2020 US Elections

[mancity2012_eamo]

Yeah - you are mad when you live in a world where there are cricket and baseball bats - why damage your fists and limit your own satisfaction in a job well done?

The Hurley is the weapon of choice in Ireland.
Watch this until the end.
Makes diving pansies in football look like...... well pansies.

 

[Dax777]

The most incredible part of this whole thing is how Biden is apparently leading in Washington DC by 87 points. It's a real mystery why Republicans oppose statehood alright.

I think the one in the wrong here is the party trying to turn a 68 square mile City into a State as an attempt to bolster their numbers illegally in the Senate and house.

Opposition to D.C as a State is constitutionally correct. DC was gifted to the Federal Government by Maryland as a Federal Enclave which under the Constitution of the Country Congress has the Authority to administer as the Seat of Government.

if it is unsuitable as a Federal seat, because D.Ceans want to be part of a State, the Federal Govt can always return the gift. Which would simply make it just a county in Maryland.

D.C push for Statehood via a simple legislative majority is unconstitutional.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Is there time to get Borat to moderate the next debate?

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

D.C push for Statehood via a simple legislative majority is unconstitutional.

But your constitution is manifestly wank.

 

[Don Karleone]

 

[Bigga]

THIS is what Dems need in Gov to be a real people's party...



Too much, though...

 

[Dax777]

But your constitution is manifestly wank.

Yes it is. Except for being less wack than any other Constitution ever written. So again, the people who are being corrupt are those trying to pack their side with illegal moves.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Yes it is. Except for being less wack than any other Constitution ever written by a load of slave-owners a quarter of a millennium ago

 

[bluethrunthru]

The Hurley is the weapon of choice in Ireland.
Watch this until the end.
Makes diving pansies in football look like...... well pansies.

I always like Aussie rules when I learned you could kick the shit out of someone - fine - cited - but abuse the ref and you were off - then you see the brawls ha ha ha ha

 

[Dax777]

Bummer! Only if there was a way to amend the constitution to make it fall in line with present mores... Oh wait! There is :)

 

[Bigga]

Haven't these two idiots been done for similar schemes before...?

In fact, I'm sure one of them attached their mum's info to something and tried get some women to say they were solicited by Comey.

I dunno, it was too ridiculous to keep track of.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Bummer! Only if there was a way to amend the constitution to make it fall in line with present mores... Oh wait! There is :)

As things stand today, how many times has it been meaningfully amended in the last 100 years, and what is the core mechanism suppressing that number?

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

As things stand today, how many times has it been meaningfully amended in the last 100 years, and what is the core mechanism suppressing that number?

12 since 1900, but it’s been tried thousands of times. Amendment must make it out of committee, be passed by both the House and the Senate by a 2/3rds majority and then be ratified by 3/4 of the states (I think the rule is within 7 years). You need near unanimous support. So it’s a gauntlet. And it’s supposed to be one. But this is why the Supreme Court is so important — to determine what the current constitution and amendments do and do not cover when the documents are unclear. And why there’s a battle between an expansive reading (ie if the framers has known about x they would have intended x to be okay/not okay) and a strict one (ie if the framers didn’t mention x, they didn’t intend for x to be covered).

 

[Dax777]

As things stand today, how many times has it been meaningfully amended in the last 100 years, and what is the core mechanism suppressing that number?

It's not supposed to be easy to amend. That's the whole point. You don't want tyrannical groups adjusting the the constitution on a whim to suit their agendas. Like one group bis currently trying to do. In spite of 68% of the country being against it.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

And why there’s a battle between an expansive reading (ie if the framers has known about x they would have intended x to be okay/not okay) and a strict one (ie if the framers didn’t mention x, they didn’t intend for x to be covered).

The latter is just nuts. Like something from a cult.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

It's not supposed to be easy to amend. That's the whole point. You don't want tyrannical groups adjusting the the constitution on a whim to suit their agendas. Like one group bis currently trying to do. In spite of 68% of the country being against it.

That argument is predicated on the basis that what is written in there is relevant to the twenty first century. Some of it is, much of it isn’t.

The system of picking SCOTUS Judges being a case in point for the latter, which has actually made the scenario you envisage more likely.

A system based on lifespan and capacity that was conceived when medicine was basically in the dark ages. How can that possibly be relevant today?

Your country appears to be slowly losing its sanity. Can’t people see all this division is going to end very badly?

I’ve said it before but I can see individual States wanting to secede from the Union in the next 20 years if this carries on, especially if the Second Amendment remains untouched, which it will, of course. Think there will be one or two at least calling for it. Maybe California. Whether they’ll be allowed to is another matter, of course. It would be a disaster for the US in terms of status, economics and the military implications could be catastrophic; that’s a lot of coastline to defend.

Not sure about civil war though, but who knows, I guess.

 

[Dax777]

That argument is predicated on the basis that what is written in there is relevant to the twenty first century. Some of it is, much of it isn’t.

The system of picking SCOTUS Judges being a case in point for the latter, which has actually made the scenario you envisage more likely.

A system based on lifespan and capacity that was conceived when medicine was basically in the dark ages. How can that possibly be relevant today?

Your country appears to be slowly losing its sanity. Can’t people see all this division is going to end very badly?

I’ve said it before but I can see individual States wanting to secede from the Union in the next 20 years if this carries on, especially if the Second Amendment remains untouched, which it will, of course. Think there will be one or two at least calling for it. Maybe California. Whether they’ll be allowed to is another matter, of course. It would be a disaster for the US in terms of status, economics and the military implications could be catastrophic; that’s a lot of coastline to defend.

Not sure about civil war though, but who knows, I guess.

What's wrong with the system of picking Scotus Judges? The lifetime appointments is purposefully done so as to reduce the ability of the other 2 arms of government to influence them.

You may be right that the Country is losing its sanity, but that has little to do with the constitution.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

The latter is just nuts. Like something from a cult.

Well, one could make that argument but the framers are the Ataturks and Victorias and Nelson Mandelas of America to some degree, though more historical research uncovers more warts on many of them. I mean, it’s why we can make a musical about Alexander Hamilton and have it be the best musical ever by three standard deviations. I, personally, prefer a pragmatic judicial branch — activists can come in both stripes (activist literalists and activist broad-readers). Potter Stewart — he of the famous “I know it when I see it” definition of pornography — is a hero of mine — pragmatic, wise, funny and moral. I also love the court’s historic independence from the executive branch, which they’ve demonstrated many times in history. I love Constitutional Law but would never have become a lawyer. There are some great books about the court worth reading, and some fascinating opinions to read. It’s the part of government I admire and respect the most by far, although I work regularly with staff flunkies in the Commerce department on economic figures for work and have unfailingly found them to be wonderfully helpful, knowledgeable and kind people.

 

[SWP's back]

I think the one in the wrong here is the party trying to turn a 68 square mile City into a State as an attempt to bolster their numbers illegally in the Senate and house.

Opposition to D.C as a State is constitutionally correct. DC was gifted to the Federal Government by Maryland as a Federal Enclave which under the Constitution of the Country Congress has the Authority to administer as the Seat of Government.

if it is unsuitable as a Federal seat, because D.Ceans want to be part of a State, the Federal Govt can always return the gift. Which would simply make it just a county in Maryland.

D.C push for Statehood via a simple legislative majority is unconstitutional.

Now do Puerto Rico.

 

[SWP's back]

It's not supposed to be easy to amend. That's the whole point. You don't want tyrannical groups adjusting the the constitution on a whim to suit their agendas. Like one group bis currently trying to do. In spite of 68% of the country being against it.

70% of the country are FOR Roe v Wade and that won’t stop a stacked 6-3 high court making abortions illegal, but you’ve not issue with that.