I had an idea a couple years back to modify U.S. government with a referendum system. I propose that state representatives, with a simple nationwide majority, have the ability to incite a nationwide referendum on Federal legislation, to take place inbetween one round of reconciliation between the U.S. House and U.S. Senate, and an additional referendum afterward, or however many times a bill must be reconciled in order to better cater to the citizenry's desires. The Judicial branch will rule whether or not the bill is Constitutional, and if state representatives are satisfied, then the bill will lapse into law.
Comments appreciated on this particular piece of Statist prose.
Is there something wrong with the current system that you are trying to correct? What is the purpose of the referendum idea?
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
The highest echelons of government officials get elected on promises and propoganda, and then behave entirely different once situated.
This idea was meant to promote accountability for such behavior.
Examples please? What promises and propaganda get them elected? In what sense does their behavior "change" once they get "situated"?
@original post, very interesting. One problem. I'm not sure having the Federal government's Judicial Branch ruling on the Constitutionality of a law is proper. It's easy to see how this could be the Federal government acting as judge in it's own case. Perhaps some sort of multi-State judicial bench would rule on cases involving the Federal government as one party to a dispute. Just a thought.
www.skylerjcollins.com www.libertysearch.info