A Proposed Constitutional Amendment to Restore Power to the People

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:
​

​

​

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.?

AlbqOwl said:

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.?

Click to expand...

I will have to think about that, but it is certain that we must consider stronger checks and balances to guard against popular whim.

joG said:

I will have to think about that, but it is certain that we must consider stronger checks and balances to guard against popular whim.

Click to expand...

But bless you for willingness to think about it. I want to hear the pros and cons for such an amendment before I vote one way or the other, but I will have to say that given the extreme overreach by all levels of government--legislative, executive, and judicial--I am emotionally leaning in favor of it at this present time.

I can't agree with any of these sections.

The first one gives 13 states the power to absolutely veto everything federal. That's the South plus Oklahoma and Kentucky or the Northeast and West Coast. It's way to easy to come up with some sort of Constitutional objection for anything to expect it not to be used politically. This power would also seem to extend to treaties other foreign policy enactments.

This problem is amplified in the second section where I believe it would be used to nullify any enactment a state didn't like regardless of its constitutionality.

The third section would, as long as Democrats and Republicans make up a third of the House each, impose a 3/4ths requirement for nearly all legislation.

AlbqOwl said:

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.?

Click to expand...

I oppose this amendment for several reasons:

The Legislative Branch enacts law; the Executive Branch enforces law; the Judicial Branch interprets the validity of law and how it is to be applied. That is how the system works. In my opinion it works well enough as it is.

Furthermore, this "amendment" gives even more power to minority groups to disrupt the system to their benefit. "30% of the House, 25% of the States?" If this kind of amendment had been in existence at the time preceding the Civil War, either the Confederacy would exist as a separate nation, or the United States could have remained a slave nation for another 100 years.

It serves no useful purpose, and I hope it never gets passed.

Anagram said:

I can't agree with any of these sections.

The first one gives 13 states the power to absolutely veto everything federal. That's the South plus Oklahoma and Kentucky or the Northeast and West Coast. It's way to easy to come up with some sort of Constitutional objection for anything to expect it not to be used politically. This power would also seem to extend to treaties other foreign policy enactments.

This problem is amplified in the second section where I believe it would be used to nullify any enactment a state didn't like regardless of its constitutionality.

The third section would, as long as Democrats and Republicans make up a third of the House each, impose a 3/4ths requirement for nearly all legislation.

Click to expand...

Correct. A razor thin majority--one easily obtained via bribe or extortion--would no longer be able to dictate the fate of all, either from Congress or SCOTUS. There would again be an incentive to be responsive to the will of the people and obtain consensus before a vote on something that would impose the law of the land on all. That is what the separation of powers were intended to accomplish in the first place. If the federal government is going to make a huge percentage of the people miserable or unhappy with the law it imposes, it is probably a good idea to work harder at selling the legislation or go back to the drawing board and come up with something that will achieve consensus.

Captain Adverse said:

I oppose this amendment for several reasons:

The Legislative Branch enacts law; the Executive Branch enforces law; the Judicial Branch interprets the validity of law and how it is to be applied. That is how the system works. In my opinion it works well enough as it is.

Furthermore, this "amendment" gives even more power to minority groups to disrupt the system to their benefit. "30% of the House, 25% of the States?" If this kind of amendment had been in existence at the time preceding the Civil War, either the Confederacy would exist as a separate nation, or the United States could have remained a slave nation for another 100 years.

It serves no useful purpose, and I hope it never gets passed.

Click to expand...

I disagree. It would deny minority groups the power to disrupt the system even as it would make it much more difficult for any branch of government to be able to force its opinions with the force of law on all, minorities and majorities.

It seems to me the proposed amendment could render governance even more difficult than it already is.

We must all, including Mr. Michelsen, remember that Utopia is not an option. It was not an option in Philadelphia in 1787, and it is not an option now. That is, a perfectly functional and smoothly running government, full of wisdom and justice, is simply impossible to achieve, so let's not kid ourselves.

If elected and appointed officials would govern in accordance with the document and its principles, things would be much better.

Even as Congress opened its session a few years back with members reading parts of the document, that same group of scoundrels went on by way of legislation to nullify Habeas Corpus and the Fourth Amendment. By way of AUMF, the scoundrels have created a Unitary Executive Tyrant.

Don't modify the document without very good cause.

no. states shouldn't be able to override supreme court decisions.

AlbqOwl said:

What he proposes:
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

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.?

Click to expand...

I support section 1, more or less. I'm not sure 25% is actually a good number... I would have said a third, maybe half. Restore a lot of power to the States, which is good.

Section 2 is a big part of why we ended up with a Civil War... dispute over the right of a single state to declare a Federal law "null and void" within its borders. I'm not sure giving a single state alone that power is wise in all cases, unless we peg it to a 2/3rds majority vote of the citizenry, at least. Even then I can see some potential problems.

Section 3 is rather problematic. In essence it enables any dissent for any reason for any bill which can muster 1/3 of either House to make a bill essentially unpassable. It is hard enough to get a 2/3rds majority for anything... look at how rarely Congress has ever overridden Prez vetos... a 3/4 requirement essentially means the bill will not pass unless it is something as obvious and essential as "the sky is blue and people need air to breathe". It would be abused for political reasons having nothing to do with the Constitution, and would weaken the Fedgov's ability to act dramatically.

If all three sections were adopted as written, it would put us back almost to the Articles of Confederation, which was supplanted because the central government it created was all but impotent and found it nearly impossible to pass any law or act.

So I'd probably support Section 1 but prefer the % be raised... MIGHT support Section 2 if it were pegged to a supermajority caucus and perhaps some kind of review process... but I don't think Section 3 is really viable.


However, given the mess we're currently in, if I had to vote the whole thing up or down today, all or nothing, I'd be sorely tempted to vote Aye... just on the theory that the Fedgov's power needs some brakes so very badly.

AlbqOwl said:

I disagree. It would deny minority groups the power to disrupt the system even as it would make it much more difficult for any branch of government to be able to force its opinions with the force of law on all, minorities and majorities.

Click to expand...

Deny minority groups the power to disrupt the system? Ya think? Sorry but this proposed amendment is a knee jerk reaction from a "minority" who oppose same-sex marriage. People who are offended that the SCOTUS majority would dare to decide that if same-sex marriages are legal in any state, then just like opposite-sex marriages EVERY state must recognize their validity under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Had the four dissenting Supremes taken their blinders off, they would had properly joined the majority ruling as being perfectly in line with the 14th Amendment.

It has nothing to do with forcing legislators to go back and get a "consensus," and everything to do with perpetually blocking either legislation such people don't approve of, or reversing the idea of judicial review developed from Plessy vs. Madison. IMO it would also act to tie up legislation making it almost impossible for the government to function, and force continued doubt about judicial rulings undermining the legal principle of Stare Decisis .

AlbqOwl said:

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.?

Click to expand...

Nope.


One third of the country should not be allowed to ignore supreme court rulings. Sure it would be great if we can say piss of to Roe V Wade, Obama-care,gay marriage and other **** not in the constitution. But states like New York, Commiefornia and other left wing states could do the same thing with 2nd amendment rights, enact soda bans, and other things left wingers support or oppose. One third of of the legislators should not be the judge in whether or not something is unconstitutional and thus preventing any legislation from being passed. I agree that these guys make rulings based on political ideology instead of what the Constitution actually says.Its why democrats fight so hard for their guys and republicans fight so hard for their guys to be supreme court judges. This is why most supreme court rulings are not 9-0.This is why the sometimes say yeah we know it says this but there is some reasonable exceptions or they cite forign law or change the language of what something says.

Justices like other appointed and elected officials can be impeached. That is what should happen.

AlbqOwl said:

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.​

Click to expand...

I have issues with all three proposals.

The first gives an unreasonable amount of power to too small a group of states. I might be more inclined to entertain such a proposal if it was 50% or more of the states.

The second is potentially disastrous - how could we have any reasonable kind of interstate trade/travel/commerce if any given state could up and nullify a constitutional provision simply because they wanted to.

The third would just not work at all. It would effectively prevent any bill from passing unless 75% of whichever House was involved agreed to it. 1/3 of a given body could hold up EVERYTHING, just by saying things were unconstitutional.


One key problem I see with all of this is that it does not present any methods or guidelines for determining constitutionality.

AlbqOwl said:

Correct. A razor thin majority--one easily obtained via bribe or extortion--would no longer be able to dictate the fate of all, either from Congress or SCOTUS.

Click to expand...

That's true, and maybe that shouldn't be the case, but under this amendment I foresee a situation worse than we have now. I think many of our constitutional liberties would actually be less protected. Take the DC vs Heller and Chicago v McDonald decisions. As soon as those are passed down, New York, California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont, Illinois, and Washington invalidate it for the country. They then with other states, proceed to enact whatever gun control laws they want regardless of the 2nd Amendment.

As this amendment basically makes each individual state the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional, it gives each and every one of them the right to have its own flawed interpretation of the constitution with absolutely no check on them. The Constitution itself is rendered toothless inside of each state.

There would again be an incentive to be responsive to the will of the people and obtain consensus before a vote on something that would impose the law of the land on all.

Click to expand...

I don't think the judiciary should be concerned about the will of the people. Maybe there could be a better way to appoint judges to get them focused on their sole task of interpreting the Constitution, although I cannot think of one. But they should absolutely not be concerned with what the people think when interpreting it. Otherwise there's really no point to the document if its meaning rests on what the people at large believe at the time.

That is what the separation of powers were intended to accomplish in the first place. If the federal government is going to make a huge percentage of the people miserable or unhappy with the law it imposes, it is probably a good idea to work harder at selling the legislation or go back to the drawing board and come up with something that will achieve consensus.

Click to expand...

It probably is a good idea for them to try not to make a large percent of the people miserable. But if the legislature choose not to, we as a populace have a rather large check on them already being able to vote them out for not doing so in that we can vote them out every 2 years, or six for the senate.

I'm not sure to be honest. As much as I would love to see the power restored to the people, like it was supposed to be in the first place. However too much power in the hands of the wrong people can be dangerous

AlbqOwl said:

......

Click to expand...

No need for any of this. There is already a system in place to put the federal government, all of it, in check. Which oddly enough is exactly what this guy is trying to use. The Amendment process. Which already includes a way for the States to amend it also.

Article V

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.

Click to expand...

Personal request PS: Please don't use so many font changes and what not?! Just the very little bit I have in my post here couldn't be posted without deleting your quote which makes the reason for using quotes pretty worthless. Due to all those font changes and what not I ran over the 5k character limit. :shock:

Goshin said:

I support section 1, more or less. I'm not sure 25% is actually a good number... I would have said a third, maybe half. Restore a lot of power to the States, which is good.

Section 2 is a big part of why we ended up with a Civil War... dispute over the right of a single state to declare a Federal law "null and void" within its borders. I'm not sure giving a single state alone that power is wise in all cases, unless we peg it to a 2/3rds majority vote of the citizenry, at least. Even then I can see some potential problems.

Section 3 is rather problematic. In essence it enables any dissent for any reason for any bill which can muster 1/3 of either House to make a bill essentially unpassable. It is hard enough to get a 2/3rds majority for anything... look at how rarely Congress has ever overridden Prez vetos... a 3/4 requirement essentially means the bill will not pass unless it is something as obvious and essential as "the sky is blue and people need air to breathe". It would be abused for political reasons having nothing to do with the Constitution, and would weaken the Fedgov's ability to act dramatically.

If all three sections were adopted as written, it would put us back almost to the Articles of Confederation, which was supplanted because the central government it created was all but impotent and found it nearly impossible to pass any law or act.

So I'd probably support Section 1 but prefer the % be raised... MIGHT support Section 2 if it were pegged to a supermajority caucus and perhaps some kind of review process... but I don't think Section 3 is really viable.


However, given the mess we're currently in, if I had to vote the whole thing up or down today, all or nothing, I'd be sorely tempted to vote Aye... just on the theory that the Fedgov's power needs some brakes so very badly.

Click to expand...

Great post. Well thought out and giving some serious though to the pros and cons.

The 25% I think might have been somewhat arbitrary but is based on the concept that a razor thin majority should not have power over everybody. It would mean that it would require a 3/4ths majority in order for a law to become the law of the land and it would require Congress and the President to consider everybody rather than their pet constituencies when they wrote a law of the land.

The same principle works for Article 2 also I believe. Either the people have the power to determine their own destinies and live their lives as they choose so long as they require nobody else to participate in that or contribute to that, or they are subject to an authoritarian government with power to dictate every aspect of their lives. Maybe the concept as in Article 2 was a reason for the Civil War, but it also could have prevented it by allowing the southern states to secede and thereby removing themselves from federal protection. And the feds could then have negotiated the terms for those states to return to the union, which almost certainly would have eventually happened, and a long, costly, bloody war would have been averted.

Article 3 would require Congress to work together and with the people to achieve consensus before enacting federal law. No longer would a razor thin majority, as often as not achieved via bribery or extortion, be able to impose a bad law on everybody and a law unpopular with the people would be much more difficult to get to the President's desk. A bad law would be far less likely to be passed and Congress would be passing a whole lot less laws which, in my never to be considered humble opinion, would be a really good thing.

Captain Adverse said:

Deny minority groups the power to disrupt the system? Ya think? Sorry but this proposed amendment is a knee jerk reaction from a "minority" who oppose same-sex marriage. People who are offended that the SCOTUS majority would dare to decide that if same-sex marriages are legal in any state, then just like opposite-sex marriages EVERY state must recognize their validity under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Had the four dissenting Supremes taken their blinders off, they would had properly joined the majority ruling as being perfectly in line with the 14th Amendment.

It has nothing to do with forcing legislators to go back and get a "consensus," and everything to do with perpetually blocking either legislation such people don't approve of, or reversing the idea of judicial review developed from Plessy vs. Madison. IMO it would also act to tie up legislation making it almost impossible for the government to function, and force continued doubt about judicial rulings undermining the legal principle of Stare Decisis .

Click to expand...

Well you are entitled to your opinion about the motives and whatever you see as knee jerk reaction, but I hoped there would be members able to concentrate on the idea and merits or lack thereof of the concept instead of making it a political or partisan thing.

Anagram said:

That's true, and maybe that shouldn't be the case, but under this amendment I foresee a situation worse than we have now. I think many of our constitutional liberties would actually be less protected. Take the DC vs Heller and Chicago v McDonald decisions. As soon as those are passed down, New York, California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Vermont, Illinois, and Washington invalidate it for the country. They then with other states, proceed to enact whatever gun control laws they want regardless of the 2nd Amendment.

As this amendment basically makes each individual state the ultimate arbiter of what is constitutional, it gives each and every one of them the right to have its own flawed interpretation of the constitution with absolutely no check on them. The Constitution itself is rendered toothless inside of each state.

I don't think the judiciary should be concerned about the will of the people. Maybe there could be a better way to appoint judges to get them focused on their sole task of interpreting the Constitution, although I cannot think of one. But they should absolutely not be concerned with what the people think when interpreting it. Otherwise there's really no point to the document if its meaning rests on what the people at large believe at the time.

It probably is a good idea for them to try not to make a large percent of the people miserable. But if the legislature choose not to, we as a populace have a rather large check on them already being able to vote them out for not doing so in that we can vote them out every 2 years, or six for the senate.

Click to expand...

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights was intended to state what the federal government could and could not do. It was never intended to dictate how the states would organize themselves or how they would organize their societies regardless of whether guns or religion or whatever was involved.

If you read the second page of Michelsen's argument, you will also see his argument for what SCOTUS was never intended to do also.

The large majorities he is proposing before a law can be imposed on all the people is an important safeguard to ensure that the government is the government of the people and by the people and for the people rather than for the advantage and benefit of those in government.

AlbqOwl said:

Well you are entitled to your opinion about the motives and whatever you see as knee jerk reaction, but I hoped there would be members able to concentrate on the idea and merits or lack thereof of the concept instead of making it a political or partisan thing.

Click to expand...

Point of order. If you post an argumentative reply in regards to a member's statement on the merits of a proposal, please expect a similar response in return.

Kal'Stang said:

No need for any of this. There is already a system in place to put the federal government, all of it, in check. Which oddly enough is exactly what this guy is trying to use. The Amendment process. Which already includes a way for the States to amend it also.

Personal request PS: Please don't use so many font changes and what not?! Just the very little bit I have in my post here couldn't be posted without deleting your quote which makes the reason for using quotes pretty worthless. Due to all those font changes and what not I ran over the 5k character limit. :shock:

Click to expand...

Sorry about that. I come from a site where there isn't so tight a character limit and the bolded emphasis makes the post easier to read and the various components are easier to pick out. I don't always think about that here but I'll try to be more aware.

But in my never to be considered humble opinion, the checks and balances on the federal government have been broken for a very long time. I think Michelsen's proposed amendment could be on track or at least is worth of considering to restore at least some of those checks and balances. I would like to see us return to a government of true public servants serving the people instead of a government made up of a self-serving permanent political class of professional politicians and bureaucrats.

We have been down this road already. It continues to amaze me that the parallels to our previous civil rights struggles seem to be ignored this time around.

In 1965 Mississippi proposed amendments to give states exclusive control over education, continued resistance to Brown V/S Board of Education. And another to give congress the power to "control communism" which many southerners at the time equated with the civil rights movement.

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=T...5 to give states control of education&f=false

No, we're not likely to change the constitution to permit today's socially preferred kind of discrimination (anti-gay) or allow states the freedom to do so in other areas such as gun control as mentioned in previous posts.

I would not support such an amendment, nor do I think enough of a majority of people would to pass it if the true ramifications are understood.

HorseLoverGirl said:

I'm not sure to be honest. As much as I would love to see the power restored to the people, like it was supposed to be in the first place. However too much power in the hands of the wrong people can be dangerous

Click to expand...

What 'wrong people' would you see as advantaged by Michelsen's proposed amendment?

AlbqOwl said:

What 'wrong people' would you see as advantaged by Michelsen's proposed amendment?

Click to expand...

The power hungry that's who! Let's face it it would give us the same problems we have now

AlbqOwl said:

Great post. Well thought out and giving some serious though to the pros and cons.

The 25% I think might have been somewhat arbitrary but is based on the concept that a razor thin majority should not have power over everybody. It would mean that it would require a 3/4ths majority in order for a law to become the law of the land and it would require Congress and the President to consider everybody rather than their pet constituencies when they wrote a law of the land.

The same principle works for Article 2 also I believe. Either the people have the power to determine their own destinies and live their lives as they choose so long as they require nobody else to participate in that or contribute to that, or they are subject to an authoritarian government with power to dictate every aspect of their lives. Maybe the concept as in Article 2 was a reason for the Civil War, but it also could have prevented it by allowing the southern states to secede and thereby removing themselves from federal protection. And the feds could then have negotiated the terms for those states to return to the union, which almost certainly would have eventually happened, and a long, costly, bloody war would have been averted.

Article 3 would require Congress to work together and with the people to achieve consensus before enacting federal law. No longer would a razor thin majority, as often as not achieved via bribery or extortion, be able to impose a bad law on everybody and a law unpopular with the people would be much more difficult to get to the President's desk. A bad law would be far less likely to be passed and Congress would be passing a whole lot less laws which, in my never to be considered humble opinion, would be a really good thing.

Click to expand...

As I said, if I had to vote the whole thing up or down right now I'd be tempted to vote Aye.

But I keep coming back to certain concerns. A 3/4 majority... man that's a HIGH bar to hurdle. Take note of this please...

Congress can override a veto by passing the act by a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. (Usually an act is passed with a simple majority.) This check prevents the President from blocking an act when significant support for it exists. Two-thirds is a high standard to meet—broad support for an act is needed to reach this threshold. The President’s veto power is significant because Congress rarely overrides vetoes—out of 1,484 regular vetoes since 1789, only 7.1%, or 106, have been overridden.1

Click to expand...

This kind of indicates that even requiring a 2/3rds majority in both houses would likely mean only 7% of bills would pass, that would otherwise have passed with a simple majority. What imposing a 3/4ths majority requirement would do, I hesitate to speculate. 5%? 2%?

Now I would agree that the Fuds legislate way too much and often too frivolously.... but they need to be able to act within a reasonable time frame on crucial issues without getting bogged down in wheedling enough Senators and Reps (with pork and pet project amendments no doubt) into a super-super-majority.

IF the one-third-dissent would be used as it is SUPPOSED to be used, only for issues that the dissenters legitimately and honestly believe may be unconstitutional, then this would be less of a problem... but you KNOW it will become a political football, where either party that is in the minority will use some vague Constitutional fine point to dissent to punish the other party when politics is the real reason.

In short we'd end up with most legislation requiring a 3/4 majority to pass, which means most legislation WON'T pass. What legislation DOES pass will be "compromise bills" with the original concept watered down by the opposition, and probably a gazillion riders attached (giving Senator Bloviation the legislation he wanted on his pet issue, and Rep Graspy the pork for his district) in order to achieve that super-duper-majority.

That just doesn't sound too good.

On top of that, when the legislature finds itself unable to act, they have a tendency to turn things over to the bureaucracy and let the bureaucrats essentially make law and figure out the details. A weak legislature often means a bureaucracy grown bloated and out of control over time, and bureaucracies are not directly answerable to the voter.


This is what worries me about the amendment as written.