Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[Foxfyre]

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.

Here are the three parts of Michelsen's amendment again:

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.

Section 3. Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.

Section 1 give the states power to send a piece of legislation back to the drawing board which would make Congress and the President far more responsive to the will of the people and make sure ALL the people are on board and in agreement with the legislation before it becomes law..

Section 2 gives the people the power to run their own show. If the President can refuse to obey the law he objects to on Constitutional grounds, why should the people collectively have no power to do that? This again would provide incentive for the government itself to stay within its own law.

Section 3 strongly suggests that those in Congress agree on the constitutionality of their legislation before it comes to a vote and, if they cannot agree, requires a super majority to pass it. A whole lot of really REALLY bad law, spending bills, etc. etc. would never have been imposed upon the people if this section had been the law of the land. But it definitely requires those in Congress to set aside raw partisanship and work together to achieve legislation that pretty much all the people can pretty much happily live with.

Yes, I think a Patrick Henry would have approved of this amendment.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Here are the three parts of Michelsen's amendment again:

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.

Section 3. Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.

Section 1 give the states power to send a piece of legislation back to the drawing board which would make Congress and the President far more responsive to the will of the people and make sure ALL the people are on board and in agreement with the legislation before it becomes law..

Section 2 gives the people the power to run their own show. If the President can refuse to obey the law he objects to on Constitutional grounds, why should the people collectively have no power to do that? This again would provide incentive for the government itself to stay within its own law.

Section 3 strongly suggests that those in Congress agree on the constitutionality of their legislation before it comes to a vote and, if they cannot agree, requires a super majority to pass it. A whole lot of really REALLY bad law, spending bills, etc. etc. would never have been imposed upon the people if this section had been the law of the land. But it definitely requires those in Congress to set aside raw partisanship and work together to achieve legislation that pretty much all the people can pretty much happily live with.

Yes, I think a Patrick Henry would have approved of this amendment.

well section 1 I have little problem with IF it is followed by a majority vote of states

Sections 2 will lead to a hodge podge of states enforcing various federal laws and is a recipe for disaster.

Section 3 I think is of the empowers a "contemptible minority" variety

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Here are the three parts of Michelsen's amendment again:

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.

Section 3. Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.

Section 1 give the states power to send a piece of legislation back to the drawing board which would make Congress and the President far more responsive to the will of the people and make sure ALL the people are on board and in agreement with the legislation before it becomes law..

Section 2 gives the people the power to run their own show. If the President can refuse to obey the law he objects to on Constitutional grounds, why should the people collectively have no power to do that? This again would provide incentive for the government itself to stay within its own law.

Section 3 strongly suggests that those in Congress agree on the constitutionality of their legislation before it comes to a vote and, if they cannot agree, requires a super majority to pass it. A whole lot of really REALLY bad law, spending bills, etc. etc. would never have been imposed upon the people if this section had been the law of the land. But it definitely requires those in Congress to set aside raw partisanship and work together to achieve legislation that pretty much all the people can pretty much happily live with.

Yes, I think a Patrick Henry would have approved of this amendment.

well section 1 I have little problem with IF it is followed by a majority vote of states

Sections 2 will lead to a hodge podge of states enforcing various federal laws and is a recipe for disaster.

Section 3 I think is of the empowers a "contemptible minority" variety

The 'contemptible minority' can be over ridden, however, if the legislation has sufficient merit and the support of the people.

Of all the sections, I agree Section 2 needs the most tweaking. I think the State would have to be able to clearly show how its constitutional protections were violated, and some thought should be given to how that would be arbitrated. Then again, if enough states objected to the constitutionality of a law imposed on them such as 'no smoking' laws or seat belt laws or a national speed limit or Common Core or any number of things the federal government has no constitutional power to dictate to anybody, that too would force Congress back to the drawing board and come up with something almost all the people could get behind and agree to.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

agreed, in fact if we were allowed to shop with our own money and providers were required to compete on the basis of price and quality not only would we be free but prices would be about 20% of what they are now.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

agreed, in fact if we were allowed to shop with our own money and providers were required to compete on the basis of price and quality not only would we be free but prices would be about 20% of what they are now.

Certainly government services would be cheaper. Whether that much cheaper I'm sure is open for debate, but I have NEVER seen any large government program that was as efficient, effective, and affordable as that provided by the private sector.

But then if the federal government was as restrained by the Constitution as the Founders intended for it to be, we wouldn't be having this discussion because the federal government would not be involved in most of the stuff it is involved in.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Certainly government services would be cheaper.

Yes I'd say health care would be about 20%
of the current price. Nobody uses their own money and nobody competes for business really under the current regime. There was remarkable comparability among socialist countries in regard to what they could afford. Think of how poor the USSR, Red China, East Germany, Cuba etc were. And that was after they copied inventions from the west. If they had to invent the stuff they used their standard of living would have been about 10% of ours. Our health care system is plagued by a similar inefficiency.

 

[RKMBrown]

Certainly government services would be cheaper.

Yes I'd say health care would be about 20%
of the current price. Nobody uses their own money and nobody competes for business really under the current regime. There was remarkable comparability among socialist countries in regard to what they could afford. Think of how poor the USSR, Red China, East Germany, Cuba etc were. And that was after they copied inventions from the west. If they had to invent the stuff they used their standard of living would have been about 10% of ours. Our health care system is plagued by a similar inefficiency.

ROFL

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Certainly government services would be cheaper.

Yes I'd say health care would be about 20%
of the current price. Nobody uses their own money and nobody competes for business really under the current regime. There was remarkable comparability among socialist countries in regard to what they could afford. Think of how poor the USSR, Red China, East Germany, Cuba etc were. And that was after they copied inventions from the west. If they had to invent the stuff they used their standard of living would have been about 10% of ours. Our health care system is plagued by a similar inefficiency.

ROFL

the liberal IQ makes substance impossible

 

[Foxfyre]

Certainly government services would be cheaper.

Yes I'd say health care would be about 20%
of the current price. Nobody uses their own money and nobody competes for business really under the current regime. There was remarkable comparability among socialist countries in regard to what they could afford. Think of how poor the USSR, Red China, East Germany, Cuba etc were. And that was after they copied inventions from the west. If they had to invent the stuff they used their standard of living would have been about 10% of ours. Our health care system is plagued by a similar inefficiency.

ROFL

the liberal IQ makes substance impossible

Careful there. I let the ROFL post slide as it was not sufficiently off topic to fuss about. But this is the SDZ and there are specific rules for this thread including a no insult or ad hominem rule regarding any person, group, or demographic etc. So this comment re liberals is not allowed here. You can say a low IQ. You can say a partisan IQ. You can say a prejudiced IQ. But 'liberals' are a specific group so you can't say 'liberal IQ' and stay within the rules. Thanks for understanding.

And let's also veer the train back onto the tracks and at least figure out how to relate all our posts to Michelsen's proposed amendment in the OP.

That can include an argument for why it won't work.
Or why it could help.
Or why it has become necessary.
Or how it a good idea.
Etc.

Various members have argued almost all those points up to now.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Certainly government services would be cheaper.

Yes I'd say health care would be about 20%
of the current price. Nobody uses their own money and nobody competes for business really under the current regime. There was remarkable comparability among socialist countries in regard to what they could afford. Think of how poor the USSR, Red China, East Germany, Cuba etc were. And that was after they copied inventions from the west. If they had to invent the stuff they used their standard of living would have been about 10% of ours. Our health care system is plagued by a similar inefficiency.

ROFL

the liberal IQ makes substance impossible

Careful there. I let the ROFL post slide as it was not sufficiently off topic to fuss about. But this is the SDZ and there are specific rules for this thread including a no insult or ad hominem rule regarding any person, group, or demographic etc. So this comment re liberals is not allowed here. You can say a low IQ. You can say a partisan IQ. You can say a prejudiced IQ. But 'liberals' are a specific group so you can't say 'liberal IQ' and stay within the rules. Thanks for understanding.

And let's also veer the train back onto the tracks and at least figure out how to relate all our posts to Michelsen's proposed amendment in the OP.

That can include an argument for why it won't work.
Or why it could help.
Or why it has become necessary.
Or how it a good idea.
Etc.

Various members have argued almost all those points up to now.

op is for limited govt as Founders intended and as modern Republicans and libertarians want. The op assumes he can trick liberals into supporting conservatism by not using labels. Liberals will grasp the trick so its probably better just to ask them what they have against our founding principle.

 

[Foxfyre]

Certainly government services would be cheaper.

Yes I'd say health care would be about 20%
of the current price. Nobody uses their own money and nobody competes for business really under the current regime. There was remarkable comparability among socialist countries in regard to what they could afford. Think of how poor the USSR, Red China, East Germany, Cuba etc were. And that was after they copied inventions from the west. If they had to invent the stuff they used their standard of living would have been about 10% of ours. Our health care system is plagued by a similar inefficiency.

ROFL

the liberal IQ makes substance impossible

Careful there. I let the ROFL post slide as it was not sufficiently off topic to fuss about. But this is the SDZ and there are specific rules for this thread including a no insult or ad hominem rule regarding any person, group, or demographic etc. So this comment re liberals is not allowed here. You can say a low IQ. You can say a partisan IQ. You can say a prejudiced IQ. But 'liberals' are a specific group so you can't say 'liberal IQ' and stay within the rules. Thanks for understanding.

And let's also veer the train back onto the tracks and at least figure out how to relate all our posts to Michelsen's proposed amendment in the OP.

That can include an argument for why it won't work.
Or why it could help.
Or why it has become necessary.
Or how it a good idea.
Etc.

Various members have argued almost all those points up to now.

op is for limited govt as Founders intended and as modern Republicans and libertarians want. The op assumes he can trick liberals into supporting conservatism by not using labels. Liberals will grasp the trick so its probably better just to ask them what they have against our founding principle.

Again careful with ad hominem. Let's argue the principle and leave what Republicans, libertarians, liberals want out of it please.

I am not sure Michelsen is arguing for limited government so much as he is arguing a plan to restore power to the people. He is providing a means to prevent an all-powerful authoritarian government from steam rollering over the states or whatever political party happens to be in the minority at any given time. Now you and I might both believe restoring the power to the states and the people will result in more limited government. But that would, for me, be a pleasant and most desirable side effect of the proposed amendment rather than something specifically built into it.

To those arguing that his proposal would create total gridlock, I say good. When it comes to something unconstitutional that the government is doing to us, gridlock is absolutely our very best and surest defense.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Again careful with ad hominem. Let's argue the principle and leave what Republicans, libertarians, liberals want out of it please.

wow, while I like the idea of a structured debate you should just limit it to the subject and to no ad hominem remarks. This particular discussion is totally out of context if you cant say Conservatives, Republicans, and libertarians support op while liberals, communists etc. do not.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again careful with ad hominem. Let's argue the principle and leave what Republicans, libertarians, liberals want out of it please.

wow, while I like the idea of a structured debate you should just limit it to the subject and to no ad hominem remarks. This particular discussion is totally out of context if you cant say Conservatives, Republicans, and libertarians support op while liberals, communists etc. do not.

Rule #1, however, was to prevent the discussion from dissolving into a food fight between Conservatives, Republicans, libertarians, liberals, communists etc. As the concept can be discussed without including what this group or that group thinks, wants, etc., such is not necessary to discuss the topic and prevents the usual toxic elements from being brought into it. So, Rule #1 of the thread pretty much does limit the discussion to the thread topic and puts those who support it and/or oppose it into generic categories without labels.

It has been interesting, however, by taking the partisan ship out of it, and based on the straw polls results and posts in the thread, it looks like as many conservatives as liberals have rejected Michelsen's amendment in total.

 

[Foxfyre]

One of the strongest arguments again the amendment comes from those who believe every bill will end in gridlock. Section Three of Michelsen's amendment reads like this:

Section 3.​

Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate that directly or indirectly shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.​

This would not be much of a change to the original Constitution that requires every member of Congress to take a solemn oath to "support and defend the Constitution." I would change the wording of Section 3 to something like this:

Section 3.​

Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate that requires any participation or material contribution by any state or any citizen of the United States, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.​

Right now the constitutionality of what they do is rarely even mentioned. For simple ceremonial things like resolutions honoring somebody or condemning something or establishing a John Doe day that the people can observe or not at will, the Congress could operate on even a voice vote. But if it imposes requirements or participation by the people, if it restricts their liberties in any way, if it requires even one dime of the people's money or obligates them in any way, then certainly a Constitutional review would be appropriate. And if two thirds of either House cannot be convinced that the bill meets all constitutional tests, then that three fourths vote becomes a very good thing.

If two thirds of the House and Senate are convinced that the bill meets all constitutional tests, then no three fourth's vote is necessary.

I can't see how this is not a simple and practical protection for the people.

 

[candycorn]

For the 5th time, if you don't like the laws, use you right to vote to change them. If you think nobody is worthy of your vote, RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF.

Regardless, the Constitution has worked for 220+ years...leave it alone.

 

[Foxfyre]

For the 5th time, if you don't like the laws, use you right to vote to change them. If you think nobody is worthy of your vote, RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF.

Regardless, the Constitution has worked for 220+ years...leave it alone.

There are many of us who do not feel the Constitution is working well because there are too many people in government who neither respect it or give it much concern at all. The purpose of this thread is to discuss that. If you do not wish to discuss that I will wish you a pleasant evening and suggest any number of other threads out there that might be of greater interest.

 

[eagle1462010]

For the 5th time, if you don't like the laws, use you right to vote to change them. If you think nobody is worthy of your vote, RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF.

Regardless, the Constitution has worked for 220+ years...leave it alone.

There are many of us who do not feel the Constitution is working well because there are too many people in government who neither respect it or give it much concern at all. The purpose of this thread is to discuss that. If you do not wish to discuss that I will wish you a pleasant evening and suggest any number of other threads out there that might be of greater interest.

I second that emotion and it is for this very reason I have not been posting in this thread..............as this current discussion of it's not broken would cause a battle off topic that I have refused to engage in........................

I firmly believe we have strayed from the original intent of the constitution, and as a result this country is headed down the wrong path...........
If this path is not corrected, especially on the fiscal path we will suffer the fate of other Global powers in history and go down just as they did. We cannot afford the dreamers that the Gov't is the answer to everything.............It can not be paid for.............and going down this path leads to economic ruin as other nations in history.

The issue of State Rights is a valid argument to control the out of control spending of our Gov't. A Gov't that now creates fiat laws outside the normal process of regulations and laws under the Constitution................Either via Judicial Activism or using old laws to justify new regulations without the consent of Congress........Not to mention using organizations to attack those of different political beliefs, namely the IRS............

This is the wrong path in my opinion.............and it is a path that must be changed if this country is going to remain solvent in it's future for our children and their children.

 

[eagle1462010]

What this current amendment does in my opinion...............

Forces a stronger Constitutional vetting process via the States.............Not sure if that would be practical, but understand why it is proposed...........Using a 75% threshold for states favoring new laws.........could go political as well and may not, in the end, do what it was intended to do......................

I'm all for more vetting of laws to ensure that they are means tested under the Constitution.............Currently part of that vetting process is under the Senate Judicial committee which serves to ensure this at this time..................but this committee only issues RECOMMENDATIONS to the body as a whole..........and at that point it goes back to standard political motivations....................So I'm not sure if this vetting process has ever been sufficient.

 

[Foxfyre]

What this current amendment does in my opinion...............

Forces a stronger Constitutional vetting process via the States.............Not sure if that would be practical, but understand why it is proposed...........Using a 75% threshold for states favoring new laws.........could go political as well and may not, in the end, do what it was intended to do......................

I'm all for more vetting of laws to ensure that they are means tested under the Constitution.............Currently part of that vetting process is under the Senate Judicial committee which serves to ensure this at this time..................but this committee only issues RECOMMENDATIONS to the body as a whole..........and at that point it goes back to standard political motivations....................So I'm not sure if this vetting process has ever been sufficient.

Of course it has not been sufficient which accounts for all the stuff the federal government does that it was never constitutionally authorized to do. And that I feel certain is what prompted Michelsen's Sections 1 and 2:

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.​

Section 1 looks like a really good idea to me. Ironically 1/4th of the States would be 13 states, the same number of colonies we started with. And while that number is arbitrary and certainly negotiable, I definitely see where he is coming from. If the states are given constitutional authority to refuse to accept unconstitutional laws, IMO this would be a strong incentive for the federal government to use due diligence to achieve consensus from the states before enacting laws that involve the states.

I am still mulling, however, whether Section 2 is sufficiently plausible. I can appreciate wanting to return the power to the people and the rationale behind the section, but this one bothers me the most. It feels sort of like the one guy in town who didn't like the new traffic light the rest of the people voted to have so he refuses to obey it. But then again, for example, the federal government owns and periodically continues to seize large amounts of land especially in the larger states like Nevada, Alaska, Utah, Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, and California. When Bill Clinton, with the consent of a simple majority of Congress, seized a large tract of land in Utah and declared it federal land to stop coal mining that was already contracted on that land, should not the people of the State of Utah have some say in that?

 

[eagle1462010]

What this current amendment does in my opinion...............

Forces a stronger Constitutional vetting process via the States.............Not sure if that would be practical, but understand why it is proposed...........Using a 75% threshold for states favoring new laws.........could go political as well and may not, in the end, do what it was intended to do......................

I'm all for more vetting of laws to ensure that they are means tested under the Constitution.............Currently part of that vetting process is under the Senate Judicial committee which serves to ensure this at this time..................but this committee only issues RECOMMENDATIONS to the body as a whole..........and at that point it goes back to standard political motivations....................So I'm not sure if this vetting process has ever been sufficient.

Of course it has not been sufficient which accounts for all the stuff the federal government does that it was never constitutionally authorized to do. And that I feel certain is what prompted Michelsen's Sections 1 and 2:

Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.

Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.​

Section 1 looks like a really good idea to me. Ironically 1/4th of the States would be 13 states, the same number of colonies we started with. And while that number is arbitrary and certainly negotiable, I definitely see where he is coming from. If the states are given constitutional authority to refuse to accept unconstitutional laws, IMO this would be a strong incentive for the federal government to use due diligence to achieve consensus from the states before enacting laws that involve the states.

I am still mulling, however, whether Section 2 is sufficiently plausible. I can appreciate wanting to return the power to the people and the rationale behind the section, but this one bothers me the most. It feels sort of like the one guy in town who didn't like the new traffic light the rest of the people voted to have so he refuses to obey it. But then again, for example, the federal government owns and periodically continues to seize large amounts of land especially in the larger states like Nevada, Alaska, Utah, Oregon, Arizona, Idaho, and California. When Bill Clinton, with the consent of a simple majority of Congress, seized a large tract of land in Utah and declared it federal land to prevent coal mining, already contracted, on that land, should not the people of the State of Utah have some say in that?

Section one would require a vetting process of proposed laws requiring 3/4th's of the States to say the law is constitutional................many states would kill bills under this premise, and many would be politically motivated in doing so..................As many states would judge via politics instead of the Constitution..................

If it were to be proper vetting then it would have to go through the legal side of the States and through the State Supreme courts who already have a back log of cases that it can't get to already.........It would bog down an already bogged down system and would slow the process down to a stand still.....................

And the bar is set to high.............a more reasonable bar would be 2/3rd's................which is sufficiently high enough for proper vetting..............

One more point on State legislatures and the courts................many are appointed via political reasons over qualifications already..............How do we vet the vetting process.....................................

It's a large bucket of worms...................how to take the corruption out of politics.....................and out of the Judicial system...................as no form of Gov't will work correctly when we elect unethical, and immoral men and women to office.......................

Do we attack their money...............the lobbyist................or the Unions........................to level the playing field.................
Or do we impose term limits on their tenure......................as some now have been in office for 50 years................
Do we BAN EARMARKS.................which are nothing more than bribes for votes in the current scheme of things...........scheme being the proper word for it.
Do we change the rules for regulations and FCR's in this country.............by forcing all new regulations to get a congressional stamp of approval before going into effect........................or do we allow the EPA and others to write them without approval of Congress as is being done now...................
Do we Amend the constitution to Force a Balanced Budget..................

Many buckets of worms...................many ideas to fix it...............but the current Status quo will never do it...............leaving us to a Constitutional Convention of the states and go around them to do so........................with the constant worry that the Status Quo will hi jack it and distort it's true intent...............

and so on........................just vetting the thread per say.