PDA

View Full Version : Found this on Mike Gravel's website...



StartTheMachine
06-23-2008, 08:17 PM
bTDdOSktQSU

What d'ya think?

Gadsden
06-23-2008, 08:41 PM
uhhh....

The Constitution doesn't get amended by a popular vote. Interesting idea, but as they pointed out it won't work. Seems whimsicle and I don't like it. We should just make fewer laws...

StartTheMachine
06-23-2008, 08:48 PM
uhhh....

The Constitution doesn't get amended by a popular vote. Interesting idea, but as they pointed out it won't work. Seems whimsicle and I don't like it. We should just make fewer laws...
Yeah I was curious about the constitutional amendment by the people. If I remember government class correctly, that doesn't fly. They're saying there's something in article vii that allows it; after all, otherwise, the people would not be allowed to reject laws, decisions, etc. by any legal means.

http://www.nationalinitiative.us/constitutionality.htm

Beatitude
06-23-2008, 08:50 PM
I don't really like it either. States can have their initiative if they want them, and I'm cool with that, but you'd need to amend the constitution to make it national, and good luck with that, as already pointed out. You change the constitutional via a constitutional convention; the people don't decide on that. Sure, maybe having representatives can be scary, but having people decide isn't any better and probably worse. Let me remind everyone that these are the same people that put McCain as the GOP nominee. So as far as I'm concerned, if I'm not living in a highly democratic country, that's o.k. by me.

StartTheMachine
06-23-2008, 08:55 PM
Sorry for not stating this, but I'm really just trying to focus on the idea itself here, and not whether it's actually going to happen. Because it won't.


I think the idea is just to clean up the other branches by requiring greater transparancy, as well as getting the public much more involved in politics.

Gadsden
06-23-2008, 09:02 PM
http://www.nationalinitiative.us/constitutionality.htm

doesn't impress me much.

Also, the States that sent delegates to the Convention weren't under Constitutional law at that point...they still had the Articles of Confederation. Comparing a "bypass" in that to one magically found in the Constitution is a bit of a stretch. I can see the East Coast passing laws detrimental to the West Coast, visa versa, etc.

the quote at the bottom of the page summarizes the exact opposite of the constitutional philosophy I support.

SDMuscleBuddy
06-23-2008, 09:19 PM
The goal here seems to be to amend the Constitution to include a fourth leg in the system of checks and balances. The amendment would created a process where "we the people" would be able to introduce bills to be put up for national popular vote, and upon passing would become law. Called a National Initiative, it is modelled after the same process some states have already implemented. Such laws would come under scrutiny of the Supreme Court, maintaining checks and balances and hopefully protecting Americans from falling under the rule of unconstitutional laws.

The scary part of this is that the masses are the asses. There would be no end to the stupid laws that would be put up there, and what happens in California, every time, is there are two or more competing initiatives worded very carefully and you're never sure if a "No" vote means "Yes", or if the bill on which you agree is doing what you agree to. Unless you're paying attention, you have about a 50/50 chance of voting the way you intend. Besides, public opinion can be so easily manipulated, on the short term, that very calculating and resourceful people will be able to do a lot of damage. My initial reaction is to look at this proposition very carefully.