CDZ Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

[Donald H]

The most obvious course this discussion must take now is on the question of the US Constitution being a fatally flawed document, in that one state's criminal malfeasance can't be allowed to stand when it has a direct influence on the other states. Both sides have a case that can be upheld by the Constitution!
The concept of the union of states becomes a flawed concept!

A very difficult concept for any American to accept, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable way out of the situation.

It's likely the whole thing will have to be shuffled off as a non-issue, and then that's when the plaintiffs will begin to understand that their only way forward is in violence.

Arguments?

Will this dispute call for Constitutional amendment? Can the US Constitution answer to the charges and the case that's valid for both sides?

There can be little doubt that the Scotus is wrestling with these questions right now!

 

[norwegen]

The Constitution has been compromised; I'm not sure if that means it was fatally flawed.

This current dispute seems pretty clear-cut, though. State legislatures determine state voting procedures.

 

[Sunni Man]

No ..

 

[Donald H]

No ..

I purposely made it too complicated for the spammers.

Arguments?

 

[Donald H]

The Constitution has been compromised; I'm not sure if that means it was fatally flawed.

This current dispute seems pretty clear-cut, though. State legislatures determine state voting procedures.

Thank you for your attempt at an opinion!
Does one state have a right to demand legally sound practice in another state if the decision made by the other state will have an influence on the one?

 

[Sunni Man]

I purposely made it too complicated for the spammers.

The OP question wasn't very complicated at all.
So I gave the simple answer it deserved, which was "No" ...

 

[Donald H]

Any lawyers present? Constitutional experts?

The regular forum members appear to have gone dark!

 

[progressive hunter]

The Constitution has been compromised; I'm not sure if that means it was fatally flawed.

This current dispute seems pretty clear-cut, though. State legislatures determine state voting procedures.

Thank you for your attempt at an opinion!
Does one state have a right to demand legally sound practice in another state if the decision made by the other state will have an influence on the one?

for thsat you would have to be specific to the claim and the influence on the other state,,

making it complicated and vague doesnt allow for proper assessment,,

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Constitution is NOT flawed. SCOTUS needs to turn WI, MI, PA and GA fatally flawed results back to the respective Legislatures

 

[danielpalos]

The most obvious course this discussion must take now is on the question of the US Constitution being a fatally flawed document, in that one state's criminal malfeasance can't be allowed to stand when it has a direct influence on the other states. Both sides have a case that can be upheld by the Constitution!
The concept of the union of states becomes a flawed concept!

A very difficult concept for any American to accept, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable way out of the situation.

It's likely the whole thing will have to be shuffled off as a non-issue, and then that's when the plaintiffs will begin to understand that their only way forward is in violence.

Arguments?

Will this dispute call for Constitutional amendment? Can the US Constitution answer to the charges and the case that's valid for both sides?

There can be little doubt that the Scotus is wrestling with these questions right now!

Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. I don't believe we could do a better job today.

Some on the left believe this is what we should be doing with our federal form of Government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

 

[Donald H]

I purposely made it too complicated for the spammers.

The OP question wasn't very complicated at all.
So I gave the simple answer it deserved, which was "No" ...

Does Texas have a right to demand proper and legal procedures be carried out in other states when the outcome of their behaviour has a direct effect on Texas?

Your answer is correct and it's in direct conflict to the answer to the question I've presented.

If you're clever enough to understand the holocaust questions you're probably clever enough to understand this one.

 

[danielpalos]

The Constitution has been compromised; I'm not sure if that means it was fatally flawed.

This current dispute seems pretty clear-cut, though. State legislatures determine state voting procedures.

Thank you for your attempt at an opinion!
Does one state have a right to demand legally sound practice in another state if the decision made by the other state will have an influence on the one?

Maybe, if the State complaining must fix the example and review their election practice for those States complained about.

The "full frontal" please.

 

[norwegen]

The Constitution has been compromised; I'm not sure if that means it was fatally flawed.

This current dispute seems pretty clear-cut, though. State legislatures determine state voting procedures.

Thank you for your attempt at an opinion!
Does one state have a right to demand legally sound practice in another state if the decision made by the other state will have an influence on the one?

Influence, schminfluence. Isn't the assumption that plaintiffs have an interest in the actions of defendants? Or why would they sue?

The Supreme Court hears cases between two or more states. That seems pretty cut and dry.

 

[Invisibleflash]

Well it wad good enuf for centuries until the woke dems decided it was not.

 

[danielpalos]

I purposely made it too complicated for the spammers.

The OP question wasn't very complicated at all.
So I gave the simple answer it deserved, which was "No" ...

Does Texas have a right to demand proper and legal procedures be carried out in other states when the outcome of their behaviour has a direct effect on Texas?

Your answer is correct and it's in direct conflict to the answer to the question I've presented.

If you're clever enough to understand the holocaust questions you're probably clever enough to understand this one.

States are sovereign. Texas is welcome to fix the naked Truth standard for the general Government if they want to fix That standard for the Union.

 

[Donald H]

The most obvious course this discussion must take now is on the question of the US Constitution being a fatally flawed document, in that one state's criminal malfeasance can't be allowed to stand when it has a direct influence on the other states. Both sides have a case that can be upheld by the Constitution!
The concept of the union of states becomes a flawed concept!

A very difficult concept for any American to accept, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable way out of the situation.

It's likely the whole thing will have to be shuffled off as a non-issue, and then that's when the plaintiffs will begin to understand that their only way forward is in violence.

Arguments?

Will this dispute call for Constitutional amendment? Can the US Constitution answer to the charges and the case that's valid for both sides?

There can be little doubt that the Scotus is wrestling with these questions right now!

Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. I don't believe we could do a better job today.

Your country could be faced with having to amend your Constitution again to answer this question. But I would suggest that the question can't be answered when the union of states leads to this fatal flaw. Are you understanding the issue completely? If so then you'll have to either provide an answer or ignore the question.

Some on the left believe this is what we should be doing with our federal form of Government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

None of that is applicable and none of it answers the question. States have rights. Another state has a right to ensure other states don't adopt illegal practices when that interferes with justice in the other states.

My position is, until it's disproven, that the union of states is fatally flawed if the Constitution can't answer to the question. That is, unless the Constitution can somehow answer?

 

[danielpalos]

The Constitution has been compromised; I'm not sure if that means it was fatally flawed.

This current dispute seems pretty clear-cut, though. State legislatures determine state voting procedures.

Thank you for your attempt at an opinion!
Does one state have a right to demand legally sound practice in another state if the decision made by the other state will have an influence on the one?

Influence, schminfluence. Isn't the assumption that plaintiffs have an interest in the actions of defendants? Or why would they sue?

The Supreme Court hears cases between two or more states. That seems pretty cut and dry.

Red States are welcome to show us their, "gospel Truth" if they want to try to establish that Standard for the Union.

I never complain when women from the Show Me State proclaim they are merely being faithful to their State motto, for morals purposes.

 

[evenflow1969]

Any lawyers present? Constitutional experts?

The regular forum members appear to have gone dark!

Well the first test in a law suit is you must have damages or there is nothing to sue for by you. If I cared that much I would look up the case law. I have not even looked at their arguments. As far as a flawed document sure the constitution has flaws all things do. The constitution is a living document it can change.

 

[Donald H]

Well it wad good enuf for centuries until the woke dems decided it was not.

This thread isn't for spammers. If you can't contribute then don't waste space here.

 

[danielpalos]

The most obvious course this discussion must take now is on the question of the US Constitution being a fatally flawed document, in that one state's criminal malfeasance can't be allowed to stand when it has a direct influence on the other states. Both sides have a case that can be upheld by the Constitution!
The concept of the union of states becomes a flawed concept!

A very difficult concept for any American to accept, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable way out of the situation.

It's likely the whole thing will have to be shuffled off as a non-issue, and then that's when the plaintiffs will begin to understand that their only way forward is in violence.

Arguments?

Will this dispute call for Constitutional amendment? Can the US Constitution answer to the charges and the case that's valid for both sides?

There can be little doubt that the Scotus is wrestling with these questions right now!

Our Founding Fathers did an most excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. I don't believe we could do a better job today.

Your country could be faced with having to amend your Constitution again to answer this question. But I would suggest that the question can't be answered when the union of states leads to this fatal flaw. Are you understanding the issue completely? If so then you'll have to either provide an answer or ignore the question.

Some on the left believe this is what we should be doing with our federal form of Government:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

None of that is applicable and none of it answers the question. States have rights. Another state has a right to ensure other states don't adopt illegal practices when that interferes with justice in the other states.

My position is, until it's disproven, that the union of states is fatally flawed if the Constitution can't answer to the question. That is, unless the Constitution can somehow answer?

Free States are sovereign and is why we have a federal Government. The full faith and credit of public acts also applies.

Right wingers are simply disingenuous if not outright frivolous in trying to establish gossip, hearsay, and soothsay as any form of valid legal argument.