Should there be citizen initiatives that can repeal congressional laws or Supreme Court rulings and make laws applicable to congress and the courts?

[KelleyNice]

If the people want term limits, they should be able to vote on an initiative that overturns the ruling by the Supreme Court. And, the people should be able to vote on an initiative to invalidate law congress passes that apply to the citizens but exempt congress. If the people want term limits, they should be able to vote on an initiative that overturns the ruling by the Supreme Court. And, the people should be able to vote on an initiative to invalidate law congress passes that apply to the citizens but exempt congress. Specifically, members of Congress are exempt from:

· The Freedom of Information Act.

· Investigatory subpoenas to obtain information for safety and health probes.

· Protections against retaliation for whistleblowers.

· Having to post notices of worker rights in offices.

· Prosecution for retaliating against employees who report safety and health hazards.

· Having to train employees about workplace rights and legal remedies.

· Record-keeping requirements for workplace injuries and illnesses.

[monorprise]

"the people should be able to vote on an initiative to invalidate law congress passes that apply to the citizens"

According to the 11 page Federal Constitution there shouldn't be much in the way of any laws passed by congress applying directly to the citizens.

Thus we the people SHOULD have 2 different votes on such laws passed by state legislators. 1 with our ballots collectively and anther with our feet individually.

That is in fact the whole point, of getting rid of domestic federal edicts and laws. So that we CAN have a vote again.

" they should be able to vote on an initiative that overturns the ruling by the Supreme Court"

If we still had the checks and balances of the Original Federal Constitution of 1787 as demonstrated in Marbury v. Madison (1803), then the President you elected and the congress YOU elected should be able to simply refuse to enforce a positive Supreme Court edict as the executive in the form of James Madison did in refusing to give Marbury his writ.

That case established the Federal Supreme court has the right to interpret the Federal Constitution and indeed the "final say" but it also established they did not have the only say. Presidents and congresses can and should be held accountable for enforcing Court edicts, absence said enforcement states can do whatever they want.

[007kingifrit]

probably not, the entire thesis of our nation is "people should have a say... but they're also way too emotional for direct action" so we admit the public isn't really smart enough for direct voting

i mean you list some good things, but now think about all the bad things it would be used for

[KelleyNice]

Thank you. Thanks to you, I have another GAG question, I will ask. Basically, it is, "Before voting, do voters have the responsibility to be informed?" After I think about, I will think about how best to phase the question.

[007kingifrit]

i think you phrased it very well just there!

[abc3643]

Q1:

"Should there be citizen initiatives that can repeal congressional laws?"

A1:

There already is. They are called elections and, in each state, to get on the ballot, a House or Senate candidate needs to get a minimum number of signatures from registered voters. Once elected, the new Congress can undo what the previous Congresses have done. It's been happening for over 230 years.

Q2:

"Should there be citizen initiatives that can repeal Supreme Court rulings? "

"If the people want ____________, they should be able to vote on an initiative that overturns the ruling by the Supreme Court. "

A2:

There already is - sort of.

Regarding SCOTUS rulings, "overturning" / "overruling" requires a Constitutional amendment - or a new SCOTUS who will rule differently. Two examples of a later SCOTUS overturning earlier SCOTUS decisions are:

1. "Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas" (1954) overruling "Homer A. Plessy v. John H. Ferguson" (1896)

2. "Thomas E. Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, et al." (2022) overturning "Jane Roe, et al. v. Henry Wade, District Attorney of Dallas County" (1973).

As for a citizen initiative to overturn a decision, that would require the amendment process to the US Constitution outlined in Article V.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/article/article-v

A good example of this is the 19th Amendment giving the right vote ("suffrage") to women throughout the US and which was ratified in 1920.

https://www.history.com/topics/womens-rights/the-19th-amendment-video

You should also learn about how the 21st Amendment was ratified.

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/prohibition-ends

Also, the 16th Amendment regarding income taxes was created in direct response to a Supreme Court ruling. (We discussed this in one of your questions about 2 weeks ago or so.) That amendment nullified that ruling.

However, outside of the amendment process, absolutely NOT!

That voids the entire purpose of Article III and our republic. Anarchy would ensue.

You need to learn about and understand Marbury v. Madison and judicial review. (Link at bottom.)

You also need to understand that YOU LIVE IN A REPUBLIC - not in a mobocracy that most of your questions lately seem to be advocating, the notable exception being the question about grand juries having paid qualified membership yet juries are required to be composed of common citizens under the 6th Amendment.

Q3:

"Should there be citizen initiatives that can... make laws applicable to congress and the courts?"

A3:

>>> Again, elections and amendments. That's why they exist. <<<

Here's an example: The 17th Amendment made the choosing of Senators come from popular elections:

===

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, _____________elected by the people thereof_____________, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. ...

(abridged)

===

The 17th Amendment voids Article I, Section 3, Clause 1 that state legislatures chose Senators:

===

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, _____________chosen by the Legislature thereof_____________, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

===

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been an amendment regarding the Judicial Branch. Other than the Supreme Court, Congress has the power to dictate the organization of the system of "inferior courts". That comes directly from Article III, Section 1, Clause 1:

===

The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

===

So, Congress can change the courts. You want to change the courts, get Congress to do it and hope the President and SCOTUS buy into it.

=======================================

THIS IS THE BOTTOM LINE about these "citizen initiatives" regarding the federal government...

If you don't like something or want to change something, vote for someone who agrees with you. The "citizen initiative" is any combination of these: 1) form a new political party, 2) select a candidate, 3) if the candidate wins, have the candidate sponsor a bill for the desired changes, 4) if the bill becomes law, congratulations, mission accomplished.

=======================================

Some extra links for learning:

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/marbury-v-madison
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/16th-amendment
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/17th-amendment
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/19th-amendment

.
.
.
.
.
.

[abc3643]

I forgot to mention...
At the state level, there often are citizen initiatives on the ballot.
Unfortunately, sometimes state legislatures put them on the ballot to fuck over the citizens in rosy language that the normal citizen does realize the implication.

For instance, I live in Missouri, a very red state, and the GOP loves to fuck over the citizens here who don't know any better. Here's a recent example of a ballot measure in 2020; "Amendment 3":
www.sos.mo.gov/.../2020BallotMeasures
=====
Official Ballot Title
Amendment 3
[Proposed by 100th General Assembly (Second Regular Session) SS3 SJR 38]
Official Ballot Title:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
* Ban gifts from paid lobbyists to legislators and their employees;
* Reduce legislative campaign contribution limits;
* Change the redistricting process voters approved in 2018 by: (i) transferring responsibility for drawing state legislative districts from the Nonpartisan State Demographer to Governor-appointed bipartisan commissions; (ii) modifying and reordering the redistricting criteria.

State governmental entities expect no cost or savings. Individual local governmental entities expect significant decreased revenues of a total unknown amount.

(more)

[abc3643]

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend the Missouri Constitution to reduce the limits on campaign contributions that candidates for state senator can accept from individuals or entities by $100 per election. There is no change for candidates for state representative.

The amendment prohibits state legislators and their employees from accepting a gift of any value (which is currently $5) from paid lobbyists or the lobbyists’ clients.

The amendment modifies the criteria for redrawing legislative districts and changes the process for redrawing state legislative district boundaries during redistricting by giving redistricting responsibility to a bipartisan commission, renames them, and increases membership to 20 by adding four commissioners appointed by the Governor from nominations by the two major political party's state committees.

A “no” vote will not amend the Missouri Constitution regarding campaign contributions, lobbyist gifts, and the process and criteria for redistricting.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.
============

(more)

[abc3643]

OK, now, I want you to look closely at how the GOP is attempting to screw with the people and retain power...

In this ballot measure, the first thing is banning gifts from lobbyists. Most people hate lobbyists, so if you just read that and vote Yes, then you may not realize that you are voting Yes to fuck yourself over. That's the 3rd bullet: "Change the redistricting process voters approved in 2018 ..."

In 2018, there was a citizen's initiative that became an approved ballot measure in 2018 that made the redistricting of election districts be done in a NONPARTISAN fashion.
You can read it here:
www.sos.mo.gov/.../2018BallotMeasures

Well, the GOP [*] didn't like that that 2018 ballot measure passed because that thwarted their ability to gerrymander their heart's content and retain or increase their power regardless of the voters like they did before (and which is why Missouri is now a deep red state, when it used to be purple).

So, with this 2020 "Amendment 3" ballot measure, they tried to undo the 2018 ballot measure, "Clean Missouri", that the people voted for to avoid gerrymandering.

... and the GOP succeeded by a slim margin. By putting that lobbyist gift thing first which was bound to get lots of Yes votes, people didn't realize that they voted to undo what they voted for in 2018, "Clean Missouri" - the nonpartisan redistricting method.

That's an example of how deceptive the GOP is and has been for over 2 generations now.

www.brennancenter.org/.../missouri-amendment-3-passed-what-does-mean-redistricting

[*] In the GOP's defense, the DEMs like to gerrymander too.

[KelleyNice]

@abc3643 Since, Ban gifts from paid lobbyists to legislators and their employees; and Change the redistricting process are two different subjects, I would think that citizen initiatives would be limited to one subject, requiring a second initiative for two different subjects, Or if not, there should be a separate vote for each subject. In any event, I would think, the democrats would inform voters how a yes vote would change more then banning gifts from lobbyists.

[abc3643]

The Democrats can only do so much in a state where both houses of the Missouri Legislature and the Governor are all GOP. People just have to spread the word as best they can. But human nature is human nature and people first see "ban gifts from lobbyists" and think "Yeah, I'm against that." and vote Yes.

It would be nice if there was only one thing at a time in a law or ballot measure. Often there is, but, just as often, there isn't. That's partly because you need to have associated actions to make it all work. But, sometimes, it is a pure attempt at deception like in this case. And when you want to deceive, making things easier and clearer is against your best interests.

(more)

[abc3643]

=========

The lesson to be learned is that this sort of deception happens a lot in politics but also throughout American society.

Here's another example:

Suppose you go to the supermarket and you want to buy a bottle of cranberry juice.

First, you have to be careful when you are in the juice aisle.

You'll see lots of bottles of juices and some, like quite a few cranberry juice bottles, have in small letters "Cocktail". Why? Because they can't lie to you, but they don't exactly want to advertise to you the truth...

So, what is a cranberry juice "cocktail"?

It has cranberry juice, but it also has other things added to it such as other fruit juices (apple and pear are common) and "High Fructose Corn Syrup" (HFCS) to sweeten it because actual cranberry juice is very tart.

www.instacart.com/.../...d43-846a-3dc5b062b95e.JPG

OK, so the juice makers didn't fool you and you don't want to buy "cranberry juice cocktail". Next to those bottles, you see "100% Juice". You think "Oh, that's good. That's what I want... 100% cranberry juice with no HFCS or other added sugars."

So, is it 100% juice? Yes.
Is it 100% cranberry juice? No.

As I said, pure cranberry juice is very tart, so to make it palatable, they use SOME cranberry juice, but often have added apple and/or pear juice and/or other juice to sweeten it because those are not tart juices.



So, if you want REAL 100% cranberry juice, you need to read the labels carefully and, really, do research online to see what brands actually see pure unsweetened cranberry juice.



=============
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, bottom line: It pays to read the fine print whether on a cranberry juice bottle, a ballot measure, or a software app agreement.

[KelleyNice]

@abc3643 Thank you! In addition to ballot questions, your cranberry examples are very informative and I intend to remember them when I see labels and advertisements

[demonics]

Conservatives want all of those things in addition to term limits, salary freezes, suspension of things like diplomatic immunity and free and open books of all members of congress. But these people will tell you its the opposite.

Most of those things are already on the books by the way, they just aren't being enforced. Or they're being selectively enforced. News flash, you can't FORCE the government to do anything (votes to disarm yourselves), all you can do is vote them out. But then you have to contend with a dEmOcrAcY of stupid people that will conveniently forget all of the reasons you wanted to vote them out in the first place. Its actually tragic to see how leftwing politics works from the outside looking in.

[joeldalton]

That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works. There is a movement for a convention of states that can propose and vote on a new amendment to the constitution. Their primary focus is term limits for congress.

You don’t get to just ‘overturn’ a scotus decision because you disagree with it.

[demonics]

When you allow children to vote, this is the kind of sht that they come up with.

[Sixgunsound]

Look up something called the convention of states. This already exists and is gaining a lot of traction in light of the hot mess that is currently happening in Washington.

[monorprise]

Convention of states is only a means by which the States can bypass congress all together in the amendment process.

Most states only want to do this to help put Washington Back into its box, but unless they figure out why Washington D. C. is effectively out of its box it won't make any difference.

A lawless and unaccountable Federal court can rewrite any new amendment proposed by said states to say whatever they want just as easily as they have rewritten the existing constitution.

The lawless Federal court has to be addressed, and the dirty little secrete is the lawless Federal court really isn't the problem. Our federal politicians hiding behind it enforcing all of its edicts without question are.

There was suppose to be checks and balances. Marbury never got his writ the court thought he was entitled to because the court recognized they could not order the co-exqual Madison to give it to him in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

the same thing happened at other times in American history such as under Jackson when ordered to shutdown a Georgia law.
The question we need to answer in fixing the court is why is there such a conspiracy?
To force upon the people things like abortion and gay marriage?

[OddBeMe]

Yes, but individual voters think their incumbents aren’t the problem. It’s always everyone else’s congressmen. That’s hard to change.

[KelleyNice]

That does appear to be true.

[OddBeMe]

Catch 22

[peedy]

Don't know but I agree there needs to be some over sight on congress there needs to be rules they must follow or else they get punished and not just a slap on the wrist, and why can they vote themselves a pay raise nobody else can do that, and why is Nancy Pelosi in charge of the capital police and security that should be a separate thing all together
There is a bunch of things that need to be looked at and re-done

[Guy13]

Mob Rule…without government but with hidden governmental influence via Organizing. Can n you make Lenin’s appearance occur quicker please…. It’s a horrible idea when the Public School is training Revolutionaries to behave like Bolsheviks….

[monorprise]

The referendum system popular in many of the western states can become abusive as it was in California, but in general isn't that big of a deal.

The main problem is the lawless nature of our Federal Government, which frankly isn't suppose to have much of a say at all on domestic issues effecting citizens. Read the Federal constitution its only 11 pages long and has little to no expressed domestic powers.

Absence Federal domestic power people do in fact have 2 different votes to protect their rights, 1st collectively to pass laws, 2nd individually with their feet to avoid being tyrannized by the majority.

Ironically, the left is only rediscovering this desire for the people to have a vote because the 5+ oligarchs in black robes are no longer willing to deny the people that same vote in key areas of life.

[jshm2]

No.

It's the job of the government institutions to do that.

[Adaeva]

Yes! There are too many laws.

[DWornock]

Absolutely there should be.

[RuthlessAggression]

yeah