of others are pleased and happy with the ACA. But it is extremely difficult to find people who are not being subsidized who feel benefitted in any way from what is one of the worst laws to be forced on the people by the government in a long time.

The ACA could have been stopped in its tracks if Michelsen's proposed amendment had been in effect.

Your opinion is noted. But that is all it is, your opinion. As if the price of insurance didn't go up ever before the ACA. You're benefiting from no lifetime maximums and that you're not refused coverage because of a PEC. It's not difficult at all to point to someone who hasn't benefited.

My opinion is fully supported by the record and testimony of millions. Inability to refuse coverage of course raises the rates of everybody else. No lifetime maximums of course increases everybody's rates. The cost of insurance before the ACA can pretty well be traced to government meddling. Insurance coverages that government hasn't interferred and meddled in--home owners, business insurance, auto insurance etc.--has remained reasonable and stable over the decades with only modest increases commensurate with inflation. The individual states moved to form assigned risk pools to cover the difficult or hard to insure people--this could have been done with health insurance also if the feds had just stayed out of it.

The bottom line is whether people are able to shop for and buy a product that suits their needs or whether the federal nanny state government will demand what product everybody will be required to buy and force some of the people to pay more in order to subsidize others.

When the government takes our choices, options, opportunities, and liberties from us, it is difficult to believe the people have any right to individual liberty at all.