Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[Foxfyre]

You do realize by calling for the impeachment of Roberts and Kennedy for their decisions you are declaring your contempt for the Constitution and your unwillingness to follow it.

Utter nonsense.

Roberts openly declared that the statutes of law do not matter; in doing so he has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and should be removed from office - he is unfit to hold the position he occupies.

Again- every time you make this claim you are declaring your contempt for the Constitution.

The Constitution spells out specifically the grounds for impeachment- disagreeing with a ruling is not one of them.

Reminder:
Your arguments have been useful and pertinent to the thread and I have appreciated your participation. . . but. . .

Please focus on the members argument and do not assign to it any personal intent for the member. You can explain how the member's statement is problematic for the Constitution if it is, but Rule #1 for the thread does not allow inference of the member's contempt for anything.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Do you really not know the difference?

Do you really need us to explain the difference?

Yes, I guess I do need for somebody to explain the difference.

Okay

A dictatorship is the absolute rule by one person. No legislature, no courts- except as controlled by the Dictator. Dictators do not need to obey any law and are not subject to any law. A Dictator is not elected to be a dictator.

In our country- the Supreme Court is appointed by the President one by one- and confirmed by the Senate. Justice's do not select themselves. Nor does any Justice have absolute power- the Supreme Court can only act with a majority vote.

Nor does the Supreme Court have any ability to decide what laws it wants to review- the Supreme Court can only hear a case that has been heard by other courts. For instance- no matter how much a majority of Justice's may wish to decide who won the 2014 Superbowl- they have no legal ability to do so.

What the Supreme Court can do is decide on the Constitutionality of legislation that has passed, or criminal decisions reached by other courts. Justices are subject to the law- if they break the law, the Legislature can impeach them, and upon successful impeachment and conviction, they can then be tried for that crime.

The Supreme Court is made up of people who are given lifetime membership on the Court and who cannot be disciplined or removed from the court without a long, bloody, and messy process that Congress does not have the will to go through. There are no consequences for those on the court no matter how wrong they get it. Just five of them are required to change the lives of the American people in major and often permanent ways and nobody is given oversight over their decisions or any power to change their decisions. And they are increasingly appointed not for their judicial restraint and wisdom, but for their partisan and/or ideological views and willingness to bypass the executive branch and Congress with judicial activism. There is no way for the Supreme Court to be required to obey the Constitution.

That is about as close to a dictatorship as it gets. We need to demand more protection for the American people.

Really- you didn't read a word I wrote did you?

Frankly- you just don't like how the Supreme Court operates- there is nothing 'dictatorial' about it.- point by point:

• The Supreme Court is made up of people who are given lifetime membership on the Court- Not given- but appointed by our legally elected President- and confirmed by elected Senators- Dictators do not go through this process
  
• and who cannot be disciplined or removed from the court without a long, bloody, and messy process that Congress does not have the will to go through.- What you are describing is your dissatisfaction with how the writers of the Constitution set up the process- and again- Justices can be removed, and there is a Democratic process to so- Dictators have no such process for removal.
  
• There are no consequences for those on the court no matter how wrong they get it. Who would decide if they are wrong? Do you really want a court scared that if they make an unpopular decision that they would go to jail? Justices can be removed from the court- or Congress could change the law to provide that Justices have terms- this has been discussed and Congress has not chosen to do so.
  
• Just five of them are required to change the lives of the American people in major and often permanent ways and nobody is given oversight over their decisions or any power to change their decisions. - Do you want a Court over the Supreme Court? Someone has to be the ultimate reviewer of what is Constitutional- the choices are the courts- Congress(who rights the laws and would love to be able to declare its laws Constitutional) or the President? And again- not dictatorial- because unlike a Dictator- we the people can pass an initiative to change any Supreme Court decision- re: the 13th Amendment.
  
• And they are increasingly appointed not for their judicial restraint and wisdom, but for their partisan and/or ideological views and willingness to bypass the executive branch and Congress with judicial activism. And how does that make them dictators? They are still 9 people and a majority of them must agree on a decision- Dictators don't need a majority of anyone
  
• There is no way for the Supreme Court to be required to obey the Constitution. The Supreme Court is tasked with deciding what is Constitutional- who would you have decide that the Supreme Court is not obeying the Constitution? Another court? Congress? the President?

I disagree with the Supreme Court often- as do many people- but someone has to decide on Constitutional issues- and deciding them does not make them dictators- that is pure hyperbole.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, I believe the various states would have eventually come to the right decisions on all those matters. But those that got it wrong would not be able to impose their screw ups on everybody else.

When the federal government gets a universal concept or law wrong, it screws up everybody. Which is why the founders intended the authority and ability to screw up everybody would be very limited via constitutional restraints. All three divisions of government have been corrupting that intention for quite some time now. And I believe the negative consequences have far outweighed the benefits.

It really comes down to whether you want the people to have the liberty to live their lives and organize their societies as they choose or whether you trust an uncontestable authoritarian central government to order how they must live their lives and what sorts of societies they are required to have.

I saw the Citizens United decision as a body blow to the power of the people. But I am not willing to circumvent to power granted the SCOTUS and amend the constitution simply because of that terrible decision. Same with Bush v Gore in 2000. And I fear the tyranny of the majority where civil rights are concerned. Continued repression for no sane grounds is truly tyranny.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Letting the individual states decide if the law of the land is truly the law of the land or merely a suggestion would ensure the tyranny of the majority and that is unacceptable.

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

How is extending freedom to "a tiny minority" result in tyranny from that minority?

I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else.

IOW you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority and if you are not allowed that right you feel your liberty is being taken from you. Correct?

Rule #1 for the thread prohibits you from stating what you think I want. Please refrain from such ad hominem remarks as what I want is not the topic of this thread.

The amendment that Michelsen is proposing would give the various states authority to protect their own liberties and order their societies as they chose when they believed the government had overstepped its constitutional authority. And if 25% of the states believed their constitutional protections had been taken away by the federal government, they would not be subject to the tyranny of a majority and the Congress would have to go back to the drawing board and address the concerns of that 25%. Also there would be nothing to prevent any of the states from enacting the challenged federal law as a state law if they liked it.

 

[Syriusly]

You do realize by calling for the impeachment of Roberts and Kennedy for their decisions you are declaring your contempt for the Constitution and your unwillingness to follow it.

Utter nonsense.

Roberts openly declared that the statutes of law do not matter; in doing so he has violated his oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States and should be removed from office - he is unfit to hold the position he occupies.

Again- every time you make this claim you are declaring your contempt for the Constitution.

The Constitution spells out specifically the grounds for impeachment- disagreeing with a ruling is not one of them.

Reminder:
Your arguments have been useful and pertinent to the thread and I have appreciated your participation. . . but. . .

Please focus on the members argument and do not assign to it any personal intent for the member. You can explain how the member's statement is problematic for the Constitution if it is, but Rule #1 for the thread does not allow inference of the member's contempt for anything.

While I understand your point- my comment was very specific to pointing out that his very argument- that the Justices were showing their contempt of the Constitution by not doing as he believed was required- to pointing out that he was doing the exact same thing by ignoring the actual language of the Constitution.

I will attempt to render that more neutral in the future- but rather hard to make the point in a neutral fashion.

 

[Syriusly]

I saw the Citizens United decision as a body blow to the power of the people. But I am not willing to circumvent to power granted the SCOTUS and amend the constitution simply because of that terrible decision. Same with Bush v Gore in 2000. And I fear the tyranny of the majority where civil rights are concerned. Continued repression for no sane grounds is truly tyranny.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Letting the individual states decide if the law of the land is truly the law of the land or merely a suggestion would ensure the tyranny of the majority and that is unacceptable.

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

How is extending freedom to "a tiny minority" result in tyranny from that minority?

I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else.

IOW you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority and if you are not allowed that right you feel your liberty is being taken from you. Correct?

Rule #1 for the thread prohibits you from stating what you think I want. Please refrain from such ad hominem remarks as what I want is not the topic of this thread.

The amendment that Michelsen is proposing would give the various states authority to protect their own liberties and order their societies as they chose when they believed the government had overstepped its constitutional authority. And if 25% of the states believed their constitutional protections had been taken away by the federal government, they would not be subject to the tyranny of a majority and the Congress would have to go back to the drawing board and address the concerns of that 25%. Also there would be nothing to prevent any of the states from enacting the challenged federal law as a state law if they liked it.

As in - Virginia could have prevented mixed race marriages until the majority of Virginians changed their minds- another 20 years or so.
As in- Texas to this day could be jailing homosexuals for having private consensual sex.
As in- Georgia to this day could be rigging election laws to prevent African Americans from voting.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

Do you really not know the difference?

Do you really need us to explain the difference?

Yes, I guess I do need for somebody to explain the difference.

Okay

A dictatorship is the absolute rule by one person. No legislature, no courts- except as controlled by the Dictator. Dictators do not need to obey any law and are not subject to any law. A Dictator is not elected to be a dictator.

In our country- the Supreme Court is appointed by the President one by one- and confirmed by the Senate. Justice's do not select themselves. Nor does any Justice have absolute power- the Supreme Court can only act with a majority vote.

Nor does the Supreme Court have any ability to decide what laws it wants to review- the Supreme Court can only hear a case that has been heard by other courts. For instance- no matter how much a majority of Justice's may wish to decide who won the 2014 Superbowl- they have no legal ability to do so.

What the Supreme Court can do is decide on the Constitutionality of legislation that has passed, or criminal decisions reached by other courts. Justices are subject to the law- if they break the law, the Legislature can impeach them, and upon successful impeachment and conviction, they can then be tried for that crime.

The Supreme Court is made up of people who are given lifetime membership on the Court and who cannot be disciplined or removed from the court without a long, bloody, and messy process that Congress does not have the will to go through. There are no consequences for those on the court no matter how wrong they get it. Just five of them are required to change the lives of the American people in major and often permanent ways and nobody is given oversight over their decisions or any power to change their decisions. And they are increasingly appointed not for their judicial restraint and wisdom, but for their partisan and/or ideological views and willingness to bypass the executive branch and Congress with judicial activism. There is no way for the Supreme Court to be required to obey the Constitution.

That is about as close to a dictatorship as it gets. We need to demand more protection for the American people.

Really- you didn't read a word I wrote did you?

Frankly- you just don't like how the Supreme Court operates- there is nothing 'dictatorial' about it.- point by point:

• The Supreme Court is made up of people who are given lifetime membership on the Court- Not given- but appointed by our legally elected President- and confirmed by elected Senators- Dictators do not go through this process
  
• and who cannot be disciplined or removed from the court without a long, bloody, and messy process that Congress does not have the will to go through.- What you are describing is your dissatisfaction with how the writers of the Constitution set up the process- and again- Justices can be removed, and there is a Democratic process to so- Dictators have no such process for removal.
  
• There are no consequences for those on the court no matter how wrong they get it. Who would decide if they are wrong? Do you really want a court scared that if they make an unpopular decision that they would go to jail? Justices can be removed from the court- or Congress could change the law to provide that Justices have terms- this has been discussed and Congress has not chosen to do so.
  
• Just five of them are required to change the lives of the American people in major and often permanent ways and nobody is given oversight over their decisions or any power to change their decisions. - Do you want a Court over the Supreme Court? Someone has to be the ultimate reviewer of what is Constitutional- the choices are the courts- Congress(who rights the laws and would love to be able to declare its laws Constitutional) or the President? And again- not dictatorial- because unlike a Dictator- we the people can pass an initiative to change any Supreme Court decision- re: the 13th Amendment.
  
• And they are increasingly appointed not for their judicial restraint and wisdom, but for their partisan and/or ideological views and willingness to bypass the executive branch and Congress with judicial activism. And how does that make them dictators? They are still 9 people and a majority of them must agree on a decision- Dictators don't need a majority of anyone
  
• There is no way for the Supreme Court to be required to obey the Constitution. The Supreme Court is tasked with deciding what is Constitutional- who would you have decide that the Supreme Court is not obeying the Constitution? Another court? Congress? the President?

I disagree with the Supreme Court often- as do many people- but someone has to decide on Constitutional issues- and deciding them does not make them dictators- that is pure hyperbole.

Sorry but I will be reporting ad hominem posts. And referring to what I did or did not read or what I do or do not like is ad hominem and expressly forbidden in Rule #1 for this thread.

The amendment proposed by Michelsen would not allow SCOTUS total authority to dictate what is and is not constitutional with no way to challenge them or discipline them when what they rule is clearly not constitutional. It would give the people authority to challenge bad rulings. It would prevent five people from being able to make a law of the land in a way that nobody would be able to challenge or contest.

 

[RKMBrown]

I saw the Citizens United decision as a body blow to the power of the people. But I am not willing to circumvent to power granted the SCOTUS and amend the constitution simply because of that terrible decision. Same with Bush v Gore in 2000. And I fear the tyranny of the majority where civil rights are concerned. Continued repression for no sane grounds is truly tyranny.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Letting the individual states decide if the law of the land is truly the law of the land or merely a suggestion would ensure the tyranny of the majority and that is unacceptable.

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

How is extending freedom to "a tiny minority" result in tyranny from that minority?

I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else.

IOW you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority and if you are not allowed that right you feel your liberty is being taken from you. Correct?

Rule #1 for the thread prohibits you from stating what you think I want. Please refrain from such ad hominem remarks as what I want is not the topic of this thread.

The amendment that Michelsen is proposing would give the various states authority to protect their own liberties and order their societies as they chose when they believed the government had overstepped its constitutional authority. And if 25% of the states believed their constitutional protections had been taken away by the federal government, they would not be subject to the tyranny of a majority and the Congress would have to go back to the drawing board and address the concerns of that 25%. Also there would be nothing to prevent any of the states from enacting the challenged federal law as a state law if they liked it.

Who, other than you, brought up tyranny of a minority? Maybe I missed something. Or were you violating rule #1 by stating that if you are not for tyranny of a majority you are for tyranny of a minority in view of his statement that he's against tyranny of a majority? Otherwise what do you mean by is tyranny of a minority more acceptable than tyranny of a majority?

Coaching a question as a hidden violation of a rule... meh. do you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority? Do you feel that if you are not allowed that right your liberty is being taken from you?

 

[Syriusly]

Do you really not know the difference?

Do you really need us to explain the difference?

Yes, I guess I do need for somebody to explain the difference.

Okay

A dictatorship is the absolute rule by one person. No legislature, no courts- except as controlled by the Dictator. Dictators do not need to obey any law and are not subject to any law. A Dictator is not elected to be a dictator.

In our country- the Supreme Court is appointed by the President one by one- and confirmed by the Senate. Justice's do not select themselves. Nor does any Justice have absolute power- the Supreme Court can only act with a majority vote.

Nor does the Supreme Court have any ability to decide what laws it wants to review- the Supreme Court can only hear a case that has been heard by other courts. For instance- no matter how much a majority of Justice's may wish to decide who won the 2014 Superbowl- they have no legal ability to do so.

What the Supreme Court can do is decide on the Constitutionality of legislation that has passed, or criminal decisions reached by other courts. Justices are subject to the law- if they break the law, the Legislature can impeach them, and upon successful impeachment and conviction, they can then be tried for that crime.

The Supreme Court is made up of people who are given lifetime membership on the Court and who cannot be disciplined or removed from the court without a long, bloody, and messy process that Congress does not have the will to go through. There are no consequences for those on the court no matter how wrong they get it. Just five of them are required to change the lives of the American people in major and often permanent ways and nobody is given oversight over their decisions or any power to change their decisions. And they are increasingly appointed not for their judicial restraint and wisdom, but for their partisan and/or ideological views and willingness to bypass the executive branch and Congress with judicial activism. There is no way for the Supreme Court to be required to obey the Constitution.

That is about as close to a dictatorship as it gets. We need to demand more protection for the American people.

Really- you didn't read a word I wrote did you?

Frankly- you just don't like how the Supreme Court operates- there is nothing 'dictatorial' about it.- point by point:

• The Supreme Court is made up of people who are given lifetime membership on the Court- Not given- but appointed by our legally elected President- and confirmed by elected Senators- Dictators do not go through this process
  
• and who cannot be disciplined or removed from the court without a long, bloody, and messy process that Congress does not have the will to go through.- What you are describing is your dissatisfaction with how the writers of the Constitution set up the process- and again- Justices can be removed, and there is a Democratic process to so- Dictators have no such process for removal.
  
• There are no consequences for those on the court no matter how wrong they get it. Who would decide if they are wrong? Do you really want a court scared that if they make an unpopular decision that they would go to jail? Justices can be removed from the court- or Congress could change the law to provide that Justices have terms- this has been discussed and Congress has not chosen to do so.
  
• Just five of them are required to change the lives of the American people in major and often permanent ways and nobody is given oversight over their decisions or any power to change their decisions. - Do you want a Court over the Supreme Court? Someone has to be the ultimate reviewer of what is Constitutional- the choices are the courts- Congress(who rights the laws and would love to be able to declare its laws Constitutional) or the President? And again- not dictatorial- because unlike a Dictator- we the people can pass an initiative to change any Supreme Court decision- re: the 13th Amendment.
  
• And they are increasingly appointed not for their judicial restraint and wisdom, but for their partisan and/or ideological views and willingness to bypass the executive branch and Congress with judicial activism. And how does that make them dictators? They are still 9 people and a majority of them must agree on a decision- Dictators don't need a majority of anyone
  
• There is no way for the Supreme Court to be required to obey the Constitution. The Supreme Court is tasked with deciding what is Constitutional- who would you have decide that the Supreme Court is not obeying the Constitution? Another court? Congress? the President?

I disagree with the Supreme Court often- as do many people- but someone has to decide on Constitutional issues- and deciding them does not make them dictators- that is pure hyperbole.

Sorry but I will be reporting ad hominem posts. And referring to what I did or did not read or what I do or do not like is ad hominem and expressly forbidden in Rule #1 for this thread.

The amendment proposed by Michelsen would not allow SCOTUS total authority to dictate what is and is not constitutional with no way to challenge them or discipline them when what they rule is clearly not constitutional. It would give the people authority to challenge bad rulings. It would prevent five people from being able to make a law of the land in a way that nobody would be able to challenge or contest.

Not the people- State governments.

It would allow any state to act in an unconstitutional fashion as it sees fit. It would allow any State to ignore any decision, and deny any person their Constitutional rights.

Lets say for instance that the State of California passes a law outlawing the private ownership of guns.

The law reaches the Supreme Court and the Court quickly, and by a 9-0 margin overturns such an idiotic and Unconstitutional law.

California however could ignore the ruling and continue to take the guns of Californians.

It is a proposal for States to be able to ignore the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

How is extending freedom to "a tiny minority" result in tyranny from that minority?

I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else.

IOW you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority and if you are not allowed that right you feel your liberty is being taken from you. Correct?

Rule #1 for the thread prohibits you from stating what you think I want. Please refrain from such ad hominem remarks as what I want is not the topic of this thread.

The amendment that Michelsen is proposing would give the various states authority to protect their own liberties and order their societies as they chose when they believed the government had overstepped its constitutional authority. And if 25% of the states believed their constitutional protections had been taken away by the federal government, they would not be subject to the tyranny of a majority and the Congress would have to go back to the drawing board and address the concerns of that 25%. Also there would be nothing to prevent any of the states from enacting the challenged federal law as a state law if they liked it.

Who, other than you, brought up tyranny of a minority? Maybe I missed something.

Doesn't matter who brought up anything. What does matter is that Rule #1 be the law for this thread and that rule says members are required to address the post and leave the member who posted it out of it.

 

[Nosmo King]

I saw the Citizens United decision as a body blow to the power of the people. But I am not willing to circumvent to power granted the SCOTUS and amend the constitution simply because of that terrible decision. Same with Bush v Gore in 2000. And I fear the tyranny of the majority where civil rights are concerned. Continued repression for no sane grounds is truly tyranny.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Letting the individual states decide if the law of the land is truly the law of the land or merely a suggestion would ensure the tyranny of the majority and that is unacceptable.

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

How is extending freedom to "a tiny minority" result in tyranny from that minority?

I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else.

IOW you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority and if you are not allowed that right you feel your liberty is being taken from you. Correct?

Rule #1 for the thread prohibits you from stating what you think I want. Please refrain from such ad hominem remarks as what I want is not the topic of this thread.

The amendment that Michelsen is proposing would give the various states authority to protect their own liberties and order their societies as they chose when they believed the government had overstepped its constitutional authority. And if 25% of the states believed their constitutional protections had been taken away by the federal government, they would not be subject to the tyranny of a majority and the Congress would have to go back to the drawing board and address the concerns of that 25%. Also there would be nothing to prevent any of the states from enacting the challenged federal law as a state law if they liked it.

Are we a nation of law, or mere suggestion? Granting states to regard law as suggestion will lead to anarchy. States like Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina and Georgia would never enforce the rights and liberties provided under the Voter's Rights Act. In fact, that Act was enacted to force such states to grant all their citizens the most basic right we have, the right to vote.

This amendment rolls back freedom by placating the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes, I guess I do need for somebody to explain the difference.

Okay

A dictatorship is the absolute rule by one person. No legislature, no courts- except as controlled by the Dictator. Dictators do not need to obey any law and are not subject to any law. A Dictator is not elected to be a dictator.

In our country- the Supreme Court is appointed by the President one by one- and confirmed by the Senate. Justice's do not select themselves. Nor does any Justice have absolute power- the Supreme Court can only act with a majority vote.

Nor does the Supreme Court have any ability to decide what laws it wants to review- the Supreme Court can only hear a case that has been heard by other courts. For instance- no matter how much a majority of Justice's may wish to decide who won the 2014 Superbowl- they have no legal ability to do so.

What the Supreme Court can do is decide on the Constitutionality of legislation that has passed, or criminal decisions reached by other courts. Justices are subject to the law- if they break the law, the Legislature can impeach them, and upon successful impeachment and conviction, they can then be tried for that crime.

The Supreme Court is made up of people who are given lifetime membership on the Court and who cannot be disciplined or removed from the court without a long, bloody, and messy process that Congress does not have the will to go through. There are no consequences for those on the court no matter how wrong they get it. Just five of them are required to change the lives of the American people in major and often permanent ways and nobody is given oversight over their decisions or any power to change their decisions. And they are increasingly appointed not for their judicial restraint and wisdom, but for their partisan and/or ideological views and willingness to bypass the executive branch and Congress with judicial activism. There is no way for the Supreme Court to be required to obey the Constitution.

That is about as close to a dictatorship as it gets. We need to demand more protection for the American people.

Really- you didn't read a word I wrote did you?

Frankly- you just don't like how the Supreme Court operates- there is nothing 'dictatorial' about it.- point by point:

• The Supreme Court is made up of people who are given lifetime membership on the Court- Not given- but appointed by our legally elected President- and confirmed by elected Senators- Dictators do not go through this process
  
• and who cannot be disciplined or removed from the court without a long, bloody, and messy process that Congress does not have the will to go through.- What you are describing is your dissatisfaction with how the writers of the Constitution set up the process- and again- Justices can be removed, and there is a Democratic process to so- Dictators have no such process for removal.
  
• There are no consequences for those on the court no matter how wrong they get it. Who would decide if they are wrong? Do you really want a court scared that if they make an unpopular decision that they would go to jail? Justices can be removed from the court- or Congress could change the law to provide that Justices have terms- this has been discussed and Congress has not chosen to do so.
  
• Just five of them are required to change the lives of the American people in major and often permanent ways and nobody is given oversight over their decisions or any power to change their decisions. - Do you want a Court over the Supreme Court? Someone has to be the ultimate reviewer of what is Constitutional- the choices are the courts- Congress(who rights the laws and would love to be able to declare its laws Constitutional) or the President? And again- not dictatorial- because unlike a Dictator- we the people can pass an initiative to change any Supreme Court decision- re: the 13th Amendment.
  
• And they are increasingly appointed not for their judicial restraint and wisdom, but for their partisan and/or ideological views and willingness to bypass the executive branch and Congress with judicial activism. And how does that make them dictators? They are still 9 people and a majority of them must agree on a decision- Dictators don't need a majority of anyone
  
• There is no way for the Supreme Court to be required to obey the Constitution. The Supreme Court is tasked with deciding what is Constitutional- who would you have decide that the Supreme Court is not obeying the Constitution? Another court? Congress? the President?

I disagree with the Supreme Court often- as do many people- but someone has to decide on Constitutional issues- and deciding them does not make them dictators- that is pure hyperbole.

Sorry but I will be reporting ad hominem posts. And referring to what I did or did not read or what I do or do not like is ad hominem and expressly forbidden in Rule #1 for this thread.

The amendment proposed by Michelsen would not allow SCOTUS total authority to dictate what is and is not constitutional with no way to challenge them or discipline them when what they rule is clearly not constitutional. It would give the people authority to challenge bad rulings. It would prevent five people from being able to make a law of the land in a way that nobody would be able to challenge or contest.

Not the people- State governments.

It would allow any state to act in an unconstitutional fashion as it sees fit. It would allow any State to ignore any decision, and deny any person their Constitutional rights.

Lets say for instance that the State of California passes a law outlawing the private ownership of guns.

The law reaches the Supreme Court and the Court quickly, and by a 9-0 margin overturns such an idiotic and Unconstitutional law.

California however could ignore the ruling and continue to take the guns of Californians.

It is a proposal for States to be able to ignore the U.S. Constitution.

There is no constitutional provision that prohibits California from imposing whatever regulations it wants on guns, including prohibiting them within its state lines. The people were intended to have the liberty or order whatever society they wanted and if they were dumb enough to want a gun free society, that was their prerogative to have. What the people of California cannot do, however, is demand that anybody else do what California decides to do.

The Second Amendment says that the Federal Government shall make no law infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments leave that matter strictly up to the states.

 

[rightwinger]

This proposed amendment essentially cuts off the power to the Supreme Court of the United States and turns that power over to states with partisan leadership. Is this born of a fit of pique? The court's decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United seemed to please the Right Wing, but the extension of freedom to the LGBT community and the decision to uphold the federally subsidized exchanges keeping the ACA on the books were seen as disastrous to them. Should the tyranny of the majority rule, or judicial excellence rule? That, as they say, is the question.

Our Nation was set up for Majority Rule. That's Democracy. At least we can vote the bastards out if we want to.

Judicial excellence?

Can't vote those bastards out. Therefore, their power needs to be tightly regulated and under the full checks and balances of the Constitution.

Let's say our nation was set up as a majority rule Democracy. And let's say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was subject to the same restrictions set up in the amendment as listed in the OP.

Do you imagine that the freedoms set forth in the Civil Rights Act would ever come to fruition? Do you suppose the freedoms set forth in the latest decision extending marriage equality would happen? And to what end? To what purpose should these liberties and freedoms be denied?

The majority can oppress without consequence. We need level heads to shine freedom while the majority sneers at it.

Yes, I believe the various states would have eventually come to the right decisions on all those matters. But those that got it wrong would not be able to impose their screw ups on everybody else.

When the federal government gets a universal concept or law wrong, it screws up everybody. Which is why the founders intended the authority and ability to screw up everybody would be very limited via constitutional restraints. All three divisions of government have been corrupting that intention for quite some time now. And I believe the negative consequences have far outweighed the benefits.

It really comes down to whether you want the people to have the liberty to live their lives and organize their societies as they choose or whether you trust an uncontestable authoritarian central government to order how they must live their lives and what sorts of societies they are required to have.

I saw the Citizens United decision as a body blow to the power of the people. But I am not willing to circumvent to power granted the SCOTUS and amend the constitution simply because of that terrible decision. Same with Bush v Gore in 2000. And I fear the tyranny of the majority where civil rights are concerned. Continued repression for no sane grounds is truly tyranny.

Justice delayed is justice denied. Letting the individual states decide if the law of the land is truly the law of the land or merely a suggestion would ensure the tyranny of the majority and that is unacceptable.

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

A tiny minority being denied their rights?

 

[WelfareQueen]

This proposed amendment essentially cuts off the power to the Supreme Court of the United States and turns that power over to states with partisan leadership. Is this born of a fit of pique? The court's decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United seemed to please the Right Wing, but the extension of freedom to the LGBT community and the decision to uphold the federally subsidized exchanges keeping the ACA on the books were seen as disastrous to them. Should the tyranny of the majority rule, or judicial excellence rule? That, as they say, is the question.

Our Nation was set up for Majority Rule. That's Democracy. At least we can vote the bastards out if we want to.

Judicial excellence?

Can't vote those bastards out. Therefore, their power needs to be tightly regulated and under the full checks and balances of the Constitution.

Let's say our nation was set up as a majority rule Democracy. And let's say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was subject to the same restrictions set up in the amendment as listed in the OP.

Do you imagine that the freedoms set forth in the Civil Rights Act would ever come to fruition? Do you suppose the freedoms set forth in the latest decision extending marriage equality would happen? And to what end? To what purpose should these liberties and freedoms be denied?

The majority can oppress without consequence. We need level heads to shine freedom while the majority sneers at it.

Ah.....all the Civil Rights laws were passed by Congress (i.e. Sanctioned by We the People through our elected representatives).

Second, many State Legislatures had already passed Gay marriage laws....again reflecting the will of We the People.

Sorry....your point completely misses the mark.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Again- every time you make this claim you are declaring your contempt for the Constitution.

The Constitution spells out specifically the grounds for impeachment- disagreeing with a ruling is not one of them.

Supporting Constitutional remedy for the violation of same by an unelected Justice is contempt? It's difficult to take such posts seriously.

Roberts ruled that the language of statutes does not determine the meaning of said statutes - in doing so he stated his utter contempt for the rule of law, and thus his lack support for the supreme law of the land. He should, must be impeached and removed from office, for violating his oath to uphold the Constitution.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Again- every time you make this claim you are declaring your contempt for the Constitution.

The Constitution spells out specifically the grounds for impeachment- disagreeing with a ruling is not one of them.

Supporting Constitutional remedy for the violation of same by an unelected Justice is contempt? It's difficult to take such posts seriously.

Roberts ruled that the language of statutes does not determine the meaning of said statutes - in doing so he stated his utter contempt for the rule of law, and thus his lack support for the supreme law of the land. He should, must be impeached and removed from office, for violating his oath to uphold the Constitution.

If judges can change the meaning of a law, or ignore the law entirely....then the will of We the People expressed through our Congress and the law itself means nothing.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is no constitutional provision that prohibits California from imposing whatever regulations it wants on guns, including prohibiting them within its state lines. The people were intended to have the liberty or order whatever society they wanted and if they were dumb enough to want a gun free society, that was their prerogative to have. What the people of California cannot do, however, is demand that anybody else do what California decides to do.

The Second Amendment says that the Federal Government shall make no law infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments leave that matter strictly up to the states.

The 14th Amendment extends that protection to the people of all states though, so California MUST abide by the Constitution. If this were not the case, then the Bill of Rights would only protect those in the District of Columbia or in National Parks.

 

[Nosmo King]

This proposed amendment essentially cuts off the power to the Supreme Court of the United States and turns that power over to states with partisan leadership. Is this born of a fit of pique? The court's decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United seemed to please the Right Wing, but the extension of freedom to the LGBT community and the decision to uphold the federally subsidized exchanges keeping the ACA on the books were seen as disastrous to them. Should the tyranny of the majority rule, or judicial excellence rule? That, as they say, is the question.

Our Nation was set up for Majority Rule. That's Democracy. At least we can vote the bastards out if we want to.

Judicial excellence?

Can't vote those bastards out. Therefore, their power needs to be tightly regulated and under the full checks and balances of the Constitution.

Let's say our nation was set up as a majority rule Democracy. And let's say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was subject to the same restrictions set up in the amendment as listed in the OP.

Do you imagine that the freedoms set forth in the Civil Rights Act would ever come to fruition? Do you suppose the freedoms set forth in the latest decision extending marriage equality would happen? And to what end? To what purpose should these liberties and freedoms be denied?

The majority can oppress without consequence. We need level heads to shine freedom while the majority sneers at it.

Ah.....all the Civil Rights laws were passed by Congress (i.e. Sanctioned by We the People through our elected representatives).

Second, many State Legislatures had already passed Gay marriage laws....again reflecting the will of We the People.

Sorry....your point completely misses the mark.

Under this proposed amendment, the various states could decide whether or not they will comply with the law.. The Civil Rights Act was designed to implement a standard of equal justice throughout the land. These states resisted the act. These states implemented Jim Crow laws that the Civil Rights Act was designed to eliminate.

If such states could look at the law of the land as a mere suggestion, and if such states had already demonstrated a lack of understanding the definition of freedom, why on God's green earth would they suddenly chose to enforce a law which they could legally disregard?

 

[Foxfyre]

Is the tyranny of a tiny minority more acceptable?

How is extending freedom to "a tiny minority" result in tyranny from that minority?

I wasn't referring to extending freedoms to anybody. I was referring to a tiny minority restricting the liberties of everybody else.

IOW you want the right to take freedom away from the tiny minority and if you are not allowed that right you feel your liberty is being taken from you. Correct?

Rule #1 for the thread prohibits you from stating what you think I want. Please refrain from such ad hominem remarks as what I want is not the topic of this thread.

The amendment that Michelsen is proposing would give the various states authority to protect their own liberties and order their societies as they chose when they believed the government had overstepped its constitutional authority. And if 25% of the states believed their constitutional protections had been taken away by the federal government, they would not be subject to the tyranny of a majority and the Congress would have to go back to the drawing board and address the concerns of that 25%. Also there would be nothing to prevent any of the states from enacting the challenged federal law as a state law if they liked it.

Are we a nation of law, or mere suggestion? Granting states to regard law as suggestion will lead to anarchy. States like Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina and Georgia would never enforce the rights and liberties provided under the Voter's Rights Act. In fact, that Act was enacted to force such states to grant all their citizens the most basic right we have, the right to vote.

This amendment rolls back freedom by placating the tyranny of the majority.

Certainly the federal government would have the ability to make a universal law re who could vote in federal elections. It was never intended that the federal government be able to dictate to the various states or communities who could vote in local matters.

But the amendment Michelsen proposes would require a super majority of Congress and consent of the President to say, for example, that green card holders would have the right to vote. But in the highly unlikely event that a 3/4ths majority of Congress would grant such right to green card holders, the states who considered such unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable, would not have to obey that law. And if 1/4th of the states who objected to it filed a formal challenge, this would not become law and could send the legislators back to the drawing board to come up with a better law.

Everything government does is not good. And right now we the people have almost no defense of any kind to protect us from bad acts by our own government.

 

[WelfareQueen]

This proposed amendment essentially cuts off the power to the Supreme Court of the United States and turns that power over to states with partisan leadership. Is this born of a fit of pique? The court's decisions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United seemed to please the Right Wing, but the extension of freedom to the LGBT community and the decision to uphold the federally subsidized exchanges keeping the ACA on the books were seen as disastrous to them. Should the tyranny of the majority rule, or judicial excellence rule? That, as they say, is the question.

Our Nation was set up for Majority Rule. That's Democracy. At least we can vote the bastards out if we want to.

Judicial excellence?

Can't vote those bastards out. Therefore, their power needs to be tightly regulated and under the full checks and balances of the Constitution.

Let's say our nation was set up as a majority rule Democracy. And let's say that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was subject to the same restrictions set up in the amendment as listed in the OP.

Do you imagine that the freedoms set forth in the Civil Rights Act would ever come to fruition? Do you suppose the freedoms set forth in the latest decision extending marriage equality would happen? And to what end? To what purpose should these liberties and freedoms be denied?

The majority can oppress without consequence. We need level heads to shine freedom while the majority sneers at it.

Ah.....all the Civil Rights laws were passed by Congress (i.e. Sanctioned by We the People through our elected representatives).

Second, many State Legislatures had already passed Gay marriage laws....again reflecting the will of We the People.

Sorry....your point completely misses the mark.

Under this proposed amendment, the various states could decide whether or not they will comply with the law.. The Civil Rights Act was designed to implement a standard of equal justice throughout the land. These states resisted the act. These states implemented Jim Crow laws that the Civil Rights Act was designed to eliminate.

If such states could look at the law of the land as a mere suggestion, and if such states had already demonstrated a lack of understanding the definition of freedom, why on God's green earth would they suddenly chose to enforce a law which they could legally disregard?

Okay...I see your point now. Per the OP I disagree that with a threshold of 25% of the States negating a ruling or Law. I think the threshold is far too low.

50% seems reasonable to me. I would keep the 3/4ths of States rule in amending the Constitution.

 

[Foxfyre]

There is no constitutional provision that prohibits California from imposing whatever regulations it wants on guns, including prohibiting them within its state lines. The people were intended to have the liberty or order whatever society they wanted and if they were dumb enough to want a gun free society, that was their prerogative to have. What the people of California cannot do, however, is demand that anybody else do what California decides to do.

The Second Amendment says that the Federal Government shall make no law infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments leave that matter strictly up to the states.

The 14th Amendment extends that protection to the people of all states though, so California MUST abide by the Constitution. If this were not the case, then the Bill of Rights would only protect those in the District of Columbia or in National Parks.

The Bill of Rights was intended to put prohibitions and restraints on the central government. Not the people in the various states.

Look at the wording of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment restricts Congress and Congress only from making such law or law. It does not restrict the various states or local communities in any way.

So the Fourteenth amendment was intended to expand the First Amendment et al as a requirement for state law, but because of so many unattractive unintended consequences that resulted, few amendments have resulted in so much ambiguity or controversy as the Fourteenth. There has been such uneven application that it has rendered the amendment arbitrary and subject to myriad whims, interpretations, and applications by the courts. The Second and Fifth Amendments have pretty much been sidestepped in the Fourteenth. A good discussion can be seen on that here:
Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment was to Protect All Rights

All this is to say that the people have no liberty at all if they have no power or ability to challenge or dispute bad federal law.