The best fiction tells the truth, carefully edited..

--snipping--

darrell wrote:Just constitutional amendment will start the process of fixing the problems with the US Constitution:

Any state can propose an amendment to the US Constitution, and with 3/4 majority vote of each legislative house and the approval of 3/4 of the people in the state plus the approval of both the Governor and lt Governor, without needing to go through the US congress.

3/4 of the states yes, but I don't think it needs 3/4 of the people -- a simple majority in both halves of a state's bicameral legislature will do. Most of the states need quite a supermajority to override a governer's veto, so I think that perhaps the percentage for the governor likely to be effectively accurate, however.

SharkHunter wrote:--snipping--

darrell wrote:Just constitutional amendment will start the process of fixing the problems with the US Constitution:

Any state can propose an amendment to the US Constitution, and with 3/4 majority vote of each legislative house and the approval of 3/4 of the people in the state plus the approval of both the Governor and lt Governor, without needing to go through the US congress.

3/4 of the states yes, but I don't think it needs 3/4 of the people -- a simple majority in both halves of a state's bicameral legislature will do. Most of the states need quite a supermajority to override a governer's veto, so I think that perhaps the percentage for the governor likely to be effectively accurate, however.

this is to start the ratification process, that currently can only be done by the US congress. To create it requires overwhelming support (3/4 majority) of both the single state legislature and the people of the single state.

For example, the state of Missouri can create a term limits constitutional amendment, even against the will of the US congress.

Once created, to become part of the constitution it just needs to be passed by 33 other states, and the US legislature nor the president or the supreme court can stop it.

The reason for both the legislature and the people to have 3/4 majority is that in making it so hard it will cut down on frivolous constitutional amendments.

darrell wrote:
HB... I agree!
When the markets tanked in 2008 and the companies and banks which were "too big to fail" were bailed out before the ink on the front page stories dried (if they are too big to fail shouldn't they be properly regulated) while millions of working Americans lost their jobs and homes, we started to hear a lot about a war between Wall Street and Main Street... I began to wonder why no one was talking about Madison Avenue

Elections cost billions of dollars to buy when most of the work is done by volunteers and even when someone quits or is fired (voted out) they get to keep their campaign accounts I just don't understand why more people don't get it... obviously senators won't vote for a pay cut or to reduce their pensions or cut their health care package while they fail to provide for the needs of the average Joe... nor will they agree to term limits (much like the permanent under secretaries, or the members of Lords in Mantacore) they are happy to see the system gridlocked into atrophy as long as they get theirs.

And, much like the examples that David gave us here... or at the Temple on Safehold, I fear that their refusal to change will result in far more harm than good.

Recently, I saw an article about the houses of presidential candidates and wondered if we might get a look at their bunkers... Where will Mitch McConnell go when the wheels fall off?

Just constitutional amendment will start the process of fixing the problems with the US constitution:

any state can propose an amendment to the US constitution, and with 3/4 majority vote of each legaslative house and the approval of 3/4 of the people in the state plus the approval of both the Governor and lt Governor, without needing to go through the US congress.[/quote]

Darrell...
Yes but...
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

Part of the problem we face today (or that league citizens face in Davids books) is that the the people that must change the process peacefully don't have any problem with how things are.
People like Mitch McConnell voted four times to raise his own pay... he voted to bail out Wall Street in 2008 and he voted to cut Medicare. If he looses his bid for reelection he still gets a pension that most of us would live well off (not counting keeping his campaign accounts and any job he might get from his friends at a super pac)... how many of us would get such a golden parachute if we were fired? He also ignored the Constitutional requirement to hold hearings on nominee to fill the vacant. This is to say he ignored his "job description" because he did not like the odds.

Not to preach here but one of the many glaring, (and other) weaknesses in the US Constitution is that it does not define Treason or High Treason against the US Constitution.

The founding fathers just assumed, (?) that only Patriots and Statesman would be selected to Federal Office and never had a notion per say that evil men and women could be elected.

HB of CJ wrote:Not to preach here but one of the many glaring, (and other) weaknesses in the US Constitution is that it does not define Treason or High Treason against the US Constitution.

The founding fathers just assumed, (?) that only Patriots and Statesman would be selected to Federal Office and never had a notion per say that evil men and women could be elected.

Very good point... Would flying the confederate flag over the state house count? How about refusing to perform the responsibilities of the job they were elected for??

Murky waters indeed

"None dare call it treason if it prospers"

HB of CJ wrote:Not to preach here but one of the many glaring, (and other) weaknesses in the US Constitution is that it does not define Treason or High Treason against the US Constitution.

The founding fathers just assumed, (?) that only Patriots and Statesman would be selected to Federal Office and never had a notion per say that evil men and women could be elected.

Well if they never thought any evil men or women could be elected they wouldn't have needed to include any impeachment mechanism.

But I think it's fair to say they ever anticipated the level of partisanship that involved, nor that there wouldn't be enough Statesmen elected to successfully act (especially given the undefined nature of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".

Just to make it absolutely clear, herewith the text of Article Five:

Article 5 wrote: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.

As you can see, not only can state legislatures not directly propose amendments, the population has no direct say in the process at _any_ point. Get 2/3 of America's sitting politicians on board and anything goes. Literally. Not even equal representation in the Senate is impossible to change under those conditions.

C. O. Thompson wrote:

darrell wrote:
HB... I agree!
When the markets tanked in 2008 and the companies and banks which were "too big to fail" were bailed out before the ink on the front page stories dried (if they are too big to fail shouldn't they be properly regulated) while millions of working Americans lost their jobs and homes, we started to hear a lot about a war between Wall Street and Main Street... I began to wonder why no one was talking about Madison Avenue

Elections cost billions of dollars to buy when most of the work is done by volunteers and even when someone quits or is fired (voted out) they get to keep their campaign accounts I just don't understand why more people don't get it... obviously senators won't vote for a pay cut or to reduce their pensions or cut their health care package while they fail to provide for the needs of the average Joe... nor will they agree to term limits (much like the permanent under secretaries, or the members of Lords in Mantacore) they are happy to see the system gridlocked into atrophy as long as they get theirs.

And, much like the examples that David gave us here... or at the Temple on Safehold, I fear that their refusal to change will result in far more harm than good.

Recently, I saw an article about the houses of presidential candidates and wondered if we might get a look at their bunkers... Where will Mitch McConnell go when the wheels fall off?

Just constitutional amendment will start the process of fixing the problems with the US constitution:

any state can propose an amendment to the US constitution, and with 3/4 majority vote of each legaslative house and the approval of 3/4 of the people in the state plus the approval of both the Governor and lt Governor, without needing to go through the US congress.

Darrell...
Yes but...
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures.

Part of the problem we face today (or that league citizens face in Davids books) is that the the people that must change the process peacefully don't have any problem with how things are.
People like Mitch McConnell voted four times to raise his own pay... he voted to bail out Wall Street in 2008 and he voted to cut Medicare. If he looses his bid for reelection he still gets a pension that most of us would live well off (not counting keeping his campaign accounts and any job he might get from his friends at a super pac)... how many of us would get such a golden parachute if we were fired? He also ignored the Constitutional requirement to hold hearings on nominee to fill the vacant. This is to say he ignored his "job description" because he did not like the odds.[/quote]

The problem, in my humble opinion, stems from the same thing that wrecked the Sollys.

The ability for Congress to pass the buck to administrative agencies is what will wreck the USA eventually. I'm not saying bureaucrats are bad people - for the most part they are the same as everyone else. But, their power is almost unchecked in the amount of discretion they have. Because 'the people' demand that Congress do things, Congress passes very broad laws and then let all of the important things be filled in by bureaucrats.

If courts gave agencies zero deference, and 'voided for vagueness' any Congressional statute that was not explicit in the details, we would see a vastly different government. First, Congress critters would have to go on the record for or against specific, detailed laws. That means that broad conversations will have to be across America regarding every important topic, with nothing happening until a broad consensus is formed (because otherwise people get voted out of office). Additionally, this would lead to a drastic decrease in Federal law making and a corresponding increase in State level lawmaking - at a level closer to the people and more accountable.

When politicians are allowed to pass the buck to someone else, and then campaign against those people to get re-elected they will. Remove that ability and force them to vote 'yes' or 'no' for the details of every new law or regulation and you'll see a drastically more responsible Congress. It will no longer be 'fun' for many of them, and they'll go find some other way to be parasites on the rest of us.

FYI the League Assembly is more like the United Nations General Assembly than any national legislative branch of government.

Erls wrote:The problem, in my humble opinion, stems from the same thing that wrecked the Sollys.

The ability for Congress to pass the buck to administrative agencies is what will wreck the USA eventually. I'm not saying bureaucrats are bad people - for the most part they are the same as everyone else. But, their power is almost unchecked in the amount of discretion they have. Because 'the people' demand that Congress do things, Congress passes very broad laws and then let all of the important things be filled in by bureaucrats.

If courts gave agencies zero deference, and 'voided for vagueness' any Congressional statute that was not explicit in the details, we would see a vastly different government. First, Congress critters would have to go on the record for or against specific, detailed laws. That means that broad conversations will have to be across America regarding every important topic, with nothing happening until a broad consensus is formed (because otherwise people get voted out of office). Additionally, this would lead to a drastic decrease in Federal law making and a corresponding increase in State level lawmaking - at a level closer to the people and more accountable.

When politicians are allowed to pass the buck to someone else, and then campaign against those people to get re-elected they will. Remove that ability and force them to vote 'yes' or 'no' for the details of every new law or regulation and you'll see a drastically more responsible Congress. It will no longer be 'fun' for many of them, and they'll go find some other way to be parasites on the rest of us.

Yes, but for reasons stated in this thread, this is not likely to happen. It is interesting to compare the Confederate constitution with the US constitution