You said “relying on the ballot box to keep a government in check is not only foolhardy, but dangerous.”

I agree relying on the ballot box is foolhardy and dangerous but only when used NOT in accordance of the constitutional purpose.

According to the Constitution an elected Official can be elected to do only one thing, take and honor the Constitution’s oath of Office; reference the last paragraph of Article VI. It would be a misuse by the Voter to use the ballot box to vote for an elected Official to do anything else. If affect such a voter would be changing the Constitution and voters cannot change the constitution; reference Article V (only agreement of three fourths of the State Legislatures, or Conventions thereof, can amend the Constitution.)

Yes, voting (both ballot and jury boxes) has failed, miserably. But, again, it is not the fault of the boxes for the failure but failure is the fault of the User, Voter.

I have serious doubts whether our constitutional republic and personal liberty can ever be resuscitated but I can see no other way than the way, method, the Founders gave us. All other ways and ideas on restoring and maintaining the Land of the Free and home of the Brave have failed too and failed throughout history.

Do you really think there is a better idea than the Constitution to Rule a government of a country of a free people where the People are the undisputed big Boss on who gets hired to make legislation every two years and have the obligation to dispense justice to accused fellow citizens and the power, as Juror, to nullify government legislation?

I agree completely with the Founders.

Allan

My opinion remains the same – counting on elections to bring the government in line has failed for a long, long, long time. I think that expecting some magical turn around in the future is a bad strategy. I’d be interested in seeing some research or an article that correlated voting with a reducing in the power of the federal government. I doubt that’s possible, because we have plenty of election, and the government ignores the constitution and grows in power every year.

That’s why I see reliance on voting to protect our liberty as a failed strategy.

Allan

It’s good to see so many states calling on the federal government to cease and desist from their unconstitutional activities. The past 200 years or so of elections should give us plenty of proof that relying on the ballot box to keep a government in check is not only foolhardy, but dangerous.

The People do not “directly” elect a President but the People do “directly” elect Lawmakers. And the President is not a King for he cannot make any law; Article I, Section 1. As far as I and the Constitution are concerned the President is limited to one term. What law says Voters must reelect a President?

Yes, Amendment 22 limited the Presidents term in office but do you think Congress would honor an Amendment to limit its terms when Congress does not honor the Constitution? Do you think Congress would, or is obligated to, enforce a law or Amendment against itself? Our major problem with government is it does not obey the Law of the Constitution.

I think you misunderstand who is obligated to enforce the Constitution – it ain’t government but yours truly, the Citizenry. And the only “constitutional power of force” the Citizenry has available to use against government is the Ballot Box with which to “directly” hire (elect) Lawmakers and do so every two years for Congressmen.

Allan

Since you feel that elections are sufficient to act as “term-limits”, then please answer a few simple questions. Why are not elections not a sufficient “term limit” for the Office of the President? Why can’t the American people elect President Obama to six or seven terms if they wish, just as Congressmen serve six or seven terms? Why is the 22nd Amendment ok for the President but not for Congressmen?

If you can’t or won’t answer these questions, then it is pointless to continue a conversation where two people cannot even agree on what the term “term-limits” means (or even the meaning of the word is is).

Are you arguing that Article, I, Section, 2 is not term limited to two years for Congressmen? All Congressmen that are not reelected in two years are out of a job, therefore, isn’t their terms limited to two years? Can they continue in office if not reelected?

Allan

You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.

Talk to ya later, Horse, er I mean Allan.