Author Topic: Holy......  (Read 59460 times)

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #250 on: November 26, 2016, 09:30:30 AM »
What uninformed speculation.

How exactly did the constitution "contain" Andrew Jackson in whose life it was written?

You have no information to show how the Constitution will or won't contain Trump.  He hasn't taken office.

With the 14th Amendment and two centuries of Separation of powers laws, our constitution is better situated to prevent Tyranny than it was in 1789

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #251 on: November 26, 2016, 10:06:55 AM »
Our puny individual rights and powers are laughably weak compared to those of corporations.

Funny you should say that, since both parties (including yours) seem hellbent on rolling back those freedoms slowly over time, for the benefit of the few. I don't think this is happening for the reasons a few of you are stating - namely, that the world has changed and the constitution is obsolete. On the contrary, nothing that's happening now on a socio-political level wasn't foreseen to almost eerie detail by Jefferson. Sure, maybe the Founders didn't foresee gay marriage and other social changes like that, but such renovations to the social contract are not of primary importance in why individual rights have become 'laughably weak.' They are laughably weak because it is inevitable that in a sufficiently capitalist setting corporations will overpower individuals, and unless strict controls are in place, will overpower the boundaries between public and private as well.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #252 on: November 26, 2016, 11:08:20 AM »
Tweaks/changes to how people communicate and interact with one another still has little bearing as to underlying nature of those interactions. The motivations remain the same, the nature of the human("human nature") hasn't changed. Now once we all start getting cybernetic implants and the technology becomes capable of displacing biology, we'll have a different discussion.

Now as to certain specifics regarding the Constitution, yes, some of it should be adjusted to account for present day circumstances. Nuclear weapons were things of very wild speculation even into the 20th century, and it's doubtful most of the founders would support every citizen having 50 megaton ICBMs in their backyard for example.
I hope you are just humoring Kasandra here.
Does anyone really think that under the existing Constitution, that people have the right to stockpile nukes?
 

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #253 on: November 26, 2016, 11:10:43 AM »
if the US Constitution was Rewritten today, it would be written by people in the pockets of those big corporations

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #254 on: November 26, 2016, 11:36:55 AM »
Funny you should say that, since both parties (including yours) seem hellbent on rolling back those freedoms slowly over time, for the benefit of the few. I don't think this is happening for the reasons a few of you are stating - namely, that the world has changed and the constitution is obsolete. On the contrary, nothing that's happening now on a socio-political level wasn't foreseen to almost eerie detail by Jefferson. Sure, maybe the Founders didn't foresee gay marriage and other social changes like that, but such renovations to the social contract are not of primary importance in why individual rights have become 'laughably weak.' They are laughably weak because it is inevitable that in a sufficiently capitalist setting corporations will overpower individuals, and unless strict controls are in place, will overpower the boundaries between public and private as well.

Well said. And looking at history, the more modern axiom of "Money talks" is probably the most apt description for much of history.

The story of history seems to ultimately come down to one of 3 paths:

1) Power seeking money, by any means necessary.
2) Money seeking power, often by any means necessary.
3) People with power/money acting in what they believe to be Egalitarian ways. (Often with negative results.)

Replace "Corporate Board" with "Titled Aristocracy" when it comes to discussing many issues present today, and you're basically talking about the situation in the world several centuries ago. The only difference is the Corporate system is slightly more of a Meritocracy than the Aristocratic system that it replaced. "The other difference" was that in the late 18th century, there generally were information constraints that tended to limit the depth and scope of the influence the aristocracy could wield individually.

Obviously, improvements in Transportation, Communication, and "Information Management" have wildly changed the game in that respect when it comes to exactly how much one person can exercise control over. It has also generally increased the amount of information available to everyone, although the quantity and quality of said information, and has access to what, is often widely variable.

Which is where I imagine most of the people on this board sit when they say it is perhaps time to change the configuration of the Constitution towards a more Democratic system. Except as Fenring points out, the situation we're in today isn't something not completely unforeseen by the likes of Madison and Jefferson.  The specifics of how we got here may be completely alien to them, but the practical side of it is something they very much saw. Because the Humans involved in it all haven't changed, just the (amount of) information they have has.

The founders were all about Option 3 outlined above, hence a lot of talk about people "acting in Enlightened Self-Interest." However, they also fully realized that was an ideal, and that history bears testimony to the fact that the reality is people are far more inclined to act in "self-interest" above all else. They may extend that sphere of "self-interest" to include (extended) family members, and friends, but eventually their "outer limit" will be reached, and they hit the point where they'll gladly trample on the rights/privileges of people they don't know so long as doing so does not negatively impact anybody they know/care about. It almost always comes down to "My 'tribe' against everyone else" at the end of the day.

Another way to put this is to quote Space Balls and declare "Good is dumb." Because someone who lives/breathes that egalitarian mindset often has a hard time even conceiving the idea that someone could possibly act in a deliberately harmful way towards others. Which is a large part of the reason why such systems tend to end up as spectacular failures. People with Egalitarian motives concentrate a lot of power in the hands a small group of people, or even a single person, often for "a good cause" and then are shocked when they discover that the person/group they just empowered isn't Egalitarian at all.

Because of things like that, direct democracy is a very scary thing, as history across the world can attest to, as almost every nation that has gone the direct democracy route has had a problem with rampant violence. Now of course, the Ivory Tower types like to claim it is "lack of 'Democratic institutions' being established" but it's more basic than that. They're setting up systems where a majority, or sometimes just a plurality, gains control of the government, and as soon as they do, they "democratically" decide that everyone not part of "their side"(tribe) should be treated as persons unwelcome, and in many cases, that gives them the excuse to (violently) pursue sometime centuries old feuds.

They failed to do what the founders did in the United States, they did not place sufficient backstops into their governmental processes to prevent the Majority from becoming a Tyranny. Of course, the US also had a big advantage in this respect in that it largely left the feuds from Europe, in Europe, so it lacked "the history" that would otherwise present such problems... At least until the Civil War and the emancipation of the slaves.

Another way to look at it is the uninformed voter problem many people lament about today? You really need to go back at look at the full text that Jefferson's infamous "blood of patriots" quote comes from:

http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty...(Quotation) (emphasis added by me)
Quote
...There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.

Or Madison in Federalist 10, emphasis added:
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-10

Quote
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
 
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #255 on: November 26, 2016, 11:40:39 AM »
I hope you are just humoring Kasandra here.
Does anyone really think that under the existing Constitution, that people have the right to stockpile nukes?

Depends on what you think the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment was/is. If it was so the citizens could arm themselves in such a manner that they had a "reasonable" chance of winning against the Government, that would mean the citizens then must be able to arm themselves with the same equipment the government itself has...

I don't think any rational person seriously argues in favor of people having the right to stockpile nuclear weapons for personal use, but it IS one potential interpretation of the document.

Of course, the argument could instead be made that in this specific instance, such weaponry isn't intended for the private citizens, but should be within the respective rights of a given State to pursue such armaments if their State Government decides to so arm their state Militia.

So while Joe Blow member of the state militia of Texas may not be entitled to own his own nuclear weapon, the State of Texas itself has every right to do so as part of "a well regulated militia."
« Last Edit: November 26, 2016, 11:43:05 AM by TheDeamon »

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #256 on: November 26, 2016, 04:43:25 PM »
Our puny individual rights and powers are laughably weak compared to those of corporations.

Funny you should say that, since both parties (including yours) seem hellbent on rolling back those freedoms slowly over time, for the benefit of the few. I don't think this is happening for the reasons a few of you are stating - namely, that the world has changed and the constitution is obsolete. On the contrary, nothing that's happening now on a socio-political level wasn't foreseen to almost eerie detail by Jefferson. Sure, maybe the Founders didn't foresee gay marriage and other social changes like that, but such renovations to the social contract are not of primary importance in why individual rights have become 'laughably weak.' They are laughably weak because it is inevitable that in a sufficiently capitalist setting corporations will overpower individuals, and unless strict controls are in place, will overpower the boundaries between public and private as well.
What I highlighted was exactly my point.  The "strict controls" (whatever they might be) are being systematically eviscerated by the so-called Conservative Supreme Court.  Odd that those who present and parade themselves as originalists have ushered in the greatest series of changes that have dramatically changed the Constitution as it was originally written.  And yes, both Parties are complicit in different ways as they see that it serves their short-term advantage.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #257 on: November 26, 2016, 04:47:47 PM »
"Depends on what you think the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment was/is. "

depends on what you think the definition of think is. As I see it any thinking and inform person understands that militia means the ability of small communities to defend themselves against thugs robbers and the like. the idea of a militia being a counterbalance to the federal government is just psycho.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #258 on: November 26, 2016, 04:52:51 PM »
A well organized local and city militia was intended to defend against, for example, the looting and lawlessness we saw in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The lefties and the rightwads have their heads so far up each others' butts that neither understands that the 18th century concept of militia protects against threats that have in no way gone away.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #259 on: November 26, 2016, 04:57:10 PM »
Thomas Jefferson was the founder of the country, but he was in no way a founder of the Constitution. If anything he was an implacable enemy to the balance of branches.  His rantings on blood of patriots and white Supremacy laid the foundation for Dredd Scott and the civil war.  As far as Constitutional interpretation is concerned, the man is useless, and both the right and the left continue to drag him out to muddle the waters.

Greg Davidson

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #260 on: November 26, 2016, 06:16:10 PM »
Quote
A well organized local and city militia was intended to defend against, for example, the looting and lawlessness we saw in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

The "looting and lawlessness" in the wake of Katrina was primarily an explosion of  racist fantasy.

Quote
The narrative of those early, chaotic days — built largely on rumors and half-baked anecdotes — quickly hardened into a kind of ugly consensus: poor blacks and looters were murdering innocents and terrorizing whoever crossed their path in the dark, unprotected city...

Today, a clearer picture is emerging, and it is an equally ugly one, including white vigilante violence, police killings, official cover-ups and a suffering population far more brutalized than many were willing to believe. Several police officers and a white civilian accused of racially motivated violence have recently been indicted in various cases, and more incidents are coming to light as the Justice Department has started several investigations into civil rights violations after the storm.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/27/us/27racial.html

Pete, I suspect you will flip out with anything that even hints at accusing you expressing racist ideas, but if in fact there was no greater lawlessness or looting after Katrina than after similar events in primarily white communities, then your repeating the false white hysteria about Katrina is a racist act.   

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #261 on: November 26, 2016, 06:35:01 PM »
"Depends on what you think the rationale behind the 2nd Amendment was/is. "

depends on what you think the definition of think is. As I see it any thinking and inform person understands that militia means the ability of small communities to defend themselves against thugs robbers and the like. the idea of a militia being a counterbalance to the federal government is just psycho.

Constitutionally thinking on this one, Armies are used to suppress and oppress. Which is why the Army has a two budgeting constraint in the CotUS. The various state militias, paired with the Federal Navy(plus others empowered by letters or marquee(sp?)) were the initially envisioned National Defense. Further, having it be the state militias, rather than a Federal Army, further curtains the ability of the Federal Government from "feeling it oats" as it were.

So yes, I do think many of the founders would have supported States being in possession of Nuclear Weapons if the Federal Government has them. It's the part that the militia movements get backwards. You don't go off on your own as Joe Citizen. You instead operate under the authority of your state government in the face of Federal tyranny.

The three federal branches are to check each other in power, and further, the respective State governments are likewise supposed to check the Federal government as well. Which is how we get an Electoral College, a Senate Seat both delegated "as the state's decide"(now defunct for the Senate), and State Militias under the 2nd Amendment, as well as the 10th Amendment--which seems to have been largely castrated by the 14th, for good and ill alike.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #262 on: November 26, 2016, 07:57:44 PM »
Quote
So yes, I do think many of the founders would have supported States being in possession of Nuclear Weapons if the Federal Government has them. It's the part that the militia movements get backwards. You don't go off on your own as Joe Citizen. You instead operate under the authority of your state government in the face of Federal tyranny.
I think that's silly. The Civil War established that the federal union was greater than the individual states.  To imagine that the feds would develop nuclear weapons in the 20th C. and then passively let the states develop or acquire them as a check against the federal union is a dark and bizarre fantasy.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #263 on: November 26, 2016, 08:15:47 PM »
Quote
So yes, I do think many of the founders would have supported States being in possession of Nuclear Weapons if the Federal Government has them. It's the part that the militia movements get backwards. You don't go off on your own as Joe Citizen. You instead operate under the authority of your state government in the face of Federal tyranny.
I think that's silly. The Civil War established that the federal union was greater than the individual states.  To imagine that the feds would develop nuclear weapons in the 20th C. and then passively let the states develop or acquire them as a check against the federal union is a dark and bizarre fantasy.

Agreed with Kasandra there. I suspect Daemon is pulling out leg here. 

WMDs in the form of  primitive bioweapons were known by the founders ( while there is no evidence that Europeans ever use the legendary smallpox blankets on American Indians, there's definite historical evidence that they used it on each other, and Plague was used by the Mongols who catapulted corpses). But these measures were never referred to as "Arms.". To assume you can expand a right or power simply by changing the meaning of a word is the hubris of leftspeak. I hope conservatives will not fall to that son.

Yes, some founders envisioned the fed being able to call up local militia for war purposes but that wasn't the purpose of militia. Militia existed for local peacekeeping. Indian raids pirates and robbers. 

Yes modern "Militia" differ from the founders vision, but the 14th amendment expanded the effect of 2a just as it expanded the whole bill of rights.  So it's foolish to talk about founder intent for 2a without addressing 14a, which sought explicitly to preserve individual rights from the states.  14a was passed during a time when the South was enacting gun control laws to facilitate lynching of blacks and "n____~lovers"


TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #264 on: November 26, 2016, 10:08:54 PM »
Quote
So yes, I do think many of the founders would have supported States being in possession of Nuclear Weapons if the Federal Government has them. It's the part that the militia movements get backwards. You don't go off on your own as Joe Citizen. You instead operate under the authority of your state government in the face of Federal tyranny.
I think that's silly. The Civil War established that the federal union was greater than the individual states.  To imagine that the feds would develop nuclear weapons in the 20th C. and then passively let the states develop or acquire them as a check against the federal union is a dark and bizarre fantasy.

The Civil War may be relevant for us, but it wouldn't be for the Founders, as it was after their time. Discussing two different things. The framework as envisioned/constructed initially, vs what it is now.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #265 on: November 26, 2016, 10:20:43 PM »
Which was my initial point.  We are more than two centuries beyond what the Founders knew and well beyond what they were capable of imagining, however brilliant we like to imagine them to have been.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #266 on: November 26, 2016, 10:46:05 PM »
" I think that's silly. The Civil War established that the federal union was greater than the individual states"

Facepalm.

No.  That was established by the 14th and 15th Amendments, not by the freaking Civil war.  Yes, they are related, but get the causation right.

Origin a lists are full of crap because the founders INTENDED for the constitution to be amended, and the 14a drastically changed the effect and direction of the bill of rights.  Not to mention it's an exercise in hypocrisy for lefties to suddenly pretend to be originalists when it comes to the constitution.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #267 on: November 27, 2016, 07:15:37 AM »
Quote
Facepalm.

No.  That was established by the 14th and 15th Amendments, not by the freaking Civil war.  Yes, they are related, but get the causation right.
Holy Pedantix, Batman!  That deserved a facepalm?

Quote
The Reconstruction Amendments are the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, adopted between 1865 and 1870, the five years immediately following the Civil War. The amendments were important in implementing the Reconstruction of the American South after the war.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #268 on: November 27, 2016, 07:34:44 AM »
Yes, because your failure to take in that distinction is at the heart of your foolish argument that the constitution is out of date.  You don't recognise that 14a totally changed the meaning and function of the 1789 constitution.

"We are more than two centuries beyond what the Founders knew and well beyond what they were capable of imagining, however brilliant we like to imagine them to have been."

Hence the facepalm.  14a took all that into account. The founders may be 250 years out of date but your call for an overhaul is 120 years out of date.  It's been done. Know your law before you lobby to change it.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2016, 07:39:12 AM by Pete at Home »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #269 on: November 27, 2016, 07:44:58 AM »
Originalists are full of crap because the founders INTENDED for the constitution to be amended, and the 14a drastically changed the effect and direction of the bill of rights.  Not to mention it's an exercise in hypocrisy for lefties to suddenly pretend to be originalists when it comes to the constitution.

...but that doesn't mean that amendments can't be made in error, and may need to be undone(prohibition anyone?) or otherwise adjusted themselves. Which is the one valid point to take from the "strict Originalist interpretation" in determining if the initial version may or may not be preferable to the subsequent versions we're now contending with due to later amendments. Although most Originalists do consider subsequent amendments too.

Now obviously, the 2ndA/10thA argument that the States(not the individual citizen) should be able to arm themselves such that they could rebel from the Federal Government if warranted was rendered largely moot by the 14th Amendment and the Civil War more generically. And that the militia's were more generally intended to deal with "'flash' domestic issues" within a state's border, which likewise has been largely rendered moot due to numerous factors that renders things stable enough, and the National Guard performs most of the other (emergency) militia duties today.

However, the fundamental need/right to self-defense(interpreted as the individual right to bear arms, 2nd Amendment) still remains relevant to this day, and short of Star Trek Transporter technology becoming widely available, will continue to remain relevant for a long time to come. When the first of "the first responders" is 40+ minutes away at best speed(or even just 5 minutes away), the citizen often needs to be able to act in the interim, even if that means the first-responder arrives to help do the cleanup.

When/if a non-lethal option becomes seriously viable(and comparably affordable to the alternative), taking away the lethal option from Joe Citizen may be on the table, but that isn't the case today.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #270 on: November 27, 2016, 07:51:05 AM »
Quote
...but that doesn't mean that amendments can't be made in error, and may need to be undone(prohibition anyone?)

Sure, but they should only be undone by individual amendment, not by violent civil war as Kasandra laid out in her ghastly non "pedantic" historical revision.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2016, 07:53:41 AM by Pete at Home »

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #271 on: November 27, 2016, 08:15:54 AM »
Yes, because your failure to take in that distinction is at the heart of your foolish argument that the constitution is out of date.  You don't recognise that 14a totally changed the meaning and function of the 1789 constitution.

"We are more than two centuries beyond what the Founders knew and well beyond what they were capable of imagining, however brilliant we like to imagine them to have been."

Hence the facepalm.  14a took all that into account. The founders may be 250 years out of date but your call for an overhaul is 120 years out of date.  It's been done. Know your law before you lobby to change it.

Or the 16th and 17th Amendments, which happened in the early 20th Century. Although I think #17 should be reconsidered/tweaked, possibly as part of a larger Electoral College adjustment. I think getting the various State Governments out of the US Senator selection process wasn't fully thought through.

The first compromise solution would be to give each state a third Senator so every state is selecting a senator every 2 years, but revert back to letting the States decide upon how their 3rd senator is selected, rather than subjecting seat #3 to the 17th Amendment and mandating direct election(states can still opt to do so on their own, as some did prior to the 17th Amendment). That would potentially give the various statehouses potential to only control up to 1/3rd of the US Senate, which wouldn't typically be decisive by itself.

The second possible solution would be that we could term limit the Senators while we're at it, but give the State Legislatures/Governments the ability to grant "waivers" allowing their Senators to run for re-election beyond the "standard" term limit(voters still have to vote to re-elect them however). For that matter, we could do that with or without adding a 3rd Senate Seat. (I initially considered only making the State Government selected Senator immune to term limits; State level politicians are going to have much longer memories than Joe Voter typically speaking...)

The only truly major issue with growing the Senate is that it would change the nature of the Electoral college, and give states like Wyoming even more voting power in the EC, so such a change in the Senate's size couldn't happen without other reforms involving the EC. Although giving State governments an up/down vote option on their Senatorial delegation running for re-election beyond a 2nd term seems like a half-way decent way to off-set some of the power they lost as a result of the 17th Amendment. US Senators looking to see a 3rd term, or longer, are going to be much more attentive to the issues of their respective state governments because of that.

As to the House, no mercy. Either give them term limits with no waiver, or don't put term limits in place to start with. They're there to represent their district, not their state, strictly speaking.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #272 on: November 27, 2016, 08:20:28 AM »
Quote
...but that doesn't mean that amendments can't be made in error, and may need to be undone(prohibition anyone?)

Sure, but they should only be undone by individual amendment, not by violent civil war as Kasandra laid out in her ghastly non "pedantic" historical revision.

Yeah, settling a dispute by force of arms, rather than by force of law, does nothing to change the nature of the underlying law. All the force of arms part did was say "I'm going to make you do this." It did nothing, by itself, to demonstrate that there was a legal basis for doing so beyond "might makes right." ;)

The amendments formalized and codified the outcome of what was initially settled by force of arms, but it(the amendments) is what formed the legal basis of what followed. Rather than the violence itself.

Kasandra

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #273 on: November 27, 2016, 08:26:18 AM »
Quote
Yes, because your failure to take in that distinction is at the heart of your foolish argument that the constitution is out of date.  You don't recognise that 14a totally changed the meaning and function of the 1789 constitution.
Honestly, I can't discuss this with you after you agree with what I said and then "facepalmed" the same comment and now make an argument that is opaque to me.  Welcome back, Pete.

Pete at Home

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Holy......
« Reply #274 on: November 27, 2016, 10:59:19 AM »
Holding off on responding to Kasandra until I have time to reread to see if and where I have misread and misunderstood.

"  It did nothing, by itself, to demonstrate that there was a legal basis for doing so beyond "might makes right." ;)
"

The war did actually settle the legal question of whether a state could unilaterally secede from the Union.  Ironically, if the Confeds had been less stupid, they could have waited for SCOTUS to rule on the legal question of secession, and their ruling imo might have been different had it occurred prior to the violence initiated at Ft Sumter. Remember over half the Court was Southern and had ruled horribly so in Dress Scott