National Referendums What is the process for an ordinary citizen to get a national referendum on the ballot? An example might be: All voting districts must be determined by a grid system thus creating a uniform system of redrawing districts for the entire USA. Follow up questions: Can ordinary citizens propose national referendums? Is there any history of ordinary citizens getting national referendums on the ballot?
united-states What is the process for an ordinary citizen to get a national referendum on the ballot? It can't be done. There are no national referendums in the United States and there is no means by which they can be held. Many states individually provide for state initiatives, referendums, and recall votes (and sometimes even local ones), but this doesn't exist at the national level. On rare occasions, Congress passes a law calling for a referendum on terms of its choosing in territory outside of any U.S. state, usually on the issue of whether that state shall become a state or otherwise change its legal status. The most recent one was in Puerto Rico. These also cannot be proposed or placed on the ballot by ordinary citizens, and are sometimes binding, but sometimes only advisory in nature. Can ordinary citizens propose national referendums? No. Is there any history of ordinary citizens getting national referendums on the ballot? No.
I am not sure what you mean by &quot;accept&quot;. A citizen need not agree that any particular law is desirable, or good policy, or even rational. What a citizen must do is comply with all laws, or risk proceedings to enforce them, criminal or civil depending on the law in question and the specific circumstances. More exactly all valid laws must be complied with. In the US and many other places there are mechanisms for challenge laws as invalid. It is not generally a defense against an accusation of breaking a law that the law is not rational.
Art. I Sec. 8 Cl. 17 states that &quot;The Congress shall have Power&quot; To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings which then happened in 1 Stat. 130 (1790). It is there referred to as &quot;a district of territory&quot; but more often simply as a &quot;district&quot;. Unlike territories, its existence for its actual purpose as seat of government is specifically enabled by the Constitution. Then via 2 Stat 103 (1801), DC was politically brought within the control of Congress, so that residents were no longer residents of Maryland or Virginia. In this act it is consistently termed a &quot;district&quot;.
Election procedures are generally a matter of state law, so the process will be different from one state to the next. In Colorado, the law in question is Colo. Rev. Stat. § 1-11-101: If at any general or congressional vacancy election ... any two or more persons tie for the highest number of votes ... for representative in congress ... the secretary of state shall proceed to determine by lot which of the candidates shall be declared elected. The question then becomes how the secretary of state will &quot;determine by lot&quot; who is the winner. As far as I can tell, this process is not established by statute, nor has the secretary of state promulgated any administrative regulations establishing a system for drawing lots. In other states, it typically comes down to something quite random: flipping coins, drawing names from a hat, dealing poker, etc; I assume the secretary of state could choose any of these. The answer could be different for other races, though. Both chambers of the General Assembly would vote on a joint ballot to decide a tie in a race for governor, secretary of state, treasurer, or attorney general. This also assumes that Bob and Alice are facing off in the general election, not the primary. In a primary, tying candidates get to choose their own tiebreaker. If they can't agree on one, the secretary of state chooses by lot.
Why does the one country that promotes constitutional democracies above all others not have a judicial branch specifically for those matters? I know SCOTUS will hear these matters . . . I have had it mention that SCOTUS hears less than a hundred cases a year. Something which sounds incredibly low. A constitutional court profoundly limits the extent to which relief for violations of the constitution are judicially reviewable relative to the U.S. status quo. All courts from traffic court on up hear these matters and adjudicate constitutional issue in the status quo. It is also helpful to recognize that the U.S. Constitution regulates government conduct, not necessarily only though the device of determining that legislation is or is not constitutional. If a police officer stops you without having reasonable suspicion to do so, he has violated the U.S. Constitution, without regard to what the statutes of the state in question say. If evidence is seized without probable cause and this evidence is introduced in court over your objection in a criminal case, the government has violated the constitution and you are entitled (unless it was harmless error) to have your conviction vacated. If a tax collector seizes your property for unpaid taxes without first affording you due process to dispute their right to do so, the government has violated one of your constitutional rights. The Constitution imposes affirmative duties and obligations on the government, it does not merely invalidate laws enacted as unconstitutional. Most instances of constitutional adjudication involve government conduct and not the validity of government enacted statutes.
The District is not a state, and does not function as one. The District does not elect any Senators, nor any Representatives. It does elect one &quot;Delegate&quot; who sits in the House, and may speak in debate, but does not have the right to vote. The Constitution allows congress to exercise &quot;Exclusive legislation 8in all cases whatsoever&quot; over the District. However, since 1973 the Congress has allowed limited &quot;home rule&quot; in the district, although it could cancel this at any time by a new law. The district has a local government, but it more closely resembles the government of a major city than that of a state. It is led by a Mayor and a city council. It is specified in some Federal laws, and one Constutiuonal provision that for certain limited purposes the Districtm should be treated &quot;as if it were&quot;, a state. There have been a number of proposals to make the District into a state. The most recent ones have proposed to do this by redefining the &quot;Capital District&quot; into the White House, the Capital building, the Mall between them, buildings adjacent to the mall, and a small adjacent area. The rest of the district would, under such proposals, be admitted as a new state. Congress has the power to admit new states, so this would not require a Constitutional Amendment. But no such proposal has yet passed Congress. There are some special provisions in the way the District is Governed. For one thing, to compensate for the many public building and facilities (which pay no taxes) and the special demands on the District of the Federal Government, Congress provides some of the funds needed to run the district, with the rest coming from local taxes. Congress must approve the District Budget, and can veto local laws. See the Wikipedia article for more detail.
In the United States, individual members (States) of the union are allowed to make their own constitutions and state laws &amp; regulations. This includes laws that may contradict Federal law, although this is a grey area. It usually comes down to enforcement: Federal laws are usually enforced by Federal law enforcement as they can not force states to do so. Further more, State prosecutors will usually not attempt to prosecute you for a Federal law infraction. Only Federal prosecutors OR the department of justice will do this. To see a more detailed explanation on this, look at this &quot;How Stuff Works&quot; article.
The constitutional provision quoted in the question has been interpreted to require that a jury trial be available to a person accused of crime by the US Federal Government. Then accused is free to waive this right, and be tried by a judge only if s/he so chooses. The accuse is also free to waive the right to a trial altogether, and plead guilty (or &quot;no contest&quot; which waives a trail without an admission of guilt). The provision could reasonably be interpreted to require that if there is a trial, it be by jury. But I don't see how it could reasonably be read to require trials in all cases, and forbid guilty pleas.