It isn't how the system was designed to work and it isn't how it works today, so yes, it would be a change. And yes, since it is one person making that change, it is unilateral.

The percentage participating is irrelvant. Lobbyists cannot expect that a simple vote amongst the lobbyists will result in a vote being cast as they demand. Lobbyists can wheedle and ply and buy dinners for, but not control, the vote of the person they lobby. That makes this significantly different than lobbying.

Irrelevant. Elected officials do not promise to vote the way that a poll of lobbyists tell him to.

Two stupid arguments in one sentence. "Basic health care for everyone" isn't the current issue de jour, since basic health care for everyone is already here. It's who pays for it and how much is meant by "basic". And people are not the topic of the constitution, it's the definition of the functions of the federal government. The fact you aren't mentioned by name is irrelevant because you aren't the federal government. Do you not understand at least that much about the Constitution?

Hardly. We have spent the last two hundred years arguing because there will always be people who want free stuff or a nanny state that will try to get whatever they want to pass constitutional muster by trying to claim that the constitution is "ambiguous" or "a living document" or whatever argument seems to work for them. When that fails, they'll try to argue that other country's constitutions are applicable here. And if all else fails, the ICC covers everything imaginable -- today. Not back then, but today it does, as a last resort of all those with their hands out for a federal handout.

No, pretty much everyone interprets the rights as outlined therein as protections for vulnerable groups. It's the groups who seek government mandates for protection that try to read lots of stuff into simple things. The fact remains, "general welfare" does not mean "welfare for all" (using the modern definition of "welfare" as "free stuff from the government" as pushed by FDR and others). In fact, the word "welfare" doesn't mean free handouts of any kind, in the context of the constitution.

It wasn't the intention of the founders that the federal government be the source of all benefits for all people. And no, taking money and property away from some to give it to those who don't have it does not benefit everyone, despite your claims to the contrary.

Sorry, I packed two comments into one. A different "you".

If it isn't in the constitution, it is by default and by definition unconstitutional. The constitution defines what the feds can do. End of story.

to drown out the voices. From inside my head. No I don't. Yes I do. Shut up. Make me.

As for creating privacy, nonsense I say. Just try scratching your nuts "in private" or farting and see if the women in the office don't complain to the boss.

The only true test for something creating privacy is if you can drink a beer while sitting in your underwear while doing it.

Yes. Everything that the federal government is to do. The rest is left to the states, or to the people.

And "general welfare" doesn't mean "everyone gets free stuff paid for by the productive members of society". "Welfare", in this context, means 'general wellbeing', not specific benefits for designated beneficiaries. That same "general welfare" clause that you think allows a welfare state applies just as much to the people who pay for the welfare as those who get it.

However, he is giving more power to the relatively few people who might vote in his "poll" than the same number of people in another district who have no direct control over the vote of their representative. This is the "equal protection" issue.

That, and it is a unilateral change to the design of the system that applies only to some of the people who are operating under that system. Every other district will have a representative, this one district will have a proxy system. Does this not result in less protection for minorities from the "tyranny of the majority" in his district than those in other districts?

Hardly. Even if 100% of the lobbyists visiting one Senator's office want him to vote a certain way, there is no guarantee he will. This guy is promising his constituents that he will vote the way the majority of them want him to on everything. That's significantly different from just being a lobbyist.

How do you ensure that the voters are educated on the issues and not just voting because it's 'leet and kewl" and they can 'vote no on everything just because they can'? I.e., you have money to hire a staff, and have access to background information that most people do not, and are expected to "do your homework" and cast informed votes because that is what you are elected to do in the current system. How do you make sure your proxy votes are cast with the same care and attention?

This is related to the question about keeping advertising from swaying the votes, but different. How do you get people who may be busy trying to make enough money to get by to spend the time doing the research that you were elected to do? And in that latter vein, does this change to the process not violate the "equal protection" clause of the Constitution? You are, after all, giving your constituents a much bigger voice in the vote of your elected body than those in other districts. Don't those other people deserve the kind of government that they are voting for, and which you are seeking to change?

In addition to the questions about authentication and authorization, how do you intend on dealing with the following critical issue:

1. Access to "voting" by people who aren't online. How do you keep from disenfranchising those who are not electronically capable, either because of cost or because of ability?

Actually, it doesn't use the word "day". It uses an ancient word that is currently translated as "day". In any case, do you not imagine that a being that is inspiring a book to be read by humans might use a concept that a human can relate to when describing something that nobody was around to see for themselves, and certainly was not intended to be a recipe for how the intended audience could repeat the stunt?

Based on your assumptions, or the assumptions of others that you have not noticed. Do you imagine that there was a reason I referred to the faith of the assumption that the rate of radioactive decay has remained unchanged over billions of years? That's an assumption that is behind the determination of the "fact" of the age of the universe.

Likewise, there isn't anything that shows it wasn't created by a God. That's the point.

Your belief in how things happened comes from assumptions and a decision to choose which version you want to believe. It is truly a matter of faith, as you say.

You truly do not understand the scientific process or what it means to have "faith". Faith is a belief in things unseen. Have you never seen an object fall to the ground when released from some reasonable height above the surface of the earth? Really? Not once?

Your dropping a lead ball is a repeatable experiment. It has been directly observed by billions of people since the beginning of recorded time. I suspect, despite your claim that you accept it on faith, that you yourself have observed it on a routine basis in your daily life.

Now, you may be confusing "trust" with "faith". In the context of a discussion of religion vs. science, the two are not synonymous. You trust that the ball will fall because you have seen it happen before and don't expect that to change. You cannot claim faith that it will fall because you have seen it happen before and so have many many other people.

That's right. Not faith. As soon as faith steps in, so does religion, and science leaves the building. Your faith that the radioactive decay rate of some element has remained unchanged is what leads you to claim that you know as a fact the age of the universe. Yes, it is faith, because the rate of decay at a time one million years ago is unseen.

Pray tell, given the current definition of "day", before the earth was created and light existed to separate the day from the night, exactly how long was a "day"? Ten years ago, how long was a "day"? Has it remained constant even over that short a length of time? Well, perhaps "24 hours" seems constant, but what about other kinds of "days"? Where do we get leap seconds from if the "day" is an unchanging constant? The tidal forces of the moon are not causing the length of a day to change? Isn't it interesting that as man gets more advanced, we find that some of the most basic concepts we think are static are actually changing?

What in your empirical evidence would make you think that you have the ability to decide for a supernatural being what his definition of "day" was?

But that's a long way from where we started. "Faith" is where science ends and religion begins, but many scientists are unable to differentiate between faith and empirical evidence, as you've shown here. The point stands, it is impossible to provide "empirical evidence" that the Genesis account is not how it happened. It is trivial to provide empirical evidence that it might have happened some other way as well, but nothing can be used to disprove the account as it stands. "Well, God wouldn't have said..." assumes on faith that your mind can fathom a supernatural being's mind, which would put you on the same plain as Him. Is that arrogance or ignorance?

Yes, and I think I said as much. That wasn't the question. The claim was made that scientists are acting within the scope of their function when they try to determine if the Genesis account is right or wrong based on their desire for "empirical evidence". I asked what evidence could be provided to disprove the account. Your belief that it must have happened the way science says it might have happened isn't empirical evidence, and science cannot provide any. It can only disprove that which it can test. What tests do you propose to disprove the Genesis account?

If you still claim there are some, then you truly do not understand the difference between scientific proof and faith, and thus science and religion. If your only proof that it is false is a dictionary, well, please turn in your science license.

"The Bible is not an ancient mathematics textbook, therefore it is inaccurate and unbelievable." Somehow it seems a bit arrogant to assume that a concept that most (but apparently not all) scientists are familiar with would be a complete mystery to an omniscient being. "Hey, God, your Bible doesn't mention protons and electrons and man knows all about them, so man is clearly smarter than You are!"

"The Bible does not report every detail of daily life as experienced by the people of the time, therefore it is inaccurate and unbelievable."

The "large margins of error" you proclaim happen to be within the margin of error for the reported measurements, according to current scientific processes and thought. I think the problem lies not in the Bible but in your understanding of the purpose and context thereof, and modern scientific concepts regarding math. Please go look up "significant figures" and don't use the "images" section of Google to do it.