>>5623741

What do you think about the concept of a "Citizen's Veto" which would give we, the people, the power to directly block the government from enacting laws which infringe on our rights?

The problem with a democracy is a slight majority can impose tyranny against the minority. The problem with a republic is a small group of representatives can easily be corrupted and act against the interests of the people.

As we have seen, when this happens it is not enough to simply have the right to protest. Nor has it been enough to vote our representatives out of office after they have enacted tyrannical laws and rigged the system to make sure that the candidates who replace them are just as corrupt.

We, the people, should insist on having the ability to directly stop our government when it strays too far off course.

That is why I would like to propose the idea of a "Citizen's Veto" whereby citizens would have the authority to veto any law or governmental action via a referendum process.

Since new laws wouldn't be created through this veto process, we would avoid risking a tyranny of the majority. And by providing a method for citizens to directly revoke unjust laws made by our representatives, we create an important check against government power being used against us in a republic.

Maybe, by creating a "Citizen's Veto", we can finally have the power to be the true stewards of our republic.

>>5623831

>ANY law which goes against the constitution is ILLEGAL

But nonetheless, we have indefinite detention, mass warrantless surveillance, the federal reserve, etc.

Which goes to my point. Simply hoping that they'll abide by the Constitution has not worked.

We need a way to directly rebuke/veto/repeal these things in an active way, rather than passively relying on them to follow the rules, which they don't

>>5623845

>any lawmaker that proposes a law that violates the Constitution (gun control, etc) is brought up on charges.

this.

but the ppl who populate gov't aren't there to protect us or our rights. they're their to control us. that's y i think we need a more active role in ensuring that we can protect ourselves.. since they wont.

hence, >>5623770

>What do you think about the concept of a "Citizen's Veto"

>>5623911

>We just need a way to make sure they don't create laws in secret.

Exactly, secrecy has to be gotten rid of.

I think all laws and gov't actions should be made public prior to enacting them and the public be given the opportunity to veto them prior to going into effect if a high threshold is met, say 80% of ppl reject it

>>5623997

>all the solutions exist

>corruption refuses to apply

That goes to what i'm getting at. We can't rely on these people to change the corruption. We need a way to ENFORCE our rights DIRECTLY. just sitting around hoping they'll abide by the rules with the only consequence to them of not following them is some vague threat that well we've got guns and can revolution or w/e

>>5624210

>Suuuuper limited government

my preferred outcome is a ron paul style revolution

disband 99% of gov't and take it back to the very beginning.

> If we did that we would not need your citizens veto

but that's kind of the point i'm making, we haven't been able to do that, so that's y i made the suggestion about the veto b/c it would be a real tool that we could use to actually start repealing all their illegal b.s. but i also agree with this:

>the MEDIA will use it to destroy the nation in a moment

but i think if there was a really high threshold, like 80% of ppl are against a law, then we should be able to repeal it.

also, if done correctly, we should be able to disband the CIA et al who are the ones who control our media and maybe solve the problem that you point out b4 it became an issue

>>5624315

well said