Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[Foxfyre]

Sections 1 and 2 of Michelsen's proposed amendment do not apply to the existing Constitution itself--they only provide a means to encourage any laws, rules, or regs imposed by Congress or the bureaucracy to comply with the existing Constitution.

Where does it say that? Why would it not also apply to constitutional amendments? Are constitutional amendments not enactments by our government? Cite pls. Where would the constitution be if the states threw out all laws, all bills, all "enactments" related to the constitutional amendments?

Michelsen was careful to refer to the benchmark for evaluation as 'this constitution'. He obviously was not suggesting that anybody have ability to override the process specified for amendment within that constitution. His proposal obviously refers to requiring compliance with the existing constitution.

Benchmark? What does that mean? Who will act as a check on this new state power to ensure that said benchmark is adhered to? State based constitutional scholars? Huh?

This amendment proposal is nothing more than a political speech designed to whip up the masses to demand something new, without actually specifying what it is that it is specifying. This is no different than "change you can believe in..."

I disagree. I see a lot of substance there. But again the 'it is a stupid concept and not worthy of discussion' argument (or any reasonable facsimile), is a strong indicator that this thread is unsuitable to participate in and the member should find something else to do.

What check needs to be on state powers? The Constitution assigned specific authorities and responsibilities to the federal government. There is nothing in Michelsen's amendment suggesting that anybody have power to overturn any of that other than by the amendment process written into the Constitution itself.

I have provided several examples now of federal mandates that a state might resist, i.e. a federally mandated speed limit. Who does it hurt if Nevada or New Mexico sees such mandate as unconstitutional and, within their own state, can choose to refuse to comply with impunity?

So now you say you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states? Where does it say that in his proposed amendment? I read that those 25% can stop all federal bills from moving forward. Or are you saying this amendment throws out the 14th amendment?

Section 1.. "that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions." I read that as clearly stating that the 25% may throw out a bill or any law for all the states. Section 1 is not section 2.

I did not say one set of federal laws should exist for some and another set of federal laws for others. Please try to accurately represent what I said. I have consistently argued that federal laws should be representative of ALL the people are they should not prevail.

And yes, one of Michelsen's proposals is that 25% of the members of the House or Senate can protest proposed legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Obviously they would have to have a legitimate argument for why it is unconstitutional. As that would be sufficient to prevent the legislation from passing, it would be incumbant for those proposing the legislation to make a very good argument for why the legislation is constitutional and/or amend the legislation to satisfy constitutional requirements. This provision alone I believe would break much of the partisan gridlock that now exists. And if a sufficiently good argument for the constitutionality of proposed legislation cannot be made, then such legislation most likely is really bad legislation and should not pass.

 

[dcraelin]

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

I would say, by contrast, that you have proven why the 17th should be thrown out and not proven that it should remain. Tyranny by the Majority is not the point of the Senate. The point of the Senate was as a check on said tyranny. The house and the POTUS represent the majority and are supposed to be the check on the Senate. Your article presumes that the majority are always right.

That was NOT the point of the Senate.............to the extent it was modeled on the English House of Lords you could say it was intended to foster tyranny............but mainly it was just an expedient move to assure States their sovereignty.

The majority are not always right, of course not, just that the lex majoris partis......as referred to at the time of the revolution....had a greater chance of being right than handing over power to a minority.

Yet another false meme of authoritarians... if the majority don't have tyranny well then the minority does. False! Checks on tyranny do not provide a tyranny. Liberty is not the liberty of the majority to screw over minority groups.

well that depends on the nature of the checks.....if you appeal to a larger majority, that is a true check........if you appeal to a minority...then it has a potential to be tyranny.

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law ............. to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

 

[dcraelin]

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

I would say, by contrast, that you have proven why the 17th should be thrown out and not proven that it should remain. Tyranny by the Majority is not the point of the Senate. The point of the Senate was as a check on said tyranny. The house and the POTUS represent the majority and are supposed to be the check on the Senate. Your article presumes that the majority are always right.

That was NOT the point of the Senate.............to the extent it was modeled on the English House of Lords you could say it was intended to foster tyranny............but mainly it was just an expedient move to assure States their sovereignty.

The majority are not always right, of course not, just that the lex majoris partis......as referred to at the time of the revolution....had a greater chance of being right than handing over power to a minority.

In the spirit of social contract, the majority must prevail, but in valid social contract, the goal is mutual benefit to all rather than advantage to some. But the only way to determine the public will to accept the goal is via majority vote. A wise society however will not impose laws, rules, and regulations on all via a thin margin, but will look for substantial majorities via referendum or whatever before imposing a law or rule or regulation on the whole. A vote of 51% for, 49% opposed on something that actually affects people is often a recipe for discontent and unhappiness that often doesn't end well. Not so much if there is a provision for people to opt out.

On a vote on what exterior siding to use on the new courthouse or what color the church sanctuary carpet should be, a simple majority vote probably works out pretty well. Other than irritation or annoyance based on personal preference, such things do not materially or physically impact anybody.

But what if Congress or the bureaucracy imposes a silly or impractical law on the states such as a mandatory 55 mph speed limit or the content in school lunches? Under Michelsen's amendment, those states that find such laws unreasonable or impractical or actually counter productive to what is supposed to be accomplished would be able to opt out and do their own thing on the grounds that the federal government has no constitutional authority to impose such requirements on the state. This would affect only the people in that one state and nobody else.

I agree mostly with your first paragraph..............but I think the amendment goes overboard, as I have said eleswhere.

 

[dcraelin]

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

I would say, by contrast, that you have proven why the 17th should be thrown out and not proven that it should remain. Tyranny by the Majority is not the point of the Senate. The point of the Senate was as a check on said tyranny. The house and the POTUS represent the majority and are supposed to be the check on the Senate. Your article presumes that the majority are always right.

That was NOT the point of the Senate.............to the extent it was modeled on the English House of Lords you could say it was intended to foster tyranny............but mainly it was just an expedient move to assure States their sovereignty.

The majority are not always right, of course not, just that the lex majoris partis......as referred to at the time of the revolution....had a greater chance of being right than handing over power to a minority.

I think the original theory that a Senate not dependent on the popular vote would be less susceptible to political pressures and more focused on the common good of the people in the represented state. But in a Congress that IMO exists much more to increase its own power, prestige, influence, and personal wealth and only throws the people enough bones to buy them off, I don't know that an appointed rather than elected Senate would be less susceptible to that kind of thing.

The strength in Michelsen's amendment could break that cycle sufficiently that the Congress would be forced to work more with the constitutional defenders and reformers and come up with legislation that the people mostly approve and support.

largely agree on 1st paragraph

 

[Foxfyre]

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

I would say, by contrast, that you have proven why the 17th should be thrown out and not proven that it should remain. Tyranny by the Majority is not the point of the Senate. The point of the Senate was as a check on said tyranny. The house and the POTUS represent the majority and are supposed to be the check on the Senate. Your article presumes that the majority are always right.

That was NOT the point of the Senate.............to the extent it was modeled on the English House of Lords you could say it was intended to foster tyranny............but mainly it was just an expedient move to assure States their sovereignty.

The majority are not always right, of course not, just that the lex majoris partis......as referred to at the time of the revolution....had a greater chance of being right than handing over power to a minority.

In the spirit of social contract, the majority must prevail, but in valid social contract, the goal is mutual benefit to all rather than advantage to some. But the only way to determine the public will to accept the goal is via majority vote. A wise society however will not impose laws, rules, and regulations on all via a thin margin, but will look for substantial majorities via referendum or whatever before imposing a law or rule or regulation on the whole. A vote of 51% for, 49% opposed on something that actually affects people is often a recipe for discontent and unhappiness that often doesn't end well. Not so much if there is a provision for people to opt out.

On a vote on what exterior siding to use on the new courthouse or what color the church sanctuary carpet should be, a simple majority vote probably works out pretty well. Other than irritation or annoyance based on personal preference, such things do not materially or physically impact anybody.

But what if Congress or the bureaucracy imposes a silly or impractical law on the states such as a mandatory 55 mph speed limit or the content in school lunches? Under Michelsen's amendment, those states that find such laws unreasonable or impractical or actually counter productive to what is supposed to be accomplished would be able to opt out and do their own thing on the grounds that the federal government has no constitutional authority to impose such requirements on the state. This would affect only the people in that one state and nobody else.

I agree mostly with your first paragraph..............but I think the amendment goes overboard, as I have said eleswhere.

The more we all discuss this--the flat out deniers, those who are a little interested, those who think the amendment goes too far, those who think it needs more clarification and/or definition, etc. etc. etc.--the more merit, maybe wisdom, I am seeing in Michelsen's proposal. I think that is because I am beginning to think that the fears generated simply wouldn't come to pass. Everybody has concerns and these have been expressed numerous times, but so far nobody has presented a comprehensive argument that convinces me his/her argument is better than Michelsen's.

Please don't see that as criticism or encouragement to discontinue discussion though. I haven't really provided a comprehensive argument for my point of view yet either.

 

[RKMBrown]

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

I would say, by contrast, that you have proven why the 17th should be thrown out and not proven that it should remain. Tyranny by the Majority is not the point of the Senate. The point of the Senate was as a check on said tyranny. The house and the POTUS represent the majority and are supposed to be the check on the Senate. Your article presumes that the majority are always right.

That was NOT the point of the Senate.............to the extent it was modeled on the English House of Lords you could say it was intended to foster tyranny............but mainly it was just an expedient move to assure States their sovereignty.

The majority are not always right, of course not, just that the lex majoris partis......as referred to at the time of the revolution....had a greater chance of being right than handing over power to a minority.

Yet another false meme of authoritarians... if the majority don't have tyranny well then the minority does. False! Checks on tyranny do not provide a tyranny. Liberty is not the liberty of the majority to screw over minority groups.

well that depends on the nature of the checks.....if you appeal to a larger majority, that is a true check........if you appeal to a minority...then it has a potential to be tyranny.

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law ............. to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

ROFL.. power to the tyranny of the majority!!

 

[RKMBrown]

Where does it say that? Why would it not also apply to constitutional amendments? Are constitutional amendments not enactments by our government? Cite pls. Where would the constitution be if the states threw out all laws, all bills, all "enactments" related to the constitutional amendments?

Michelsen was careful to refer to the benchmark for evaluation as 'this constitution'. He obviously was not suggesting that anybody have ability to override the process specified for amendment within that constitution. His proposal obviously refers to requiring compliance with the existing constitution.

Benchmark? What does that mean? Who will act as a check on this new state power to ensure that said benchmark is adhered to? State based constitutional scholars? Huh?

This amendment proposal is nothing more than a political speech designed to whip up the masses to demand something new, without actually specifying what it is that it is specifying. This is no different than "change you can believe in..."

I disagree. I see a lot of substance there. But again the 'it is a stupid concept and not worthy of discussion' argument (or any reasonable facsimile), is a strong indicator that this thread is unsuitable to participate in and the member should find something else to do.

What check needs to be on state powers? The Constitution assigned specific authorities and responsibilities to the federal government. There is nothing in Michelsen's amendment suggesting that anybody have power to overturn any of that other than by the amendment process written into the Constitution itself.

I have provided several examples now of federal mandates that a state might resist, i.e. a federally mandated speed limit. Who does it hurt if Nevada or New Mexico sees such mandate as unconstitutional and, within their own state, can choose to refuse to comply with impunity?

So now you say you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states? Where does it say that in his proposed amendment? I read that those 25% can stop all federal bills from moving forward. Or are you saying this amendment throws out the 14th amendment?

Section 1.. "that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions." I read that as clearly stating that the 25% may throw out a bill or any law for all the states. Section 1 is not section 2.

I did not say one set of federal laws should exist for some and another set of federal laws for others. Please try to accurately represent what I said. I have consistently argued that federal laws should be representative of ALL the people are they should not prevail.

And yes, one of Michelsen's proposals is that 25% of the members of the House or Senate can protest proposed legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Obviously they would have to have a legitimate argument for why it is unconstitutional. As that would be sufficient to prevent the legislation from passing, it would be incumbant for those proposing the legislation to make a very good argument for why the legislation is constitutional and/or amend the legislation to satisfy constitutional requirements. This provision alone I believe would break much of the partisan gridlock that now exists. And if a sufficiently good argument for the constitutionality of proposed legislation cannot be made, then such legislation most likely is really bad legislation and should not pass.

You said one state could "choose to refuse to comply with impunity" any federal law. How is that different than what I said you said.. that "you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states?" Please explain how choosing whether to comply or not is not the same as one set of laws choosen to comply with for one state and another set of laws chosen to comply with for another state. I think you are taking umbrage with the phrase "you say" too much, esp. when, what I said is obviously 100% in line with your actual statements.

As for your new attempt to move the goal posts to "protesting" that's not what Michelsen's proposals state. It says nothing about protest. Again, you are coloring and reading into Michelsen what you want it to say and not actually listening to what it actually states. Further Michelsen provides no arbitration at all, the 25% can throw everything out for any reason whatsoever. You're assumption that their reason has to make sense and/or be based on some basis is unfounded. Again you are reading Michelsen and completely re-writting it in your head based on your version of what the terms mean... only to come out with a completely different meaning than I get from the same amendment.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

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

I would say, by contrast, that you have proven why the 17th should be thrown out and not proven that it should remain. Tyranny by the Majority is not the point of the Senate. The point of the Senate was as a check on said tyranny. The house and the POTUS represent the majority and are supposed to be the check on the Senate. Your article presumes that the majority are always right.

That was NOT the point of the Senate.............to the extent it was modeled on the English House of Lords you could say it was intended to foster tyranny............but mainly it was just an expedient move to assure States their sovereignty.

The majority are not always right, of course not, just that the lex majoris partis......as referred to at the time of the revolution....had a greater chance of being right than handing over power to a minority.

Yet another false meme of authoritarians... if the majority don't have tyranny well then the minority does. False! Checks on tyranny do not provide a tyranny. Liberty is not the liberty of the majority to screw over minority groups.

well that depends on the nature of the checks.....if you appeal to a larger majority, that is a true check........if you appeal to a minority...then it has a potential to be tyranny.

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law ............. to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

ROFL.. power to the tyranny of the majority!!

How so. I don't see that dcraelin arguing for a tyranny of the majority at all. He is presenting Jefferson's argument that the majority vote is imperfect in effect, but superior to any other form of government.

I am not sure these are Jefferson's words, but they do summarize where he was coming from:

The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people's voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority. This is not a perfect way of controlling government, but the alternatives--decisions made by a minority, or by one person--are even worse and are the source of great evil. To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction.​

Jefferson expressed this on dozens of occasions to numerous people. Some examples:

"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332

"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809. ME 16:456

"And where else will [Hume,] this degenerate son of science, this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?" --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:44

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337

"Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:321

BUT. . .Jefferson was not addressing compliance with the Constitution in those comments. Here he is:

"It was understood to be a rule of law that where the words of a statute admit of two constructions, the one just and the other unjust, the former is to be given them." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:326

"When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:418

"Where a phrase is susceptible of two meanings, we ought certainly to adopt that which will bring upon us the fewest inconveniences." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Apportionment Bill, 1792. ME 3:208

"The general rule [is] that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1816. ME 14:445

"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408

 

[RKMBrown]

I would say, by contrast, that you have proven why the 17th should be thrown out and not proven that it should remain. Tyranny by the Majority is not the point of the Senate. The point of the Senate was as a check on said tyranny. The house and the POTUS represent the majority and are supposed to be the check on the Senate. Your article presumes that the majority are always right.

That was NOT the point of the Senate.............to the extent it was modeled on the English House of Lords you could say it was intended to foster tyranny............but mainly it was just an expedient move to assure States their sovereignty.

The majority are not always right, of course not, just that the lex majoris partis......as referred to at the time of the revolution....had a greater chance of being right than handing over power to a minority.

Yet another false meme of authoritarians... if the majority don't have tyranny well then the minority does. False! Checks on tyranny do not provide a tyranny. Liberty is not the liberty of the majority to screw over minority groups.

well that depends on the nature of the checks.....if you appeal to a larger majority, that is a true check........if you appeal to a minority...then it has a potential to be tyranny.

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law ............. to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

ROFL.. power to the tyranny of the majority!!

How so. I don't see that dcraelin arguing for a tyranny of the majority at all. He is presenting Jefferson's argument that the majority vote is imperfect in effect, but superior to any other form of government.

I am not sure these are Jefferson's words, but they do summarize where he was coming from:

The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people's voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority. This is not a perfect way of controlling government, but the alternatives--decisions made by a minority, or by one person--are even worse and are the source of great evil. To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction.​

Jefferson expressed this on dozens of occasions to numerous people. Some examples:

"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332

"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809. ME 16:456

"And where else will [Hume,] this degenerate son of science, this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?" --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:44

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337

"Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:321

BUT. . .Jefferson was not addressing compliance with the Constitution in those comments. Here he is:

"It was understood to be a rule of law that where the words of a statute admit of two constructions, the one just and the other unjust, the former is to be given them." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:326

"When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:418

"Where a phrase is susceptible of two meanings, we ought certainly to adopt that which will bring upon us the fewest inconveniences." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Apportionment Bill, 1792. ME 3:208

"The general rule [is] that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1816. ME 14:445

"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408

DC said "if you appeal to a larger majority, that is a true check." That is the very definition of tyranny of the majority. Minority be dammed power to the majority!!! Deny it if you will... but it's a plain fact. Not sure why you two don't understand, or at least don't echo the very simple concept of checks and balances.

 

[Foxfyre]

Michelsen was careful to refer to the benchmark for evaluation as 'this constitution'. He obviously was not suggesting that anybody have ability to override the process specified for amendment within that constitution. His proposal obviously refers to requiring compliance with the existing constitution.

Benchmark? What does that mean? Who will act as a check on this new state power to ensure that said benchmark is adhered to? State based constitutional scholars? Huh?

This amendment proposal is nothing more than a political speech designed to whip up the masses to demand something new, without actually specifying what it is that it is specifying. This is no different than "change you can believe in..."

I disagree. I see a lot of substance there. But again the 'it is a stupid concept and not worthy of discussion' argument (or any reasonable facsimile), is a strong indicator that this thread is unsuitable to participate in and the member should find something else to do.

What check needs to be on state powers? The Constitution assigned specific authorities and responsibilities to the federal government. There is nothing in Michelsen's amendment suggesting that anybody have power to overturn any of that other than by the amendment process written into the Constitution itself.

I have provided several examples now of federal mandates that a state might resist, i.e. a federally mandated speed limit. Who does it hurt if Nevada or New Mexico sees such mandate as unconstitutional and, within their own state, can choose to refuse to comply with impunity?

So now you say you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states? Where does it say that in his proposed amendment? I read that those 25% can stop all federal bills from moving forward. Or are you saying this amendment throws out the 14th amendment?

Section 1.. "that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions." I read that as clearly stating that the 25% may throw out a bill or any law for all the states. Section 1 is not section 2.

I did not say one set of federal laws should exist for some and another set of federal laws for others. Please try to accurately represent what I said. I have consistently argued that federal laws should be representative of ALL the people are they should not prevail.

And yes, one of Michelsen's proposals is that 25% of the members of the House or Senate can protest proposed legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Obviously they would have to have a legitimate argument for why it is unconstitutional. As that would be sufficient to prevent the legislation from passing, it would be incumbant for those proposing the legislation to make a very good argument for why the legislation is constitutional and/or amend the legislation to satisfy constitutional requirements. This provision alone I believe would break much of the partisan gridlock that now exists. And if a sufficiently good argument for the constitutionality of proposed legislation cannot be made, then such legislation most likely is really bad legislation and should not pass.

You said one state could "choose to refuse to comply with impunity" any federal law. How is that different than what I said you said.. that "you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states?" Please explain how choosing whether to comply or not is not the same as one set of laws choosen to comply with for one state and another set of laws chosen to comply with for another state. I think you are taking umbrage with the phrase "you say" too much, esp. when, what I said is obviously 100% in line with your actual statements.

As for your new attempt to move the goal posts to "protesting" that's not what Michelsen's proposals state. It says nothing about protest. Again, you are coloring and reading into Michelsen what you want it to say and not actually listening to what it actually states. Further Michelsen provides no arbitration at all, the 25% can throw everything out for any reason whatsoever. You're assumption that their reason has to make sense and/or be based on some basis is unfounded. Again you are reading Michelsen and completely re-writting it in your head based on your version of what the terms mean... only to come out with a completely different meaning than I get from the same amendment.

I did not say one state could refuse to comply with impunity ANY federal law. I said Michelsen's proposed amendment would allow one state to refuse to comply with impunity any law or decree of the federal government it deemed unconstitutional.

Warning: what you think I 'color or read or assumed or am rewriting' into Michelsen's proposal is not the topic of this thread, is ad hominem, and is illegal per Rule #1 for this thread. Please argue for or against the actual comments made, in context, and not what you think the intent or motive of any member might be in making them. Any further posts like that will be reported. Thank you for understanding.

If you read a different meaning into the proposed amendment, you are free to state that meaning and argue why you think your interpretation is superior to mine.

 

[RKMBrown]

Benchmark? What does that mean? Who will act as a check on this new state power to ensure that said benchmark is adhered to? State based constitutional scholars? Huh?

This amendment proposal is nothing more than a political speech designed to whip up the masses to demand something new, without actually specifying what it is that it is specifying. This is no different than "change you can believe in..."

I disagree. I see a lot of substance there. But again the 'it is a stupid concept and not worthy of discussion' argument (or any reasonable facsimile), is a strong indicator that this thread is unsuitable to participate in and the member should find something else to do.

What check needs to be on state powers? The Constitution assigned specific authorities and responsibilities to the federal government. There is nothing in Michelsen's amendment suggesting that anybody have power to overturn any of that other than by the amendment process written into the Constitution itself.

I have provided several examples now of federal mandates that a state might resist, i.e. a federally mandated speed limit. Who does it hurt if Nevada or New Mexico sees such mandate as unconstitutional and, within their own state, can choose to refuse to comply with impunity?

So now you say you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states? Where does it say that in his proposed amendment? I read that those 25% can stop all federal bills from moving forward. Or are you saying this amendment throws out the 14th amendment?

Section 1.. "that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions." I read that as clearly stating that the 25% may throw out a bill or any law for all the states. Section 1 is not section 2.

I did not say one set of federal laws should exist for some and another set of federal laws for others. Please try to accurately represent what I said. I have consistently argued that federal laws should be representative of ALL the people are they should not prevail.

And yes, one of Michelsen's proposals is that 25% of the members of the House or Senate can protest proposed legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Obviously they would have to have a legitimate argument for why it is unconstitutional. As that would be sufficient to prevent the legislation from passing, it would be incumbant for those proposing the legislation to make a very good argument for why the legislation is constitutional and/or amend the legislation to satisfy constitutional requirements. This provision alone I believe would break much of the partisan gridlock that now exists. And if a sufficiently good argument for the constitutionality of proposed legislation cannot be made, then such legislation most likely is really bad legislation and should not pass.

You said one state could "choose to refuse to comply with impunity" any federal law. How is that different than what I said you said.. that "you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states?" Please explain how choosing whether to comply or not is not the same as one set of laws choosen to comply with for one state and another set of laws chosen to comply with for another state. I think you are taking umbrage with the phrase "you say" too much, esp. when, what I said is obviously 100% in line with your actual statements.

As for your new attempt to move the goal posts to "protesting" that's not what Michelsen's proposals state. It says nothing about protest. Again, you are coloring and reading into Michelsen what you want it to say and not actually listening to what it actually states. Further Michelsen provides no arbitration at all, the 25% can throw everything out for any reason whatsoever. You're assumption that their reason has to make sense and/or be based on some basis is unfounded. Again you are reading Michelsen and completely re-writting it in your head based on your version of what the terms mean... only to come out with a completely different meaning than I get from the same amendment.

I did not say one state could refuse to comply with impunity ANY federal law. I said Michelsen's proposed amendment would one state could refuse to comply with impunity any law it deemed unconstitutional. And what you think I 'color or read or assumed or is rewriting' into Michelsen's proposal is not the topic of this thread, is ad hominem, and is illegal per Rule #1 for this thread. Please argue for or against the actual comments made, in context, and not what you think the intent or motive of any member might be in making them. Any further posts like that will be reported. Thank you for understanding.

If you read a different meaning into the proposed amendment, you are free to state that meaning and argue why you think your interpretation is superior to mine.

Not sure why you and I don't agree what the definition of deem means. What do you think "deem" means? Who is gonna tell the state their "deeming" is invalid?

As for your accusation, that the facts I have presented are an ad hom attack. You are lying. Not sure why. Perhaps you could explain why you are making up lies about my statements and threatening me.

I did not state that my view was superior. What I stated was that the proposed amendment is completely without meaning because it introduces entirely new terms that have no meaning at all. For example, enactment. What the heck is an enactment. You apparently want to define the terms of this debate... yet you have not yet defined any of the terms that this amendment left entirely undefined.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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.

if you like ever growing govt power and the loss of liberty then it has worked. If you like freedom as our founders did it has not worked. The problem with trying to change it is that it will open the door for the those opposed to liberty to change it as they see fit since they are the majority and the process would be democratic.

 

[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.

if you like ever growing govt power and the loss of liberty then it has worked. If you like freedom as our founders did it has not worked. The problem with trying to change it is that it will open the door for the those opposed to liberty to change it as they see fit since they are the majority and the process would be democratic.

I don't know that the Constitution itself has not worked, but it has become largely ineffective because so many in authority positions, including the courts, ignore it or 'rewrite' it to suit themselves. And that includes expanding federal powers and taking away individual liberties, something the Constitution was expressly written to prevent. Any law or rule or protection is worthless if it is not understood, respected, and enforced as intended.

Michelsen's proposal takes nothing whatsoever from the Constitution, does not add to it, and does not interfere with any of its provisions. What I believe it is intended to do is to restore power to the people to enforce the existing Constitution as intended.

 

[Foxfyre]

I disagree. I see a lot of substance there. But again the 'it is a stupid concept and not worthy of discussion' argument (or any reasonable facsimile), is a strong indicator that this thread is unsuitable to participate in and the member should find something else to do.

What check needs to be on state powers? The Constitution assigned specific authorities and responsibilities to the federal government. There is nothing in Michelsen's amendment suggesting that anybody have power to overturn any of that other than by the amendment process written into the Constitution itself.

I have provided several examples now of federal mandates that a state might resist, i.e. a federally mandated speed limit. Who does it hurt if Nevada or New Mexico sees such mandate as unconstitutional and, within their own state, can choose to refuse to comply with impunity?

So now you say you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states? Where does it say that in his proposed amendment? I read that those 25% can stop all federal bills from moving forward. Or are you saying this amendment throws out the 14th amendment?

Section 1.. "that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions." I read that as clearly stating that the 25% may throw out a bill or any law for all the states. Section 1 is not section 2.

I did not say one set of federal laws should exist for some and another set of federal laws for others. Please try to accurately represent what I said. I have consistently argued that federal laws should be representative of ALL the people are they should not prevail.

And yes, one of Michelsen's proposals is that 25% of the members of the House or Senate can protest proposed legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Obviously they would have to have a legitimate argument for why it is unconstitutional. As that would be sufficient to prevent the legislation from passing, it would be incumbant for those proposing the legislation to make a very good argument for why the legislation is constitutional and/or amend the legislation to satisfy constitutional requirements. This provision alone I believe would break much of the partisan gridlock that now exists. And if a sufficiently good argument for the constitutionality of proposed legislation cannot be made, then such legislation most likely is really bad legislation and should not pass.

You said one state could "choose to refuse to comply with impunity" any federal law. How is that different than what I said you said.. that "you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states?" Please explain how choosing whether to comply or not is not the same as one set of laws choosen to comply with for one state and another set of laws chosen to comply with for another state. I think you are taking umbrage with the phrase "you say" too much, esp. when, what I said is obviously 100% in line with your actual statements.

As for your new attempt to move the goal posts to "protesting" that's not what Michelsen's proposals state. It says nothing about protest. Again, you are coloring and reading into Michelsen what you want it to say and not actually listening to what it actually states. Further Michelsen provides no arbitration at all, the 25% can throw everything out for any reason whatsoever. You're assumption that their reason has to make sense and/or be based on some basis is unfounded. Again you are reading Michelsen and completely re-writting it in your head based on your version of what the terms mean... only to come out with a completely different meaning than I get from the same amendment.

I did not say one state could refuse to comply with impunity ANY federal law. I said Michelsen's proposed amendment would one state could refuse to comply with impunity any law it deemed unconstitutional. And what you think I 'color or read or assumed or is rewriting' into Michelsen's proposal is not the topic of this thread, is ad hominem, and is illegal per Rule #1 for this thread. Please argue for or against the actual comments made, in context, and not what you think the intent or motive of any member might be in making them. Any further posts like that will be reported. Thank you for understanding.

If you read a different meaning into the proposed amendment, you are free to state that meaning and argue why you think your interpretation is superior to mine.

Not sure why you and I don't agree what the definition of deem means. What do you think "deem" means? Who is gonna tell the state their "deeming" is invalid?

As for your accusation, that the facts I have presented are an ad hom attack. You are lying. Not sure why. Perhaps you could explain why you are making up lies about my statements and threatening me.

I did not state that my view was superior. What I stated was that the proposed amendment is completely without meaning because it introduces entirely new terms that have no meaning at all. For example, enactment. What the heck is an enactment. You apparently want to define the terms of this debate... yet you have not yet defined any of the terms that this amendment left entirely undefined.

I disagree. I see a lot of substance there. But again the 'it is a stupid concept and not worthy of discussion' argument (or any reasonable facsimile), is a strong indicator that this thread is unsuitable to participate in and the member should find something else to do.

What check needs to be on state powers? The Constitution assigned specific authorities and responsibilities to the federal government. There is nothing in Michelsen's amendment suggesting that anybody have power to overturn any of that other than by the amendment process written into the Constitution itself.

I have provided several examples now of federal mandates that a state might resist, i.e. a federally mandated speed limit. Who does it hurt if Nevada or New Mexico sees such mandate as unconstitutional and, within their own state, can choose to refuse to comply with impunity?

So now you say you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states? Where does it say that in his proposed amendment? I read that those 25% can stop all federal bills from moving forward. Or are you saying this amendment throws out the 14th amendment?

Section 1.. "that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions." I read that as clearly stating that the 25% may throw out a bill or any law for all the states. Section 1 is not section 2.

I did not say one set of federal laws should exist for some and another set of federal laws for others. Please try to accurately represent what I said. I have consistently argued that federal laws should be representative of ALL the people are they should not prevail.

And yes, one of Michelsen's proposals is that 25% of the members of the House or Senate can protest proposed legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Obviously they would have to have a legitimate argument for why it is unconstitutional. As that would be sufficient to prevent the legislation from passing, it would be incumbant for those proposing the legislation to make a very good argument for why the legislation is constitutional and/or amend the legislation to satisfy constitutional requirements. This provision alone I believe would break much of the partisan gridlock that now exists. And if a sufficiently good argument for the constitutionality of proposed legislation cannot be made, then such legislation most likely is really bad legislation and should not pass.

You said one state could "choose to refuse to comply with impunity" any federal law. How is that different than what I said you said.. that "you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states?" Please explain how choosing whether to comply or not is not the same as one set of laws choosen to comply with for one state and another set of laws chosen to comply with for another state. I think you are taking umbrage with the phrase "you say" too much, esp. when, what I said is obviously 100% in line with your actual statements.

As for your new attempt to move the goal posts to "protesting" that's not what Michelsen's proposals state. It says nothing about protest. Again, you are coloring and reading into Michelsen what you want it to say and not actually listening to what it actually states. Further Michelsen provides no arbitration at all, the 25% can throw everything out for any reason whatsoever. You're assumption that their reason has to make sense and/or be based on some basis is unfounded. Again you are reading Michelsen and completely re-writting it in your head based on your version of what the terms mean... only to come out with a completely different meaning than I get from the same amendment.

I did not say one state could refuse to comply with impunity ANY federal law. I said Michelsen's proposed amendment would one state could refuse to comply with impunity any law it deemed unconstitutional. And what you think I 'color or read or assumed or is rewriting' into Michelsen's proposal is not the topic of this thread, is ad hominem, and is illegal per Rule #1 for this thread. Please argue for or against the actual comments made, in context, and not what you think the intent or motive of any member might be in making them. Any further posts like that will be reported. Thank you for understanding.

If you read a different meaning into the proposed amendment, you are free to state that meaning and argue why you think your interpretation is superior to mine.

Not sure why you and I don't agree what the definition of deem means. What do you think "deem" means? Who is gonna tell the state their "deeming" is invalid?

As for your accusation, that the facts I have presented are an ad hom attack. You are lying. Not sure why. Perhaps you could explain why you are making up lies about my statements and threatening me.

I did not state that my view was superior. What I stated was that the proposed amendment is completely without meaning because it introduces entirely new terms that have no meaning at all. For example, enactment. What the heck is an enactment. You apparently want to define the terms of this debate... yet you have not yet defined any of the terms that this amendment left entirely undefined.

"Deem" means to consider or regard in a specific manner.
"Enactment" is usually the process of passing legislation or application of something.
"Ad hominem" is making a personal attribute or observation about another member the argument rather than the content of what the member said.

If you will consult the thread rules, I reserved the right to define terms as necessary. And yes, as OP I definitely want to define the terms of this debate and have done so. That is what the structured discussion zone is intended to accomplish.

I did not say your post was an ad hominem 'attack'. I said it was ad hominem and illegal. As is your post here which is also a personal attack. Also illegal per Rule #1 for this thread.

I did not say that your view was superior. I invited you to provide an argument for why it is.

Again, if you cannot restrict your remarks to the actual comments made or offer your own insights on Michelsen's amendment and leave the other members' intent or motives out of it, I strongly suggest that you find another thread more to your liking.

Now, dragging the train back onto the tracks. . . returning to the OP, why should a state have any less power or credibility to judge the constitutionality/legality of a law imposed upon it than does the federal power that is imposing the law upon it? Michelsen argued that the federal government should not be the sole judge of whether a law or rule or regulation it imposes is constitutional.

It seems to me that when that is the case, it would be reasonable for the thief or murderer to judge his own guilt and decide for himself whether or not he should pay a fine or go to jail.

 

[RKMBrown]

So now you say you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states? Where does it say that in his proposed amendment? I read that those 25% can stop all federal bills from moving forward. Or are you saying this amendment throws out the 14th amendment?

Section 1.. "that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions." I read that as clearly stating that the 25% may throw out a bill or any law for all the states. Section 1 is not section 2.

I did not say one set of federal laws should exist for some and another set of federal laws for others. Please try to accurately represent what I said. I have consistently argued that federal laws should be representative of ALL the people are they should not prevail.

And yes, one of Michelsen's proposals is that 25% of the members of the House or Senate can protest proposed legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Obviously they would have to have a legitimate argument for why it is unconstitutional. As that would be sufficient to prevent the legislation from passing, it would be incumbant for those proposing the legislation to make a very good argument for why the legislation is constitutional and/or amend the legislation to satisfy constitutional requirements. This provision alone I believe would break much of the partisan gridlock that now exists. And if a sufficiently good argument for the constitutionality of proposed legislation cannot be made, then such legislation most likely is really bad legislation and should not pass.

You said one state could "choose to refuse to comply with impunity" any federal law. How is that different than what I said you said.. that "you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states?" Please explain how choosing whether to comply or not is not the same as one set of laws choosen to comply with for one state and another set of laws chosen to comply with for another state. I think you are taking umbrage with the phrase "you say" too much, esp. when, what I said is obviously 100% in line with your actual statements.

As for your new attempt to move the goal posts to "protesting" that's not what Michelsen's proposals state. It says nothing about protest. Again, you are coloring and reading into Michelsen what you want it to say and not actually listening to what it actually states. Further Michelsen provides no arbitration at all, the 25% can throw everything out for any reason whatsoever. You're assumption that their reason has to make sense and/or be based on some basis is unfounded. Again you are reading Michelsen and completely re-writting it in your head based on your version of what the terms mean... only to come out with a completely different meaning than I get from the same amendment.

I did not say one state could refuse to comply with impunity ANY federal law. I said Michelsen's proposed amendment would one state could refuse to comply with impunity any law it deemed unconstitutional. And what you think I 'color or read or assumed or is rewriting' into Michelsen's proposal is not the topic of this thread, is ad hominem, and is illegal per Rule #1 for this thread. Please argue for or against the actual comments made, in context, and not what you think the intent or motive of any member might be in making them. Any further posts like that will be reported. Thank you for understanding.

If you read a different meaning into the proposed amendment, you are free to state that meaning and argue why you think your interpretation is superior to mine.

Not sure why you and I don't agree what the definition of deem means. What do you think "deem" means? Who is gonna tell the state their "deeming" is invalid?

As for your accusation, that the facts I have presented are an ad hom attack. You are lying. Not sure why. Perhaps you could explain why you are making up lies about my statements and threatening me.

I did not state that my view was superior. What I stated was that the proposed amendment is completely without meaning because it introduces entirely new terms that have no meaning at all. For example, enactment. What the heck is an enactment. You apparently want to define the terms of this debate... yet you have not yet defined any of the terms that this amendment left entirely undefined.

So now you say you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states? Where does it say that in his proposed amendment? I read that those 25% can stop all federal bills from moving forward. Or are you saying this amendment throws out the 14th amendment?

Section 1.. "that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions." I read that as clearly stating that the 25% may throw out a bill or any law for all the states. Section 1 is not section 2.

I did not say one set of federal laws should exist for some and another set of federal laws for others. Please try to accurately represent what I said. I have consistently argued that federal laws should be representative of ALL the people are they should not prevail.

And yes, one of Michelsen's proposals is that 25% of the members of the House or Senate can protest proposed legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Obviously they would have to have a legitimate argument for why it is unconstitutional. As that would be sufficient to prevent the legislation from passing, it would be incumbant for those proposing the legislation to make a very good argument for why the legislation is constitutional and/or amend the legislation to satisfy constitutional requirements. This provision alone I believe would break much of the partisan gridlock that now exists. And if a sufficiently good argument for the constitutionality of proposed legislation cannot be made, then such legislation most likely is really bad legislation and should not pass.

You said one state could "choose to refuse to comply with impunity" any federal law. How is that different than what I said you said.. that "you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states?" Please explain how choosing whether to comply or not is not the same as one set of laws choosen to comply with for one state and another set of laws chosen to comply with for another state. I think you are taking umbrage with the phrase "you say" too much, esp. when, what I said is obviously 100% in line with your actual statements.

As for your new attempt to move the goal posts to "protesting" that's not what Michelsen's proposals state. It says nothing about protest. Again, you are coloring and reading into Michelsen what you want it to say and not actually listening to what it actually states. Further Michelsen provides no arbitration at all, the 25% can throw everything out for any reason whatsoever. You're assumption that their reason has to make sense and/or be based on some basis is unfounded. Again you are reading Michelsen and completely re-writting it in your head based on your version of what the terms mean... only to come out with a completely different meaning than I get from the same amendment.

I did not say one state could refuse to comply with impunity ANY federal law. I said Michelsen's proposed amendment would one state could refuse to comply with impunity any law it deemed unconstitutional. And what you think I 'color or read or assumed or is rewriting' into Michelsen's proposal is not the topic of this thread, is ad hominem, and is illegal per Rule #1 for this thread. Please argue for or against the actual comments made, in context, and not what you think the intent or motive of any member might be in making them. Any further posts like that will be reported. Thank you for understanding.

If you read a different meaning into the proposed amendment, you are free to state that meaning and argue why you think your interpretation is superior to mine.

Not sure why you and I don't agree what the definition of deem means. What do you think "deem" means? Who is gonna tell the state their "deeming" is invalid?

As for your accusation, that the facts I have presented are an ad hom attack. You are lying. Not sure why. Perhaps you could explain why you are making up lies about my statements and threatening me.

I did not state that my view was superior. What I stated was that the proposed amendment is completely without meaning because it introduces entirely new terms that have no meaning at all. For example, enactment. What the heck is an enactment. You apparently want to define the terms of this debate... yet you have not yet defined any of the terms that this amendment left entirely undefined.

"Deem" means to consider or regard in a specific manner.
"Enactment" is usually the process of passing legislation or application of something.
"Ad hominem" is making a personal attribute or observation about another member the argument rather than the content of what the member said.

If you will consult the thread rules, I reserved the right to define terms as necessary. And yes, as OP I definitely want to define the terms of this debate and have done so. That is what the structured discussion zone is intended to accomplish.

I did not say your post was an ad hominem 'attack'. I said it was ad hominem and illegal. As is your post here which is also a personal attack. Also illegal per Rule #1 for this thread.

I did not say that your view was superior. I invited you to provide an argument for why it is.

Again, if you cannot restrict your remarks to the actual comments made or offer your own insights on Michelsen's amendment and leave the other members' intent or motives out of it, I strongly suggest that you find another thread more to your liking.

Now, dragging the train back onto the tracks. . . returning to the OP, why should a state have any less power or credibility to judge the constitutionality/legality of a law imposed upon it than does the federal power that is imposing the law upon it? Michelsen argued that the federal government should not be the sole judge of whether a law or rule or regulation it imposes is constitutional.

It seems to me that when that is the case, it would be reasonable for the thief or murderer to judge his own guilt and decide for himself whether or not he should pay a fine or go to jail.

1) Then by your definition, enactment means anything at all as anything is something. Thus constitutional amendments, nay the entire constitution is something. Thus 25% can throw out the entire constitution, by your definition of enactment.
2) I have no intention of proving my view on anything in this regard is superior. That would be subjective and I have no intention of getting into a my view is better than your view argument. No thanks.
3) I have not brought your intentions into this thread. You did.
4) I did not say a state should have less power or less credibility. What I said is removing one to hand over power to another is a grand mistake. What I said, and I'm still not sure why you keep changing what I said, is that we need checks and balances and this proposed amendment throws out all current checks and balances in favor of one ran by individual States. Do you or do you not understand how checks and balances on power are supposed to work in our system? Do you or do you not understand that this amendment throws all of that out in favor of state run power?

 

[Foxfyre]

I did not say one set of federal laws should exist for some and another set of federal laws for others. Please try to accurately represent what I said. I have consistently argued that federal laws should be representative of ALL the people are they should not prevail.

And yes, one of Michelsen's proposals is that 25% of the members of the House or Senate can protest proposed legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Obviously they would have to have a legitimate argument for why it is unconstitutional. As that would be sufficient to prevent the legislation from passing, it would be incumbant for those proposing the legislation to make a very good argument for why the legislation is constitutional and/or amend the legislation to satisfy constitutional requirements. This provision alone I believe would break much of the partisan gridlock that now exists. And if a sufficiently good argument for the constitutionality of proposed legislation cannot be made, then such legislation most likely is really bad legislation and should not pass.

You said one state could "choose to refuse to comply with impunity" any federal law. How is that different than what I said you said.. that "you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states?" Please explain how choosing whether to comply or not is not the same as one set of laws choosen to comply with for one state and another set of laws chosen to comply with for another state. I think you are taking umbrage with the phrase "you say" too much, esp. when, what I said is obviously 100% in line with your actual statements.

As for your new attempt to move the goal posts to "protesting" that's not what Michelsen's proposals state. It says nothing about protest. Again, you are coloring and reading into Michelsen what you want it to say and not actually listening to what it actually states. Further Michelsen provides no arbitration at all, the 25% can throw everything out for any reason whatsoever. You're assumption that their reason has to make sense and/or be based on some basis is unfounded. Again you are reading Michelsen and completely re-writting it in your head based on your version of what the terms mean... only to come out with a completely different meaning than I get from the same amendment.

I did not say one state could refuse to comply with impunity ANY federal law. I said Michelsen's proposed amendment would one state could refuse to comply with impunity any law it deemed unconstitutional. And what you think I 'color or read or assumed or is rewriting' into Michelsen's proposal is not the topic of this thread, is ad hominem, and is illegal per Rule #1 for this thread. Please argue for or against the actual comments made, in context, and not what you think the intent or motive of any member might be in making them. Any further posts like that will be reported. Thank you for understanding.

If you read a different meaning into the proposed amendment, you are free to state that meaning and argue why you think your interpretation is superior to mine.

Not sure why you and I don't agree what the definition of deem means. What do you think "deem" means? Who is gonna tell the state their "deeming" is invalid?

As for your accusation, that the facts I have presented are an ad hom attack. You are lying. Not sure why. Perhaps you could explain why you are making up lies about my statements and threatening me.

I did not state that my view was superior. What I stated was that the proposed amendment is completely without meaning because it introduces entirely new terms that have no meaning at all. For example, enactment. What the heck is an enactment. You apparently want to define the terms of this debate... yet you have not yet defined any of the terms that this amendment left entirely undefined.

I did not say one set of federal laws should exist for some and another set of federal laws for others. Please try to accurately represent what I said. I have consistently argued that federal laws should be representative of ALL the people are they should not prevail.

And yes, one of Michelsen's proposals is that 25% of the members of the House or Senate can protest proposed legislation on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. Obviously they would have to have a legitimate argument for why it is unconstitutional. As that would be sufficient to prevent the legislation from passing, it would be incumbant for those proposing the legislation to make a very good argument for why the legislation is constitutional and/or amend the legislation to satisfy constitutional requirements. This provision alone I believe would break much of the partisan gridlock that now exists. And if a sufficiently good argument for the constitutionality of proposed legislation cannot be made, then such legislation most likely is really bad legislation and should not pass.

You said one state could "choose to refuse to comply with impunity" any federal law. How is that different than what I said you said.. that "you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states?" Please explain how choosing whether to comply or not is not the same as one set of laws choosen to comply with for one state and another set of laws chosen to comply with for another state. I think you are taking umbrage with the phrase "you say" too much, esp. when, what I said is obviously 100% in line with your actual statements.

As for your new attempt to move the goal posts to "protesting" that's not what Michelsen's proposals state. It says nothing about protest. Again, you are coloring and reading into Michelsen what you want it to say and not actually listening to what it actually states. Further Michelsen provides no arbitration at all, the 25% can throw everything out for any reason whatsoever. You're assumption that their reason has to make sense and/or be based on some basis is unfounded. Again you are reading Michelsen and completely re-writting it in your head based on your version of what the terms mean... only to come out with a completely different meaning than I get from the same amendment.

I did not say one state could refuse to comply with impunity ANY federal law. I said Michelsen's proposed amendment would one state could refuse to comply with impunity any law it deemed unconstitutional. And what you think I 'color or read or assumed or is rewriting' into Michelsen's proposal is not the topic of this thread, is ad hominem, and is illegal per Rule #1 for this thread. Please argue for or against the actual comments made, in context, and not what you think the intent or motive of any member might be in making them. Any further posts like that will be reported. Thank you for understanding.

If you read a different meaning into the proposed amendment, you are free to state that meaning and argue why you think your interpretation is superior to mine.

Not sure why you and I don't agree what the definition of deem means. What do you think "deem" means? Who is gonna tell the state their "deeming" is invalid?

As for your accusation, that the facts I have presented are an ad hom attack. You are lying. Not sure why. Perhaps you could explain why you are making up lies about my statements and threatening me.

I did not state that my view was superior. What I stated was that the proposed amendment is completely without meaning because it introduces entirely new terms that have no meaning at all. For example, enactment. What the heck is an enactment. You apparently want to define the terms of this debate... yet you have not yet defined any of the terms that this amendment left entirely undefined.

"Deem" means to consider or regard in a specific manner.
"Enactment" is usually the process of passing legislation or application of something.
"Ad hominem" is making a personal attribute or observation about another member the argument rather than the content of what the member said.

If you will consult the thread rules, I reserved the right to define terms as necessary. And yes, as OP I definitely want to define the terms of this debate and have done so. That is what the structured discussion zone is intended to accomplish.

I did not say your post was an ad hominem 'attack'. I said it was ad hominem and illegal. As is your post here which is also a personal attack. Also illegal per Rule #1 for this thread.

I did not say that your view was superior. I invited you to provide an argument for why it is.

Again, if you cannot restrict your remarks to the actual comments made or offer your own insights on Michelsen's amendment and leave the other members' intent or motives out of it, I strongly suggest that you find another thread more to your liking.

Now, dragging the train back onto the tracks. . . returning to the OP, why should a state have any less power or credibility to judge the constitutionality/legality of a law imposed upon it than does the federal power that is imposing the law upon it? Michelsen argued that the federal government should not be the sole judge of whether a law or rule or regulation it imposes is constitutional.

It seems to me that when that is the case, it would be reasonable for the thief or murderer to judge his own guilt and decide for himself whether or not he should pay a fine or go to jail.

1) Then by your definition, enactment means anything at all as anything is something. Thus constitutional amendments, nay the entire constitution is something. Thus 25% can throw out the entire constitution, by your definition of enactment.
2) I have no intention of proving my view on anything in this regard is superior. That would be subjective and I have no intention of getting into a my view is better than your view argument. No thanks.
3) I have not brought your intentions into this thread. You did.
4) I did not say a state should have less power or less credibility. What I said is removing one to hand over power to another is a grand mistake. What I said, and I'm still not sure why you keep changing what I said, is that we need checks and balances and this proposed amendment throws out all current checks and balances in favor of one ran by individual States. Do you or do you not understand how checks and balances on power are supposed to work in our system? Do you or do you not understand that this amendment throws all of that out in favor of state run power?

Enactment means exactly as it has been defined.

I have not changed a thing you have said. I have corrected some things you have said that I said that I didn't.

And unless you can show how checks and balances are thrown out by returning power to the states and the people, the rest of your post doesn't make much sense. And what I or anybody else understands is irrelevent to making or defending an argument.

 

[dcraelin]

That was NOT the point of the Senate.............to the extent it was modeled on the English House of Lords you could say it was intended to foster tyranny............but mainly it was just an expedient move to assure States their sovereignty.

The majority are not always right, of course not, just that the lex majoris partis......as referred to at the time of the revolution....had a greater chance of being right than handing over power to a minority.

Yet another false meme of authoritarians... if the majority don't have tyranny well then the minority does. False! Checks on tyranny do not provide a tyranny. Liberty is not the liberty of the majority to screw over minority groups.

well that depends on the nature of the checks.....if you appeal to a larger majority, that is a true check........if you appeal to a minority...then it has a potential to be tyranny.

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law ............. to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

ROFL.. power to the tyranny of the majority!!

How so. I don't see that dcraelin arguing for a tyranny of the majority at all. He is presenting Jefferson's argument that the majority vote is imperfect in effect, but superior to any other form of government.

I am not sure these are Jefferson's words, but they do summarize where he was coming from:

The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people's voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority. This is not a perfect way of controlling government, but the alternatives--decisions made by a minority, or by one person--are even worse and are the source of great evil. To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction.​

Jefferson expressed this on dozens of occasions to numerous people. Some examples:

"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332

"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809. ME 16:456

"And where else will [Hume,] this degenerate son of science, this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?" --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:44

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337

"Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:321

BUT. . .Jefferson was not addressing compliance with the Constitution in those comments. Here he is:

"It was understood to be a rule of law that where the words of a statute admit of two constructions, the one just and the other unjust, the former is to be given them." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:326

"When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:418

"Where a phrase is susceptible of two meanings, we ought certainly to adopt that which will bring upon us the fewest inconveniences." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Apportionment Bill, 1792. ME 3:208

"The general rule [is] that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1816. ME 14:445

"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408

DC said "if you appeal to a larger majority, that is a true check." That is the very definition of tyranny of the majority. Minority be dammed power to the majority!!! Deny it if you will... but it's a plain fact. Not sure why you two don't understand, or at least don't echo the very simple concept of checks and balances.

its simple, if you appeal to a minority.........which minority do you appeal to?

 

[RKMBrown]

You said one state could "choose to refuse to comply with impunity" any federal law. How is that different than what I said you said.. that "you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states?" Please explain how choosing whether to comply or not is not the same as one set of laws choosen to comply with for one state and another set of laws chosen to comply with for another state. I think you are taking umbrage with the phrase "you say" too much, esp. when, what I said is obviously 100% in line with your actual statements.

As for your new attempt to move the goal posts to "protesting" that's not what Michelsen's proposals state. It says nothing about protest. Again, you are coloring and reading into Michelsen what you want it to say and not actually listening to what it actually states. Further Michelsen provides no arbitration at all, the 25% can throw everything out for any reason whatsoever. You're assumption that their reason has to make sense and/or be based on some basis is unfounded. Again you are reading Michelsen and completely re-writting it in your head based on your version of what the terms mean... only to come out with a completely different meaning than I get from the same amendment.

I did not say one state could refuse to comply with impunity ANY federal law. I said Michelsen's proposed amendment would one state could refuse to comply with impunity any law it deemed unconstitutional. And what you think I 'color or read or assumed or is rewriting' into Michelsen's proposal is not the topic of this thread, is ad hominem, and is illegal per Rule #1 for this thread. Please argue for or against the actual comments made, in context, and not what you think the intent or motive of any member might be in making them. Any further posts like that will be reported. Thank you for understanding.

If you read a different meaning into the proposed amendment, you are free to state that meaning and argue why you think your interpretation is superior to mine.

Not sure why you and I don't agree what the definition of deem means. What do you think "deem" means? Who is gonna tell the state their "deeming" is invalid?

As for your accusation, that the facts I have presented are an ad hom attack. You are lying. Not sure why. Perhaps you could explain why you are making up lies about my statements and threatening me.

I did not state that my view was superior. What I stated was that the proposed amendment is completely without meaning because it introduces entirely new terms that have no meaning at all. For example, enactment. What the heck is an enactment. You apparently want to define the terms of this debate... yet you have not yet defined any of the terms that this amendment left entirely undefined.

You said one state could "choose to refuse to comply with impunity" any federal law. How is that different than what I said you said.. that "you think this amendment means one set of federal laws for some states and another set of laws for other states?" Please explain how choosing whether to comply or not is not the same as one set of laws choosen to comply with for one state and another set of laws chosen to comply with for another state. I think you are taking umbrage with the phrase "you say" too much, esp. when, what I said is obviously 100% in line with your actual statements.

As for your new attempt to move the goal posts to "protesting" that's not what Michelsen's proposals state. It says nothing about protest. Again, you are coloring and reading into Michelsen what you want it to say and not actually listening to what it actually states. Further Michelsen provides no arbitration at all, the 25% can throw everything out for any reason whatsoever. You're assumption that their reason has to make sense and/or be based on some basis is unfounded. Again you are reading Michelsen and completely re-writting it in your head based on your version of what the terms mean... only to come out with a completely different meaning than I get from the same amendment.

I did not say one state could refuse to comply with impunity ANY federal law. I said Michelsen's proposed amendment would one state could refuse to comply with impunity any law it deemed unconstitutional. And what you think I 'color or read or assumed or is rewriting' into Michelsen's proposal is not the topic of this thread, is ad hominem, and is illegal per Rule #1 for this thread. Please argue for or against the actual comments made, in context, and not what you think the intent or motive of any member might be in making them. Any further posts like that will be reported. Thank you for understanding.

If you read a different meaning into the proposed amendment, you are free to state that meaning and argue why you think your interpretation is superior to mine.

Not sure why you and I don't agree what the definition of deem means. What do you think "deem" means? Who is gonna tell the state their "deeming" is invalid?

As for your accusation, that the facts I have presented are an ad hom attack. You are lying. Not sure why. Perhaps you could explain why you are making up lies about my statements and threatening me.

I did not state that my view was superior. What I stated was that the proposed amendment is completely without meaning because it introduces entirely new terms that have no meaning at all. For example, enactment. What the heck is an enactment. You apparently want to define the terms of this debate... yet you have not yet defined any of the terms that this amendment left entirely undefined.

"Deem" means to consider or regard in a specific manner.
"Enactment" is usually the process of passing legislation or application of something.
"Ad hominem" is making a personal attribute or observation about another member the argument rather than the content of what the member said.

If you will consult the thread rules, I reserved the right to define terms as necessary. And yes, as OP I definitely want to define the terms of this debate and have done so. That is what the structured discussion zone is intended to accomplish.

I did not say your post was an ad hominem 'attack'. I said it was ad hominem and illegal. As is your post here which is also a personal attack. Also illegal per Rule #1 for this thread.

I did not say that your view was superior. I invited you to provide an argument for why it is.

Again, if you cannot restrict your remarks to the actual comments made or offer your own insights on Michelsen's amendment and leave the other members' intent or motives out of it, I strongly suggest that you find another thread more to your liking.

Now, dragging the train back onto the tracks. . . returning to the OP, why should a state have any less power or credibility to judge the constitutionality/legality of a law imposed upon it than does the federal power that is imposing the law upon it? Michelsen argued that the federal government should not be the sole judge of whether a law or rule or regulation it imposes is constitutional.

It seems to me that when that is the case, it would be reasonable for the thief or murderer to judge his own guilt and decide for himself whether or not he should pay a fine or go to jail.

1) Then by your definition, enactment means anything at all as anything is something. Thus constitutional amendments, nay the entire constitution is something. Thus 25% can throw out the entire constitution, by your definition of enactment.
2) I have no intention of proving my view on anything in this regard is superior. That would be subjective and I have no intention of getting into a my view is better than your view argument. No thanks.
3) I have not brought your intentions into this thread. You did.
4) I did not say a state should have less power or less credibility. What I said is removing one to hand over power to another is a grand mistake. What I said, and I'm still not sure why you keep changing what I said, is that we need checks and balances and this proposed amendment throws out all current checks and balances in favor of one ran by individual States. Do you or do you not understand how checks and balances on power are supposed to work in our system? Do you or do you not understand that this amendment throws all of that out in favor of state run power?

Enactment means exactly as it has been defined.

I have not changed a thing you have said. I have corrected some things you have said that I said that I didn't.

And unless you can show how checks and balances are thrown out by returning power to the states and the people, the rest of your post doesn't make much sense. And what I or anybody else understands is irrelevent to making or defending an argument.

I have proven that the things I said you said were true. In each case, I quoted you directly. I did not edit your statements, not one word. The things you say you corrected were falsifications made up by you. You repeatedly make up these accusations about me and other USMB members. You have been shown on numerous occasions to exhibit a recurring theme of threatening USMB members with being reported for ad-hom attacks. Not sure why you feel the need to continue to make up lies and threaten me and other members of this board. Perhaps you should keep to your own rules, stop your attacks on me, and focus on the OP.

As I stated your definition of enactment as meaning "something" means that enactment can be literally anything whatsoever. If an enactment is anything whatsoever, that means the entire Constitution and everything in it is subject to the 25% rule. Which by your own statements contradicts your definition of enactment. So, want to try again and come up with a definition of enactment that does not cover everything written down by our federal government starting from the forming of this country?

Again, how can there be any checks on state power if the states hold all the power as defined by your definition of the proposed amendments?

 

[RKMBrown]

Yet another false meme of authoritarians... if the majority don't have tyranny well then the minority does. False! Checks on tyranny do not provide a tyranny. Liberty is not the liberty of the majority to screw over minority groups.

well that depends on the nature of the checks.....if you appeal to a larger majority, that is a true check........if you appeal to a minority...then it has a potential to be tyranny.

"The first principle of republicanism is that the lex majoris partis is the fundamental law ............. to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military despotism." --Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817. ME 15:127

ROFL.. power to the tyranny of the majority!!

How so. I don't see that dcraelin arguing for a tyranny of the majority at all. He is presenting Jefferson's argument that the majority vote is imperfect in effect, but superior to any other form of government.

I am not sure these are Jefferson's words, but they do summarize where he was coming from:

The only way a republican government can function, and the only way a people's voice can be expressed to effect a practicable control of government, is through a process in which decisions are made by the majority. This is not a perfect way of controlling government, but the alternatives--decisions made by a minority, or by one person--are even worse and are the source of great evil. To be just, majority decisions must be in the best interest of all the people, not just one faction.​

Jefferson expressed this on dozens of occasions to numerous people. Some examples:

"The will of the people... is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801. ME 10:236

"The measures of the fair majority... ought always to be respected." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792. ME 8:397

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332

"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809. ME 16:456

"And where else will [Hume,] this degenerate son of science, this traitor to his fellow men, find the origin of just powers, if not in the majority of the society? Will it be in the minority? Or in an individual of that minority?" --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:44

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them." --Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337

"Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:321

BUT. . .Jefferson was not addressing compliance with the Constitution in those comments. Here he is:

"It was understood to be a rule of law that where the words of a statute admit of two constructions, the one just and the other unjust, the former is to be given them." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:326

"When an instrument admits two constructions, the one safe, the other dangerous, the one precise, the other indefinite, I prefer that which is safe and precise. I had rather ask an enlargement of power from the nation, where it is found necessary, than to assume it by a construction which would make our powers boundless." --Thomas Jefferson to Wilson Nicholas, 1803. ME 10:418

"Where a phrase is susceptible of two meanings, we ought certainly to adopt that which will bring upon us the fewest inconveniences." --Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Apportionment Bill, 1792. ME 3:208

"The general rule [is] that an instrument is to be so construed as to reconcile and give meaning and effect to all its parts." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1816. ME 14:445

"In every event, I would rather construe so narrowly as to oblige the nation to amend, and thus declare what powers they would agree to yield, than too broadly, and indeed, so broadly as to enable the executive and the Senate to do things which the Constitution forbids." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:408

DC said "if you appeal to a larger majority, that is a true check." That is the very definition of tyranny of the majority. Minority be dammed power to the majority!!! Deny it if you will... but it's a plain fact. Not sure why you two don't understand, or at least don't echo the very simple concept of checks and balances.

its simple, if you appeal to a minority.........which minority do you appeal to?

The constitution is not about math, it's about protecting rights of individuals.

 

[candycorn]

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.

The structure of our system can be of such a form that it enables or fosters corruption.....so Congress can be corrupt, so the SC can be corrupt. ....

and they are......WE need to restructure government to give the people more power

Duh.

As long as humans are involved, there is a chance of corruption. In the past when we had corrupt legislators, we voted them out. Judges have been removed, not confirmed, etc... Nothing new under the sun except for the group that is screaming blood murder.