Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
With each subsequent generation of politicians, they work to tighten the strangle-hold of elections and their assurances that they will win those elections.For the 5th time, if you don't like the laws, use you right to vote to change them. If you think nobody is worthy of your vote, RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF.
Regardless, the Constitution has worked for 220+ years...leave it alone.
There are many of us who do not feel the Constitution is working well because there are too many people in government who neither respect it or give it much concern at all. The purpose of this thread is to discuss that. If you do not wish to discuss that I will wish you a pleasant evening and suggest any number of other threads out there that might be of greater interest.
And, again, what is wrong with voting them out of office?
Worked for our fathers.
Worked for their fathers.
Worked for their fathers too.
A lone politician is unable to gather enough momentum to effect changes that are needed. Additionally, with a two party system, the parties ensure that the people who will be elected will aid them in continuing to tighten the noose around their hegemony. As it stands today, it takes an almost cataclysmic event to get real change in our government. Those in power know they have only to out wait the outrage and it goes back to business as usual.
The constitution is not about math, it's about protecting rights of individuals.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.ROFL.. power to the tyranny of the majority!!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
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
its simple, if you appeal to a minority.........which minority do you appeal to?
What slaves? Do you know any slaves?The constitution is not about math, it's about protecting rights of individuals.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.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
its simple, if you appeal to a minority.........which minority do you appeal to?
tell that to the slaves
duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........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.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?
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.
What slaves? Do you know any slaves?The constitution is not about math, it's about protecting rights of individuals.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.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
its simple, if you appeal to a minority.........which minority do you appeal to?
tell that to the slaves
duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........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.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?
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.
STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.
duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........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.
STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.
I didn't read it closely. You didn't really contradict me; you stated your opinion. It's not worth blowing up the system, forcing super majorities, tinkering with the Constitution, etc...
If someone is corrupt, educate yourself and vote them out. Does wonders. Again, it's what our fathers did, what their fathers did, and what their fathers did. We can do the same thing.
duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........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.
STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.
I didn't read it closely. You didn't really contradict me; you stated your opinion. It's not worth blowing up the system, forcing super majorities, tinkering with the Constitution, etc...
If someone is corrupt, educate yourself and vote them out. Does wonders. Again, it's what our fathers did, what their fathers did, and what their fathers did. We can do the same thing.
they may have thought they did...but things just keep on getting worse..its small corruptions piling up...small corruptions that arent going to turn a lot of voters away from the candidate of the party they out of habit always cheer-lead for.
now, I dont agree with forcing super-majorities.......I believe in appealing to larger majorities.
getting rid of the illogical current structure of the Senate
and perhaps as Franklin suggested, doing away with the presidency.....which ends up being just one cult-of-personality versus another
duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........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.
STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.
I didn't read it closely. You didn't really contradict me; you stated your opinion. It's not worth blowing up the system, forcing super majorities, tinkering with the Constitution, etc...
If someone is corrupt, educate yourself and vote them out. Does wonders. Again, it's what our fathers did, what their fathers did, and what their fathers did. We can do the same thing.
they may have thought they did...but things just keep on getting worse..its small corruptions piling up...small corruptions that arent going to turn a lot of voters away from the candidate of the party they out of habit always cheer-lead for.
now, I dont agree with forcing super-majorities.......I believe in appealing to larger majorities.
getting rid of the illogical current structure of the Senate
and perhaps as Franklin suggested, doing away with the presidency.....which ends up being just one cult-of-personality versus another
I think Franklin was wrong about the presidency. He is one more check and balance against an overreaching Congress, but he should not be allowed to issue executive orders with the force of law on the people. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.
Sometimes I wish the President could also veto the SCOTUS and force THEM to come up with a 3/4ths majority to override his veto. (That isn't a proposal--it's just a sentiment based on what I believe to be really unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions over the last several decades with no way to really remedy the damage done by those decisions.) We need a means to bust SCOTUS back to being the arbitrator and judge in disputes and disallowed from making new law. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.
But we do need a CEO of the country to be held accountable to see that the various agencies of the government do their jobs competently, honestly, and legally. What DOES need to change is the Congress who sets up a massive expensive program and then leaves it to bureaucrats to write the rules and regulations to implement it, such rules and regulations that then have the force of law and are forced on the people by folks who were never elected to anything. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.
duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........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.
STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.
I didn't read it closely. You didn't really contradict me; you stated your opinion. It's not worth blowing up the system, forcing super majorities, tinkering with the Constitution, etc...
If someone is corrupt, educate yourself and vote them out. Does wonders. Again, it's what our fathers did, what their fathers did, and what their fathers did. We can do the same thing.
they may have thought they did...but things just keep on getting worse..its small corruptions piling up...small corruptions that arent going to turn a lot of voters away from the candidate of the party they out of habit always cheer-lead for.
now, I dont agree with forcing super-majorities.......I believe in appealing to larger majorities.
getting rid of the illogical current structure of the Senate
and perhaps as Franklin suggested, doing away with the presidency.....which ends up being just one cult-of-personality versus another
I think Franklin was wrong about the presidency. He is one more check and balance against an overreaching Congress, but he should not be allowed to issue executive orders with the force of law on the people. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.
Sometimes I wish the President could also veto the SCOTUS and force THEM to come up with a 3/4ths majority to override his veto. (That isn't a proposal--it's just a sentiment based on what I believe to be really unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions over the last several decades with no way to really remedy the damage done by those decisions.) We need a means to bust SCOTUS back to being the arbitrator and judge in disputes and disallowed from making new law. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.
But we do need a CEO of the country to be held accountable to see that the various agencies of the government do their jobs competently, honestly, and legally. What DOES need to change is the Congress who sets up a massive expensive program and then leaves it to bureaucrats to write the rules and regulations to implement it, such rules and regulations that then have the force of law and are forced on the people by folks who were never elected to anything. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.
if you don't mention that what you support is very very conservative people will have no idea on God's green earth how one would implement such a proposal nor in what historical context the subject resides. You have made the subject utterly meaningless. Perhaps you think if you hide the labels used in the voting booth liberals will naturally be able to agree with you and then realize that they are conservatives after all? I can't imagine that working in 10000 years.
Stand back ya jackwagon. You're in the presence of a true patriot.What slaves? Do you know any slaves?The constitution is not about math, it's about protecting rights of individuals.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?
tell that to the slaves
ha,........ your idea that the Constitution was about "protecting rights of individuals." is simply unhistorical nonsense.
duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........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.
STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.
I didn't read it closely. You didn't really contradict me; you stated your opinion. It's not worth blowing up the system, forcing super majorities, tinkering with the Constitution, etc...
If someone is corrupt, educate yourself and vote them out. Does wonders. Again, it's what our fathers did, what their fathers did, and what their fathers did. We can do the same thing.
they may have thought they did...but things just keep on getting worse..its small corruptions piling up...small corruptions that arent going to turn a lot of voters away from the candidate of the party they out of habit always cheer-lead for.
now, I dont agree with forcing super-majorities.......I believe in appealing to larger majorities.
getting rid of the illogical current structure of the Senate
and perhaps as Franklin suggested, doing away with the presidency.....which ends up being just one cult-of-personality versus another
I think Franklin was wrong about the presidency. He is one more check and balance against an overreaching Congress, but he should not be allowed to issue executive orders with the force of law on the people. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.
Sometimes I wish the President could also veto the SCOTUS and force THEM to come up with a 3/4ths majority to override his veto. (That isn't a proposal--it's just a sentiment based on what I believe to be really unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions over the last several decades with no way to really remedy the damage done by those decisions.) We need a means to bust SCOTUS back to being the arbitrator and judge in disputes and disallowed from making new law. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.
But we do need a CEO of the country to be held accountable to see that the various agencies of the government do their jobs competently, honestly, and legally. What DOES need to change is the Congress who sets up a massive expensive program and then leaves it to bureaucrats to write the rules and regulations to implement it, such rules and regulations that then have the force of law and are forced on the people by folks who were never elected to anything. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.
without dragging partisan politics into it.
Tissue?Stand back ya jackwagon. You're in the presence of a true patriot.What slaves? Do you know any slaves?The constitution is not about math, it's about protecting rights of individuals.
tell that to the slaves
ha,........ your idea that the Constitution was about "protecting rights of individuals." is simply unhistorical nonsense.
bravo, I actually had to look that up.........
youre not a true patriot, youre just a pompus ass
Then the Senate couldn't pile up legislation in Harry Reid's Graveyard of bills proposed by the House................Whether I agree with the bills or not, and I agree with some of them stacked up, I agree with the intent to stop Partisan bills from getting passed................I want it hard to create new laws...............and I also want it hard for any of the 2 parties to have majority power in the House, Senate, and Executive Branches.............It is supposed to FORCE compromise, just as the Constitution was a compromise......................and hopefully get a Compromise bill that all would agree enough to say this is the right law for the purpose as intended...................duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........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.
STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.
I didn't read it closely. You didn't really contradict me; you stated your opinion. It's not worth blowing up the system, forcing super majorities, tinkering with the Constitution, etc...
If someone is corrupt, educate yourself and vote them out. Does wonders. Again, it's what our fathers did, what their fathers did, and what their fathers did. We can do the same thing.
they may have thought they did...but things just keep on getting worse..its small corruptions piling up...small corruptions that arent going to turn a lot of voters away from the candidate of the party they out of habit always cheer-lead for.
now, I dont agree with forcing super-majorities.......I believe in appealing to larger majorities.
getting rid of the illogical current structure of the Senate
and perhaps as Franklin suggested, doing away with the presidency.....which ends up being just one cult-of-personality versus another
I think Franklin was wrong about the presidency. He is one more check and balance against an overreaching Congress, but he should not be allowed to issue executive orders with the force of law on the people. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.
Sometimes I wish the President could also veto the SCOTUS and force THEM to come up with a 3/4ths majority to override his veto. (That isn't a proposal--it's just a sentiment based on what I believe to be really unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions over the last several decades with no way to really remedy the damage done by those decisions.) We need a means to bust SCOTUS back to being the arbitrator and judge in disputes and disallowed from making new law. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.
But we do need a CEO of the country to be held accountable to see that the various agencies of the government do their jobs competently, honestly, and legally. What DOES need to change is the Congress who sets up a massive expensive program and then leaves it to bureaucrats to write the rules and regulations to implement it, such rules and regulations that then have the force of law and are forced on the people by folks who were never elected to anything. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.
I dont think people hold the president accountable on any real standard anyway. Its based on partisan cheerleading
But the propsal to have the president able to veto the SCOTUS is interesting and makes more sense than Mickelsons amendment.
Checks and balances tho are as Henry implied largely BS.
without dragging partisan politics into it.
it is 100% about partisan politics. When you take the labels off it has no context and therefore no meaning at all. If your watch Bill O'Reilly he tries the exact same act and I guess it works for him?
Then the Senate couldn't pile up legislation in Harry Reid's Graveyard of bills proposed by the House................Whether I agree with the bills or not, and I agree with some of them stacked up, I agree with the intent to stop Partisan bills from getting passed................I want it hard to create new laws...............and I also want it hard for any of the 2 parties to have majority power in the House, Senate, and Executive Branches.............It is supposed to FORCE compromise, just as the Constitution was a compromise......................and hopefully get a Compromise bill that all would agree enough to say this is the right law for the purpose as intended...................duh?....I just contradicted you and you say duh as if I didnt...you agreed with me all along..........
STRUCTURE.....can address some of this.............will it eliminate all corruption...no...but it can help.
I didn't read it closely. You didn't really contradict me; you stated your opinion. It's not worth blowing up the system, forcing super majorities, tinkering with the Constitution, etc...
If someone is corrupt, educate yourself and vote them out. Does wonders. Again, it's what our fathers did, what their fathers did, and what their fathers did. We can do the same thing.
they may have thought they did...but things just keep on getting worse..its small corruptions piling up...small corruptions that arent going to turn a lot of voters away from the candidate of the party they out of habit always cheer-lead for.
now, I dont agree with forcing super-majorities.......I believe in appealing to larger majorities.
getting rid of the illogical current structure of the Senate
and perhaps as Franklin suggested, doing away with the presidency.....which ends up being just one cult-of-personality versus another
I think Franklin was wrong about the presidency. He is one more check and balance against an overreaching Congress, but he should not be allowed to issue executive orders with the force of law on the people. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.
Sometimes I wish the President could also veto the SCOTUS and force THEM to come up with a 3/4ths majority to override his veto. (That isn't a proposal--it's just a sentiment based on what I believe to be really unconstitutional SCOTUS decisions over the last several decades with no way to really remedy the damage done by those decisions.) We need a means to bust SCOTUS back to being the arbitrator and judge in disputes and disallowed from making new law. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.
But we do need a CEO of the country to be held accountable to see that the various agencies of the government do their jobs competently, honestly, and legally. What DOES need to change is the Congress who sets up a massive expensive program and then leaves it to bureaucrats to write the rules and regulations to implement it, such rules and regulations that then have the force of law and are forced on the people by folks who were never elected to anything. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment would help with that.
I dont think people hold the president accountable on any real standard anyway. Its based on partisan cheerleading
But the propsal to have the president able to veto the SCOTUS is interesting and makes more sense than Mickelsons amendment.
Checks and balances tho are as Henry implied largely BS.
But now there is a divide along party lines......................and along these lines is how it goes down, and usually without the compromises as the Founders HOPED WE WOULD HAVE THE WISDOM TO DO...................and that part has failed...............to the point of My Way or the Highway in new legislation..............
The Checks are still there...........but not working the way it should be.................
In most cases, both sides are right...................and both sides are wrong................and the best answer is in the middle..............
Not Earmarks as bribes................bills should stand on their own merit alone or not be passed..............and if you have to bribe people to get a vote then that bill is not worth coming into law............and finally............those people shouldn't be in office if they think it is correct to bribe to get their votes....................It's wrong and part of the corruption we are trying to stop..................
We could ease this whole process on the OP................by pushing final ratification of laws by the states.............2/3rd's of the State legislature to Vett all new laws..................aka vote it up or down instead of the Senate or via the Senate recording the vote by voting in the Senate by instruction of the State Legislatures...............33 States need to approve the new law............................and now the States have their voice MOST CLEARLY HEARD..........
And on Judicial appointments..........................do the same thing.............2/3rd's to approve new Federal Judges.............and nominations to SCOTUS.......
