The Checks and Balances do not Work

[Individual]

If the founders had the telephone system that we had a hundred years ago, then they would have made the federal senate a network of the state legislatures and the House a network of the municipal councils; and that would accommodate better local "politics."

What is "politics"?

I have few complaints about local politics.

The problem then returns to the state legislatures appointing senators and their inability re-emerges, because the states are unable to manage the diversity. You just don't see it, because the chaos was elevated to the federal level by the 17th Amendment. The problem is exacerbated by desegregation laws.

The 17th along with the 16th amendments, IMO based upon my schooling, fundamentally changed how our Federal government operates.

Exactly - The founders wanted that, but did not have all of the information, nor the technology to construct the government charters to be coordinated.

The only way to get there is by reordering the charter system to accommodate the graduation of social issues.


You probably have not found any forum that has anyone trying - I am the only one. It is going to require a complete reordering of the charter system.

That is the description of the "graduation of social issues."

I can only guess what you mean by the "charter system" so I'm left unable to respond rationally to the above

 

[jdog]

If the “checks and balances” worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because, “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and it is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power are probably not in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.

It should be obvious, by now, that the Department of Justice is not adequately separated from partisan alignment. It does not matter which party is in power, the attorney general is always accused of appeasing the president that nominated the office appointment. That is what happens in a lack of separation - the check on power is ignored and the possibilities are exploited.

Less obvious, because it has been for so long, is the judiciary is not separate from the other branches if it is dependent on the other branches to graduate its hierarchy of offices. And of course, the Federal Reserve is a legislative body that needs to be organized constituent to each state - state commerce commissioner.

The solution is we need to reorder the entire three-level charter system. Amendments will not work, because the separation of government entities is "hard-wired" to the articles of the charters.

Checks and balances went out the window a long time ago. The government was never intended to be a balance between the President, Congress, and SC, it was supposed to be a balance between the Federal Government, the States, and the people. The passage of the 17th Amendment basically robbed the States of their seat at the table in Washington, and the failure of Congress to expand the representatives along with the growing population robbed the people of having any real input into the system.
The Federal Reserve is not a legislative body, it is a private corporation who answers only to its member banks. The Congress was never given the power under the Constitution to delegate their responsibility to coin money to a private corporation or anyone else.
Today our government can best be described as a fascist state where mega corporations and the elite have taken control of government via bribes and corruption. Laws are written by corporate attorneys who then give the legislation to which ever members of Congress they are paying to sponsor it. They then bribe whatever members of Congress they need to get the legislation passed. The entire system is a farce.

 

[American]

When you get 34 State legislatures to apply to Congress for a State Constitutional Convention to propose changes be sure you let us know. Until that happens there will not be any changes until the US collapses completely from within. Which should occur sometime within this century.

Fortunately the 34 states don't have to apply to Congress.

 

[Glitch]

Fortunately the 34 states don't have to apply to Congress.

Actually, they do. Either amendments are proposed by a two-thirds majority of Congress, or when two-thirds of the State legislatures apply to Congress to call a convention for the purpose of proposing amendments. See Article V of the US Constitution {emphasis added}.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

 

[Individual]

If the “checks and balances” worked, then we would not endure corruption and flawed policy, because that is what the “checks and balances” are supposed to prevent. If it is because, “they are not following the Constitution,” that means the checks and balances do not work, because the checks and balances are supposed to prevent that, as well. The checks and balances do not work, and it is probably because the three-part separation theory is improperly deployed. The three-part separation theory is probably a valid theory, but if there is any error in its deployment, then the distribution of government powers is probably not balanced, and the checks on power are probably not in accordance with expectations. It is very unlikely that the checks and balances are going to work correctly if the separation of government is not properly constructed.

It should be obvious, by now, that the Department of Justice is not adequately separated from partisan alignment. It does not matter which party is in power, the attorney general is always accused of appeasing the president that nominated the office appointment. That is what happens in a lack of separation - the check on power is ignored and the possibilities are exploited.

Less obvious, because it has been for so long, is the judiciary is not separate from the other branches if it is dependent on the other branches to graduate its hierarchy of offices. And of course, the Federal Reserve is a legislative body that needs to be organized constituent to each state - state commerce commissioner.

The solution is we need to reorder the entire three-level charter system. Amendments will not work, because the separation of government entities is "hard-wired" to the articles of the charters.

What checks and balances are you referring to? Those which existed prior to 1913?

 

[Eriech]

The 2cnd ammendment was the last check

 

[Individual]

This would be a good start, but including repeal of the 17th amendment would make it a great start, in reducing control of the Federal government by the political parties and returning it to the people and the States.

 

[Mircea]

The Federal Reserve is not a legislative body, it is a private corporation who answers only to its member banks. The Congress was never given the power under the Constitution to delegate their responsibility to coin money to a private corporation or anyone else.

[/QUOTE]
Great, another Gold Standard nutter who doesn't understand.

Today our government can best be described as a fascist state where mega corporations and the elite have taken control of government via bribes and corruption.

That's because you refused to take control and do your duty as a citizen.

Laws are written by corporate attorneys who then give the legislation to which ever members of Congress they are paying to sponsor it. They then bribe whatever members of Congress they need to get the legislation passed. The entire system is a farce.

That's how your healthcare system was created.

Isn't it wonderful?

This would be a good start, but including repeal of the 17th amendment would make it a great start, in reducing control of the Federal government by the political parties and returning it to the people and the States.

No, it wouldn't.

This is all you need:

Proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Section 1

No person or entity shall contribute money, or goods, services, tangible property or intangible property in lieu of money, to a political candidate, or to the political campaign of a ballot initiative, who is not a natural born or naturalized United States citizen, and who is not legally domiciled and eligible to vote within the geographical area that an elected official serves or represents, or in which a ballot initiative may be operative.

What is the difference between alleged Russian meddling in US elections and Californians meddling in the elections of Tennessee?

No difference whatsoever. The States are sovereign.

Section 2

Political parties shall not transfer or distribute campaign funds or monies raised, donated or accumulated within a State to another State or to the several States.

Section 3

Any person who knowingly or willfully accepts money, goods, services, tangible property or intangible property for purposes of circumventing Section 1 of this Amendment shall be imprisoned for not less than 1 year and fined not less than 300 percent of the amount of money, or goods, services, tangible property, or intangible property, contributed to the political candidate or the political campaign of a ballot initiative.

Any natural person who knowingly or willfully commits a violation of this Amendment shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and fined not less than 300 percent of the amount of money, or goods, services, tangible property, or intangible property, contributed to the political candidate or the political campaign of a ballot initiative.

Any non-natural person or entity who knowingly or willfully commits a violation of this Amendment shall be placed in receivership for a term of not less than 7 years, and not more than 10 years, and fined not less than 500 percent of the amount of money, or goods, services, tangible property, or intangible property, contributed to the political candidate or the political campaign of a ballot initiative. The United States Bankruptcy Court having jurisdiction over the non-natural person or entity shall appoint a trustee to act as receiver.

Section 4

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 5

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date its submission.

 

[Individual]

Great, another Gold Standard nutter who doesn't understand.

That's because you refused to take control and do your duty as a citizen.

That's how your healthcare system was created.

Isn't it wonderful?

No, it wouldn't.

This is all you need:

Proposed 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

Section 1

No person or entity shall contribute money, or goods, services, tangible property or intangible property in lieu of money, to a political candidate, or to the political campaign of a ballot initiative, who is not a natural born or naturalized United States citizen, and who is not legally domiciled and eligible to vote within the geographical area that an elected official serves or represents, or in which a ballot initiative may be operative.

What is the difference between alleged Russian meddling in US elections and Californians meddling in the elections of Tennessee?

No difference whatsoever. The States are sovereign.

Section 2

Political parties shall not transfer or distribute campaign funds or monies raised, donated or accumulated within a State to another State or to the several States.

Section 3

Any person who knowingly or willfully accepts money, goods, services, tangible property or intangible property for purposes of circumventing Section 1 of this Amendment shall be imprisoned for not less than 1 year and fined not less than 300 percent of the amount of money, or goods, services, tangible property, or intangible property, contributed to the political candidate or the political campaign of a ballot initiative.

Any natural person who knowingly or willfully commits a violation of this Amendment shall be imprisoned for not less than 5 years and fined not less than 300 percent of the amount of money, or goods, services, tangible property, or intangible property, contributed to the political candidate or the political campaign of a ballot initiative.

Any non-natural person or entity who knowingly or willfully commits a violation of this Amendment shall be placed in receivership for a term of not less than 7 years, and not more than 10 years, and fined not less than 500 percent of the amount of money, or goods, services, tangible property, or intangible property, contributed to the political candidate or the political campaign of a ballot initiative. The United States Bankruptcy Court having jurisdiction over the non-natural person or entity shall appoint a trustee to act as receiver.

Section 4

The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section 5

This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date its submission.
[/QUOTE]

While I agree with your post, I do believe repealing both the 16th and 17th amendments is a necessary start if the people and the States ever want to exercise control of the Federal government as was intended by our founders.