Want to do something?

From: vonroach (vonroach@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european
constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,
uk.politics.misc, alt.politics.british,
alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-05 07:44:34 PST

On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 11:41:11 +0200, Wallace-Macpherson <mm@NO.SPAM.iniref.org>
wrote:

>Anybody out there want to do something?

Suggest you write and adopt a Constitution making you a democratic Republic with
a monarch only retained as a tourist attraction on a greatly reduced budget.
With a vote perhaps even the Catholics would feel enfranchised..

From: vonroach (vonroach@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution
Date: 2003-06-05 07:33:46 PST

On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:14:26 +1000, s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au (Stephen Souter)
wrote:

>In article <n6rrdvcdfd51pm0d6i18i9ld5363a2kkrk@4ax.com>, vonroach
><vonroach@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:13:00 +1000, s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au
>> (Stephen Souter) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <3027-3EDD3CD4-108@storefull-2377.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
>> >Triaka@webtv.net wrote:
>> >
>> >> While considering referendum, also consider (1) "Initiative", where
>> >> proposed legislation is initiated by citizen petitions and submitted to
>> >> the voters, (2) "Recall", where citizens petition for a new vote on a
>> >> person holding office, and (3) "Direct Democracy", where voters
>> >> participate electronically in deciding legislation.
>> >
>> >Uh, "direct democracy" does not necessarily mean the electronic sort. It
>> >is generally a synonym for participatory democracy.
>>
>> Actually, I'll be more frank with you than your professors, `direct democracy'
>> has been found to be mob rule in any situation larger than say a garden club
>> with 15 members.
>
>Switzerland uses "direct democracy" extensively. Are they under "mob rule"?

Yes, quite so.

>Or is "mob" the kind of word that only gets bandied about when the
>democracy at issue is of the participatory kind? (When it's of the
>"representative" kind, they get referred to as The People, and their
>DIRECT participation in legislative elections is seen as the unshakeable
>bedrock requirement for a modern democracy.)
>
You call anarchists, the people? How odd.

>> Also an interrogatory: what about the term `Republic' do
>> you find distasteful when talking about a representative democracy.
>
>Did you actually read my post?
Unfortunately

>Where did I express any kind of "distaste" for republics or representative
>democracy?
>
>> The
>> citizens of a Republic may put matters to a vote by `initiative',
>> `referendum', or other`referendum', or otherterm as often as they choose.
>
>That must be news to the citizenry of the republics of France, Germany,
>Greece, India, & a whole heap of others! Where have they ever used the
>initiative?

Why single out a few outstanding representatives of socialist governments? Their
bureaucracies always end in tyranny.

>Even in America the initiative, referendum, or recall are only found at
>the state & local level. (There has *never* been a national referendum in
>the US.)
You can add the local level - and all voting is conducted at the State or local
level in the US. Even the elections for President and Vice President are
conducted at the State level and the results currently forwarded to the
Electoral College, even if that were to change the vote would still be held at
the State level. The federal government has no power to hold national elections.

>> A `recall' is just a type of public referendums.
>
>A suppose you could say that in a sense, though the recall is very much
>rarer than either the initiative or referendum. (AFAIK it only used in
>certain states of the US.)
It is not often used because the process is difficult and regular elections
frequent.

>> Governments, political
>> parties, or other groups can hold referendums - and the judiciary can
>> judge their results vis-a-vis the law and constitution.
>
>IMHO you're confused two different meanings of the word "referendum". If
>you mean "referendum" in the sense of a public ballot by the electorate on
>a question put to them, then Australia, Ireland, and Switzerland hold
>referenda. Both countries use them to amend their national constitutions.
>(That is, the national parliament does not itself have the right by itself
>to amend the constitution. It can only do so with the people's consent.)
I am not the least confused. If you want to know the process for amending the US
Constitution, it is written explicitly in the Constitution - a requirement of
all good constitutions - does the EU `constitution' have such an Article?

>If on the other hand you mean "referendum" in the sense that it is used in
>the expression "initiative, referendum, and recall", then you are
>referring to something rather different: a public ballot by the electorate
>on a questionput to them at the request of a petition of electors. In most
>cases the thing put to the electorate is a statute of the legislature
>which some in the electorate are challenging.
I believe here it is you who are a bit confused.

>In that sense, Australia and Ireland do not hold that kind of referenda.
>But Switzerland does; and also some US states.
All US States as States can do so when questions are proposed.

>> Amendments
>> to the Constitution can be advanced by referendum and legislative action.
>
>Here you're confusing the "referendum" with the "initiative".
No. A referendum is held in any State that chooses to, after the `initiative' is
proposed by the Congress (supermajority), State legislatures (supermajority), or
State conventions called for the purpose (supermajority.

>It is the INITIATIVE which is used to propose bills (which are then put to
>the electorate for approval or rejection in a referendum). The bill
>proposed can be for an ordinary statute or for one to amend the
>constitution, although not all places which allow the initiative permit it
>to be used for both ordinary statutes and the constitutional sort.
>Switzerland (at the federal level; the Swiss cantons have their own
>rules), for example, only allows the initiative for constitutional
>changes, not for ordinary statutes.
And the proposed initiative can be placed on the State ballot with the results
of the public vote acting as a referendum or simply as a resolution or advice as
to their desires in the matter (a non-binding referendum). In any event the
final say is by the Constitution as interpreted by the Judiciary with the only
exception in the case of Constitutional Amendments.

>> A Convention can be called to propose `initiatives' and request a vote on
>> the results.
>
>The US constitution contains a provision for a convention for proposing
>constitutional amendments. Such a convention has never been held.
I think you will find they have been to express the will of a State, but 2/3 of
States must hold such conventions.

>Such a convention can only be established by a 2/3 vote of each house of
>the Congress, and such a vote has never been passed.

The Congress is prohibited from any such action by the Great First Amendment of
the US Constitution. It can not enact any law prohibiting the right of the
people to peacefully assemble and petition. The State Conventions on occasion
are of course specifically mandated in the US Constitution. It is a great
protection to have a written Constitution with rights protected. This is the
most important part of any proposed EU constitution.

>> There is a plethora of ways to propose and advance an idea
>> in a Republic.
>
>Perhaps you might start by listing the many republics where all the ways
>you list are available.
I speak of _DEMOCRATIC_ REPUBLICS only where free elections are held. You have
previously mentioned several `republics' that I would regard as _socialist
states_. Such government seem magnetically drawn to a some type of tyranny -
bureaucratic or otherwise. They are `republics' in name only. A republic is not
an easy form of government to hold on to, it requires an educated people to some
extent - a truth mirrored by Benjamin Franklin at the conclusion of the original
convention : when asked by a lady, `what have you given us, Mr. Franklin, he
rep;ied ` a republic if you can keep it.'

>How many of them are available in such republics as (say) France or
>Singapore or Papua New Guinea?
Probably in Singapore. The other two I doubt will ever be able to keep a
republic.

>> This is a basic right of a citizen and should be
>> explicitly recognized in a Constitution, as in the First Amendment of
>> the US Constitution: "The Congress shall make no law respecting ...
>> the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
>> Government for a redress of grievances."
>
>Since the US constitution does NOT allow the popular initiative (though
>some individual states do), the kind of petitions you think the First
>Amendment is referring to are not IN FACT what the First Amendment (or for
>that matter the American Founding Fathers who drafted it) had in mind. The
>petitions referred to there are the same kind as any common or garden
>Briton can present to their own House of Commons.
You seem greatly confused. ALL, repeat ALL elections are held at the State
level. There is no such thing as a general federal election. Such a mechanism
does not exist. But recall: _NO_ State can have any law that is in conflict with
the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the ultimate authority on which the
organization of State governments are based. The ultimate sovereignty resides in
the US Constitution, and does not exist any where out side this document as far
as the US is concerned. The States existed before the Constitution but they
became subject to its sovereignty upon the States entering the Union. State
Constitutions by and large simply restate the general principles with such
additional mechanisms and principals as they choose, so long as they are not in
conflict with the US Constitution.

>In other words, the kind where action to "redress" (ie fix) some
>"grievance" is requested by the petitioners but where there is no legal
>obligation on parliament or the government to carry out the request.
a legislature elected by a direct vote of the people is not inclined to ignore
such action and of course the judiciary may force action.

>In fact, that part of the First Amendment was based on a similar provision
>in the English _Bill of rights 1689_, which declared:
>
> "That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and
> all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;"
No, it was specifically based on a pre-existing part of the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Virginia after a promise was extracted from George Washington
and others that such a Bill would be one of the first acts of Congress. This
`deal' was the means by which Virginia was persuaded to support the adoption and
join the Union. It was largely written by George Mason a Virginia lawyer who had
written the document on which it was based. He was well founded in all aspects
of English law. This portion of the First Amendment was called for by the fact
that the Monarch and Parliament had ignored such requests.

>> Why is this right so important?
>> One only has to look at the historical background of
>> the drafting of the Constitution and the recent conflicts that had arisen
>> between the American settlers and the English Monarch and Parliament. A
>> constitution needs to be drafted with great care and attention to details,
>> and its establishment should require a vote of the citizens. In the US,
>> such a vote was held in each separate State which was a party to the
>> Union and the vote was proceeded by a very vocal debate of the details
>> in each State which was a party to the Union.
>
>I cannot speak for more recent US states, but in so far as the original 13
>are concerned, ratification was done by elected conventions of the
>would-be states, not by the people of those states themselves voting in
>plebiscites.
Ah, your misunderstanding of democratic republic re-emerges - The
representatives of the people (republic) constituting a convention _were_
elected by a direct vote of the people of the State - a typical democratic
republic. There were representatives present from each basic voting district.
A national convention elected in exactly the same manner for each political
party convenes once every 4 years to conduct party business, put forth a
platform, and nominate candidates for President and Vice President of the US.
Candidates for other offices are picked in each party by the direct vote of the
members in each voting district of the State (local precinct of the County of
the State in my case) They are _not_ picked by some party board and `ratified'
by a public vote, any one may become a candidate by filing for office and paying
a modest fee if they qualify by citizenship and age.
This is a true democratic republic, not just a rubber stamp pseudo democracy.

>(This in fact was laid down in article VII of the US constitution: "The
>Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for
>the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the
>Same.")
NOTE WELL - `the States so ratifying'. It did not effect any State until
ratified by that State.

>You may be confusing the US with Australia. In Australia referenda were
>held in each of the six colonies before they joined together to form the
>Commonwealth of Australia in 1901.
The US is NOT a `commonwealth' it is a Union of sovereign States who cede part
of their individual sovereignty on joining the Union.

>> No State could be forced
>> to join by other States. NOTE WELL: once joined the Union was `one
>> Nation' and leaving was prohibited, as the bloody Civil War demonstrated.
>
>That was the Union's interpretations. The states of the Confederacy had a
>very different view! (Had they rather than the Union won the ensuring
>Civil War you would doubtless now be assuring us that membership of the
>Union was voluntary! :-)
And I suppose you are aware of who won that dispute. You mistake what I said.
Joining is voluntary, accomplished with the sole exception of the State of
Texas, by petitioning the Union for admittance and being accepted. This pattern
was followed by all the western territories. The Republic of Texas joined by a
negotiated annexation which granted them some special privilege - to at their
discretion divide into 5 States. This provision has not been exercised.

The one fact I think confuses you is that the ultimate sovereignty rests with
the US Constitution which recognizes that this sovereignty is derived from the
people. All powers not granted in the Constitution are reserved to the people or
their democratic republican State governments. Do not confuse the meaning of
the terms democratic or republican with any political party, there is no
connection intended.

From: Stephen Souter (s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution
Date: 2003-06-06 03:43:15 PST

In article <05ludv0f5b3soclp0c91pmj4aqidlu8sjh@4ax.com>, vonroach
<vonroach@earthlink.net> wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 18:14:26 +1000, s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au (Stephen Souter)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <n6rrdvcdfd51pm0d6i18i9ld5363a2kkrk@4ax.com>, vonroach
> ><vonroach@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 16:13:00 +1000, s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au
> >> (Stephen Souter) wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <3027-3EDD3CD4-108@storefull-2377.public.lawson.webtv.net>,
> >> >Triaka@webtv.net wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> While considering referendum, also consider (1) "Initiative", where
> >> >> proposed legislation is initiated by citizen petitions and submitted to
> >> >> the voters, (2) "Recall", where citizens petition for a new vote on a
> >> >> person holding office, and (3) "Direct Democracy", where voters
> >> >> participate electronically in deciding legislation.
> >> >
> >> >Uh, "direct democracy" does not necessarily mean the electronic sort. It
> >> >is generally a synonym for participatory democracy.
> >>
> >> Actually, I'll be more frank with you than your professors, `direct
> >> democracy'has been found to be mob rule in any situation larger
> >> than say a garden club with 15 members.
> >
> >Switzerland uses "direct democracy" extensively. Are they under "mob rule"?
>
> Yes, quite so.

Then I guess you can supply us with a few examples of this "mob rule" in
Switzerland.

> >Or is "mob" the kind of word that only gets bandied about when the
> >democracy at issue is of the participatory kind? (When it's of the
> >"representative" kind, they get referred to as The People, and their
> >DIRECT participation in legislative elections is seen as the unshakeable
> >bedrock requirement for a modern democracy.)
>
> You call anarchists, the people? How odd.

Indeed! Since I never mentioned the word "anarchist"?

Do do you regard anyone who exercises a freedom to assemble or to petition
a government or who votes in a referendum an anarchist?

Or do you merely go out of your way to misattribute what others post?

<snip>

> >> citizens of a Republic may put matters to a vote by `initiative',
> >> `referendum', or other`referendum', or otherterm as often as they choose.
> >
> >That must be news to the citizenry of the republics of France, Germany,
> >Greece, India, & a whole heap of others! Where have they ever used the
> >initiative?
>
> Why single out a few outstanding representatives of socialist governments?

They were chosen at random, not for their political complexions.

I can only suppose you regard everyone to the left of George W. Bush as a
socialist. Greece's Simitis is a socialist, German's Schroder is a social
democrat (ie centre-left), India's Vajpaypee belongs to the BJP a
centre-right party, while France has a centre-right president (Jacques
Chirac) and a left-wing prime minister (Lionel Jospin).

> Their bureaucracies always end in tyranny.

Are you implying regimes run by such non-socialist sorts as Hitler,
Mussolini, and Marcos were models of republican freedom?

If you don't approve of my examples, then cite a few of your own--ones
which do support your point of view.

> >Even in America the initiative, referendum, or recall are only found at
> >the state & local level. (There has *never* been a national referendum in
> >the US.)
>
> You can add the local level - and all voting is conducted at the State or
> local level in the US. Even the elections for President and Vice
> President are conducted at the State level and the results currently
> forwarded to the Electoral College, even if that were to change the
> vote would still be held at the State level.

Mostly true. (The election results for US president and VP are, however,
not "forwarded" to the Electoral College because they are FOR the
Electoral College. That is, those elections elect the membership of the
college, which once in office then chooses the president & VP.)

But such technicalities aside, how is your statement relevant to what I
posted? We were not talking about ELECTIONS but about REFERENDA.

> The federal government has
> no power to hold national elections.

The reason the US government "has no power to hold national elections" is
because national elections in the US are held on dates fixed by law. The
Senate and House of Representatives, unlike the UK's House of Commons,
cannot be dissolved, and new congressional elections called, midway
through a senator's or congressman's term.

> >> A `recall' is just a type of public referendums.
> >
> >A suppose you could say that in a sense, though the recall is very much
> >rarer than either the initiative or referendum. (AFAIK it only used in
> >certain states of the US.)
>
> It is not often used because the process is difficult and regular elections
> frequent.

Partly true. The recall is used to allow electors to dismiss an elected
official before his term is up. You would no more want to dismiss such a
person for frivolous or politically-motivated reasons than you would want
to make it easy for governments to dismiss judges.

> >> Governments, political
> >> parties, or other groups can hold referendums - and the judiciary can
> >> judge their results vis-a-vis the law and constitution.
> >
> >IMHO you're confused two different meanings of the word "referendum". If
> >you mean "referendum" in the sense of a public ballot by the electorate on
> >a question put to them, then Australia, Ireland, and Switzerland hold
> >referenda. Both countries use them to amend their national constitutions.
> >(That is, the national parliament does not itself have the right by itself
> >to amend the constitution. It can only do so with the people's consent.)
>
> I am not the least confused. If you want to know the process for
> amending the US Constitution, it is written explicitly in the Constitution -
> a requirement of all good constitutions - does the EU `constitution' have
> such an Article?

Not as far as I can see. But how is that relevant to what I posted?

> >If on the other hand you mean "referendum" in the sense that it is used in
> >the expression "initiative, referendum, and recall", then you are
> >referring to something rather different: a public ballot by the electorate
> >on a questionput to them at the request of a petition of electors. In most
> >cases the thing put to the electorate is a statute of the legislature
> >which some in the electorate are challenging.
>
> I believe here it is you who are a bit confused.

In what way?

> >In that sense, Australia and Ireland do not hold that kind of referenda.
> >But Switzerland does; and also some US states.
>
> All US States as States can do so when questions are proposed.

The constitution of Delaware can be amended without va referendum. (That
state also does not allow for the popular initiative, although its
constitution does provide for the state legislature to hold referenda on
certain specific matters; for example, s17A provides for one allowing
bingo to be introduced.)

> >> Amendments
> >> to the Constitution can be advanced by referendum and legislative action.
> >
> >Here you're confusing the "referendum" with the "initiative".
>
> No. A referendum is held in any State that chooses to, after the
> `initiative' is proposed by the Congress (supermajority), State
> legislatures (supermajority), or State conventions called for the
> purpose (supermajority.

Are you talking about the US constitution?

Where does it provide for referenda of any kind?

   "...there is no national initiative or referendum process in
    the United States."
      --http://ni4d.us/library/waterspaper.pdf

From your talk of "state conventions" I guess it you're referring to the
process for amending the US constitution:

   "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it
    necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on
    the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several
    States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which,
    in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as
    Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of
    three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three
    fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification
    may be proposed by the Congress....
                                   -- Article V

As you can see, two ways are provided for proposing amendments (a
Congressional vote or a vote of a national convention) and two ways for
ratifying proposed amendments (by the votes of state legislatures or the
votes of state conventions).

None of them involve the electorate voting on a proposal (aka "referendum"
or "plebiscite"). The members of the state conventions might well be
CHOSEN by the people, just as the members of the electoral college which
chooses the US president & VP are chosen by the electorate, but the
decision to ratify or reject the amendment would be made by the
convention, not by the electorate, just as the decision as to which
candidate becomes president is made by the electoral college, not by the
electors.

> >It is the INITIATIVE which is used to propose bills (which are then put to
> >the electorate for approval or rejection in a referendum). The bill
> >proposed can be for an ordinary statute or for one to amend the
> >constitution, although not all places which allow the initiative permit it
> >to be used for both ordinary statutes and the constitutional sort.
> >Switzerland (at the federal level; the Swiss cantons have their own
> >rules), for example, only allows the initiative for constitutional
> >changes, not for ordinary statutes.
>
> And the proposed initiative can be placed on the State ballot with the
> results of the public vote acting as a referendum or simply as a
> resolution or advice as to their desires in the matter (a non-binding
> referendum).

The allusion to "state ballots" suggests you're referring to the way the
US states do things. (Other countries offering the initiative--eg
Italy--do not have "state ballots"--because they do not have states!)

But apart from that (and the bit about non-binding referenda), isn't that
more or less what I said?

BTW, which US states offer non-binding referenda with the popular initiative?

> In any event the final say is by the Constitution as
> interpreted by the Judiciary with the only exception in the case of
> Constitutional Amendments.
>
> >> A Convention can be called to propose `initiatives' and request a vote on
> >> the results.
> >
> >The US constitution contains a provision for a convention for proposing
> >constitutional amendments. Such a convention has never been held.
>
> I think you will find they have been to express the will of a State, but
> 2/3 of States must hold such conventions.

Doh!

You're confusing the NATIONAL convention article 5 provides for (which
would be used for PROPOSING amendments) with the use of state conventions
for RATIFYING proposed amendments. Both are provided for by article 5, but
I was referring to the national convention.

(BTW, the state convention process has only ever been used ONCE: for the
1933 amendment repealing Prohibition. All other proposed amendments have
been ratified by state legislatures.)

> >Such a convention can only be established by a 2/3 vote of each house of
> >the Congress, and such a vote has never been passed.
>
> The Congress is prohibited from any such action by the Great First
> Amendment of the US Constitution. It can not enact any law prohibiting
> the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition. The State
> Conventions on occasion are of course specifically mandated in the US
> Constitution. It is a great protection to have a written Constitution
> with rights protected. This is the most important part of any proposed
> EU constitution.

(Sigh!) I suggest you try reading the "Great First Amendment". You will
find it only applies to statutes:

   "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
                           ^^^
    religion ..."

It does not proscribe actions of other kinds, such as mere votes of the
Senate or House of Representatives.

In any case, I was referring to INaction. Where does the First Amendment
prevent that?

> >> There is a plethora of ways to propose and advance an idea
> >> in a Republic.
> >
> >Perhaps you might start by listing the many republics where all the ways
> >you list are available.
>
> I speak of _DEMOCRATIC_ REPUBLICS only where free elections are held.
> You have previously mentioned several `republics' that I would regard as
> _socialist states_. Such government seem magnetically drawn to a some type
> of tyranny - bureaucratic or otherwise. They are `republics' in name
> only.

So what you're saying is that "socialist states" are (by definition
almost) either tyrannies or would-be tyrannies. Any republic which elects
a social government in free elections thereupon becomes a republic "in
name only", it's elections stop being "free", and it's a mere step away
from tyranny?

> A republic is not an easy form of government to hold on to, it
> requires an educated people to some extent - a truth mirrored by
> Benjamin Franklin at the conclusion of the original convention : when
> asked by a lady, `what have you given us, Mr. Franklin, he rep;ied
> `a republic if you can keep it.'

I take it then that in your view the countries I mentioned earlier
(France, Greece, etc) do not hold free elections. I also presume you would
see the UK, though not a republic, as a "socialist state" (it being ruled
by the left-wing Labor Party). Ergo, they do not hold free elections
either.

OK, suppose we confine our attentions to DEMOCRATIC republics. Why don't
you list a few of the many such republics which do use the initiative and
referendum.

> >How many of them are available in such republics as (say) France or
> >Singapore or Papua New Guinea?
>
> Probably in Singapore.

"Probably"?

I take it you haven't actually checked. (I also take it that you consider
Singapore to be a "democratic republic".)

You'll find its national constitution here:

http://www.lawnet.com.sg/freeaccess/Constitution.htm

You notice that for the most part it can be amended by the Singaporean
parliament. (The exception is that part of the constitution affecting the
"sovereignty of Singapore, which requires a referendum to change).

<snip>

> >> This is a basic right of a citizen and should be
> >> explicitly recognized in a Constitution, as in the First Amendment of
> >> the US Constitution: "The Congress shall make no law respecting ...
> >> the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the
> >> Government for a redress of grievances."
> >
> >Since the US constitution does NOT allow the popular initiative (though
> >some individual states do), the kind of petitions you think the First
> >Amendment is referring to are not IN FACT what the First Amendment (or for
> >that matter the American Founding Fathers who drafted it) had in mind. The
> >petitions referred to there are the same kind as any common or garden
> >Briton can present to their own House of Commons.
>
> You seem greatly confused. ALL, repeat ALL elections are held at the
> State level.

*I'm* confused?

Where did I mention of the word "elections"?

> There is no such thing as a general federal election. Such
> a mechanism does not exist.

Let me see if I have this straight. Every two years when members of the US
House of Representatives turn out to be re-elected, that election is not
actually a "general federal election" but a series of state elections
electing (presumably) state office-holders.

You're presumably basing that view on the fact that in the US the states
set the rules governing the time, place, and manner of congressional
elections.

Perhaps you might want to check out section 4 of article 1 of the US
constitution:

     "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators
      and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
      Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of
      chusing Senators."
                             --section 4, article 1, US constitution

In other words, Congress would seem able to pass a law regulating (most)
aspects of US senate and House of Representatives elections. I take that
only when it does so will such elections becoee (in your eyes) "federal
elections".

> But recall: _NO_ State can have any law that
> is in conflict with the US Constitution. The US Constitution is the
> ultimate authority on which the organization of State governments are
> based. The ultimate sovereignty resides in the US Constitution, and does
> not exist any where out side this document as far as the US is concerned.
> The States existed before the Constitution but they became subject to
> its sovereignty upon the States entering the Union. State Constitutions
> by and large simply restate the general principles with such additional
> mechanisms and principals as they choose, so long as they are not in
> conflict with the US Constitution.
>
> >In other words, the kind where action to "redress" (ie fix) some
> >"grievance" is requested by the petitioners but where there is no legal
> >obligation on parliament or the government to carry out the request.
>
> a legislature elected by a direct vote of the people is not inclined to ignore
> such action

Are you suggesting a petition sent to the US House of Representatives
calling upon the Congress to (say) nationalise the banks and the steel
mills would be acted upon? :-)

> and of course the judiciary may force action.

The US judiciary has no power force the Congress to pass a particular law.
It can only pass judgment on things the Congress has enacted, not on what
it has NOT enacted.

> >In fact, that part of the First Amendment was based on a similar provision
> >in the English _Bill of rights 1689_, which declared:
> >
> > "That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and
> > all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;"
>
> No, it was specifically based on a pre-existing part of the Constitution
> of the Commonwealth of Virginia after a promise was extracted from
> George Washington and others that such a Bill would be one of the first
> acts of Congress. This`deal' was the means by which Virginia was
> persuaded to support the adoption and join the Union. It was largely
> written by George Mason a Virginia lawyer who had written the document
> on which it was based. He was well founded in all aspects of English
> law. This portion of the First Amendment was called for by the fact
> that the Monarch and Parliament had ignored such requests.

By the "document on which it was based" I guess you're referring to the
Virginia Declaration of Rights (VDoR):

http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/vadeclar.html

Mason did indeed write it but it does NOT contain a right to petition (nor
a right to freedom of speech, though it does contain rights to freedom of
the press and of religion).

Doubtless Madison went back to one of the same sources Mason used: the
English Bill of Rights.

(The wording of the US Eighth Amendment, for example:

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

may have come from section 9 of Mason's VDoR:

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

but Mason himself clearly borrowed the key parts of it from the English
Bill of Rights 1689:

   "And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in
    criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the
    liberty of the subjects;

"And excessive fines have been imposed;

"And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted;"

As you pointed out, Mason "was well founded in all aspects of English
law". Including, presumably, its Bill of Rights.

> >> Why is this right so important?
> >> One only has to look at the historical background of
> >> the drafting of the Constitution and the recent conflicts that had arisen
> >> between the American settlers and the English Monarch and Parliament. A
> >> constitution needs to be drafted with great care and attention to details,
> >> and its establishment should require a vote of the citizens. In the US,
> >> such a vote was held in each separate State which was a party to the
> >> Union and the vote was proceeded by a very vocal debate of the details
> >> in each State which was a party to the Union.
> >
> >I cannot speak for more recent US states, but in so far as the original 13
> >are concerned, ratification was done by elected conventions of the
> >would-be states, not by the people of those states themselves voting in
> >plebiscites.
>
> Ah, your misunderstanding of democratic republic re-emerges - The
> representatives of the people (republic) constituting a convention _were_
> elected by a direct vote of the people of the State - a typical democratic
> republic. There were representatives present from each basic voting district.
> A national convention elected in exactly the same manner for each political
> party convenes once every 4 years to conduct party business, put forth a
> platform, and nominate candidates for President and Vice President of the
> US. Candidates for other offices are picked in each party by the direct
> vote of the members in each voting district of the State (local precinct
> of the County of the State in my case) They are _not_ picked by some
> party board and `ratified'by a public vote, any one may become a
> candidate by filing for office and paying a modest fee if they qualify
> by citizenship and age.This is a true democratic republic, not just a
> rubber stamp pseudo democracy.

Thanks for the information. But I take it you didn't read what I posted.
If you had you might have noticed I'd said "ELECTED conventions".

> >(This in fact was laid down in article VII of the US constitution: "The
> >Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for
> >the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the
> >Same.")
>
> NOTE WELL - `the States so ratifying'. It did not effect any State until
> ratified by that State.

So what's your point?

> >You may be confusing the US with Australia. In Australia referenda were
> >held in each of the six colonies before they joined together to form the
> >Commonwealth of Australia in 1901.
>
> The US is NOT a `commonwealth' it is a Union of sovereign States who cede part
> of their individual sovereignty on joining the Union.

(Sigh!) I'm tempted to ask you what you think the word "commonwealth" signifies?

I take it you haven't heard of the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts". Or for
that matter Cromwell's "commonwealth".

"Commonwealth of Australia", like the "Commonwealth of Massachusetts", is
simply a label, just like "United States of America". It isn't being used
to signify some particular kind of political system.

> >> No State could be forced
> >> to join by other States. NOTE WELL: once joined the Union was `one
> >> Nation' and leaving was prohibited, as the bloody Civil War demonstrated.
> >
> >That was the Union's interpretations. The states of the Confederacy had a
> >very different view! (Had they rather than the Union won the ensuring
> >Civil War you would doubtless now be assuring us that membership of the
> >Union was voluntary! :-)
>
> And I suppose you are aware of who won that dispute.

Naturally. But they had to resort to force of arms to prove their point.

The US constitution itself is entirely silent on whether states could
unilaterally leave or not. At best any prohibition would have to be
implied (eg by the constitution not providing for an mechanism to secede).

But the point I was trying to make before was that whether a state legally
could or not would have been made entirely academic had the Confederacy
won the Civil War--just as whether the original 13 states could (legally)
throw off the colonial rule of the British in 1776 was made academic by
them winning their War of Independence.

(After all, Texas seceded by Mexico by rebellion, rather than legal means.
Does that make Texas still--legally--part of Mexico?)

   "No state can legally leave the Union. What is called 'the right
    of secession' has no existence. It means the right of revolution,
    which belongs to every people....If the revolution succeeds,
    history justifies them; if they fail, it condemns them, even
    while not condemning their motives of action...."
        --http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gl/us19.htm
           (Boston Daily Traveler, 1860)

   "The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and
    for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we
    recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government
    of George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Provinces."
        --http://www.hfac.uh.edu/gl/us19.htm
          (London Times, 1861)

> You mistake what I said.
> Joining is voluntary, accomplished with the sole exception of the State of
> Texas, by petitioning the Union for admittance and being accepted. This
> pattern was followed by all the western territories. The Republic of
> Texas joined by a negotiated annexation which granted them some special
> privilege - to at their discretion divide into 5 States. This provision
> has not been exercised.

Texas (after it successfully seceded from Mexico) was a sovereign nation.
By contrast, the "western territories" were part of the sovereign
territory of the US, though not (originally) states.

> The one fact I think confuses you is that the ultimate sovereignty rests
> with the US Constitution which recognizes that this sovereignty is
> derived from the people. All powers not granted in the Constitution are
> reserved to the people or their democratic republican State governments.

You may be surprised to learn what would-be US secessionists invoke the
same amendment.

   "The States which seceded from the Union in 1860 and 1861 did so,
    under the law as they understood it. Indeed, although the
    Constitution does not allow states to secede from the United
    States once admitted, per se, it does not specifically deny that
    power. According to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution:

      'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
       nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
       respectively, or to the people.'

"Therefore, the secession was legal, and the Union Cause, wrong."
--http://seventeen.freeservers.com/freedom/freedom.htm

> Do not confuse the meaning of the terms democratic or republican with
> any political party, there is no connection intended.

How would you define the distinction between them?

--
Stephen Souter
s.souter@edfac.usyd.edu.au
http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

Messages 51-57 from thread

Prev 10
From: Wallace-Macpherson
(mm@NO.SPAM.iniref.org)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,
uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-05 02:41:24 PST

How to proceed?

Because we in GB&NI lack experience of and legislation for direct democratic
procedures, the only way until now has been to request parliament and government to
carry out a referendum. This is not guaranteed to succeed and at best can achieve a
"plebiscite from above".

As far as I know the only formal example of citizens' initiative (other than parish
initiatives) is the thematically very limited procedure designed to trigger a
referendum for an elected mayor. That procedure cannot be directly applied here.

Another tactic would be to "do it ourselves", improving on the "wild-cat"
referendums such as the one about homosexuality funded by Souter in Scotland or the
one which has been announced by the Daily Mail on a european constitution. Several
different approaches are possible. One way would be for a group of supporters to
fund-raise and organise the project. Another would be to pay a reputable
organisation such as the Electoral Reform Society to manage the initiative and
referendum procedure.

Anybody out there want to do something?

Wallace-Macpherson
Citizens' Initiative and Referendum I&R
http://www.iniref.org

From: vonroach (vonroach@earthlink.net)
Subject: Re: British referendum on a
european constitution
Newsgroups: uk.politics.constitution,
uk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.british, alt.uk.law
Date: 2003-06-05 07:44:34 PST