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.
Federal Constitution has no authority over State legislators. They are controlled and governed by the State Constitutions.i just googled it...the us constitution made no recall provision for senators or congressmen....They can be voted out..........yes............after the term.................years later............but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.
???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.
senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?
Under the old they could be recalled immediately and fired within days if they voted against the State Legislature.
You vote in the State Legislature............so you don't trust those you vote in there...........perhaps they need to be recalled by the people................no
THAT INCLUDES the state legislators....according to the constitution?
NEITHER can recall them from what I have read so far, so your argument doesn't work anymore, about the state legislators recalling them if they don't do as they say....
No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.
True, but you have to understand that the SCOTUS is NOT the final say on law or legislation. They reject the law or legislation IN ITS CURRENT FORM....meaning that they are kicking it back to the Congress or the States to rewrite the law so that it passes scrutiny.No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.
But who sits in judgment of the Supreme Court justices? When you have a narrow margin of five out of nine justices, those five coming from a particular partisan group, who is to say that they rule honestly and justly? Especially when the other four are saying what they are doing is in opposition to Constitutional law?
And when you have nine justices all appointed by and ratified by extreme partisans who approve them on the basis of the justice's partisanship, do you think it wise that five justices who enjoy lifetime tenure and are for all practical purposes unchallengable should be the arbitrators of what laws government passes are legal laws? Or should have power to write their own law and impose it on all the people? And give the people no recourse whatsoever to protect themselves from an overreaching government or overreaching court?
What is the difference between that and a dictatorship?
Sorry, but State Legislators are Chock full of cronyism, and being paid by lobbyists as well...at least with me choosing my US Senator, none of those cronies and lobbyists get to choose for me....at least it is a direct vote for my Senators by me and by all the citizens within our State, without the Partisan and gold lining pockets of the legislator's...State legislators are more responsive to the will of their constituents than nations legislator.but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........Again- why do you trust the State legislators more than the voters?
Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.
.
???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.
senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?
If a state legislature has a partisan agenda, it is because the people want that agenda.
As it stands now, (your assertion not withstanding), Senators do NOT answer to their constituents (the people of their State) but to the monied interests. A lot of that corruption can be eliminated by returning the Senate back to doing the bidding of their State.
True, but you have to understand that the SCOTUS is NOT the final say on law or legislation. They reject the law or legislation IN ITS CURRENT FORM....meaning that they are kicking it back to the Congress or the States to rewrite the law so that it passes scrutiny.No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.
But who sits in judgment of the Supreme Court justices? When you have a narrow margin of five out of nine justices, those five coming from a particular partisan group, who is to say that they rule honestly and justly? Especially when the other four are saying what they are doing is in opposition to Constitutional law?
And when you have nine justices all appointed by and ratified by extreme partisans who approve them on the basis of the justice's partisanship, do you think it wise that five justices who enjoy lifetime tenure and are for all practical purposes unchallengable should be the arbitrators of what laws government passes are legal laws? Or should have power to write their own law and impose it on all the people? And give the people no recourse whatsoever to protect themselves from an overreaching government or overreaching court?
What is the difference between that and a dictatorship?
Actually, what happens more often than not is that Congress just doesn't bother to rework the legislation because in today's environment, the law that was shot down barely passed to begin with.True, but you have to understand that the SCOTUS is NOT the final say on law or legislation. They reject the law or legislation IN ITS CURRENT FORM....meaning that they are kicking it back to the Congress or the States to rewrite the law so that it passes scrutiny.No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.
But who sits in judgment of the Supreme Court justices? When you have a narrow margin of five out of nine justices, those five coming from a particular partisan group, who is to say that they rule honestly and justly? Especially when the other four are saying what they are doing is in opposition to Constitutional law?
And when you have nine justices all appointed by and ratified by extreme partisans who approve them on the basis of the justice's partisanship, do you think it wise that five justices who enjoy lifetime tenure and are for all practical purposes unchallengable should be the arbitrators of what laws government passes are legal laws? Or should have power to write their own law and impose it on all the people? And give the people no recourse whatsoever to protect themselves from an overreaching government or overreaching court?
What is the difference between that and a dictatorship?
Are they? I guess I haven't seen much of that. What I have seen that once SCOTUS rules, that is deemed the law of the land and as often as not it bypasses Congress and the President entirely.
But you're wrong. You didn't chose them....money did. If the people who you elect to your state legislature cannot be trusted to do what you want, that is on you, not the rest of the nation.Sorry, but State Legislators are Chock full of cronyism, and being paid by lobbyists as well...at least with me choosing my US Senator, none of those cronies and lobbyists get to choose for me....at least it is a direct vote for my Senator by me and by all the citizens within our State, without the Partisan and gold lining pockets of the legislator's...State legislators are more responsive to the will of their constituents than nations legislator.but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.
???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.
senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?
If a state legislature has a partisan agenda, it is because the people want that agenda.
As it stands now, (your assertion not withstanding), Senators do NOT answer to their constituents (the people of their State) but to the monied interests. A lot of that corruption can be eliminated by returning the Senate back to doing the bidding of their State.
NOPE....Federal Constitution has no authority over State legislators. They are controlled and governed by the State Constitutions.i just googled it...the us constitution made no recall provision for senators or congressmen....They can be voted out..........yes............after the term.................years later............but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.
senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?
Under the old they could be recalled immediately and fired within days if they voted against the State Legislature.
You vote in the State Legislature............so you don't trust those you vote in there...........perhaps they need to be recalled by the people................no
THAT INCLUDES the state legislators....according to the constitution?
NEITHER can recall them from what I have read so far, so your argument doesn't work anymore, about the state legislators recalling them if they don't do as they say....
If recall or removal can be had, it will be found in each state Constitution. Not in the federal one.
You may have been fooled in to believing that your State representation is closer to what the people within the State want and implying it is "cleaner" than federal politics is sorely wrong....the most dirtiest and corrupt and deceiving governments of we the people, happen at the State and local levels....State legislators are more responsive to the will of their constituents than nations legislator.but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........Again- why do you trust the State legislators more than the voters?
Frankly, State legislators are cheaper to buy than voters.
.
???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.
senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?
If a state legislature has a partisan agenda, it is because the people want that agenda.
As it stands now, (your assertion not withstanding), Senators do NOT answer to their constituents (the people of their State) but to the monied interests. A lot of that corruption can be eliminated by returning the Senate back to doing the bidding of their State.
I think you are conditioned into believing that, but that doesn't really matter. I know that state government is more responsive to the people than national government and it is My beliefs that I act upon, not the beliefs of others.You may have been fooled in to believing that your State representation is closer to what the people within the State want and implying it is "cleaner" than federal politics is sorely wrong....the most dirtiest and corrupt and deceiving governments of we the people, happen at the State and local levels....State legislators are more responsive to the will of their constituents than nations legislator.but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.
???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.
senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?
If a state legislature has a partisan agenda, it is because the people want that agenda.
As it stands now, (your assertion not withstanding), Senators do NOT answer to their constituents (the people of their State) but to the monied interests. A lot of that corruption can be eliminated by returning the Senate back to doing the bidding of their State.
think of the term Chicago politics or Illinois politics.... it's like this in most States.
When ratifying the US Constitution, it was a requirement that the States, as representative bodies, be represented in the US Congress.NOPE....Federal Constitution has no authority over State legislators. They are controlled and governed by the State Constitutions.i just googled it...the us constitution made no recall provision for senators or congressmen....They can be voted out..........yes............after the term.................years later............but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.
senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?
Under the old they could be recalled immediately and fired within days if they voted against the State Legislature.
You vote in the State Legislature............so you don't trust those you vote in there...........perhaps they need to be recalled by the people................no
THAT INCLUDES the state legislators....according to the constitution?
NEITHER can recall them from what I have read so far, so your argument doesn't work anymore, about the state legislators recalling them if they don't do as they say....
If recall or removal can be had, it will be found in each state Constitution. Not in the federal one.
these are US Senators who are elected and have power according to the US Constitution, and I just read that the founders discussed a recall measure for US congressmen and US Senators while creating the constitution and THEY DECIDED that there should not be a recall measure.
Correct.Citizen Warren Michelsen, believes all branches--executive, legislative, and judicial--of the U.S. federal government have overstepped their constitutional authority, he proposes that the American people move to restore the power to self govern that the Constitution originally intended.
A recent Harris poll suggests a majority of Americans agree with him: Supreme Court SCOTUS lifetime appointment Harris
He has provided an in depth, lengthy and well thought out argument to support his opinion here: Amending the Constitution
His basic thesis is that five out of nine Supreme Court justices should not have the uncontested power to determine the fate or destiny of all the people, nor should the federal government at any level have the sole power to judge the legality of government action at any level. Further the federal government should be required to provide much more consensus as to the legality of the legislation it passes before that legislation is imposed upon the people.
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States proposed to restore power to the people:
Section 1. When the number of states exceeding twenty-five percent of all the United States shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that enactment shall, in whole, be declared invalid and no court may thereafter enforce its provisions.
Section 2. When any state shall have declared any enactment of the Legislative, Executive or Judicial branch to be in violation of this Constitution, that state may, at its option, prohibit enforcement of that enactment within its borders.
Section 3. Every Bill which shall be considered by the House of Representatives or the Senate, shall, before it come to a vote, be subjected to scrutiny so as to ascertain that said Bill is not in conflict with this Constitution. Whenever one third of either House shall find the Bill to be in conflict, it shall require that three quarters of that House vote Yea before the Bill be considered passed.
The OP at this time is not ready to declare an opinion on whether Michelsen is right in part or in whole about that, but rather would throws it open for consideration, evaluation, and discussion. Disclosure: This discussion has been offered at a different site in addition to this one as as an experiment.
QUESTION TO BE DISCUSSED:
Do you or do you not wholly or in part support Michelsen's proposed Amendment as written to limit the power of government and return that power to the people? Why or why not.?
RULES FOR THIS DISCUSSION:
1. Stay on topic please with no ad hominem or personal insults directed at any person, group, demographic, state, ideology, or political party allowed. The topic is summarized in the Question to be discussed and can include any of the statements or arguments provided in the OP or the two links provided.
2. To avoid getting bogged down in semantics, as deemed necessary, the OP reserves the right to define words, terms, or phrases for the purposes of this discussion only.
3. Links are not required to participate in this discussion, but if they are used, please provide a brief synopsis of what the member will learn if they click on the link.
The consequences of #2 is pretty easy to see if we look back on history.
If this amendment in place- mixed race couples would have been banned from getting married in Virginia and Georgia until the mid 1990's.
If this amendment were in place- there would be states where guns were effectively banned from private ownership.
If this amendment were in place- Americans would not have had access to contraceptives in many states for another 20 years.
And using the same argument, Dred Scott and Plessy, absolutely horrible SCOTUS rulings, would not have had to be enforced in the states who did not agree with them.
Actually that is a good point.
And there is where we could start- if the states had refused to obey Dred Scott..- and agreed upon abomination of a ruling, 25% of the country-
the Confederate States- would have declared that decision null and void.
Leaving us back where were were- where individual states do whatever they want regardless of the Bill of Rights- and blocks of states can block enforcement of the Constitution.
Ah, but the Bill of Rights is already part of the Constitution so the states would have no jurisdiction to override any part of that. It is only laws and rulings outside of the existing constitution that the people themselves could determine whether such laws or rulings were constitutional or not.
The proposed amendment does not give the people authority to override the Constitution. It only gives them power to enforce it.
Again- the Supreme Court decides when a law violates the Bill of Rights or not- and the proposed initiative would allow States to ignore a Supreme Court ruling- which would result in States being able to ignore the Bill of Rights.
If we cannot even fix local and state politics for the corrupt policies, then there is no way we can fix it at a Federal Level...............You may have been fooled in to believing that your State representation is closer to what the people within the State want and implying it is "cleaner" than federal politics is sorely wrong....the most dirtiest and corrupt and deceiving governments of we the people, happen at the State and local levels....State legislators are more responsive to the will of their constituents than nations legislator.but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.Because its harder to buy a whole states legislature than 2 Senators.............not impossible but harder.........
.
???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.
senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?
If a state legislature has a partisan agenda, it is because the people want that agenda.
As it stands now, (your assertion not withstanding), Senators do NOT answer to their constituents (the people of their State) but to the monied interests. A lot of that corruption can be eliminated by returning the Senate back to doing the bidding of their State.
think of the term Chicago politics or Illinois politics.... it's like this in most States.
No need, all that is needed is for the Justices Sitting on the Supreme court to interpret the constitutionality of a law.
But who sits in judgment of the Supreme Court justices? When you have a narrow margin of five out of nine justices, those five coming from a particular partisan group, who is to say that they rule honestly and justly? Especially when the other four are saying what they are doing is in opposition to Constitutional law?
And when you have nine justices all appointed by and ratified by extreme partisans who approve them on the basis of the justice's partisanship, do you think it wise that five justices who enjoy lifetime tenure and are for all practical purposes unchallengable should be the arbitrators of what laws government passes are legal laws? Or should have power to write their own law and impose it on all the people? And give the people no recourse whatsoever to protect themselves from an overreaching government or overreaching court?
What is the difference between that and a dictatorship?
When ratifying the US Constitution, it was a requirement that the States, as representative bodies, be represented in the US Congress.NOPE....Federal Constitution has no authority over State legislators. They are controlled and governed by the State Constitutions.i just googled it...the us constitution made no recall provision for senators or congressmen....They can be voted out..........yes............after the term.................years later............but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...
senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?
Under the old they could be recalled immediately and fired within days if they voted against the State Legislature.
You vote in the State Legislature............so you don't trust those you vote in there...........perhaps they need to be recalled by the people................no
THAT INCLUDES the state legislators....according to the constitution?
NEITHER can recall them from what I have read so far, so your argument doesn't work anymore, about the state legislators recalling them if they don't do as they say....
If recall or removal can be had, it will be found in each state Constitution. Not in the federal one.
these are US Senators who are elected and have power according to the US Constitution, and I just read that the founders discussed a recall measure for US congressmen and US Senators while creating the constitution and THEY DECIDED that there should not be a recall measure.
Plain and simple, the States have interests that require looking after and that is why they set the US Senate up to consist of Senators elected by State Legislatures to conduct themselves in the interests of their states, not in the interests of the people of that state.
The people have a chamber of congress to look after their interests. Its called the US House of Representatives.
In truth, we get the government we elect.If we cannot even fix local and state politics for the corrupt policies, then there is no way we can fix it at a Federal Level...............You may have been fooled in to believing that your State representation is closer to what the people within the State want and implying it is "cleaner" than federal politics is sorely wrong....the most dirtiest and corrupt and deceiving governments of we the people, happen at the State and local levels....State legislators are more responsive to the will of their constituents than nations legislator.but senators have to do ''the will of the people'' within their state now, verses the will of the legislators who all have a partisan agenda...i think i trust my will and my judgement, better than the state legislators...Under the old system the Senators could be recalled and replaced if they voted against the legislature............so yeah........you'd have to buy the whole legislature to buy the Senator off.???
Okay- so it is easier to 'buy 2 Senators' than a State Legislature- and that applies regardless of whether the Senators are selected by the people or by their legislators.
senators can be recalled by the people as well...can't they?
If a state legislature has a partisan agenda, it is because the people want that agenda.
As it stands now, (your assertion not withstanding), Senators do NOT answer to their constituents (the people of their State) but to the monied interests. A lot of that corruption can be eliminated by returning the Senate back to doing the bidding of their State.
think of the term Chicago politics or Illinois politics.... it's like this in most States.
To me it's a hell of a lot easier to vote out my local reps to the state than others..............and without the 17th Amendment it would make that vote even more important than it is now................
Either way...............the intent under the original Constitution was the voice of the state legislative bodies.
If all of them are corrupt at every level then we may as well throw in the towel and give the hell up. Which seems to be the going consensus in this country.
Which brings me back to if we elect unethical men and women to represent us, then no form of gov't will work.
