The forgotten branch of government.

[Rich]

Our forefathers, foremothers and forerugrats forgot to account [strike]fore[/strike] for a part of one branch in the legislative process when they drafted our constitution. They forgot us citizens.

The process should be, a bill is introduced (if spending is involved, it must be introduced in the House) and must pass both Houses. The bill then goes to a up-down national vote. Only if it is voted in by a majority of voters does it go to the President for the signature or the veto.

Sure it would make things more difficult, but there might be a bit less of this business of "Some being more equal than others."

After all we started with a system of checks and balances. Didn't we?

What say you?

[JOHN]

Good idea

[rightisright]

No. That's why they formed a representative republic and not a true democracy. To prevent the majority from suppressing the minority.

It's gotten to the point where it doesn't really matter anymore, though...

[Darrell]

No. That's why they formed a representative republic and not a true democracy. To prevent the majority from suppressing the minority.

It's gotten to the point where it doesn't really matter anymore, though...

This, on both counts.

[Rich]

No. That's why they formed a representative republic and not a true democracy. To prevent the majority from suppressing the minority.

It's gotten to the point where it doesn't really matter anymore, though...

We know what they did. But like most political constructs, flaws appear with use. I'm not thinking of tearing down the original Constitution, I'm thinking of adding to it to forestall further damage.

[Netpackrat]

We know what they did. But like most political constructs, flaws appear with use. I'm not thinking of tearing down the original Constitution, I'm thinking of adding to it to forestall further damage.

Like how the 17th Amendment was added to curb genuine corruption in how the states were choosing their senators? How's that one working out for us these days? The biggest flaw with the original document (besides not being written in precise legalese) is the generation who created it pretty much represented the high water mark in American politics. They tried to tyrant-proof it as much as possible, and history has proven that whenever a major structural "fix" has been attempted, the cure is usually worse than the disease.

[Termite]

The biggest flaw with the original document (besides not being written in precise legalese) is the generation who created it pretty much represented the high water mark in American politics. They tried to tyrant-proof it as much as possible, and history has proven that whenever a major structural "fix" has been attempted, the cure is usually worse than the disease.

The Founding Fathers did their best to make the Constitution tyrant-and-idiot resistant. It was an impossible task, because all humans are corruptible and immoral, to some extent.
The F.F. address this in many of their writings; Federalist and anti-federalist papers, letters to each other, etc.

[PawPaw]

I've always been a big fan of the Bill of RIghts. It's long been my contention that if we had five good originalists on SCOTUS, that the 10th Amendment would hold great sway.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

"Ooops, Constitution doesn't say anything about __________, I guess we should let the states decide."
Fill in the blank with the favorite cause du jour, abortion, gay rights, etc.

[Vonz90]

Our forefathers, foremothers and forerugrats forgot to account [strike]fore[/strike] for a part of one branch in the legislative process when they drafted our constitution. They forgot us citizens.

The process should be, a bill is introduced (if spending is involved, it must be introduced in the House) and must pass both Houses. The bill then goes to a up-down national vote. Only if it is voted in by a majority of voters does it go to the President for the signature or the veto.

Sure it would make things more difficult, but there might be a bit less of this business of "Some being more equal than others."

After all we started with a system of checks and balances. Didn't we?

What say you?

There is risk in that as well.

If you look up the old Polish government (before the various Polish partitions) the various nobility actually made it so that all laws had to be virtually unanimous. This in practice neutered the central government and allowed the local lords to do whatever they wanted. Of course over time Poland became a nation in name only and was easy prey for Russia (with Austria and Prussia more than happy to take a cut).

On the flip side, the national plebiscite has a very foul history. Tyrants from Napoleon to various South American dictators have used it time and again to justify all kinds of nastiness (the people voted for it, it must be okay).

In the end, people get the government they deserve, and we apparently deserve a rather crappy one.

[Vonz90]

I've always been a big fan of the Bill of RIghts. It's long been my contention that if we had five good originalists on SCOTUS, that the 10th Amendment would hold great sway.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

"Ooops, Constitution doesn't say anything about __________, I guess we should let the states decide."
Fill in the blank with the favorite cause du jour, abortion, gay rights, etc.

Yes, this exactly.