Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 09:03:39 AM EDT

Now is the time to wrap the formal text of the US Constitution.

Here were the first 3 parts of the series:

Preambe & NY Times article

Article 1, Article 2, & Article 3

Article 4 & Article 5

Let's get right into it.

IL JimP :: The Constitution Bistro: Part 4

Starting with Article 6:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Would you change anything there?

How about the final article of the original Constitution.

Article 7:

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,
Go. Washington-Presidt.

There could be some interesting thoughts on this one too.

Before we get into the Amendments won't you consider this. I haven't been able to find the actual text but from what I've heard Pennsylvania early in its history had a "4th branch" basically the people's branch. I think it might be a good idea. How about something like this:

Constitutional Bistro Article:

Section 1. The People having ultimate sovereignty shall have final authority over all bills passed by Congress and signed by the President; also have final authority over decisions from the Supreme Court. The People shall have decision authority by popular national referendum.
Section 2. In order for the referendum to appear on the ballot, The People will need to have petitions signed by 10% of registered voters in each state in the last general election prior to the year of enactment of the law or decision of the Supreme Court.
Section 3. Non-budgetary laws passed by Congress shall be repealed immediately after the referendum receives at least 60% at election.
Budgetary laws passed by Congress shall be barred from appearing in the next budget passed by Congress or any other budgetary act after the referendum receives at least 60% of the vote at election.
All laws repealed by The People are barred from resubmission for 5 years.
Section 4. Decisions by the Supreme Court shall be reversed immediately after referendum passes with 67% of the vote at election.
The Supreme Court is barred from reviewing decision again for 10 years.

Tags: (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

The Constitution Bistro: Part 4 | 7 comments

I'm hoping to get more (0.00 / 0)

action on this diary and the next one about the Bill of Rights than the last couple.

"These are hard times, not end times." - Jon Stewart

by: IL JimP @ Sat Apr 28, 2012 at 13:04:43 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

My new article (2.00 / 2)

must have stunned you all into silence. :-)

"These are hard times, not end times." - Jon Stewart

by: IL JimP @ Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 16:18:37 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Bad idea. (2.00 / 2)

It could easily lead to the very thing the Constitution attempts to avoid, which is tyranny of the majority.

This is not a recession. It's a robbery.

by: John Allen @ Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 18:09:57 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

it'd have to be a pretty big majority (2.00 / 1)

and how is that any different than now?

I didn't put simple majorities for it to pass to try and address that.

"These are hard times, not end times." - Jon Stewart

by: IL JimP @ Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 22:39:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Heh (2.00 / 1)

I've been waiting with some apprehension for the Tea Party to start beginning to agitate for "concurrent majority:"

Calhoun's basic concern for protecting the diverse interests of minority interests is expressed in his chief contribution to political science - the idea of a concurrent majority across different groups as distinguished from a numerical majority. According to the principle of a numerical majority, the will of the more numerous citizens should always rule, regardless of the burdens on the minority. Such a principle tends toward a consolidation of power in which the interests of the absolute majority always prevail over those of the minority.
Calhoun believed that the great achievement of the American constitution was in checking the tyranny of a numerical majority through institutional procedures that required a concurrent majority, such that each important interest in the community must consent to the actions of government. To secure a concurrent majority, those interests that have a numerical majority must compromise with the interests that are in the minority. A concurrent majority requires a unanimous consent of all the major interests in a community, which is the only sure way of preventing majority tyranny. This idea supported Calhoun's doctrine of interposition or nullification, in which the state governments could refuse to enforce or comply with a policy of the Federal government that threatened the vital interests of the states.
John C Calhoun: Concurrent Majority Wikipedia

Senate representation seems to be an example of this in some respects but I fear this idea could be used to elevate narrow, parochial ideas to national relevance; we seem to be headed that way already.

by: Shaun Appleby @ Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 02:38:16 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I'm not particularly advocating (0.00 / 0)

this new article but I think I addressed both of your concerns.

The 10% of registered voters is a pretty hard level to make, right now in a lot of states to get on a ballot as a candidate requires between 3-5% of voters in the previous election.

Next, this is only to repeal acts of Congress or decisions by the Supreme Court. This isn't to initiate new laws, so it should prevent a lot of the nonsense that is happening in CA.

Finally, for the items to be repealed require a pretty big majority for the reason to protect minority viewpoint. Especially with the case of Supreme Court decisions where 67% is required. That's pretty high.

I don't see this happening hardly ever even if it was in place.

"These are hard times, not end times." - Jon Stewart

by: IL JimP @ Mon Apr 30, 2012 at 12:42:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

wonder how many states (2.00 / 1)

were already in favor of the Constitution before they left the convention. My guess would be 9

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same.

"These are hard times, not end times." - Jon Stewart

by: IL JimP @ Sun Apr 29, 2012 at 22:38:00 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

The Constitution Bistro: Part 4 | 7 comments

Make a New Account

Forget your username or password?

Follow this blog

Posting Guidelines | FAQ | Privacy Policy | Contact the Moose | Contact Congress