Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[eagle1462010]

BTW............Section 2 is a complete no go for me....................It's impossible....................One state cannot be given the right to over ride all other states...............

Just saying.

 

[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 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.

Well there is certainly nothing in the thread rules that specifies no vetting of the thread topic. Seriously, (the generic) you can't have a reasoned discussion on any issue if you can't discuss ALL the pros and cons without somebody jumping on you. Nor is 'it is a stupid concept' or such as that a reasoned argument. (You have not used that argument for what it is worth.)

I don't have time for a detailed response right now, but you do raise some points that are worthy of serious discussion. And I will get back to them later this morning.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Then this thread has no purpose and its topic is not worthy of discussion.

The Constitution is ‘working’ exactly as the Framers intended, where those in government are subject to its case law, and when government acts in a manner that conflicts with that case law, the resulting measures are invalidated by the courts.

The recent Obergefell ruling is an example of the Constitution working as intended and in concert with its case law.

That some incorrectly perceive that the Constitution is not ‘working well’ is subjective and unfounded. That those in government obey and follow settled and accepted case law that others might disagree with does not mean those in government ‘disrespect’ the Constitution or fail to afford the Founding Document its due concern.

And that some incorrectly perceive that the Constitution is not ‘working well’ does not warrant its being ‘amended’ simply because settled, accepted Constitutional case law does not conform to errant political doctrine and dogma.

 

[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.

Then this thread has no purpose and its topic is not worthy of discussion.

The Constitution is ‘working’ exactly as the Framers intended, where those in government are subject to its case law, and when government acts in a manner that conflicts with that case law, the resulting measures are invalidated by the courts.

The recent Obergefell ruling is an example of the Constitution working as intended and in concert with its case law.

That some incorrectly perceive that the Constitution is not ‘working well’ is subjective and unfounded. That those in government obey and follow settled and accepted case law that others might disagree with does not mean those in government ‘disrespect’ the Constitution or fail to afford the Founding Document its due concern.

And that some incorrectly perceive that the Constitution is not ‘working well’ does not warrant its being ‘amended’ simply because settled, accepted Constitutional case law does not conform to errant political doctrine and dogma.

Then leave the thread...................

If it serves no purpose and you see nothing broken don't post here..............

I see that our country is going down the wrong path.............especially in the area of fiscal SANITY................we spend more than the GDP of any other nation in the world in regards to the Federal Budget...............We currently pay 400 Billion a year in interest on the debt........................and anyone who would say it's not broken there........well then I'd question your Sanity........................

Countries like Greece are starting to fold...............Iceland folded..........Puerto Rico nearly folded..............Spain, Italy, Portugal are on the ropes..............Japan is in a liquidity trap.....................we must borrowing money to give it away........................both here and abroad......................

It is a time bomb, unless we reverse course..............and it is from a reckless Gov't that has sold it's soul to special interest................to earmarks.....aka bribes..........and to line the pockets of the status quo.............................That path is economic ruin...............and needs to be changed dramatically..............or we will suffer the same fate of other global powers documented in history...................

It needs a serious correction........

 

[dcraelin]

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.

Then this thread has no purpose and its topic is not worthy of discussion.

The Constitution is ‘working’ exactly as the Framers intended, where those in government are subject to its case law, and when government acts in a manner that conflicts with that case law, the resulting measures are invalidated by the courts.

The recent Obergefell ruling is an example of the Constitution working as intended and in concert with its case law.

That some incorrectly perceive that the Constitution is not ‘working well’ is subjective and unfounded. That those in government obey and follow settled and accepted case law that others might disagree with does not mean those in government ‘disrespect’ the Constitution or fail to afford the Founding Document its due concern.

And that some incorrectly perceive that the Constitution is not ‘working well’ does not warrant its being ‘amended’ simply because settled, accepted Constitutional case law does not conform to errant political doctrine and dogma.

yes yes Jonesy, its all about gay marriage. thats the only reason people want the Constitution amended.

now that youve got your way with the court.....why dont you leave the message board.......your sole single issue of interest is solved.

 

[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.

Then this thread has no purpose and its topic is not worthy of discussion.

The Constitution is ‘working’ exactly as the Framers intended, where those in government are subject to its case law, and when government acts in a manner that conflicts with that case law, the resulting measures are invalidated by the courts.

The recent Obergefell ruling is an example of the Constitution working as intended and in concert with its case law.

That some incorrectly perceive that the Constitution is not ‘working well’ is subjective and unfounded. That those in government obey and follow settled and accepted case law that others might disagree with does not mean those in government ‘disrespect’ the Constitution or fail to afford the Founding Document its due concern.

And that some incorrectly perceive that the Constitution is not ‘working well’ does not warrant its being ‘amended’ simply because settled, accepted Constitutional case law does not conform to errant political doctrine and dogma.

If the thread serves no purpose and its topic is not worthy of discussion, why did you post four subsequent paragraphs discussing it?

But I strongly suggest that the thread topic is certainly not everybody's cup of tea. And I strongly suggest that all those who declare that the thread has no purpose and its topic is not worthy of discussion should not post in this thread and should find a topic of purpose and more worthy of discussion elsewhere. Isn't it wonderful that we have that kind of liberty and USMB offers us so many many threads to exercise it?

Thank you for understanding.

 

[Foxfyre]

BTW............Section 2 is a complete no go for me....................It's impossible....................One state cannot be given the right to over ride all other states...............

Just saying.

Okay, I've had a few hours of sleep and am ready to do battle again--only friendly fire of course.

I don't think Section 2 'rides over any other states. . . .' IMO it comes from the pure libertarian view of allowing people to be who and what they are, even if completely out of the mainstream. And, it is a way to protect oneself from being the sheep that the wolves elect to be dinner. As I have said, Section 2 does bother me more than any of the three sections, but not for the reason that it gives that one state power over any others. It doesn't give that one state any power to demand or require any other state or anybody else to agree with it or to do or not do anything.

 

[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.

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.

And, again, what is wrong with voting them out of office?

Worked for our fathers.
Worked for their fathers.
Worked for their fathers too.

 

[RKMBrown]

As I previously stated Michelsen's Amendment is wrong for at least two reasons.

1) The important terms are not defined at all. Thus the context of their meaning is vague and thus means nothing. What does declare mean? By legislative decree? What does by popular vote mean? What does "enactment" mean? Bill? Constitutional Amendment? Appointment? What does "considered" mean? 30second skim? 5years of review? What does scrutiny mean? Who does this critique? The states? Senators?

2) The first two items in his amendment are just too broad and remove all balance between federal and state control it essentially removes all Executive, Congressional, and federal judicial power. It would be a 180 degree swing where the feds have no power whatsoever over any states whatsoever.

The third item holds some hope.

 

[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 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.

Re Section 1, I am still not fully ready to commit--I want to hear more reasoned and concerned people expose whatever flaws are there--but I am strongly leaning in support of that clause.

The three fourths majority would be required ONLY if a sufficient number of states opposed the legislation as unconstitutional. If those proposing legislation cannot convince the resisting states that the bill does meet all requirements of the Constitution, then, IMO opinion, it should not pass or be imposed upon the people.

I agree that would not eliminate all the corruption and self-serving decisions that we expect from the permanent political class in Washington these days, but it would be a start. It definitely would give a much stronger voice to the few Constitutional watchdogs and reformers.

I think should we find enough common ground to amend Michelsen's proposal so that we can all embrace it, a companion amendment might be necessary to address your concerns. I think maybe something as suggested in the OP of this old thread:]
A Modern Emancipation Proclamation US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Foxfyre]

As I previously stated Michelsen's Amendment is wrong for at least two reasons.

1) The important terms are not defined at all. Thus the context of their meaning is vague and thus means nothing. What does declare mean? By legislative decree? What does by popular vote mean? What does "enactment" mean? Bill? Constitutional Amendment? Appointment? What does "considered" mean? 30second skim? 5years of review? What does scrutiny mean? Who does this critique? The states? Senators?

2) The first two items in his amendment are just too broad and remove all balance between federal and state control it essentially removes all Executive, Congressional, and federal judicial power. It would be a 180 degree swing where the feds have no power whatsoever over any states whatsoever.

The third item holds some hope.

But was it ever intended for the feds to have any power whatsoever over any states other than the very limited power the original Constitution assigned to the federal government? We have become so accustomed to an enormous, unmanageable, bloated, redundant, authoritarian, and too often unconstitutional central government that the cultural mentality has shifted to perceive the federal government as superior to that of the states. When we hear the word 'government' I think most of us think Washington and not our local state or city government. The Founders were determined for that not to happen and the original Constitution was written to severely limit federal government power and scope and leave the power with the states and the people. Of all unconstitutional things our government does, the abandonment of that principle is the most glaring.

Definitions have always been problematic with the U.S. Constitution. For instance the phrase 'general welfare' that is currently interpreted very differently from what the Founders intended by all three branches of government. But if as a culture we have power to demand that the legislative bodies, including the courts, use original intent to judge constitutional merit, that can be remedied and take care of much of the definitions problem. Perhaps that should be included in a reform amendment?

 

[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.

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.

Then this thread has no purpose and its topic is not worthy of discussion.

The Constitution is ‘working’ exactly as the Framers intended, where those in government are subject to its case law, and when government acts in a manner that conflicts with that case law, the resulting measures are invalidated by the courts.

The recent Obergefell ruling is an example of the Constitution working as intended and in concert with its case law.

That some incorrectly perceive that the Constitution is not ‘working well’ is subjective and unfounded. That those in government obey and follow settled and accepted case law that others might disagree with does not mean those in government ‘disrespect’ the Constitution or fail to afford the Founding Document its due concern.

And that some incorrectly perceive that the Constitution is not ‘working well’ does not warrant its being ‘amended’ simply because settled, accepted Constitutional case law does not conform to errant political doctrine and dogma.

Basically one team is no longer suited for playing the game nationally since the nation has moved from one of a homogeneity in skin color, homogeneity in religion, homogeneity in heritage to one where a larger number of persons has a different skin color, different understanding of religion, and is from all around the globe.

So that team wants to change the rules (while it still can) to artificially ensure it's position. Put another way, they spent 200+ years insisting that the rules be followed by former minorities before change can take place. So the minorities have done that; there are over 100 women in the Congress and 96 racial minorities. It's scary.

In truth, I think we need to change some aspects of the constitution but it goes as far as changing the behavior of members of Congress. No more de facto pocket vetoes by the Majority leader/Speaker of the House. One House needs to consider the business of the other if, for no other reason than to allow the voters to see where they stand on an issue.

 

[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.

And, again, what is wrong with voting them out of office?

Worked for our fathers.
Worked for their fathers.
Worked for their fathers too.

Because under our current system it is mostly only professional politicians, a permanent political class, that runs for office these days. And with the current system, there are too few dedicated Constitutional reformers to make sufficient difference--a situation that Michelsen's proposed amendment could remedy. Right now even the reformers are forced into accepting unconstitutional actions by the House and Senate in order to be allowed any voice at all. We don't remedy the situation by replacing corrupt people with more corrupt people.

One of the first things taught in management is that you can't fix a bad system by changing the people. And you can't change bad people by changing the system.

But you can set up a system in which the bad people will choose to leave or not get involved at all. I believe that is some of Michelsen's motive for his proposed amendment.

 

[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.

Then this thread has no purpose and its topic is not worthy of discussion.

The Constitution is ‘working’ exactly as the Framers intended, where those in government are subject to its case law, and when government acts in a manner that conflicts with that case law, the resulting measures are invalidated by the courts.

The recent Obergefell ruling is an example of the Constitution working as intended and in concert with its case law.

That some incorrectly perceive that the Constitution is not ‘working well’ is subjective and unfounded. That those in government obey and follow settled and accepted case law that others might disagree with does not mean those in government ‘disrespect’ the Constitution or fail to afford the Founding Document its due concern.

And that some incorrectly perceive that the Constitution is not ‘working well’ does not warrant its being ‘amended’ simply because settled, accepted Constitutional case law does not conform to errant political doctrine and dogma.

Basically one team is no longer suited for playing the game nationally since the nation has moved from one of a homogeneity in skin color, homogeneity in religion, homogeneity in heritage to one where a larger number of persons has a different skin color, different understanding of religion, and is from all around the globe.

So that team wants to change the rules (while it still can) to artificially ensure it's position. Put another way, they spent 200+ years insisting that the rules be followed by former minorities before change can take place. So the minorities have done that; there are over 100 women in the Congress and 96 racial minorities. It's scary.

In truth, I think we need to change some aspects of the constitution but it goes as far as changing the behavior of members of Congress. No more de facto pocket vetoes by the Majority leader/Speaker of the House. One House needs to consider the business of the other if, for no other reason than to allow the voters to see where they stand on an issue.

I don't disagree. So how would Michelsen's proposed amendment be contrary to accomplishing that?

 

[RKMBrown]

As I previously stated Michelsen's Amendment is wrong for at least two reasons.

1) The important terms are not defined at all. Thus the context of their meaning is vague and thus means nothing. What does declare mean? By legislative decree? What does by popular vote mean? What does "enactment" mean? Bill? Constitutional Amendment? Appointment? What does "considered" mean? 30second skim? 5years of review? What does scrutiny mean? Who does this critique? The states? Senators?

2) The first two items in his amendment are just too broad and remove all balance between federal and state control it essentially removes all Executive, Congressional, and federal judicial power. It would be a 180 degree swing where the feds have no power whatsoever over any states whatsoever.

The third item holds some hope.

But was it ever intended for the feds to have any power whatsoever over any states other than the very limited power the original Constitution assigned to the federal government? We have become so accustomed to an enormous, unmanageable, bloated, redundant, authoritarian, and too often unconstitutional central government that the cultural mentality has shifted to perceive the federal government as superior to that of the states. When we hear the word 'government' I think most of us think Washington and not our local state or city government. The Founders were determined for that not to happen and the original Constitution was written to severely limit federal government power and scope and leave the power with the states and the people. Of all unconstitutional things our government does, the abandonment of that principle is the most glaring.

Definitions have always been problematic with the U.S. Constitution. For instance the phrase 'general welfare' that is currently interpreted very differently from what the Founders intended by all three branches of government. But if as a culture we have power to demand that the legislative bodies, including the courts, use original intent to judge constitutional merit, that can be remedied and take care of much of the definitions problem. Perhaps that should be included in a reform amendment?

Very limited power? Nonsense. It was very clear the power that the original constitution gave the federal government and these proposed amendments remove all of that original power.

The states originally had the power of the Senate... now they don't because of the 17th amendment. We used to have that check on the power of government, now we don't. The amendments to the constitution that we currently live under are constitutional by definition... even though 3 of them were passed under threat of death.

Definitions are not problematic. The definitions used for things like general welfare, were and still are widely known. Yes, many liberals like to contend that the definition for general welfare means individual welfare, but they are just plain wrong.

Again... define the terms then we can discuss the meaning of the proposed amendments. Otherwise the proposed amendments are meaningless political phrases that can mean anything anyone wants them to mean.

The first thing to do, to bring power back to the states is to repeal the 17th Amendment.

 

[Care4all]

I think there are a lot of misconceptions on the Senate and the 17th being speculated here in this thread.

That an ostensibly populist movement like the tea party would so openly disdain a populist constitutional amendment is itself a noteworthy contradiction. But the repeal idea also reflects a common misconception of the Senate as a representative of the states as well as a misunderstanding of the true reason for the 17th Amendment's existence.

The legislative appointment of senators that preceded the 17th Amendment was not uniformly or even primarily viewed as a means of protecting states' rights in the national government. First, as framers such as James Madison pointed out at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention of 1787, it was the undue solicitude of state legislatures to popular will that precipitated the effort to form the national government. The appointment of senators by these same legislatures would likewise reflect the sovereignty of the people, not abstract states' rights.

Indeed, even under legislative appointment, many state legislatures routinely held popular primaries or conducted polls to determine whom to appoint to the Senate. And once appointed, senators voted individually rather than on a per state basis, and there was no mechanism to recall a senator who cast a vote with which his state legislature disagreed.

All of these incidents of the legislative appointment of senators underscore what Alexander Hamilton said of the notion of states' rights being represented by the Senate: "As states are a collection of individual men, which ought we to respect most, the rights of the people composing them or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition[?]"

By the time the 61st and 62nd Congresses took up debate on ratification of the 17th Amendment, the notion of states' rights had been revivified by the Civil War and the Reconstruction-era intervention of the federal government in the affairs of the South. However, a significant if not preponderant share of the debate focused not on the merits of directly electing senators or on the abstract notion of the Senate representing states' rights, but rather on the attempt by Southern Democrats to repeal the 15th Amendment, which gives blacks the right to vote. Not atypical of the debates concerning direct elections is the sentiment of Sen. Davis of Georgia, who lamented that the 15th Amendment had given to "the ignorant, vicious, half barbaric Negroes of the South the right to vote and the right to hold office."

In presumed contrast to the tea party's invocation of states' rights, the notion of states' rights that pervaded the ratification debates on the 17th Amendment was a subterfuge for the continued oppression of blacks. In defeating the "race rider" Southern Democrats attempted to attach to the 17th Amendment, the 62nd Congress reaffirmed African Americans' right to vote.

None of this suggests that the tea party's concern with the responsiveness of government — and the Senate in particular — is not important and genuine.

more, here: Why we have and should keep the 17th Amendment - latimes

 

[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.

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.

And, again, what is wrong with voting them out of office?

Worked for our fathers.
Worked for their fathers.
Worked for their fathers too.

C'mon...I mean seriously. Corruption (both large and small) is nothing new in our government. Somehow our lineage dealt with it through the power of the vote. Why can't we all of the sudden play by the same rules?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

And, again, what is wrong with voting them out of office?

Worked for our fathers.
Worked for their fathers.
Worked for their fathers too.

C'mon...I mean seriously. Corruption (both large and small) is nothing new in our government. Somehow our lineage dealt with it through the power of the vote. Why can't we all of the sudden play by the same rules?

In this case the ‘corruption’ refers to the incorrect perception that the ‘original intent’ of the Constitution has been ‘corrupted,’ that current Constitutional jurisprudence is ‘false’ or ‘wrong,’ and that the courts are ‘ignoring’ the ‘will of the people,’ acting in manner not intended by the Founding Generation.

 

[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.

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.

And, again, what is wrong with voting them out of office?

Worked for our fathers.
Worked for their fathers.
Worked for their fathers too.

C'mon...I mean seriously. Corruption (both large and small) is nothing new in our government. Somehow our lineage dealt with it through the power of the vote. Why can't we all of the sudden play by the same rules?

In this case the ‘corruption’ refers to the incorrect perception that the ‘original intent’ of the Constitution has been ‘corrupted,’ that current Constitutional jurisprudence is ‘false’ or ‘wrong,’ and that the courts are ‘ignoring’ the ‘will of the people,’ acting in manner not intended by the Founding Generation.

Well, yeah, I get that but Congress cannot be corrupt; it's members can. Courts cannot be corrupt, it's judges can. We've always have had corruption in these bodies...its nothing new. I've been told that the vote is now worthless because the system is corrupt. By definition; it cannot be corrupt because the system is people-based.

 

[Foxfyre]

Congress can't be corrupt? It can when the people who make it up are corrupt. The courts can't be corrupt? They can when the people who make them up are corrupt. The system can't be corrupt? Of course it can when corrupt people put a system in place. You can't separate the institutions from the people because without the people, the institutions do not exist. Repeal of the 17th amendment might or might not help change things, but without cooperation from a reformed House of Representatives, I think it is unlikely that a reformed Senate could force enough positive change to significantly turn things around.

There does seem to be a bit of a disconnect, however, when so many who distrust their state government more than they distrust the federal government would put the power to appoint Senators with those same state governments.

And those who think Michelsen's proposed amendment would create deadlock? Would not a responsible, honorable Senate up against a still corrupt and self-serving political class in the House not create deadlock?

Again, while I am increasingly convinced Michelsen's proposed amendment could be improved, I am becoming increasingly convinced that the concept itself that he proposes has real merit to start changing the national psyche from one that looks to big government for solutions to a society that again looks to itself and the states and local communities for solutions. And IMO, THAT would fix the problem.