Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Amendments to the U.S. Constitution to Grant Legislative Powers to the Citizens

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Yeah, it would not work well expecting everyone to do their due dilligence on every bill.

I like my idea I just posted.




posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
Yeah, it would not work well expecting everyone to do their due dilligence on every bill.

I like my idea I just posted.


Let's all take a vote on that...

After all, the right to vote is the lynchpin of freedom...

Is that right?

Let's take a vote on the veracity of that!



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Ok, call me stupid. I feel you are being sarcastic, but do explain what your point was a bit more clearly for me, thank you, and what did you think of my idea on page 1?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:11 PM
link   
Ok, but I mean how would this be implemented? Civil war?

Damn phone skrewin up my reply...
edit on 5-4-2012 by Beobachter because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by Beobachter
 


Bring a bill to the house with 100 million signatures, if it is ignored your idea will follow sometime thereafter I'd guess.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Ok, call me stupid. I feel you are being sarcastic, but do explain what your point was a bit more clearly for me, thank you, and what did you think of my idea on page 1?


Respectfully, I didn't like your idea at all. I would be open to a citizen repeal power. Whatever bogus legislation a legislature imposes upon the people can be repealed as quickly as it was passed. However, even that, would just be more bureaucracy. The sad tragic truth for most is that our Constitutional government was founded on the principle that We the People are the holders of the inherent political power and understand that ignorance of the law is no excuse. That combination means that we can simply nullify bad legislation through non-acquiescence, jury nullification, and pressure placed upon our state representatives to reign in a federal government.

Small government I say? We know few would vote for that!



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Well your idea is not bad, but you are hoping for 300 million people to suddenly all be knowledgeable and have the time to care about every issue. We know that's not possible in our large society. Even in 1776 they knew not everyone had the time to care and act, so that is the reason for the Rep govt.

I only thought of my idea in about a minute of time, so most likely FAR from perfect, but it would give some power to the people from the start, and not have to wait and see how a bill does or doesn't perform to nullify it.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by SunnyDee
 


Knowing the law does not require knowing the issues. The issues are what are used to convince 300 million that politicians are necessary. The law will set you free. All law is simple, true, universal, and absolute. This means it is easy for the person of average intelligence or better to understand, it is not fraudulent, it applies to everyone, with no exception. This is what so many believe is me asking too much. Sigh.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Beobachter
 


Carlin could really lay it all out on the table for the blindest sheep to see.
One thing that no one in the audiance would ever say about his act "I wonder what he (Carlin) meant by that?"
He weilded the truth like a Sledge-o-matic.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 

Well I like Ron Paul too, ha ha, but you certainly are over-simplifying the state that our union is in right now and how to handle the mess we're in. So, in your world, starting today, we accept the simpleness of the constitution and apply it to our everyday lives, congress be damned, statutes be damned?

I like it, but it won't happen. Baby steps to change is less deadly, unless you can envision a realistic way to implement your old idealism.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by DeReK DaRkLy
 


The House of Representatives is the citizens vote, or at least that is the way it is supposed to work. The 17th amendment took the power of electing US Senators away from the state legislatures and gave it to the people, which was a huge mistake and took almost all power and authority away from the states. Instead of giving citizens legislative power, which would basically make Congress irrelevant and unnecessary, I would argue to repeal the 17th amendment, OR amend the Constitution and create a "Governor's Board" where all 50 state Governors can vote to nullify ANY law passed and signed by the President, or upheld/overturned by the SCOTUS.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 




This was done so to prevent the tyranny of the majority from trampling all over the rights of others




Yet, it is the lesser evil between that and the tyranny of the minority rich.


Marxism was never drafted into the Constitution and any Amendment attempting to do so would never stand Constitutional muster.



Capitalism was never drafted into the constitution, it was a result of the context. Another point being that both these governing concepts were taking shape roughly around the same time. Both look good on paper, but communism/marxism (varying nuances), failed because the system was taken advantage of. Would it be fair to say that capitalism, which if limited by the government causes economic failure, but when left unchecked produces the same kind of abuse we found in communism? I'm not a proponent of communism or marxism but is seams that capitalism has had time to run it's course and it has fallen into the same bucket as the previously mentioned.

This was foreseen though. The original drafters understood that one day, based on human nature, we would need to completely revise the systems of government to address unforeseeable circumstances that have arisen and will continue to arise. This was drafted into declaration of independence, which is the foundation for our constitution.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Marxism didn't exist when the Constitution was being drafted.

Second line.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


Marxism didn't exist when the Constitution was being drafted.

Second line.


Communism did. The Founders were learned men who had studied many forms of government, including the Native American's, many of whom employed a form of communism. If the Founders thought such a system tenable it is arguable they would have drafted it into the Constitution. It is also fairly arguable they didn't because communism has no regards for individual rights.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:21 PM
link   
The only instance in which I think there should be a national system of referendums for the people to decide would be on those issues that directly benefit the representatives themselves.

What I mean by that is in cases in which the issue to be decided is directly related to the benefits or limitations of the representatives.

That way they would no longer be able vote themselves pay rises and thier travel arangements, the size of their staff and their operating budgetswould be subject to our approval.

Most importantly I think most Americans would like some sort of term limits for Senators and Representatives.

However, it is not likely ever to pass or even be proposed if the only ones who can do so have a large conflict of interest in its passage. They have little reason - why would they vote themselves out of a job.

Also there should be a law that specifies that the legislators can’t exempt themselves from any law they pass…that way they can't pass a law then exempt themselves like Obamacare....

Or like in California a state with very restrictive gun laws – unless you are an elected official or judge then you can carry a gun anytime anyplace without any registration training or limitation….

Any law they make should at least apply to themselves IMO.



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:28 PM
link   
This could all be pretty moot soon, it doesn't take much of a stretch to ensure everyone's opinions are only of the authorized variety, so I guess lets enjoy discussing what a fair and equitable system of governement would be.

"As congressmen in Washington consider how to handle the ongoing issue of cyberattacks, some legislators have lent their support to a new act that, if passed, would let the government pry into the personal correspondence of anyone of their choosing". This is SOPA being passed in smaller chunks...

"H.R. 3523, a piece of legislation dubbed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short) has vague definitions that could allow Congress to circumvent existing exemptions to online privacy laws and essentially monitor, censor and stop any online communication that it considers disruptive to the government or private parties."

Here's the link to the current ATS discussion thread .....

They are voting on this in 2 weeks time....
www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Apr, 6 2012 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 





Most importantly I think most Americans would like some sort of term limits for Senators and Representatives.


Interestingly, there was a limit to Senators prior to the 17th Amendment and that was that they were chosen by their state legislatures. The reasoning behind the 17th Amendment - arguably unconstitutional - was that many states were locked in gridlocks in choosing Senators which left vacant seats in Congress. All these vacant seats did was created delays in passing legislation which is in itself a kind of a limit.

Also, the Constitution mandated the way Senators were chosen, to compliment their bicameral form of legislature to have one house filled with elected representatives but the other filled with legislators not beholden to any voting constituency, which again is a kind of limit.



posted on Apr, 7 2012 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Interestingly, there was a limit to Senators prior to the 17th Amendment and that was that they were chosen by their state legislatures. The reasoning behind the 17th Amendment - arguably unconstitutional - was that many states were locked in gridlocks in choosing Senators which left vacant seats in Congress. All these vacant seats did was created delays in passing legislation which is in it a kind of a limit.

Also, the Constitution mandated the way Senators were chosen, to compliment their bicameral form of legislature to have one house filled with elected representatives but the other filled with legislators not beholden to any voting constituency, which again is a kind of limit.


I'd love to see the 17th Amendment reppealed to be honest - might result in some return of the representation of the States at the table. With than maybe some respect for the 10th Amendment.

If we had to stick with what we have I would say a two term limit for Senators and a 4 term limit for Congress people would suffice. That was we would avoid career politicians (at least in the halls of the US government). Taking away their ability to draw a pension from their service would also go a long way towards that goal. Then strictly limit their ability to lobby after serving and it would be the trifecta of corruption removal.
edit on 7/4/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7/4/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)
edit on 7/4/2012 by Golf66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2012 @ 09:28 AM
link   
More direct form of government is always better than more representative one. Representatives are unnecessary middle-men, and I dare anyone who opposes to tell me just one real advantage that representative forms of government hold over more direct ones because they are more indirect.



posted on Apr, 10 2012 @ 06:52 PM
link   
the "congress of the people" would have to be constitutionaly limited to prevent the majority from infringing the rights of the minority, orfrom doing anything too stupid.






top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join