Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[eagle1462010]

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.

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...................

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.......

And how about it mandatory to have a 2/3rds or no less than 7 to 2 majority in order for SCOTUS to make a ruling. 5 to 4 is utterly ridiculous when it comes to constitutional integrity--how can something have constitutional integrity if half the justices disagree? Either they don't know their constitution or they are refusing to follow it.

I wouldn't have a problem with that..................If they can't come to a consensus based on the Constitution then I'd say they aren't doing there jobs or are using their political beliefs to make the decision...................They are appointed by party and by and large they vote along party lines on controversial subjects..................which to me seems we have the wrong people up there................If they are the experts on the Constitution............it's hard to see why they aren't almost all on the same page and vote all the time.................

I've reread the original Op many times................and much of what I've been saying is written at that site on the frustration of the standard way of doing business that I have cited as well...................His proposal is to use a Super Majority to pass anything at 75%, and use 25% down vote for shutting down a new law.............which is basically the same thing as if you have more than 25% against it then the Majority of 3/4ths don't apply.............I still think that is to high a number but understand it....................2/3rd's seems more reasonable..............

Either way, the corruption needs to end..............especially with life long politicians and Earmarks, back door dealings, and out right bribes attached like leaches to virtually every bill passed..............

We could simplify that as well............BAN EARMARKS................You can no longer use bribes to get the votes..............If these Earmarks are worth their salt, then they should stand are fall on their own merit................and most would not.............if put to a vote by themselves..................It is an abuse of the system if you ask me.

 

[candycorn]

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.

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

So, now, we're magically at a tipping point? Somehow (if the recent decisions had gone differently) I doubt that tipping point would be here--or decades from getting here in some person's minds.

 

[candycorn]

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.

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...................

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.......

And how about it mandatory to have a 2/3rds or no less than 7 to 2 majority in order for SCOTUS to make a ruling? 5 to 4 is utterly ridiculous when it comes to constitutional integrity--how can something have constitutional integrity if half the justices disagree? Either they don't know their constitution or they are refusing to follow it.

Worked for 200+ years.
Continues to work now.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

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...................

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.......

I think that is a recipe for gridlock.......where existing problems get set in stone

 

[dcraelin]

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.

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

So, now, we're magically at a tipping point? Somehow (if the recent decisions had gone differently) I doubt that tipping point would be here--or decades from getting here in some person's minds.

different events highlight the problem for different individuals...........thats just the nature of things.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So, now, we're magically at a tipping point? .

yes tipping point for sure: communist president, permanent recession, international chaos, liberal attack on love, family and schools.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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...................

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.......

I think that is a recipe for gridlock.......where existing problems get set in stone

But why? Now you have one partisan group pushing legislation that is unacceptable to the other partisan group and that creates gridlock. Neither gives a damn about what anybody else thinks--they just work to create a majority on their side and then can steamroller over everybody else. Whether or not the legislation is constitutional or not probably does not factor into the process a good deal.

But what if they HAD to work with the other side and HAD to have votes from the other side to pass a piece of legislation? Wouldn't they then have to consider the concerns of the others and work to achieve consensus? It might still be gridlock but it sure as heck would be a lot healthier than what we have now.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It might still be gridlock but it sure as heck would be a lot healthier than what we have now.

1) Founders wanted gridlock because they knew we were stupid and what we would do would be liberal and stupid. If they wanted action we'd have a king.

2) liberalism is violence, i.e. taking over govt and then forcing their will on you. For them acquiring a majority is like acquiring a gun.

3) conservatives are peaceful and love liberty. If you want welfare for lazy slobs feel free to pay all you want or to move to a state that forces you to pay what that state wants but leave others free to not pay for welfare and to move to states that don't require payments.

4) there is nothing healthy about forcing liberals and conservative to work together. They will still be liberals and conservatives

5) the only solution is another country with a clearly written Constitution that clearly makes liberalism illegal as our Founders intended.

 

[Foxfyre]

It might still be gridlock but it sure as heck would be a lot healthier than what we have now.

1) Founders wanted gridlock because they knew we were stupid and what we would do would be liberal and stupid. If they wanted action we'd have a king.

2) liberalism is violence, i.e. taking over govt and then forcing their will on you. For them acquiring a majority is like acquiring a gun.

3) conservatives are peaceful and love liberty. If you want welfare for lazy slobs feel free to pay all you want or to move to a state that forces you to pay what that state wants but leave others free to not pay for welfare and to move to states that don't require payments.

4) there is nothing healthy about forcing liberals and conservative to work together. They will still be liberals and conservatives

5) the only solution is another country with a clearly written Constitution that clearly makes liberalism illegal as our Founders intended.

While your post posted here dangerously pushes the thread rules specified in the OP, I will say that the Founders did not want gridlock. They wanted limited central government in which ideology and/or partisanship would have minimal effect via the constitutional limits on that government.

And then they intended liberals to be able to be liberals on their own turf in peace, no matter what anybody else thought about liberals. And they intended conservatives to be able to be conservatives on their own turf in peace, no matter what anybody else thought about conservatives. Ditto saints, sinners, racists, bigots, idealists, Christians, atheists, and everything in between. If one state wanted a narrow minded rigid theocracy, it was their inalienable right to be who and what they were. If another state wanted almost no law and pretty much a wide open anarchy, that was also its unalienable right to have.

As the Founders defined liberty, liberty must allow people to be wrong if they choose to be wrong, and nobody else must be given authority to dictate virtue to them even as they knew, pretty much to a man, that the Constitutional would work only for a mostly religious and moral people.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

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...................

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.......

I think that is a recipe for gridlock.......where existing problems get set in stone

But why? Now you have one partisan group pushing legislation that is unacceptable to the other partisan group and that creates gridlock. Neither gives a damn about what anybody else thinks--they just work to create a majority on their side and then can steamroller over everybody else. Whether or not the legislation is constitutional or not probably does not factor into the process a good deal.

But what if they HAD to work with the other side and HAD to have votes from the other side to pass a piece of legislation? Wouldn't they then have to consider the concerns of the others and work to achieve consensus? It might still be gridlock but it sure as heck would be a lot healthier than what we have now.

we basically have somewhat of a copy of your idea in the Senate now, with the filibuster.........it perhaps does lead to compromise in some areas.........that dole out graft........and that betray the American people.........like the TPAuthority..and numerous idiotic trade deals.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

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...................

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.......

I think that is a recipe for gridlock.......where existing problems get set in stone

But why? Now you have one partisan group pushing legislation that is unacceptable to the other partisan group and that creates gridlock. Neither gives a damn about what anybody else thinks--they just work to create a majority on their side and then can steamroller over everybody else. Whether or not the legislation is constitutional or not probably does not factor into the process a good deal.

But what if they HAD to work with the other side and HAD to have votes from the other side to pass a piece of legislation? Wouldn't they then have to consider the concerns of the others and work to achieve consensus? It might still be gridlock but it sure as heck would be a lot healthier than what we have now.

we basically have somewhat of a copy of your idea in the Senate now, with the filibuster.........it perhaps does lead to compromise in some areas.........that dole out graft........and that betray the American people.........like the TPAuthority..and numerous idiotic trade deals.

Yep. But again the filibuster is not mostly used in the modern day Senate as a means to achieve compromise. It is mostly used to obstruct. It is the only tool allowed to prevent a tyranny of the political majority in power. I think Michelsen's amendment would so change the culture of the House and Senate, that they would enter into the process with the goal of achieving legislation that most could be comfortable with and live with. Now it is much more a mentality of winner take all or my way or nothing.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It might still be gridlock but it sure as heck would be a lot healthier than what we have now.

1) Founders wanted gridlock because they knew we were stupid and what we would do would be liberal and stupid. If they wanted action we'd have a king.

2) liberalism is violence, i.e. taking over govt and then forcing their will on you. For them acquiring a majority is like acquiring a gun.

3) conservatives are peaceful and love liberty. If you want welfare for lazy slobs feel free to pay all you want or to move to a state that forces you to pay what that state wants but leave others free to not pay for welfare and to move to states that don't require payments.

4) there is nothing healthy about forcing liberals and conservative to work together. They will still be liberals and conservatives

5) the only solution is another country with a clearly written Constitution that clearly makes liberalism illegal as our Founders intended.

While your post posted here dangerously pushes the thread rules specified in the OP, I will say that the Founders did not want gridlock. They wanted limited central government in which ideology and/or partisanship would have minimal effect via the constitutional limits on that government.

And then they intended liberals to be able to be liberals on their own turf in peace, no matter what anybody else thought about liberals. And they intended conservatives to be able to be conservatives on their own turf in peace, no matter what anybody else thought about conservatives. Ditto saints, sinners, racists, bigots, idealists, Christians, atheists, and everything in between. If one state wanted a narrow minded rigid theocracy, it was their inalienable right to be who and what they were. If another state wanted almost no law and pretty much a wide open anarchy, that was also its unalienable right to have.

As the Founders defined liberty, liberty must allow people to be wrong if they choose to be wrong, and nobody else must be given authority to dictate virtue to them even as they knew, pretty much to a man, that the Constitutional would work only for a mostly religious and moral people.

I think the bottom line is that govt power has been growing since day one, the majority wants it that way, and the idea that the majority would sign up for what they don't want as long as you don't label it conservative, is absurd.

 

[dcraelin]

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.

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...................

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.......

I think that is a recipe for gridlock.......where existing problems get set in stone

But why? Now you have one partisan group pushing legislation that is unacceptable to the other partisan group and that creates gridlock. Neither gives a damn about what anybody else thinks--they just work to create a majority on their side and then can steamroller over everybody else. Whether or not the legislation is constitutional or not probably does not factor into the process a good deal.

But what if they HAD to work with the other side and HAD to have votes from the other side to pass a piece of legislation? Wouldn't they then have to consider the concerns of the others and work to achieve consensus? It might still be gridlock but it sure as heck would be a lot healthier than what we have now.

we basically have somewhat of a copy of your idea in the Senate now, with the filibuster.........it perhaps does lead to compromise in some areas.........that dole out graft........and that betray the American people.........like the TPAuthority..and numerous idiotic trade deals.

Yep. But again the filibuster is not mostly used in the modern day Senate as a means to achieve compromise. It is mostly used to obstruct. It is the only tool allowed to prevent a tyranny of the political majority in power. I think Michelsen's amendment would so change the culture of the House and Senate, that they would enter into the process with the goal of achieving legislation that most could be comfortable with and live with. Now it is much more a mentality of winner take all or my way or nothing.

I see no difference between the filibuster and the amendment........

an appeal to a larger majority...such as a national initiative, might foster compromise also. And I see it as more in line with the countries republican ideals

 

[Foxfyre]

It might still be gridlock but it sure as heck would be a lot healthier than what we have now.

1) Founders wanted gridlock because they knew we were stupid and what we would do would be liberal and stupid. If they wanted action we'd have a king.

2) liberalism is violence, i.e. taking over govt and then forcing their will on you. For them acquiring a majority is like acquiring a gun.

3) conservatives are peaceful and love liberty. If you want welfare for lazy slobs feel free to pay all you want or to move to a state that forces you to pay what that state wants but leave others free to not pay for welfare and to move to states that don't require payments.

4) there is nothing healthy about forcing liberals and conservative to work together. They will still be liberals and conservatives

5) the only solution is another country with a clearly written Constitution that clearly makes liberalism illegal as our Founders intended.

While your post posted here dangerously pushes the thread rules specified in the OP, I will say that the Founders did not want gridlock. They wanted limited central government in which ideology and/or partisanship would have minimal effect via the constitutional limits on that government.

And then they intended liberals to be able to be liberals on their own turf in peace, no matter what anybody else thought about liberals. And they intended conservatives to be able to be conservatives on their own turf in peace, no matter what anybody else thought about conservatives. Ditto saints, sinners, racists, bigots, idealists, Christians, atheists, and everything in between. If one state wanted a narrow minded rigid theocracy, it was their inalienable right to be who and what they were. If another state wanted almost no law and pretty much a wide open anarchy, that was also its unalienable right to have.

As the Founders defined liberty, liberty must allow people to be wrong if they choose to be wrong, and nobody else must be given authority to dictate virtue to them even as they knew, pretty much to a man, that the Constitutional would work only for a mostly religious and moral people.

I think the bottom line is that govt power has been growing since day one, the majority wants it that way, and the idea that the majority would sign up for what they don't want as long as you don't label it conservative, is absurd.

Again the OP is not what the Congress or whomever would go for or consent to. The OP puts forth an opportunity to step outside the political and ideological bickering and consider at face value something that might offer a way to begin to correct the indefensible monstrosity that the federal government has become.

It is very difficult for many people to turn away from the acrimony and partisanship and ideological prejudices and how things are, and focus on a concept of how things could be.

 

[Foxfyre]

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...................

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.......

I think that is a recipe for gridlock.......where existing problems get set in stone

But why? Now you have one partisan group pushing legislation that is unacceptable to the other partisan group and that creates gridlock. Neither gives a damn about what anybody else thinks--they just work to create a majority on their side and then can steamroller over everybody else. Whether or not the legislation is constitutional or not probably does not factor into the process a good deal.

But what if they HAD to work with the other side and HAD to have votes from the other side to pass a piece of legislation? Wouldn't they then have to consider the concerns of the others and work to achieve consensus? It might still be gridlock but it sure as heck would be a lot healthier than what we have now.

we basically have somewhat of a copy of your idea in the Senate now, with the filibuster.........it perhaps does lead to compromise in some areas.........that dole out graft........and that betray the American people.........like the TPAuthority..and numerous idiotic trade deals.

Yep. But again the filibuster is not mostly used in the modern day Senate as a means to achieve compromise. It is mostly used to obstruct. It is the only tool allowed to prevent a tyranny of the political majority in power. I think Michelsen's amendment would so change the culture of the House and Senate, that they would enter into the process with the goal of achieving legislation that most could be comfortable with and live with. Now it is much more a mentality of winner take all or my way or nothing.

I see no difference between the filibuster and the amendment........

an appeal to a larger majority...such as a national initiative, might foster compromise also. And I see it as more in line with the countries republican ideals

I do see a difference between the filibuster and the amendment. The filibuster is used to obstruct, to FORCE the other side to back down. It is a battle of wills with the victor being the one who doesn't blink first.

The amendment would have the law makers starting out with the understanding that everybody will need to be heard and understood and it will be necessary to achieve compromise that pretty much EVERYBODY can accept in order to pass legislation. There would be no need for a filibuster to prevent a tyranny of a narrow majority based on partisan affiliation.

 

[dcraelin]

I think that is a recipe for gridlock.......where existing problems get set in stone

But why? Now you have one partisan group pushing legislation that is unacceptable to the other partisan group and that creates gridlock. Neither gives a damn about what anybody else thinks--they just work to create a majority on their side and then can steamroller over everybody else. Whether or not the legislation is constitutional or not probably does not factor into the process a good deal.

But what if they HAD to work with the other side and HAD to have votes from the other side to pass a piece of legislation? Wouldn't they then have to consider the concerns of the others and work to achieve consensus? It might still be gridlock but it sure as heck would be a lot healthier than what we have now.

we basically have somewhat of a copy of your idea in the Senate now, with the filibuster.........it perhaps does lead to compromise in some areas.........that dole out graft........and that betray the American people.........like the TPAuthority..and numerous idiotic trade deals.

Yep. But again the filibuster is not mostly used in the modern day Senate as a means to achieve compromise. It is mostly used to obstruct. It is the only tool allowed to prevent a tyranny of the political majority in power. I think Michelsen's amendment would so change the culture of the House and Senate, that they would enter into the process with the goal of achieving legislation that most could be comfortable with and live with. Now it is much more a mentality of winner take all or my way or nothing.

I see no difference between the filibuster and the amendment........

an appeal to a larger majority...such as a national initiative, might foster compromise also. And I see it as more in line with the countries republican ideals

I do see a difference between the filibuster and the amendment. The filibuster is used to obstruct, to FORCE the other side to back down. It is a battle of wills with the victor being the one who doesn't blink first.

The amendment would have the law makers starting out with the understanding that everybody will need to be heard and understood and it will be necessary to achieve compromise that pretty much EVERYBODY can accept in order to pass legislation. There would be no need for a filibuster to prevent a tyranny of a narrow majority based on partisan affiliation.

youve really fallen in love with this amendment, are YOU Michelson?............structurally it is the same as a filibuster...and will have the same effects.

 

[Foxfyre]

But why? Now you have one partisan group pushing legislation that is unacceptable to the other partisan group and that creates gridlock. Neither gives a damn about what anybody else thinks--they just work to create a majority on their side and then can steamroller over everybody else. Whether or not the legislation is constitutional or not probably does not factor into the process a good deal.

But what if they HAD to work with the other side and HAD to have votes from the other side to pass a piece of legislation? Wouldn't they then have to consider the concerns of the others and work to achieve consensus? It might still be gridlock but it sure as heck would be a lot healthier than what we have now.

we basically have somewhat of a copy of your idea in the Senate now, with the filibuster.........it perhaps does lead to compromise in some areas.........that dole out graft........and that betray the American people.........like the TPAuthority..and numerous idiotic trade deals.

Yep. But again the filibuster is not mostly used in the modern day Senate as a means to achieve compromise. It is mostly used to obstruct. It is the only tool allowed to prevent a tyranny of the political majority in power. I think Michelsen's amendment would so change the culture of the House and Senate, that they would enter into the process with the goal of achieving legislation that most could be comfortable with and live with. Now it is much more a mentality of winner take all or my way or nothing.

I see no difference between the filibuster and the amendment........

an appeal to a larger majority...such as a national initiative, might foster compromise also. And I see it as more in line with the countries republican ideals

I do see a difference between the filibuster and the amendment. The filibuster is used to obstruct, to FORCE the other side to back down. It is a battle of wills with the victor being the one who doesn't blink first.

The amendment would have the law makers starting out with the understanding that everybody will need to be heard and understood and it will be necessary to achieve compromise that pretty much EVERYBODY can accept in order to pass legislation. There would be no need for a filibuster to prevent a tyranny of a narrow majority based on partisan affiliation.

youve really fallen in love with this amendment, are YOU Michelson?............structurally it is the same as a filibuster...and will have the same effects.

I am not at all in love with this amendment and no I am not Michelsen. I don't have a clue who he is. Nor do I care. (But again watch with the ad hominem. Focus on the argument, and not the member making it.)

I am arguing a very interesting concept he has offered us and hope there are others also interested in the concept, even if they don't believe the amendment will deliver as Michelsen seemed to hope it would.

 

[dcraelin]

we basically have somewhat of a copy of your idea in the Senate now, with the filibuster.........it perhaps does lead to compromise in some areas.........that dole out graft........and that betray the American people.........like the TPAuthority..and numerous idiotic trade deals.

Yep. But again the filibuster is not mostly used in the modern day Senate as a means to achieve compromise. It is mostly used to obstruct. It is the only tool allowed to prevent a tyranny of the political majority in power. I think Michelsen's amendment would so change the culture of the House and Senate, that they would enter into the process with the goal of achieving legislation that most could be comfortable with and live with. Now it is much more a mentality of winner take all or my way or nothing.

I see no difference between the filibuster and the amendment........

an appeal to a larger majority...such as a national initiative, might foster compromise also. And I see it as more in line with the countries republican ideals

I do see a difference between the filibuster and the amendment. The filibuster is used to obstruct, to FORCE the other side to back down. It is a battle of wills with the victor being the one who doesn't blink first.

The amendment would have the law makers starting out with the understanding that everybody will need to be heard and understood and it will be necessary to achieve compromise that pretty much EVERYBODY can accept in order to pass legislation. There would be no need for a filibuster to prevent a tyranny of a narrow majority based on partisan affiliation.

youve really fallen in love with this amendment, are YOU Michelson?............structurally it is the same as a filibuster...and will have the same effects.

I am not at all in love with this amendment and no I am not Michelsen. I don't have a clue who he is. Nor do I care. (But again watch with the ad hominem. Focus on the argument, and not the member making it.)

I am arguing a very interesting concept he has offered us and hope there are others also interested in the concept, even if they don't believe the amendment will deliver as Michelsen seemed to hope it would.

ok

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Additionally if nobody is worth your vote, no one says you have to cast it. Period. This ensures that you did not vote for someone you did not believe in. And if they still win, perhaps a thinner margin of victory will spur them to do better for their constituents.

But I think you are still missing the point. For instance you and I have typically been world's apart politically. I suspect that people most closely aligned with your stated views in this thread would not at all like me having the power to write laws dictating what your rights would be, how your society would be organized and managed, and how the Constitution would be interpreted. But under the existing system, if my side out numbers yours by one vote, we can impose whatever we want on you and you have no recourse whatsoever. And vice versa. We of course would appoint judges and justices that supported our point of view and our interpretation of the law.

Under Michelsen's proposal, however, my side and your side would be forced to find areas of agreement and ways to compromise that would make the final decisions at least palatable for us both, i.e. for the large majority of the people.

What is more important is that you can both have it your way.

If states could function more autonomously.

People don't like it when you say "move", but that is the answer.

I left California when it became apparent their support for schools was lacking.

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

Do you think Obamacare will ever be repealed and other ideas will take over ?

If not, then I would ask where I move to get out from under that ?

No.
It doesn't violate your human rights.

That wasn't the question I asked.

I asked "If I don't like Obamacare...where do I move to get away from it ?"

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Do you think Obamacare will ever be repealed and other ideas will take over ?

If not, then I would ask where I move to get out from under that ?

No.
It doesn't violate your human rights.

Sure it does. When the government forces me to buy a product I would not choose for myself or I do not want, that definitely violates my human rights. And when the government forces me to subsidize others ordered by the government to buy a product so that they can buy it, that violates my human rights.

Taxes, by definition, subsidize society as a whole.

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

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

A false equivalency if ever there was one.

And a false premise to boot.

We don't know how many people would or would not be insured without the ACA. I know more who are now NOT insured who were before thanks to the ACA. That is only anecdotal.

But since you can't prove your statement.....you an't make the claim.

And "more insured" does not necessarily equal an improvement in our society. If they are paying through the ass and won't get dental care.....what have you achieved ?