Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11282
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 22 Jun 2022, 11:45 am

bbauska none of your ideas matter if they aren't universally accepted and executed.

Currently your system leaves everything up to the states and the incumbent party in each state seems to change electoral procedures and regulations to benefit their party...
So how is it then that you expect to make any effective changes? State governments won't cooperate unless they think it benefits their team.
And how would you enforce the regulations anyway?

Without amendment to the Constitution little will happen. and there is no chance any constitutional amendments will occur. On anything... m
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7190
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 22 Jun 2022, 3:36 pm

Then why speak of it at all...

As for enforcing current election law in each state, we should have the perpetrators jailed.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11282
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 24 Jun 2022, 6:52 am

bbauska
As for enforcing current election law in each state, we should have the perpetrators jailed.


I think you missed the point.

States typically have primary responsibility for making decisions about the rules of elections (policymaking). Localities typically have primary responsibility for conducting elections in accordance with those rules (implementation)
https://ballotpedia.org/Why_do_states_h ... s%3F_(2020)

Until and unless there is federal election laws that are the same in each state, enforced by a federal authority, then ... well this point of yours isn't really rhetorical.. "Then why speak of it at all.."

Because your constitution ensures that corruption at the state level is certain.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7190
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 26 Jun 2022, 6:30 pm

Newsflash... Corruption happens at the Federal level as well.

Mark 7:20-23

And He (Jesus) was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness.

Man is thoughout all of the US Government (and dare I say the Canadian Government as well.)
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11282
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Jun 2022, 6:24 am

"Put all your eggs in one basket. Then watch the basket."

Mark Twain

By placing the election in the hands of 51 plus state and territory governments you greatly increase the odds that some will be corrupted.
If there is one independent authority charged with conducting free, and fair elections, rather than partisan states governments you'd have successful, trusted elections. .

Well, based on the evidence from most western OECD democracies..
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7190
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 28 Jun 2022, 10:01 am

We have a Constitution different from most Western OECD countries. (ALL OF THEM, btw)

I am sure that because AMERICA is SOOO terrible, there are many countries that would take them in. Personally, I would personally drive them to the airport if they asked. I am just here to help.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 30 Jul 2022, 11:52 pm

By the way, the Republicans won 27 out of 27 toss-up races in House races in 2020. 27...out of 27. Of course Repubs spin that as oh polls are undercounting conservatives...but is it something else? It should be noted r Dems were the ones that sought to secure election security before 2020..and Repubs opposed it.


https://jennycohn1.medium.com/the-most- ... ab4c1fa8fb

https://www.dailywire.com/news/experts- ... won-all-27
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11282
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 Aug 2022, 8:51 am

bbauska
We have a Constitution different from most Western OECD countries.


Yes. Compared to more modern constitutions the language is vague, and subject to great controversy.

For instance there are fundamental disagreements over the 2nd amendment.

https://constitutioncenter.org/interact ... interps/99

An entire judicial philosophy has sprung up over interpreting "the original intent of the founders"..

More effective Constitutions don't require constant reinterpretation nor is there such constant debate about what the constitution fundamentally means...

That's before we discuss the fact that Americans tend to think their Constitution provides equal political power to all citizens. (One man one vote) when it is design to specifically provide small states out sized power... Resulting in rule by the minority.

And yes that's very different from most other democracies' constitutions.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7190
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 08 Aug 2022, 1:23 pm

There has been this difference between originalist and interpretation for a hundred years. It is not new. Some justices give rulings to the literal words, and other justices try to bend the Constitution to their whims through interpretation.

Nothing new here from you.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11282
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Aug 2022, 11:37 am

bbauska said

Nothing new here from you


I didn't say this was new. and your responde...

There has been this difference between originalist and interpretation for a hundred years. It is not new.


confirms my claim:
Yes. Compared to more modern constitutions the language is vague, and subject to great controversy.

A constitution is supposed to be clearly understood. When its language is vague and subject to enormously different interpretations its really poor at doing its job.
Why it could lead to enormous conflicts within society...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7190
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 10 Aug 2022, 12:04 pm

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Well let's take the words SPECIFICALLY as the Founding Fathers wrote:

Because of a the need of a militia for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Yet, those on the left (of which you are one) wish to infringe upon those rights. Perhaps the ambiguity comes from the Constitution of the US not being what you want it to be? Therefore, you look to it's change. Perhaps the ambiguity is in your desires and not the document.

To me, the 2nd Amendment is clear. As are all the other Amendments.

What does "Shall not be infringed" mean to you?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11282
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 11 Aug 2022, 6:43 am

bbauska

To me, the 2nd Amendment is clear.


Then why is there such wide disagreement over its meaning by the public?

And why were the key Scotus decisions split with 5 to 4 vote...?

"Until recently, the judiciary treated the Second Amendment almost as a dead letter. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), however, the Supreme Court invalidated a federal law that forbade nearly all civilians from possessing handguns in the nation’s capital. A 5–4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia.

The dissenters disagreed. They concluded that the Second Amendment protects a nominally individual right, though one that protects only “the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.” They also argued that even if the Second Amendment did protect an individual right to have arms for self-defense, it should be interpreted to allow the government to ban handguns in high-crime urban areas.

Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court struck down a similar handgun ban at the state level, again by a 5–4 vote. Four Justices relied on judicial precedents under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Justice Thomas rejected those precedents in favor of reliance on the Privileges or Immunities Clause, but all five members of the majority concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment protects against state infringement of the same individual right that is protected from federal infringement by the Second Amendment.
Many issues remain open, and the lower courts have disagreed with one another about some of them, including important questions involving restrictions on carrying weapons in public."
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7190
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 11 Aug 2022, 9:47 am

You more than anyone I know should have that answer.

AGENDA

You said the US Constitution is vague. You were asked to say what "Shall not be infringed" mean. You chose to not answer.

YOU are being vague.