Constitution and Personal Responsibility

[dross]

A piece of the puzzle as to why people don't take a more active role in the government is the erosion of our local government. Over time more and more of the decisionmaking and tax money has been moved from the local level to the state aned federal level. In individual can have a pretty loud voice in their local government but try to get heard sometime on a state or federal level. Stripping the local governemnts of their duties and diverting the tax money to the state and federal government is one way that people have lost the ability to take an active role in government.

This is exactly right. A couple of years ago, when my LTCH took too long, I called my state representative, who also happened to be a senior rep, the whip or something. I couldn't find a good way to reach him through government channels, so I googled his name and found out where he works his day job. I emailed him there and he called me back within a couple of hours. Two days later I had my LTCH.

Most problems should be solved on the local level by people we can talk to face to face. Our federal reps represent too many people to ever be accessible.

 

[edporch]

-Snip-
Therefore, it's my premise that an action is not truly "unconstitutional" until the Supreme Court rules it as such.
-Snip-

In a perfect world, where the Supreme Court ONLY interpreted the law as written and the intention of it, and didn't legislate from the bench and make things up out of thin air as they go, this would be true.

We've ALL seen laws that clearly contradict the US Constitution and the intent of a specific part that the Supreme Court rules are "Constitutional".

So in the real world, I have to respectfully disagree with your premise.

NOTE: I'm not a lawyer either and never played one on TV, but I can read. :-)

 

[Eddie]

This is exactly right. A couple of years ago, when my LTCH took too long, I called my state representative, who also happened to be a senior rep, the whip or something. I couldn't find a good way to reach him through government channels, so I googled his name and found out where he works his day job. I emailed him there and he called me back within a couple of hours. Two days later I had my LTCH.

Most problems should be solved on the local level by people we can talk to face to face. Our federal reps represent too many people to ever be accessible.

To give an example of what I am saying:

I had to go to a town board meeting tonight. Its a little town, just under 400 people (counting children). The town board meeting is held in the former one room school house that now serves as the town hall. There is a rectangular folding table set up in a 20' by 30' room with three chairs for the board members and a chair on either end for the clerk-treasurer and town attorney. Beside the door is a rack with about 30 metal folding chairs in it. As each person arrives they take a chair and set it up. (By custom they will put their own chair back when the meeting is over.) In the front row there is the Street Department, Parks and Rec. and Water Department. Each of these departments is a one man position and that one man is there. Ten years ago the Town Marshall would also have been present but the State has cut the funding for that position.

The Clerk-Treasurer and each department gives a verbal report including their budget and any citizens can ask questions or make comments. They don't use Robert's Rules of order. Problems are discussed and talked about openly. Often solutions involve people volunteering to do things themselves like repair a roof on the pump house or cutting some brush in a fence line rather than spending the town's money to hire someone.

A citizen who is present has access to their entire local government. If someone is unhappy with a decision it can get pretty vocal and the language used to describe shortcomings isn't always PC or rated G. I love it because it is open and honest and no one is hiding behind a big pile of BS.

This is the sort of thing that is steadily vanishing; the ability of the average person to have a face to face talk with their government.

 

[Pocketman]

In a perfect world, where the Supreme Court ONLY interpreted the law as written and the intention of it, and didn't legislate from the bench and make things up out of thin air as they go, this would be true.

We've ALL seen laws that clearly contradict the US Constitution and the intent of a specific part that the Supreme Court rules are "Constitutional".

So in the real world, I have to respectfully disagree with your premise.

NOTE: I'm not a lawyer either and never played one on TV, but I can read. :-)

I agree, legislation from the judicial bench is a problem. The Supreme Court is however the constitutional authority. Therefore, according to the Constitution the Court's independent decisions carry the full weight of the Constitution. While you may disagree with a SCOTUS decision, you would by ruling be wrong.