To prevent tyranny by the majority should passing a law require 2/3rd majority and a 3/4th majority if vetoed by a governor or president?

[KelleyNice]

DEMOCRACY

And to prevent bribery of politicians, which currently exist, should a petition by 5% of eligible voters require an election in which 25% of the voters could overturn any law.

All good laws would be passed because well over 90% of the public want laws against murder, rape, robbery, theft, fraud, and embezzlement. They might disagree on the penalties but they would all agree on certain minimum penalties.

Updates

1 y

@abc3643 who, even though sometimes we don't agree, I believe is the most intelligent person on GAG has made a brilliant suggestion. Since implementing my suggestion requires amending the US Constitution, instead of my question, ""Should we have 2/3 majority to win an election?" Although, I don't think that would be better, it would be a satisfactory alternate.

Updates

1 y

That means, if someone running for congress doesn't get 2/3rds of the vote, the position remains vacant. Suppose California and New York elects their senators and congressmen but Texas doesn't. When congress votes, Texas is not going to get federal money. To protect their interest, that will force Texans to find common ground and elect people that can get a 2/3rd majority of their votes.

[Zeus_66]

A TRUE believer in liberty! What a refreshing feeling knowing you're out there. We are a Republic, yet they want us to forget that. That's how they conform people to vote a certain way. The consumed never think for themselves.

You rock!

[DWornock]

Yes, to prevent tyranny by the majority, minorities need a means to veto laws harmful to them. The procedures you suggested would do that.

[OlderAndWiser]

I don't think that the past 233 years give much evidence that our federal government has shown a tyranny by the majority, so. . . if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[MCheetah]

What if it IS broke, though?

[abc3643]

I am not sure of your question exactly, but, to override a presidential veto of a bill requires that the bill be reconsidered in both houses (The House of Representatives and The Senate) and that it pass with 2/3rd majority in both houses.
That's in Article I of the US Constitution:
=====
Article I, Section 7, Clause 2:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it.

>>>>>>> If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. <<<<<<<<<

But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.
=====

That's acceptable. 3/4 would be unrealistic. This is why, with Constitutional Amendments, 3/4 of the states are necessary - it means that pretty much everybody is on-board.

The real hypothetical question you should ask is "Should we have 2/3 majority to win an election?" In that case, a lot of incumbents are going to stay that way.

[KelleyNice]

We can change the constitution and it doesn't mean what is says anyway because it is a living document. Therefore, the meaning of the words changes with the times. After all, "Congress shall make no law" doesn't mean make no law. Therefore, if congress passes a law that says 2/3rd mean 3/4th, than that is what it means. In any event, congress can put whatever requirement they choose for a bill to become law. It bill doesn't meet the 2/3rd and 3/4th requirement that congress agrees it takes to become law, it is not law.

Regardless of the foregoing, I think a 2/3rd majority to win an election, is brilliant. If someone can't get a 2/3rd majority, no one is elected and position is vacant. That way, if people in a state want congressmen and senator to represent their interest, and it is to their advantage that they have representatives, they are going to have find a way to start agreeing or at least find common ground.

[abc3643]

THIS:
"Congress shall make no law" doesn't mean make no law.

Actually, it does mean exactly that although, yes, it could make a law that is later ruled unconstitutional.

>>> That's a major difference between engineering and the legislative process.

In the legislative process, crap can go out into the public, and THEN the judicial branch gets involved.

In engineering, nothing goes out without major peer reviews and people from different areas all approving first.

In principle, that's what Congress is supposed to do - be the engineers of laws and peer reviewers with the President being an additional peer reviewer. While many Congressmen are also lawyers or often hold law degrees, they are not immune to error and compromise that causes problems. Also, they are not immune to "management" - the electorate at home. So, crappy unconstitutional laws are sometimes passed and then someone in the public challenges the law by filing a petition to the relevant court.

If only the judicial branch could get involved in reviewing and approving bills BEFORE they become laws, we'd have less problems and less court cases.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court and other courts are not allowed to deal in hypotheticals. Our system of government is based on the idea that the courts are used to resolve REAL issues and that the legislative branch should be doing its proper "due diligence" when crafting laws.

[abc3643]

"no one is elected and position is vacant"

You can't have that; many elected positions are critical to the functioning of government - like the President. This is why I said incumbents would be more likely to remain in power - because only if the winner of the election has 2/3rd of the vote, then it is likely that no one wins, but the position still needs to be filled and so the incumbent remains in power.

[KelleyNice]

@abc3643 If so, that would be unfortunate. Much better if the position is vacant. We don't need them as almost all are worthless and seldom serve any useful purpose. I don't need their oppressive laws; I don't need their tyranny; and I don't need them serving themselves at the expense of the American public. Why someone an brilliant as you would believe we need them is beyond me.

[abc3643]

Well, thank you, but, for the MOST part - not all - the purpose of laws is not to cause internal warfare among citizens. In other words, to prevent "Hatfield-McCoy Feuds". Most laws exist to protect people from each other and to have justice exacted by nameless faceless "society" instead of by specific persons because that creates a revenge motive.

[StevieNix]

Conservatives don't want millions of people crossing the border illegally.
Liberals will just say it's not happening.

While your idea may be altruistic, it's just not going to happen.

The MS-13 gang, is the most ruthless gang in the world. Their weapon of choice is a machete, because it's just so much more ruthless than a gun.
Trump called them "animals."

Nancy Pelosi said that Trump was just being a racist that didn't like brown people. She went on to say that these ruthless machete-wielding people were all "part of God's children."

[NaultD]

In theory sure if everyone is in good faith wanting to live better lifes how to do so is up for debate. The problem is i fear there is a powerful political block who actively wants the rapture. So they spend there living energy making life worse to buy brownie points from god. Let's call a spade a spade, it's the evangelical Christian community. With this spearheading any rational thought or logic gets tossed out the window.

So it's just another type of tyranny. We shouldn't hold the same standard for 245 years like it's holy scripture. The game has changed and not everyone is betting on American betterment but a doomsday cult cheated our way of self government for their own benefit.

[ArtemisSilver]

Honestly I think a period of mandatory civil or military service should be required after high school to earn the right to vote.

I say civil as well because there are lots of ways to be of service to society outside of the scope of the military. Building houses for eachother for example.

After that we should revamp into a direct democracy via secure online voting by citizens. The role of elected officials would then only be to pose questions and frame the laws upon which their constituents vote. It would require much more active participation, which is definitely a good thing. Active citizenship and critical thinking would have to be taught in schools which is also a good idea.

As for the the the will of the majority ruling, that's the price of democracy. However I think banning political parties and dealing with issues at a nuanced level, as well as teaching people to advocate for themselves and their positions would help reduce the problem.

[ArtemisSilver]

You're suggestion would unfortunately only lead to constant deadlock.

[KelleyNice]

Deadlock is not only good; it is the best.

[ArtemisSilver]

Deadlock means you can react to changing circumstances and means eventual collapse.

[KelleyNice]

As it is, a collapse is inevitable. Deadlock might prevent a collapse.

[ArtemisSilver]

It really won't, if anything it accelerate it.

[VanillaSalt]

Why do we have government making more laws? We need to kick government out of our fucking system. Limit it harshly. Take away all but them most vile of laws. Who cares if a farmer fucks his goats, who cares if a skateboarder rides the sidewalk in town… government breaks everything.

[MCheetah]

There's probably some unforeseen negatives I'm not getting here, but I'm going to say "maybe."

Also, are you really thirteen years old? If so, are you mentally gifted/a genius? Most adults don't even think like this. Most people are stupid, in my opinion.

[Adaeva]

I would go for that, I would also approve of law expiring after 5 years unless pass again by a 2/3rds majority.

[Chazmatazz269]

It doesn’t need to be so difficult. There are almost always candidates that represent parties besides the democripps and rebloodlicans. When the majority is tired of the “us vs them” nonsense, we simply start electing other parties.

[IsoUser]

Politicians already have there SNOUTS dug deep in any public Trough gorging themselves on public funds. Lol

[Anonymous]

The founding fathers required a two-thirds majority in the Continental Congress and abandoned it because nothing ever got passed. It was a stupid idea and they knew that 240 years ago.

The phrase tyranny of the majority, which conservative love to misconstrue and interpret as not getting their way, doesn't refer to the Democratic process. It refers to things like the majority opposing civil rights for minorities.

Conservatives just want an authoritarian state of minority rule.

[Guy13]

Democratic Socialists use Democracy. It is incited Mob Rule (Lenin).

[driven159]

presidents' vetoes can be overridden by a 2/3 vote already

[Whatever2929292]

You have a really good point there.

[Cubus]

Looking at how polarised are Republicans and Democrats nowadays - there's no way you would find this 2/3 margain. There would be literally no decisions passed.

[Sixgunsound]

That is the whole point! Stop the politicians from screwing us! The system was designed to make it difficult to pass anything without a clear mandate from the people.

[KelleyNice]

@Cubus Try as you may, you cannot name a single elected Republican or Democrat that is opposed to laws against murder, rape, robbery, etc. And, like @Sixgunsound said, we don't need a bunch of laws that favor a select group.

[joeldalton]

That’s why we don’t have a democracy in the US.

[RuthlessAggression]

yesh