A Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[roguenuke]

What an atrocious amendment. Twenty five percent of the states? This is nothing more than a backdoor creation of a Neo-Confederate veto over US politics.

The good thing is that this isn't likely to be very popular in Congress. Unless they manage a Constitutional Convention and are able to convince most of those there that this is a good idea (highly unlikely but more likely than getting it through Congress), this isn't going to happen.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I still don't see how this amendment is going to do any of this. If anything it'll increase partisan bickering over how often the minority side blocks everything the majority wants to do. Passing bills with 75% of the vote will force legislators to bribe, beg, and coerce others to a large majority favoring tons of pet projects and individual constituencies. The compromises that pretty much everyone can live with wouldn't happen. Instead there would be watered down bills that don't accurately address original problems filled with pork. Either that or literally no bills at all.

with this Amendment, what's the point of even continuing to be a country? Foreign policy and other legitimate purposes of the Federal Government could be destroyed by a small minority of states. Each state could nullify any enactment of the Federal government and likely each state's laws would cease to be similar to any other's. Congress would be unable to pass anything, the President would be unable to do anything without a small minority of states voiding it, and Supreme Court rulings could be ignored at will. The Constitution will become useless with each state warping their own interpretation of it to mean whatever they want. Your amendment doesn't just return some power to the states, it gives literally all of it, to the point it makes no sense to remain one Nation.

It will be much more difficult for them to bribe or extort a large majority than it is for them to bribe or extort a razor thin majority. It is time that we had a system in which there is no tyranny of the majority and the only people anybody has to keep happy are their own constituency. We need to restore a system that considers all the people and not just the favored.

 

[roguenuke]

It will be much more difficult for them to bribe or extort a large majority than it is for them to bribe or extort a razor thin majority. It is time that we had a system in which there is no tyranny of the majority and the only people anybody has to keep happy are their own constituency. We need to restore a system that considers all the people and not just the favored.

We have that system in place now to a much greater extent than this Amendment would ever do. This Amendment would create just a bunch of individual little state tyrannies, run by majorities who don't give two flips about the rights of minorities. They would have no reason to since they would never have to obey any SCOTUS ruling or federal legislation they didn't agree with according to this Amendment.

 

[Athrawan]

As do many of us, 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.

What he proposes:
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 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.?

What is being proposed is not an amendment to the Constitution. It is an attempt to replace the Constitution with an instrument of government that permits a minority to decide what the government may, or may not, do. There are many names for this form of government, but democracy is not one of them. This is a veiled attempt to assert the failed doctrine of States' Rights which was defeated in the American Civil War. If the "people" disagree with their government, they have recourse to their Constitutionally guaranteed right to "vote the bastards out of office".

 

[AlbqOwl]

As do many of us, 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.

What he proposes:
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 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.?

What is being proposed is not an amendment to the Constitution. It is an attempt to replace the Constitution with an instrument of government that permits a minority to decide what the government may, or may not, do. There are many names for this form of government, but democracy is not one of them. This is a veiled attempt to assert the failed doctrine of States' Rights which was defeated in the American Civil War. If the "people" disagree with their government, they have recourse to their Constitutionally guaranteed right to "vote the bastards out of office".

I disagree. While I do see flaws in Michelsen's proposal, he is not at all attempting to replace the Constitution. He is attempting to restore it, at least in part, to its original intent. He is offering a way to stop the government from using razor thin partisan and politically motivated majorities to force unwanted legislation onto the people. It requires Congress, the President, and SCOTUS to justify the constitutional basis for what they do, and to achieve sufficient majorities so that there is no question that most are in agreement with the proposed rule or law or decision. It requires them to work with each other to accomplish legislation everybody can support and defend instead of the winner take all mentality.

 

[Thoreau72]

What is a 'sufficient majority'?

 

[roguenuke]

I disagree. While I do see flaws in Michelsen's proposal, he is not at all attempting to replace the Constitution. He is attempting to restore it, at least in part, to its original intent. He is offering a way to stop the government from using razor thin partisan and politically motivated majorities to force unwanted legislation onto the people. It requires Congress, the President, and SCOTUS to justify the constitutional basis for what they do, and to achieve sufficient majorities so that there is no question that most are in agreement with the proposed rule or law or decision. It requires them to work with each other to accomplish legislation everybody can support and defend instead of the winner take all mentality.

He is not trying to restore the "original intent" of the Constitution with this. He is trying to restore the Articles of Confederation with this and increase the power given to the states by that failed document, even in the time of the founders.

 

[AlbqOwl]

He is not trying to restore the "original intent" of the Constitution with this. He is trying to restore the Articles of Confederation with this and increase the power given to the states by that failed document, even in the time of the founders.

Well since he refers to the Constitution I'll take him at his word. His intent is to take the power away from the permanent political class and restore it to the people.

 

[roguenuke]

Well since he refers to the Constitution I'll take him at his word. His intent is to take the power away from the permanent political class and restore it to the people.

Lol.

Just because he refers to it doesn't means that is really his attempt. The Constitution never gave the states that much power.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Lol.

Just because he refers to it doesn't means that is really his attempt. The Constitution never gave the states that much power.

I believe he believes it did. It did not specify ways the states could defend the power they were entitled to have, because the initial assumption was that the President, legislators, and SCOTUS would honor their oath to uphold and defend the original intent of the Constitution. Now that they so often no longer do that, the propose amendment is one way to correct that.

 

[roguenuke]

I believe he believes it did. It did not specify ways the states could defend the power they were entitled to have, because the initial assumption was that the President, legislators, and SCOTUS would honor their oath to uphold and defend the original intent of the Constitution. Now that they so often no longer do that, the propose amendment is one way to correct that.

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation establishing the federal government as having higher power than the states, while the states still maintained certain rights. But so did the people, and most of the problem comes from the states wanting to squash the rights of their people. That was addressed by the Civil War when those pushing for states' rights got their pee-pees smacked down when it came to oppressing their people. Since then the push has been for keeping states from oppressing the rights of the people mainly, and that has been most of the cases we've seen.

You seem to think that the Founding Fathers were of one mind about where power should have been held. They weren't. They were all over the spectrum, but one things for sure, the vast majority of them, particularly those considered the great minds, would not have agreed to this Amendment.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation establishing the federal government as having higher power than the states, while the states still maintained certain rights. But so did the people, and most of the problem comes from the states wanting to squash the rights of their people. That was addressed by the Civil War when those pushing for states' rights got their pee-pees smacked down when it came to oppressing their people. Since then the push has been for keeping states from oppressing the rights of the people mainly, and that has been most of the cases we've seen.

You seem to think that the Founding Fathers were of one mind about where power should have been held. They weren't. They were all over the spectrum, but one things for sure, the vast majority of them, particularly those considered the great minds, would not have agreed to this Amendment.

They were of one mind about what they wanted to accomplish in a Constitution for a new kind of nation that maximized liberty and power to the people while securing their rights. They did not all agree on exactly how to accomplish that but took eleven years to thoughtfully hammer it out until they had a document almost everybody was willing to live with. Nobody got everything he wanted, but the document they finally agreed on was remarkable and unique in world history. It is too bad that we now have a permanent political class in Washington that ignores all that and does any damn thing they want to do to anybody all in the interest of benefitting themselves.

Michelsen's proposed amendment looks to remedy a good deal of that. His purpose merits thoughtful consideration whether or not any of us ever agree that is the way to go.

 

[roguenuke]

They were of one mind about what they wanted to accomplish in a Constitution for a new kind of nation that maximized liberty and power to the people while securing their rights. They did not all agree on exactly how to accomplish that but took eleven years to thoughtfully hammer it out until they had a document almost everybody was willing to live with. Nobody got everything he wanted, but the document they finally agreed on was remarkable and unique in world history. It is too bad that we now have a permanent political class in Washington that ignores all that and does any damn thing they want to do to anybody all in the interest of benefitting themselves.

Michelsen's proposed amendment looks to remedy a good deal of that. His purpose merits thoughtful consideration whether or not any of us ever agree that is the way to go.

His proposal does absolutely nothing except move power from the people, the individuals, into tiny little tyrannies of majorities. The most contested SCOTUS decisions of the last 75 years or so have mainly been those where states were told by the SCOTUS that their laws were violating individual rights. His proposal would mainly become a way to completely ignore such decisions, allowing states to **** over the individuals who are not part of majorities in their areas. It oppresses people in the name of "states' rights".

 

[AlbqOwl]

His proposal does absolutely nothing except move power from the people, the individuals, into tiny little tyrannies of majorities. The most contested SCOTUS decisions of the last 75 years or so have mainly been those where states were told by the SCOTUS that their laws were violating individual rights. His proposal would mainly become a way to completely ignore such decisions, allowing states to **** over the individuals who are not part of majorities in their areas. It oppresses people in the name of "states' rights".

I cannot trust a Supreme Court that supposedly is ruling on Constitutional basis that splits 5/4 as often as the current SCOTUS does. Either half the court does not know what the Constitution says or doesn't give a damn. And Michelsen's amendment does nothing to empower any person, entity, demographic, or other to impose their will or values on anybody else. All it does is provide the people some power to defend themselves against what the self-serving or irresponsible or power seeking would impose upon them against their will.

 

[polgara]

I cannot trust a Supreme Court that supposedly is ruling on Constitutional basis that splits 5/4 as often as the current SCOTUS does. Either half the court does not know what the Constitution says or doesn't give a damn. And Michelsen's amendment does nothing to empower any person, entity, demographic, or other to impose their will or values on anybody else. All it does is provide the people some power to defend themselves against what the self-serving or irresponsible or power seeking would impose upon them against their will.

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

There's a reason why each party wants to be the one that gets to choose the newest potential SCOTUS candidate when one retires or dies.. Apparently the Constitution is open for interpretation these days, and it seems to depend on how the Court is balanced, so it has become political. It's not supposed to be, and the Justices know damn well that it's not supposed to be, but it is. Human nature and party loyalty, I guess. How can we have four that interpret things one way, and four who interpret things the other way, with one "swing vote" making all the difference in determining the law. They're all reading the same words, aren't they?

Our Founders didn't deliberately make things ambiguous - they were very clear in their intent in almost all cases. Our SCOTUS is now making the laws, and that's not their function - they are there to interpret existing laws based on the Constitution! Sad, because the balance can change, and most court cases have a winner and a loser. That's why you go to court....

 

[AlbqOwl]

Greetings, AlbqOwl. :2wave:

There's a reason why each party wants to be the one that gets to choose the newest potential SCOTUS candidate when one retires or dies.. Apparently the Constitution is open for interpretation these days, and it seems to depend on how the Court is balanced, so it has become political. It's not supposed to be, and the Justices know damn well that it's not supposed to be, but it is. Human nature and party loyalty, I guess. How can we have four that interpret things one way, and four who interpret things the other way, with one "swing vote" making all the difference in determining the law. They're all reading the same words, aren't they?

Our Founders didn't deliberately make things ambiguous - they were very clear in their intent in almost all cases. Our SCOTUS is now making the laws, and that's not their function - they are there to interpret existing laws based on the Constitution! Sad, because the balance can change, and most court cases have a winner and a loser. That's why you go to court....

I agree completely Polgara and that is what I believe prompted Michelsen's proposed amendment and this thread. Of course we wouldn't leave Michelsen's amendment as it is worded--it certainly needs tweaking here and there--but I immediately got where he was coming from and how we may have to add a constitutional amendment to stop the President and Congress and SCOTUS and an almost unregulated bureaucracy from essentially rewriting the Constitutional with unconstitutional laws and edicts.

 

[roguenuke]

I cannot trust a Supreme Court that supposedly is ruling on Constitutional basis that splits 5/4 as often as the current SCOTUS does. Either half the court does not know what the Constitution says or doesn't give a damn. And Michelsen's amendment does nothing to empower any person, entity, demographic, or other to impose their will or values on anybody else. All it does is provide the people some power to defend themselves against what the self-serving or irresponsible or power seeking would impose upon them against their will.

The Court is filled with two different types of people, one set that believes states should have a lot of power, even at the expense of the people. The other that believes the power should rest in the federal government and individuals. Both views can be supported, at least to a degree, within the Constitution. The Court is there to decide whose rights are more important, particularly when it is state (vote of the people) vs individuals.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The Court is filled with two different types of people, one set that believes states should have a lot of power, even at the expense of the people. The other that believes the power should rest in the federal government and individuals. Both views can be supported, at least to a degree, within the Constitution. The Court is there to decide whose rights are more important, particularly when it is state (vote of the people) vs individuals.

No. The Court is there to interpret the Constitution and the Law and apply it as intended, period. That is the court's ONLY role.

 

[roguenuke]

No. The Court is there to interpret the Constitution and the Law and apply it as intended, period. That is the court's ONLY role.

What the hell do you think that means if what I said is not included in there? They are looking at laws, rights that seem to conflict. Individuals have rights that need to be protected from the states just as much as they do from the federal government.

 

[polgara]

No. The Court is there to interpret the Constitution and the Law and apply it as intended, period. That is the court's ONLY role.

My State is closer to me geographically than the federal government is, and more answerable to the people, too! The "one size fits all" attitude by the federal government does not, and cannot, mean the same thing in Mississippi as it does in North Dakota, even in something as basic as type of food usually eaten. We aren't robots yet, although they keep trying!

 

[roguenuke]

My State is closer to me geographically than the federal government is, and more answerable to the people, too! The "one size fits all" attitude by the federal government does not, and cannot, mean the same thing in Mississippi as it does in North Dakota, even in something as basic as type of food usually eaten. We aren't robots yet, although they keep trying!

We are in 2015, not 1815. Any state in the country can be physically reached from any other state within 24 hours. Communication is pretty much instantaneous. There are very little differences between what a child in one state learns or does compared to a child in any other state. I was able to get sweet tea here in many restaurants in Washington state, not even counting McDs. Seriously your entire premise seems to rest on "well I eat differently than those folks in xxx state" and that's why you think you are that different to need completely different laws? The most recent laws the SCOTUS covered dealt with same sex marriage. Marriage is not that much different legally in any state than it is in any other state, especially not in any significant way that could seriously make same sex couples different (legally) than opposite sex couples.

 

[roguenuke]

Under this Amendment, what exactly would prevent states from enacting segregation again (at least one still has segregation as part of its laws)? Or what about enforcing sodomy laws? Or enforcing/reenacting all sorts of laws that the SCOTUS has deemed unconstitutional? After all, the second part of the Amendment states right there that states can simply ignore SCOTUS rulings that they don't agree with.

 

[polgara]

We are in 2015, not 1815. Any state in the country can be physically reached from any other state within 24 hours. Communication is pretty much instantaneous. There are very little differences between what a child in one state learns or does compared to a child in any other state. I was able to get sweet tea here in many restaurants in Washington state, not even counting McDs. Seriously your entire premise seems to rest on "well I eat differently than those folks in xxx state" and that's why you think you are that different to need completely different laws? The most recent laws the SCOTUS covered dealt with same sex marriage. Marriage is not that much different legally in any state than it is in any other state, especially not in any significant way that could seriously make same sex couples different (legally) than opposite sex couples.

Greetings, roguenuke. :2wave:

I only used type of food eaten as an example of regional differences, even though we are all humans. Most cookbooks do have entire sections set aside by region for those who would like to try something different for a change. And that's why we have so many restaurants that cater to different tastes. It doesn't mean one is better than the others.

And once again, for the record, I have never cared in the past who marries who - and I still don't. Life is too short to waste time fighting about how another person wants to live their life - that's their business, not mine. Whatever happened to "live and let live?" It worked for a long time, and we were a happier people back then. Maybe now we can tackle the other problems this country faces that will affect all of us, like infrastructure that is deteriorating and becoming more and more unsafe; a debt that keeps climbing every minute of every day that is strangling us; and not enough decent paying jobs for those who want to work. Let's see what things look like six months from now - I have the feeling most people aren't going to like it, no matter who they're married to, or even if they're unmarried. I hope I'm wrong, but the problems are real....

 

[roguenuke]

Greetings, roguenuke. :2wave:

I only used type of food eaten as an example of regional differences, even though we are all humans. Most cookbooks do have entire sections set aside by region for those who would like to try something different for a change. And that's why we have so many restaurants that cater to different tastes. It doesn't mean one is better than the others.

And once again, for the record, I have never cared in the past who marries who - and I still don't. Life is too short to waste time fighting about how another person wants to live their life - that's their business, not mine. Whatever happened to "live and let live?" It worked for a long time, and we were a happier people back then. Maybe now we can tackle the other problems this country faces that will affect all of us, like infrastructure that is deteriorating and becoming more and more unsafe; a debt that keeps climbing every minute of every day that is strangling us; and not enough decent paying jobs for those who want to work. Let's see what things look like six months from now - I have the feeling most people aren't going to like it, no matter who they're married to, or even if they're unmarried. I hope I'm wrong, but the problems are real....

Whether you personally approve or disapprove of same sex marriage being legal though doesn't change the fact that there are some states in this country where there are still a majority of people who do not approve of same sex couples getting married. This proposed Amendment would allow those states to completely ignore this latest SCOTUS ruling and continue to not issue marriage licenses to same sex couples, not recognize them as legally married, simply because they don't want to, despite the ruling. It would also allow states to go back to enforcing sodomy laws, even just against gays. It completely hands power over to the states, in complete disregard for the rights of the people.

But we really haven't been a "live and let live" society, ever. We have always had issues of conflict, just like pretty much every other society on this planet.

 

[MTAtech]

If this Amendment was in effect 60 years ago, civil rights would have never come to pass and blacks would be subject to Jim Crow laws, segregation, and discrimination in education, employment and marriage.

If a state can ignore a Supreme Court ruling, then any state that is a party to an action that reaches the Supreme Court can ignore the ruling if it goes against them. That would have meant that the 1967 ruling that outlawed Virginia's law forbidding marriage between separate races, could have merely been ignored by Virginia. The same thing would be true regarding gay rights.

If there is a war and Congress imposes a draft, can a state just decide that its citizens can't be inducted?

There is so much wrong with this proposal that I am thankful it will never go anywhere, thanks to the fact that 2/3 of each House of Congress must approve it along with 3/4 of the states.

The country is called The UNITED States for a reason. What this Amendment does it move the country back to the Articles of the Confederation -- a loose band of separate states, which the Constitution replaced.