Propose a Bill?

[killing field]

Please let me know if I need to remove and post this somewhere else....

Caveat: I have a VERY rudimentary understanding of our legal process.

Background:
I winced when I saw the 2022 measure to punish politicians for "not showing up" when denying quorum is actually a legal part of the job (with NO arguments against in the ballot summary [WHAT?!]). One of the only tools available in a purple state when a super majority is busy trying to ram through bills they know half the populace doesn't agree with.

I believe the punishment now is politicians lose the eligibility for reelection if they cross a 10 day threshold of walking out and refusing quorum.

Yet there seems to be no penalty for politicians to create as many anti constitutional bills as they want, that can become laws that then need to be (very expensively) fought until they are eventually invalidated by a court.

TLDR Action:
Why aren't we asking our House and Senate representatives to propose a bill that states if politicians create bills/laws that contradict the constitution, then they are ineligible for reelection?

There are legal ways to challenge and change the constitution to take away Americans' rights. Why aren't we making them do it the "proper" way? The wasting of tax payers' time and money should stop.

Stopping unconstitutional legislation comes out of the people's pocket. We should be making it come out of theirs.

I don't know how to do this, or if this has been done before and failed. I have a list of Oregon representatives, I imagine this request would be more successfully sent to Independents / Republicans.

Thoughts?*
*helpful, full sentences preferred

Read More

 

[PiratePast40]

See page two of the link.
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/FloorLetter/3599

Complete explanation here: https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/citizen_engagement/Pages/How-an-Idea-Becomes-Law.aspx

 

[bentoncity]

IF Oregon is anything like Washington, the party in the majority makes the decision of what bills are allowed to go forward. And YES it sux...
In Washington, we got screwed this year (2023) and it will continue until the legislature has a major change and the anti 2a people are out of office.
Irrespective of the fact the anti 2a bills were passed & inslee signed them, the bills are in violation of the state & federal constitution but will be `forced` to go before the judges/courts that takes time.
That's one of the desires of the anti 2A people...delay delay. In the meantime, you're screwed.

Dan

 

[Diamondback]

IF Oregon is anything like Washington, the party in the majority makes the decision of what bills are allowed to go forward. And YES it sux...
In Washington, we got screwed this year (2023) and it will continue until the legislature has a major change and the anti 2a people are out of office.
Irrespective of the fact the anti 2a bills were passed & inslee signed them, the bills are in violation of the state & federal constitution but will be `forced` to go before the judges/courts that takes time.
That's one of the desires of the anti 2A people...delay delay. In the meantime, you're screwed.

Dan

You mean it will continue until giant, AIDS-infected badgers rape everybody under the Dome.

The only thing that can save this state is either creative Lawfare all the way to SCOTUS while we still have an ostensible majority, or the same fix the LAST time they deprived people of rights and started a Civil War, forcible Reconstruction at the point of a Republican President-commanded Army's bayonets.

 

[Koda]

TLDR Action:
Why aren't we asking our House and Senate representatives to propose a bill that states if politicians create bills/laws that contradict the constitution, then they are ineligible for reelection?

Because the only way to rule if a law is constitutional is to have scotus say it is.
or I should ask who gets to make the decision?

Im no constitutional scholar so someone correct me if im wrong there.

 

[Diamondback]

The final arbiter of State constitutionality is State SC, though, not SCOTUS. And when your SSC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the state Pedocratic Party, it's very easy for them to weaponize that against R's for even a simple resolution declaring "State Apple Pie Day."

 

[arakboss]

Please let me know if I need to remove and post this somewhere else....

Caveat: I have a VERY rudimentary understanding of our legal process.

Background:
I winced when I saw the 2022 measure to punish politicians for "not showing up" when denying quorum is actually a legal part of the job (with NO arguments against in the ballot summary [WHAT?!]). One of the only tools available in a purple state when a super majority is busy trying to ram through bills they know half the populace doesn't agree with.

I believe the punishment now is politicians lose the eligibility for reelection if they cross a 10 day threshold of walking out and refusing quorum.

Yet there seems to be no penalty for politicians to create as many anti constitutional bills as they want, that can become laws that then need to be (very expensively) fought until they are eventually invalidated by a court.

TLDR Action:
Why aren't we asking our House and Senate representatives to propose a bill that states if politicians create bills/laws that contradict the constitution, then they are ineligible for reelection?

There are legal ways to challenge and change the constitution to take away Americans' rights. Why aren't we making them do it the "proper" way? The wasting of tax payers' time and money should stop.

Stopping unconstitutional legislation comes out of the people's pocket. We should be making it come out of theirs.

I don't know how to do this, or if this has been done before and failed. I have a list of Oregon representatives, I imagine this request would be more successfully sent to Independents / Republicans.

Thoughts?*
*helpful, full sentences preferred

You could start an initiative petition. I will sign it.

 

[killing field]

You could start an initiative petition. I will sign it.

I'm honestly starting looking into it. Even if it's ultimately in vain. To feel like I'm at least doing something. I'm getting tired of "suffering in silence". I'll let you know if I do and it gets to a signature stage, I'll appreciate it

 

[rscanady]

I'm honestly starting looking into it. Even if it's ultimately in vain. To feel like I'm at least doing something. I'm getting tired of "suffering in silence". I'll let you know if I do and it gets to a signature stage, I'll appreciate it

I wholeheartedly support this too, and will sign too. We need a "double jeapordy" type action on bills that have already been struck down, so they cannot be re-introduced in other manners.

 

[Diamondback]

I wholeheartedly support this too, and will sign too. We need a "double jeapordy" type action on bills that have already been struck down, so they cannot be re-introduced in other manners.

We also need one that upon a bill being found unconstitutional in either State OR Federal court, all its sponsors are immediately put to a Recall vote.

 

[WAW44]

Please let me know if I need to remove and post this somewhere else....

Caveat: I have a VERY rudimentary understanding of our legal process.

Background:
I winced when I saw the 2022 measure to punish politicians for "not showing up" when denying quorum is actually a legal part of the job (with NO arguments against in the ballot summary [WHAT?!]). One of the only tools available in a purple state when a super majority is busy trying to ram through bills they know half the populace doesn't agree with.

I believe the punishment now is politicians lose the eligibility for reelection if they cross a 10 day threshold of walking out and refusing quorum.

Yet there seems to be no penalty for politicians to create as many anti constitutional bills as they want, that can become laws that then need to be (very expensively) fought until they are eventually invalidated by a court.

TLDR Action:
Why aren't we asking our House and Senate representatives to propose a bill that states if politicians create bills/laws that contradict the constitution, then they are ineligible for reelection?

There are legal ways to challenge and change the constitution to take away Americans' rights. Why aren't we making them do it the "proper" way? The wasting of tax payers' time and money should stop.

Stopping unconstitutional legislation comes out of the people's pocket. We should be making it come out of theirs.

I don't know how to do this, or if this has been done before and failed. I have a list of Oregon representatives, I imagine this request would be more successfully sent to Independents / Republicans.

Thoughts?*
*helpful, full sentences preferred

Yea, no. I don't want any politician, right or left, deciding what is constitutional or not. I want the courts to do that. That is their job.

 

[Diamondback]

Yea, no. I don't want any politician, right or left, deciding what is constitutional or not. I want the courts to do that. That is their job.

Except that here in WA the courts ARE politicians too... carefully selected by a coordination of the leftwing WEA and the equally leftwing Bar Association.

 

[killing field]

Yea, no. I don't want any politician, right or left, deciding what is constitutional or not. I want the courts to do that. That is their job.

I don't understand your objection. Politicians are supposed to represent us. Them knowing (not "deciding") the Constitution SHOULD be a prerequisite for the job, no? If they don't know it (or care about it) a bill like this should hope to change that, putting their jobs on the line, vs our time/money.

 

[PiratePast40]

We also need one that upon a bill being found unconstitutional in either State OR Federal court, all its sponsors are immediately put to a Recall vote.

Be careful. Kim Thatched has sponsored several bills that were gutted and stuffed to the point they are now the opposite of what she wanted. She is now in a bizarre situation of being opposed to her own bill.

 

[PiratePast40]

Yea, no. I don't want any politician, right or left, deciding what is constitutional or not. I want the courts to do that. That is their job.

We pay for lawyers to determine the legality and constitutionality of bills. In fact, we pay top dollar for the analysis of every bill.

 

[Diamondback]

Be careful. Kim Thatched has sponsored several bills that were gutted and stuffed to the point they are now the opposite of what she wanted. She is now in a bizarre situation of being opposed to her own bill.

Simple fix would be that individual to revoke sponsorship. Remember Larry Craig spiking his own Nationwide Carry when the Bushies tried to cram an AWB up its backside?