Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

So I have an Amendment to the Michigan Constitution (or any other State) that I would like to get passed.?

I need 322,600+ signatures from Michigan to put it on the ballot for a popular vote. Can anyone help? Also I would like to know your thoughts on the matter. Though I know there will be some people who have this morally deficient desire to control others who will have a problem with this, though it makes no sense to feel that way. But a lot of people are narcissists, it is not my desire to appease them, just to simply stop them from believing they have the ability to control anything but themselves.

The people of the State of Michigan reserve the right to Freedom of Choice. Nothing in this Constitution is to be construed as the People granting the legislative, executive, or judicial branch as having the ability to prohibit, punish, deter by harassment, or regulate in any way, any acts or actions by an individual, or possession of any personal property, concealed on their person or otherwise. With the only exception being that the acts, actions or use of property can be proven to have caused direct injury to a flesh and blood human being or property not belonging to the Individual. In all cases in which there is a victim who received an injury to themselves or property, the accused has the right to a jury which may not be waved under any circumstance. Also with the exception of an injury resulting in death, the accused has the right to cross-examine the victim in a court of law. If there is no victim, or victim willing to come forward, there can be no criminal or civil procedure resulting. All statutes, ordinances, by-laws and regulations by any Government on any level currently standing which are in violation of this Amendment are hereby null and void. The role of the Legislature is not to decide which "Vices" the People are allowed to partake in. The People are free and sovereign citizens, and if the People are only free to make the "Morally correct" Choices, then they are not free. This Amendment is not subject to being repealed, altered, or infringed upon by any part of the Legislative branch and must be instated in all future versions of the Michigan Constitution. This Amendment is to be construed as an Inalienable Individual right not subject to any judicial rule making which would abrogate it, by all State and Local courts and by the United States Supreme Court under the 9th and 10th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America. An Individual is only subject to having this right temporarily suspended or regulated for a period not exceeding 5 years as a punishment for being found guilty by a jury of their peers in a court of law, or guilty plea, for any violent felony. Any action in violation of this Amendment by any Government Official is a felony, punishable by one year in prison and a $5000 fine, this is not discretionary.

Update:

No the US Constitution is the US Constitution, the claim that it cannot be repealed because it is instilled within the US Constitution as a right retained by the People (9th Amendment) and not disparaged because it is not listed in the US Constitution (10th Amendment). It is stating that the Supreme court cannot use the US Constitution as a means to deem it unconstitutional because it is already in there.

And our State Constitution states the process in which the Constitution can be Amended or changed Completely, So an Amendment in the Constitution "Amending" the article stating how the Constitution is to be created is totally valid.

Update 2:

Also this does not change the appeal process, it just states that this right can be regulated or denied if a person is found guilty. If they are found guilty and appeal, then the appeal is affirmed, then they are no longer guilty correct?

Update 3:

It's rock solid. I didn't just word this over night...

Update 4:

The Supreme court has stated that "it is getting increasingly difficult to determine the Constitutionality of rights not enumerated within the Constitution" So I wrote a state Amendment saying the people are reserving this right that is not enumerated and that is how the Federal Government created by the States is to view it. I made it easy for them to say, yep it's a right not listed.

Update 5:

Also it still leaves it open to be changed, but only by the people who would have to decide to give up the right, not by legislatures who would wish to abolish it.

3 Answers

Relevance
  • Bob G
    Lv 5
    9 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Sounds like a nice idea, but you have a couple of problems. Any amendment which can be enacted through a constitutional process can be repealed by the same process. It's in the nature of the beast. Look at prohibition. Also, no State constitutional provision can be applied to the Fe(de)ral government.

  • 9 years ago

    Sounds to me like your proposal will disallow you the ability to file an appeal if you are found guilty.

    There is NO law nor state constitutional amendment that can not be reviewed by the Supreme Court so right off the bat, your amendment violates the US constitution.

  • ?
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    i'm happy my state is unquestionably one in each and every of the clever ones that are observing this. It they hadn't i might have approached my state rep and asked him, why not. He hates to work out me coming to his corporation or homestead besides because of the fact I provide him a not undemanding time. If this passes in Missouri, which it might have not have been given any hardship, different than from the McCaskill followers, we are able to be extra appropriate off. we are able to be in basic terms approximately self reliant, alongside with the different states that are on board. What I fail to comprehend is, O baa ma desires to share the wealth, or so he says. My question right this is in basic terms, why do not he start up the ball rolling by utilising having Congress and all of the millionaires interior the U.S. cough up their funds and divide it the two between each and every citizen and he can throw his hundreds of thousands interior the pot too. while they try this, i'm going to toss in my $4.87, I certainly have left over after paying expenditures and a splash foodstuff, into the pot. i'm not certainly against a nationwide well-being care equipment as long as that's operated exact, however the government has never been in a position to run itself exact so why might desire to we've self belief they might now. and that they might might desire to do extra advantageous than fund it. i comprehend my well-being practitioner isn't pleased with the possibility. If the states might desire to pay the expenditures for medicaid and medicare the federal government might desire to shop their noses out of it.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.