[Newfie]

Plant,

Thanks for clarifying and the additional material.

As to political parties what you say is true, as is what I noted. They exist outside the constitution and the constitution has no control of them. That may be inevitable. But the parties themselves seem bent on destroying the government for their own selfish position.

Don’t know what to do about it. I did have an alternative suggestion for how to choose Presidents that would undercut the parties. It I harbor no belief it would be implemented.

[Cog]

If both parties fervently believed and followed the Constitution and the principles contained within, then the only arguments the parties would have would be the mechanics to achieve those ends.

But that is not the reality.

[asg70]

The constitution is a living document. That's why we have amendments. If something doesn't work, you patch it, like software. What we have, for whatever reason, has stopped working.

All democracies in the history of the world have been short-lived. The original one in Greece was shorter than most people think, for instance. We've had a good run in the US (civil war aside) but it's on its last legs in my estimation.

There's a reason why most democracies are parliamentary. The 4-year lockin is a problem. There should be a way for the leadership to change more swiftly to correct for buyer's-remorse conditions. We should probably also have term limits across the board. We should also abolish the president's ability to grant pardons, at least to anyone within his own cabinet or past cronies. And get rid of the electoral college while we're at it. Then institute a basic IQ style test in order to be granted the right to vote (or serve). Then reverse Citizen's United and get the big money out of politics.

[Plantagenet]

The constitution .... has stopped working.

Why do you think that? What isn't working?

The economy is booming, unemployment is hitting record lows and the stock market is at record highs. GDP growth is accelerating. The Ds are about to take over the House under Trump,just as the Rs took over the Congress under Obama, giving us divided government again. Things seem pretty good to me.

There's a reason why most democracies are parliamentary. The 4-year lockin is a problem.

We don't have a 4-year lock-in the USA. Every two years the entire House of Representatives stands for election. Its looking like the Ds will take the House from the Rs in November. That will be a big change in the government. Hopefully it will result in some bipartisanship in DC, as the Ds and the Rs will share responsibility for governing.

get rid of the electoral college

Why? The electoral college has been doing a fine job in reducing the effects of voter fraud and in protecting the rights of the smaller states, which is its job.

institute a basic IQ style test in order to be granted the right to vote (or serve).

Now there I agree with you. Or, since IQ tests are controversial, especially among those who have low IQ scores, perhaps restrict voting to people who are property owners, or people who pay taxes or remove people who are felons and ex-felons and/or on welfare from the voting roles.

Cheers!

[KaiserJeep]

The constitution is a living document. That's why we have amendments. If something doesn't work, you patch it, like software. What we have, for whatever reason, has stopped working.

-snip-

Then institute a basic IQ style test in order to be granted the right to vote (or serve). Then reverse Citizen's United and get the big money out of politics.

I would not have expected you of Racism, but that is the most Racist remark I have ever read. Knowing that each race has a different median IQ, you would disenfranchise most Minorities, as well as effectively end the political dreams of anyone like for example - Barack Obama - with your IQ test.



Consider carefully what you wish for.

[Cog]

Polling tests are prohibited by law.

We are a constitutional republic for good reason. A mobocracy, which is what pure democracy is, could at a whim vote away fundamental rights. My right to bear arms, for instance, is protected even if 99.99% of the populace disagrees with it.

If 50.1% of the population considers my speech hate speech, should they be able to vote that right away from me?
Thank God the Constitution isn't a living document easily changed to suit the whims of whatever majority holds sway at the moment.

Asg70 has somehow hit on every single left position on how to destroy a constitutional republic. Congrats I guess.

[Newfie]

Electrical College, I used to oppose it. But can you imagine having a Florida style fight in 3 or 4 states or more every election? The college compartmentalizes the fighting, absolutely necessary.

[asg70]

Electrical College, I used to oppose it. But can you imagine having a Florida style fight in 3 or 4 states or more every election? The college compartmentalizes the fighting, absolutely necessary.

The Florida style fight happened WITH the electoral college, so who cares? Let every vote be counted.

[Newfie]

Because it would have been much worse without it.

Do you even know how it works?

[asg70]

Because it would have been much worse without it.
Do you even know how it works?

There are worse things in the world than counting votes, especially given how far things are shifting towards digital ballots. The electoral college also has nothing to do with avoiding hanging chad situations so using that as an excuse is a perversion of its original intent.

[Cog]

If you are for every vote being counted, but only once, then you should support voter id laws.

[Newfie]

Because it would have been much worse without it.
Do you even know how it works?

There are worse things in the world than counting votes, especially given how far things are shifting towards digital ballots. The electoral college also has nothing to do with avoiding hanging chad situations so using that as an excuse is a perversion of its original intent.

It has to do with identifying areas that are not in contention and limiting the contention to a few spots that are manageable.

[KaiserJeep]

The purpose of the Electoral College was twofold. Firstly it protected the smaller states from being dominated by the larger more populated ones - and when there were only thirteen in all, the 12 were all smaller than Virginia. Secondly and subsequently, it protected the rural folks from being controlled by the cities of NYC and Boston and Washington DC.

TODAY the Electoral College protects the rights of non-states such as Puerto Rico and Guam, plus the rural folks outside of cities/suburbs. Without it, we would have nothing but Democrats in office, and would be even more in debt than we already are.

Eliminating the Electoral College would require a Constitutional Amendment. We have not had such good luck with that lately. For example since the ERA failed ratification yet again, if somebody such as for example - Donald Trump - were to bring a lawsuit challenging the voting rights of women, and it went all the way to the SCOTUS, they would have no choice but disenfranchise both women and men who do not own real estate. That would be because voting rights are reserved for property-owning men by the US Constitution, and unless the ERA is ratified, that has not been changed. Until the ERA is ratified, all the Federal voter laws and state voter laws awarding voter rights to women, non-property-owning men, and for that matter all minorities, are subject to being declared un-Constitutional.

Note I'm NOT suggesting that such things would actually happen. However, the US Constitution is the highest law of the land, and it has the Electoral College in it.

[Cog]

The 19th Amendment gave women the right to vote. You can't take that away without another amendment. The Constitution does not address a requirement to own land to vote. That might have been a custom in some states but it was not enshrined in the US Constitution. Prove me wrong. I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong if you can cite a passage in the US Constitution where only property owners can vote.

Voting requirements were left up to the states until later modifications like the 14th and 19th Amendment extended those rights universally.

Here is what the Constitution said at the time it was first written:

In Article I Section 4:

the times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.

[KaiserJeep]

The ERA was a proposed amendment to the US Constitution, which was passed by the US House of Representatives in 1971 and by the US Senate in 1972. It then failed to be ratified by the requisite 2/3rds of the states (i.e. 38 states) and thus the document was never changed.

I do not deny that women and landless men and minorities were given explicit voting rights by both state and federal laws. I said that before. My only point was that if something is not in the US Constitution, it is subject to challenge on a constitutional basis. The SCOTUS has in the past struck down numerous state and federal laws as unconstitutional. Then typically the state legislatures or the US House and Senate go back and revise the legislation to comply with the Constitution.

I am NOT suggesting that anybody including Trump would be so foolish as to challenge voting rights for women or minorities. I am only saying it is possible, and would if attempted provide great political theater.

Cog, in the early United States, most states allowed only adult male white property owners to vote. That was changed in 1870 by the 15th Amendment, which stated that voting rights could not be denied or abridged by "race, color, or previous condition of servitude".

No part of the US Constitution gives voting rights to "women". The ERA was championed in the 1970s by US Representative Bella Abzug of NY, and Feminists Gloria Steinen and Betty Frieden, but as I said before it failed to be ratified and therefore in the USA women do not have a "constitutional right to vote", although numerous assorted laws forbid discrimination by (among other criteria) "sex".

The 19th Amendment is currently being challenged in 12 states because it did NOT define "sex", and there are in many places multiple laws that forbid discrimination against LGBTQ people who claim they are NOT either "male" or "female".

No, I'm not debating or commenting on that, and I believe it's a waste of time and money. But if you had asked me before it actually happened, I would have said that the SCOTUS need never weigh in on whether you can have a wedding cake with two little plastic Grooms.

[Cog]

SCOTUS had to weigh in on the baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple. The lower court had upheld the legitimacy of him being sued for not baking their cake. It was a basic freedom of religion case. He ultimately did prevail with SCOTUS but promptly got sued again right after the SCOTUS ruling, when he failed to bake a cake for a transgender.

Yes I wish SCOTUS didn't have to rule on such basic things. But if the liberal Courts of Appeals would stop allowing attacks on religion, we wouldn't be here. Same applies to courts of appeals ruling that you can't possess the gun of your choice consistent with the Heller decision. Just look at the 9th Circuit. Most over-ruled Circuit in existence. California commies.

[evilgenius]

I think the best thing that the Democrats can do is to curtail their opposition to the Kavanaugh nomination. I'm not registered as a Democrat, but I tend to vote that way. In my opinion it's time to quit worrying about whether the Constitution can be interpreted out of existence. It can't. Unless the other side, as seen from whichever side is out of power, can actually change the wording on the Constitution, which would take far longer to do than the arc of that side being in power usually lasts, then the wording as it stands is still there to protect us.

The resistance, as we all know, over Kavanaugh is down to abortion rights. Since whatever about the Constitution that provides for that was arrived at through interpretation, people believe that those rights might go away if conservatives can "stack the court." I have a lot of libertarian and Republican friends. None of them are anti-abortion. They all know what life is like, and how people get into situations. A blanket reinterpretation wouldn't stand their getting involved, along with all of the liberals who are already involved. To think otherwise is to invite that "be very afraid" mode of doing politics. Abortion rights are probably not going anywhere, even if conservatives manage to stack the court. To attempt that might begin the process of the Republican Party dissolving into many splinter groups, a few years after which the liberals would either produce an amendment guaranteeing those rights, putting them beyond this type of reproach, of another interpretation instituting them. Too many people are touched by this for it not to go that way. It would be nice to be free of this bogeyman, so that the public can consider what else a judge's mind is like when he or she comes before them. The stuff that really screws the little guy in a system like ours gets through too easily when we are distracted like this.

[KaiserJeep]

I don't think that abortion "rights" have anything to do with the SCOTUS controversy. That would be simply a lightning rod issue to focus those people with short attention spans. There are also 2nd Amendment so-called "gun rights", and numerous anti-trust lawsuits, product and medical liability lawsuits, and environmental legislation that have been challenged and are on course to be adjudged by the SCOTUS in the next few years.

Roe vs. Wade is more or less "settled law", with niether side likely to rock the boat. But those other cases in the judicial pipes could bring about a lot of change in this country in the near future. The Liberal vs. Conservative warfare is in full battle, and should some frail justice like Ginsburg die or retire, there would be another Conservative Trump appointee, and a decade or two of SCOTUS decisions in the Conservative direction.

[Newfie]

I think Evil is spot on. It’s being played as all about abortion rights.

I wish someone would do a poll.
Doe the SCOTUS have the authority to outlaw abortion?

Break down the results R and D.

I’ll bet a whole lot of Ds will say SCOTUS can outlaw abortion and that’s what they are terrified of.

I’m JUST old enough to have been persoanally effected by the old archaic laws. How many today really understand this is a matter of returning the issue to the states for local determination? At worst.

[Cog]

SCOTUS could in theory rule that the unborn have rights consistent with the 14th Amendment. They would have to determine that the unborn are persons under the 14th Amendment definition of personhood. It would be a very long stretch to do so but so is the right to gay marriage.

I suspect no matter how conservative the court would swing, the most SCOTUS would do, would be to allow states to resume banning abortion but not otherwise find any new rights for the unborn. Given current thinking on the issue, most state legislatures would be loathe to outright ban abortions as they did before.

Prior to Roe v Wade abortion was legal in some states and SCOTUS did not involve itself in those states where it was legal. Prior to Roe v. Wade, 30 states prohibited abortion without exception, 16 states banned abortion except in certain special circumstances (e. g.: rape, incest, health threat to mother), 3 states allowed residents to obtain abortions, and New York allowed abortions generally.

14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.