Talk:National initiative

Congressional Order 101

There is currently a grass-roots people's initiative at the Federal level under way. It began on November 25th, 2016.

The Title of the initiative is: Congressional Order 101

The Summary is: An indirect people’s initiative ordering Congress to apply the tax free & tuition free solution to all educational funding.

Main site: http://CongressionalOrder101.WordPress.com

The Order (the document people are signing): https://congressionalorder101.files.wordpress.com/2018/01/congressional-order-1015.pdf

And an article regarding the people's inherent and unalienable right to alter government with a people's initiative at the Federal level... and some law prohibiting hindering us in our right to do this:

https://congressionalorder101.wordpress.com/2017/04/28/an-indirect-peoples-initiative-at-the-federal-level-yes/

We don't need a Constitutional amendment to secure this Right and Power to us, the 9th & 10th Amendments already do this. See the article.

Make note of the fact this is an INDIRECT initiative and not a DIRECT initiative. Only a DIRECT initiative would require legislation to create the frame work and infrastructure for the ability for the population to cast votes. An indirect initiative is similar to a petition for a redress of grievances, but rather than "asking" we are "telling" Congress to write legislation pursuant to general stipulations set forth in the document people are signing. Christopher Theodore (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Advert tag

It was not at all my intention to make an advert for the national initiative. What part makes it seem like an advert?

I can add some text to it why this would be good and bad trying to balance it out but then wikipedia doesn't seem the place for that.

I was trying just to give the facts of what happened and what is going on to document this. There is a page on Mike Gravel which also needs updating with a link to the national initiative page since he was involved in this.

So, please help me clean this up, it would be a shame to delete this as advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgrant0 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There is also a page on direct democracy that would need a link to this.

The EU has apparently already has a national initiative process in place, though this isn't related to The National Initiative, perhaps a link would make sense. I will add it at the bottom under other reading. 08:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC) Mgrant0 14:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed- historical context would be interesting. I also wanted to read criticism made against the initiative and was disappointed to see none. Without it, I believe this article may fail to pass the NPOV requirement. MJKazin 13:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Would like to see some outside sources, perhaps an independant analysis. Can anyone find any external links? I know the Economist has some articles, but the text of these is not public domain :-(    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgard6977 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree. This article still sounds very much like an advert. It needs reputable sources from outside (not www.nationalinitiative.us) which refer to it and can vouch for what's in the article. Else, its a candidate for deletion. Sentences like The Electoral Trust would be responsible for distributing information on proposed measures via TV, website(s) or other means. don't sound encyclopaedic to me. Sometimes less is more.

Please also sign your edits with 4 tildes (~~~~) — Moondyne 10:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I had Mike Gravel give it a look. He corrected some of the text. We also added some references which independently reference The National Initiative. The Hirsh article from the Hasting Constitutional Law Review is mighty reputable and goes into detail on The National Initiative. The I&R Inst site references The National Initiative. We're not making this stuff up. Mgrant0 20:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gravelorator.jpg

Image:Gravelorator.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Can't say "currently"

The intro must not say that something is "currently" proposed, or "currently" anything. When was it proposed? (Assume the reader might read this in June 2008, or December 2008, or in 2013) --Gronky (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• NI4D.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)