On September 27, proponents of Arkansas initiatives filed a brief in U.S. District Court in Liberty Initiative Fund v Thurston, e.d., 4:21cv-460. The issue is the new Arkansas ban on out-of-state circulators for initiatives. The Arkansas initiative proponents’ brief points out that recently, a U.S. District Court in Maine struck down Maine’s ban on out-of-state circulators.
We don’t care how y’all do it up north.
Cool. I hope our side wins.
IMO, the state is impairing the performance of private contracts, and interfering in interstate commerce. The only contrary compelling state interest that I can imagine is the protection of entrenched local political and economic oligopolies.
I like referenda. Even the ones that I vote against. It one of the few times that I can have direct say in what the heck is going on.
Bring them on.
Each State is a Nation-State.
1776 Last para of DOI
1777 Art Confed
1783 USA-Brit Peace Treaty
1787 USA Const – esp Art VII, I-10 treaty mention.
States all plural.
—-
Thus – State internal politics >>> outside folks – NONE of your business .
One more basic point screwed up by SCOTUS CONLAW MORONS since 1789.
Interstate commerce cl – Congress power to prevent added burdens (esp $$$ taxes) on commerce passing thru a State going to another State. A- production State, B- pass thru State(s), C- consumption State.
See 1787-1788 Federalist- esp noting Germany ROT – added *tolls*.
Another basic point screwed up by SCOTUS CONLAW MORONS since 1789.
Federalist – REQUIRED reading in ANY law skooool since 1789 ???
Demo Rep is the only one who has this one right. Out of staters need to stay out of other state’s elections and politics. The law should be upheld.
Furthermore, the legislature should legislate, not the progressive (communist) mob rule of initiatives, which is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for supper.
No one thinks that campaigns should not be able to hire someone from out-of-state to be a strategist, or a campaign treasurer, or an attorney. Why single out just one occupation and impose a residency requirement? Who cares who asks the voters to sign a petition, as long as only state voters can sign? There are even a few states in which the circulator doesn’t even need to identify himself or herself and is not required to sign the petition.
Bit more on States as Nation-States –
Art IV, Secs 1 and 2.
IV-2-2 is often in inter-national Treaties — extradition of alleged criminals.
Switzerland even has national referenda.
Switzerland remains one of the least socialist countries in Europe.
Switzerland still living off of gold/silver deposits of folks killed by nazis in 1933-1945 ???
and gold/silver of nazi regime to pay for swiss guns/ammo in 1933-1945 ???
IE Swissland was NOT *neutral* in WW II.
I think campaigns should not be able to hire someone from out of state to be a campaign strategist, treasurer, or attorney. States should be treated as sovereign nations for anything having to do with politics, campaigns or elections, other than federal elections, which have different levels of blended state/federal status for congress (representing states, therefor almost as much under state control as state and local elections) and presidential electors (still much more under state control than actually practiced presently).
Are you advocating for national referenda? That would be a nightmare.
The point is, referenda don’t necessarily result in socialist outcomes. Switzerland is proof of this.
Even here in Massachusetts, the voters have always voted down the graduated income tax whenever it has been on the ballot.
The voters aren’t as dumb as some folks think.
The founders were wise to warn strongly against direct democracy mob rule and to build many safeguards against it. They correctly understood that it amounted to two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat, and a “progressive ” slide towards communist tyranny, any bumps and curves along that road notwithstanding.
NOW –
about 5-12 pct in primary elections — nominating the commie/fascist wolves.
25 or less pct in genl elections — wolves looting the tax slave sheep.
—-
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
Democracy is one part of a complete political system, as Aristotle pointed out. The people have the virtue of holding the powers that be to account. By themselves, they can be a mob, as Aristotle said. But, monarchy by itself can lead to tyranny, and aristocracy by itself can lead to oligopoly. All three components need to be part of a constituion for there to be checks and balances. Our founders were wise enough to create a constitution with all three elements, with checks and balances.
The part of our constitution that’s not working is NOT the democratic part, but the monarchical part. The President has WAY to much power, and the country is sliding toward tyranny. That’s why people have gone totally nuts about whoever gets elected President.
IMO, we ought to give serious consideration to the Swiss model of a shared executive. They have a 7 member Federal Council that serves as the executive. They chose one member every year to serve as the ceremonial President and Commander in Chief. Once again, the Swiss do things right.
There were no initiatives or referenda in the Articles or the Constitution. They were thought up later by the “progressive ” movement. Why do you think they were not included to begin with?
Initiatives and referenda were started by states. I’m fine with that as long as the federal government’s power is limited. But federal overreach is continuing under both Democrats and Republicans.
Referenda can and have been used to limit government power. Many people in many states have used initiatives to limit or repeal taxes and impose term limits. Things which are needed at the federal level, but don’t happen.
So you do advocate for federal referenda?
I would be happy if the federal government followed Jefferson’s advice an just had an automatic constitutional convention every 20 years. One state DID follow his advice: New Hampshire. Nothing crazy has come out of those conventions. And New Hampshire remains a fine example of a low tax, relatively free state.
A federal constitutional convention today would be an utter disaster.
Either Congress or a constitutional convention can specify the mode of ratification of amendments, either by legislatures, or specially elected conventions. In those cases where conventions were used, the election of delegates to those conventions were essentially referenda, including the initial ratification of the constitution. Our of those ratifying state convention came the Bill of Rights.
Any thing that would come out of any national constitutional convention would still have the pass the steep ratification process. It’s not so easy.
Some people have speculated that a so-called “run-away” convention would create a wholly new ratification procedure. IMO, any proposals out of such a convention would be DOA.
The problem with constitutional amendments is not that there are too few, but that there are too many. Most of them ought to be repealed forthwith.
Remember that the original convention was only empowered to amend the Articles of Conferederation. If you think a runaway convention would be DOA, history suggests otherwise.
Items that I would put on the agenda of a federal constitutional convention would include:
1. Term limits and recall of members of Congress. Also., members of Congress would be paid by their states, not the federal governnment.
2. Repeal of the personal income tax.
3. Election of federal judges by state chosen judicial electors.
4. Replacement of the Presidency by a multi-member Executive Council.
Congress won’t do these things by themselves. We need a constitutional convention.
If any national constitutional convention chooses a ratification method that is radically different from that currently specified by the constitution, it will be the end of the union. States will just start to secede.
Keep in mind that, altho the current constitution only required 9 states to put it into effect, all the states had to ratify it to be a part of it. North Carolina and Rhode Island didn’t ratify it until after the first new government was chosen. They could have stayed out, and become independent, if they so chose.
I’ll go along with repeal of income tax. There’s precedent for repealing an amendment, and quite a few others need to be repealed as well. A constitutional convention is far too dangerous, given today’s skewed leftist politics and deeply ingrained infotainment-“educational” propaganda and the historical precedent of the prior, runaway constitutional convention.
States have tried seceding before. I’m all for trying and trying again until we secede, but success is far from assured.
Our family is still owed a great deal of reparations for our stolen property, with 156 years of interest and counting, from the last time we tried to secede.
Well, like I said, if any national constitutional convention chooses a method of ratification that is radically different from the current method, they are essentially proposing a new constitution, and, IMO, no state would be obligated to join it, if it preferred not.
Morally obligated? No. Military obligated? Probably.
Regimes part NOT working is the *democracy* part —
due to 1/2 x 1/2 Minority rule gerrymanders / super-worse extremist primaries.
result — lawless tyrant execs / courts.
—-
PR legis
Nonpartisan AppV – execs/judics
TOTSOP
9 + 2 States seceded from 1777 Art Confed. – due to unam requirement for any amendment to it.
Last 2 States (NC and RI) admitted to new Union after it started 4 Mar 1789.
See 1 Stat. volume of USA laws.
The same people demanding to stop out of state circulators are are the same people taking out of state campaign money. But donating money is more free speech than actually speech.
They should stop that too.