Debate Now A Proposed Amendment to Restore Power to the People

[Sun Devil 92]

The "founders" didn't think one way or another about anything. A group of men--about 60 in all--could not have the same exact definition of the most pressing issues or the best remedy for those issues.

Anyone who claims she knows what they were thinking is telling you a story.

Correct.

“[Had the Framers] known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The principles the Framers enshrined in the Constitution are immutable, forever safeguarding the protected liberties of the people.

The people then invoke those principles when they perceive the government has overreached in its authority, using Constitutional jurisprudence to seek relief from government excess, where the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

That's funny...considering the reference in the opinion to a previous case:

"Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."

So where does that leave the ever sweeping claim of bullcrap made in the quoted section Lawrence ?

Answer: In the garbage can with the rest of the SCOTUS opining. They rule on cases. They are not prophets speaking for God.

 

[candycorn]

The "founders" didn't think one way or another about anything. A group of men--about 60 in all--could not have the same exact definition of the most pressing issues or the best remedy for those issues.

Anyone who claims she knows what they were thinking is telling you a story.

Correct.

“[Had the Framers] known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The principles the Framers enshrined in the Constitution are immutable, forever safeguarding the protected liberties of the people.

The people then invoke those principles when they perceive the government has overreached in its authority, using Constitutional jurisprudence to seek relief from government excess, where the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

That's funny...considering the reference in the opinion to a previous case:

"Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."

So where does that leave the ever sweeping claim of bullcrap made in the quoted section Lawrence ?

Answer: In the garbage can with the rest of the SCOTUS opining. They rule on cases. They are not prophets speaking for God.

Which is good because that would be a theocracy. I prefer our republic. You?

 

[candycorn]

Its unusual that one can simply leave all they know (family, friends, job) simply because they disagree with the politics of an administration that will be out of office in a few years. Politics is cyclical. Sometimes the cycles are very long but eventually, Parties fracture, support wanes, and other ideas take over. What isn't cyclical is when a party starts tinkering with the constitution.

Human rights should never be put to a popularity contest.

Do you think Obamacare will ever be repealed and other ideas will take over ?

If not, then I would ask where I move to get out from under that ?

No.
It doesn't violate your human rights.

That wasn't the question I asked.

I asked "If I don't like Obamacare...where do I move to get away from it ?"

Albania I suppose.

Where do you get the idea you shouldn't have to pay for things you personally do not like. A lot of people don't like submarines....yet they pay for them. Even more don't like Congress.

Submarines sit under the cause of National Defense. That is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

As to your reply, it's simply a dodge when you know the answer.

Yes but in our nation, you're allowed to be a pacifist. Your contention is that you shouldn't have to pay for things you don't like.

BTW: I have always felt like I don't have to pay for things I don't like. More importantly, I don't pay for things I don't want.

Or do you go into a shop and pay for clothes you think are ugly ? For whatever reason.

The context of this conversation was clear from the start. The fact that you don't recall that isn't my problem.

No, your problem is that you helped pay for highways you don't use, environmental laws that have no effect on you, Obama's vacation, research into diseases to which you are immune, etc... So, yes, you DO pay for things you don't want and you seem not to know it. The fact that you don't know this isn't my problem.

You see, in our system, you are warmed by the fires started by others and you, through your taxes, keep the fires going for others. The problem is that some no longer find the people sitting around the fires to be "worthy".

 

[candycorn]

Really? No. You know what some were thinking because some of them put it down in writing. Most people reading this do not know, for example, that some delegates to the CC refused to sign the document because they disagreed, and some even left the convention. Among these was Edmund Randolph, Washington's personal lawyer and the 2nd SoS.

It is simply not true to state that they all came together, sang Kumbaya and founded a nation.

No it speaks to a group of people not liking recent rulings, making outrageous claims that there is a serious miscarriage of justice taking place, and wanting to change the rules of the game to lessen the power of the institutions and give power to another body and/or group of people.

Whereas if that is the will of the plurality of voters, so it may be the case. But it will (and should) be done through the vote which is the only legitimate means of altering the founding documents.

I have posted extensively that three members of the Constitutional convention refused to sign the original Constitution or support it until the Bill of Rights was added, and nobody got everything they wanted in the Constitution they adopted, so if anybody here doesn't know that, they have not been reading the thread.

How else could we possibly know the thoughts of those people important to our history without reading those thoughts that are written down? But since those thoughts WERE written down, we can know what the Founders were thinking.

Wrong.

If you write down what you're thinking, I know nothing other than what you're thinking.
If your significant other writes down what you're thinking, I'm getting their take on what you're thinking.
If someone who spends 6-8 hours a day in a room with you writes down what you're thinking, I get even less than that.

You have zero idea what 50-60 men were thinking 240 years ago.

We know what they agreed to and that is basically it.

The reasons for the agreement may have been any number of reasons. Washington (the man), for example was held in awe by many who attended--was elected unanimously by it's members decades after his heroics on the battlefield. If he had some ulterior motive on one front or another, it likely would not have been widely discussed or published. Franklin was another who was larger than life in the eyes of many. Read Pierce's writings on the man...."The heavens obey him...." Hell, the "corruption" that you guys have magically just discovered may have been at play in that very room. Who knows if one, more, some, or all of those agreeing prospered personally from agreeing to let a document go forward. Much less is known about the ratifications in the individual states and what form of horse-trading took shape then and there. I'm certainly not stating it was present but I'm certainly not ruling it out. Any more (or less) than it can be ruled in or out by what we think we know based on some notes taken by a few members of the group.

Anyway, outside of the agreements reached, we know little. Anyone who swears they know the intentions, motivations, or even if the 50-60 men regretted their actions (or not) later in life is not being truthful. For one thing. Some of the delegates died untimely deaths. Others lived lives of quiet reflection. Some were victims of scandal and others went on to hold high public office where they may have been blessed/cursed by the document they agreed to thus creating regret or affection.

Surely we know some of the stories but the entire picture cannot be known.

And to assume that we are discussing altering the founding documents is just silly. We are discussing a remedy to an overreaching authoritarian government that has corrupted much of the intent of the Constitution. Michelsen's amendment addresses that specifically and offers a remedy. Let's focus on that. If you don't like his solution, then say how you would amend it or offer your own.

Some believe all that would be necessary to accomplish that remedy would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. I am not at all convinced of that for reasons I have already posted.

I have.

The solution is voting. We get the government we deserve; have for 239 years.

When people do not become engaged citizens, let the parties run the government, and or allow corruption to take root; the parties do what is best for them (which is why you have congressional districts shaped like a decaying corpse) and the corrupt continue to be corrupt (did you know Rick Perry was retired while he was the Governor of Texas and was drawing both a pension and a salary from the State????)

If you want to change things, vote. It's really that simple.

PS: Not everyone who runs for office is corrupt. That's a cop-out.

The founding documents ARE what the Founders said, what they wrote, transcripts of their speeches and debates. So we KNOW what they were thinking unless you are prepared to call each and every one a liar. Try reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime. Read the letters they wrote and the transcripts of their words and the abundance of other material they left us. To say we can't know what they were thinking is simply absurd. To say that we don't know what THEY intended with the wording of the Constitution is absurd.

When the integrity of the intended process, when those in government become corrupt, they take away the people's right to self govern as the Founders intended. No amount of voting corrects that because only professional politicians who will agree to the government system are able to attain any power at all.

This thread is not about gerrymandering or any state corruption or Rick Perry. It is about a means to restore the ability of the people to take back the authority that the Constitution originally intended.

So, knowing what you know, you can tell me how Pierce (from Georgia) would have felt about abortion, taxation, whether we should be able to purchase new lands, the space program? I'd love to find out what his writings on the subjects were.

You say you can tell what they were thinking.

Prove it.

The floor is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen...

Get ready for the mother of all cop-outs, an appeal to the "rules" being violated, or anything other than a supporting statement to what she just claimed.

The point is (as I just made), you can't know the intent of the framers just based on what a few of them wrote, cherry picking those that agree with you and moving on from there.

That is true that you cant know..........but the words of the Constitution itself are a kind of contract between the people and their governors. That is why words should maintain their original meaning unless re-defined by the people themselves....A words like treaty.....which has been morphed NOT to include trade agreements for some reason... But also words like marriage......which, although not in the constitution comes down to us through the English law. ...another, phrase, "natural born citizen"...as understood at the time of the founding would exclude Ted Cruz from running for president........but apparently we're all going to look the other way.

BTW are you two talking about Pierce Butler? I have a picture of this founder in my gallery,...he was actually a member of the British army posted in Boston during the Boston massacre. Later he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. I bet not too many kids learn that ironic fact in history class.

We need more words in the document to dictate behavior of those in office. Beyond that, the rules are fine. I think (notice I said think) the founders would welcome endless debate and hard nosed deal making to move legislation through the Congress. What they wouldn't welcome (in my opinion) is Party appointees acting as traffic cops deciding what the other 99 or 434 members will get to debate.

 

[candycorn]

Really? No. You know what some were thinking because some of them put it down in writing. Most people reading this do not know, for example, that some delegates to the CC refused to sign the document because they disagreed, and some even left the convention. Among these was Edmund Randolph, Washington's personal lawyer and the 2nd SoS.

It is simply not true to state that they all came together, sang Kumbaya and founded a nation.

No it speaks to a group of people not liking recent rulings, making outrageous claims that there is a serious miscarriage of justice taking place, and wanting to change the rules of the game to lessen the power of the institutions and give power to another body and/or group of people.

Whereas if that is the will of the plurality of voters, so it may be the case. But it will (and should) be done through the vote which is the only legitimate means of altering the founding documents.

I have posted extensively that three members of the Constitutional convention refused to sign the original Constitution or support it until the Bill of Rights was added, and nobody got everything they wanted in the Constitution they adopted, so if anybody here doesn't know that, they have not been reading the thread.

How else could we possibly know the thoughts of those people important to our history without reading those thoughts that are written down? But since those thoughts WERE written down, we can know what the Founders were thinking.

Wrong.

If you write down what you're thinking, I know nothing other than what you're thinking.
If your significant other writes down what you're thinking, I'm getting their take on what you're thinking.
If someone who spends 6-8 hours a day in a room with you writes down what you're thinking, I get even less than that.

You have zero idea what 50-60 men were thinking 240 years ago.

We know what they agreed to and that is basically it.

The reasons for the agreement may have been any number of reasons. Washington (the man), for example was held in awe by many who attended--was elected unanimously by it's members decades after his heroics on the battlefield. If he had some ulterior motive on one front or another, it likely would not have been widely discussed or published. Franklin was another who was larger than life in the eyes of many. Read Pierce's writings on the man...."The heavens obey him...." Hell, the "corruption" that you guys have magically just discovered may have been at play in that very room. Who knows if one, more, some, or all of those agreeing prospered personally from agreeing to let a document go forward. Much less is known about the ratifications in the individual states and what form of horse-trading took shape then and there. I'm certainly not stating it was present but I'm certainly not ruling it out. Any more (or less) than it can be ruled in or out by what we think we know based on some notes taken by a few members of the group.

Anyway, outside of the agreements reached, we know little. Anyone who swears they know the intentions, motivations, or even if the 50-60 men regretted their actions (or not) later in life is not being truthful. For one thing. Some of the delegates died untimely deaths. Others lived lives of quiet reflection. Some were victims of scandal and others went on to hold high public office where they may have been blessed/cursed by the document they agreed to thus creating regret or affection.

Surely we know some of the stories but the entire picture cannot be known.

And to assume that we are discussing altering the founding documents is just silly. We are discussing a remedy to an overreaching authoritarian government that has corrupted much of the intent of the Constitution. Michelsen's amendment addresses that specifically and offers a remedy. Let's focus on that. If you don't like his solution, then say how you would amend it or offer your own.

Some believe all that would be necessary to accomplish that remedy would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. I am not at all convinced of that for reasons I have already posted.

I have.

The solution is voting. We get the government we deserve; have for 239 years.

When people do not become engaged citizens, let the parties run the government, and or allow corruption to take root; the parties do what is best for them (which is why you have congressional districts shaped like a decaying corpse) and the corrupt continue to be corrupt (did you know Rick Perry was retired while he was the Governor of Texas and was drawing both a pension and a salary from the State????)

If you want to change things, vote. It's really that simple.

PS: Not everyone who runs for office is corrupt. That's a cop-out.

The founding documents ARE what the Founders said, what they wrote, transcripts of their speeches and debates. So we KNOW what they were thinking unless you are prepared to call each and every one a liar. Try reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime. Read the letters they wrote and the transcripts of their words and the abundance of other material they left us. To say we can't know what they were thinking is simply absurd. To say that we don't know what THEY intended with the wording of the Constitution is absurd.

When the integrity of the intended process, when those in government become corrupt, they take away the people's right to self govern as the Founders intended. No amount of voting corrects that because only professional politicians who will agree to the government system are able to attain any power at all.

This thread is not about gerrymandering or any state corruption or Rick Perry. It is about a means to restore the ability of the people to take back the authority that the Constitution originally intended.

So, knowing what you know, you can tell me how Pierce (from Georgia) would have felt about abortion, taxation, whether we should be able to purchase new lands, the space program? I'd love to find out what his writings on the subjects were.

You say you can tell what they were thinking.

Prove it.

The floor is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen...

Get ready for the mother of all cop-outs, an appeal to the "rules" being violated, or anything other than a supporting statement to what she just claimed.

The point is (as I just made), you can't know the intent of the framers just based on what a few of them wrote, cherry picking those that agree with you and moving on from there.

You got it friend. Pierce from Georgia didn't concern himself with abortion or the space program so I haven't read or seen any of his comments on abortion or the space program which is totally off topic for this thread. Rule violation per Rule #1. I can tell what people are thinking when I read what they argue for that they themselves wrote or hear what they themselves say but that too is off topic is this thread is not about me or what I think about anything.

Rule No. 1: stay on topic on this thread with no ad hominem or personal insults please.

Oh puh-leese.

Nobody attacked you. Also nobody asked you what you thought.

I simply asked you--since you repeatedly state "The framers thought...."--to tell me what one of the framers thought about some constitutional items (taxes) and some extra constitutional items that most Americans support. And you punted. My point proven.

 

[dcraelin]

I have posted extensively that three members of the Constitutional convention refused to sign the original Constitution or support it until the Bill of Rights was added, and nobody got everything they wanted in the Constitution they adopted, so if anybody here doesn't know that, they have not been reading the thread.

How else could we possibly know the thoughts of those people important to our history without reading those thoughts that are written down? But since those thoughts WERE written down, we can know what the Founders were thinking.

Wrong.

If you write down what you're thinking, I know nothing other than what you're thinking.
If your significant other writes down what you're thinking, I'm getting their take on what you're thinking.
If someone who spends 6-8 hours a day in a room with you writes down what you're thinking, I get even less than that.

You have zero idea what 50-60 men were thinking 240 years ago.

We know what they agreed to and that is basically it.

The reasons for the agreement may have been any number of reasons. Washington (the man), for example was held in awe by many who attended--was elected unanimously by it's members decades after his heroics on the battlefield. If he had some ulterior motive on one front or another, it likely would not have been widely discussed or published. Franklin was another who was larger than life in the eyes of many. Read Pierce's writings on the man...."The heavens obey him...." Hell, the "corruption" that you guys have magically just discovered may have been at play in that very room. Who knows if one, more, some, or all of those agreeing prospered personally from agreeing to let a document go forward. Much less is known about the ratifications in the individual states and what form of horse-trading took shape then and there. I'm certainly not stating it was present but I'm certainly not ruling it out. Any more (or less) than it can be ruled in or out by what we think we know based on some notes taken by a few members of the group.

Anyway, outside of the agreements reached, we know little. Anyone who swears they know the intentions, motivations, or even if the 50-60 men regretted their actions (or not) later in life is not being truthful. For one thing. Some of the delegates died untimely deaths. Others lived lives of quiet reflection. Some were victims of scandal and others went on to hold high public office where they may have been blessed/cursed by the document they agreed to thus creating regret or affection.

Surely we know some of the stories but the entire picture cannot be known.

And to assume that we are discussing altering the founding documents is just silly. We are discussing a remedy to an overreaching authoritarian government that has corrupted much of the intent of the Constitution. Michelsen's amendment addresses that specifically and offers a remedy. Let's focus on that. If you don't like his solution, then say how you would amend it or offer your own.

Some believe all that would be necessary to accomplish that remedy would be to repeal the 17th Amendment. I am not at all convinced of that for reasons I have already posted.

I have.

The solution is voting. We get the government we deserve; have for 239 years.

When people do not become engaged citizens, let the parties run the government, and or allow corruption to take root; the parties do what is best for them (which is why you have congressional districts shaped like a decaying corpse) and the corrupt continue to be corrupt (did you know Rick Perry was retired while he was the Governor of Texas and was drawing both a pension and a salary from the State????)

If you want to change things, vote. It's really that simple.

PS: Not everyone who runs for office is corrupt. That's a cop-out.

The founding documents ARE what the Founders said, what they wrote, transcripts of their speeches and debates. So we KNOW what they were thinking unless you are prepared to call each and every one a liar. Try reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime. Read the letters they wrote and the transcripts of their words and the abundance of other material they left us. To say we can't know what they were thinking is simply absurd. To say that we don't know what THEY intended with the wording of the Constitution is absurd.

When the integrity of the intended process, when those in government become corrupt, they take away the people's right to self govern as the Founders intended. No amount of voting corrects that because only professional politicians who will agree to the government system are able to attain any power at all.

This thread is not about gerrymandering or any state corruption or Rick Perry. It is about a means to restore the ability of the people to take back the authority that the Constitution originally intended.

So, knowing what you know, you can tell me how Pierce (from Georgia) would have felt about abortion, taxation, whether we should be able to purchase new lands, the space program? I'd love to find out what his writings on the subjects were.

You say you can tell what they were thinking.

Prove it.

The floor is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen...

Get ready for the mother of all cop-outs, an appeal to the "rules" being violated, or anything other than a supporting statement to what she just claimed.

The point is (as I just made), you can't know the intent of the framers just based on what a few of them wrote, cherry picking those that agree with you and moving on from there.

That is true that you cant know..........but the words of the Constitution itself are a kind of contract between the people and their governors. That is why words should maintain their original meaning unless re-defined by the people themselves....A words like treaty.....which has been morphed NOT to include trade agreements for some reason... But also words like marriage......which, although not in the constitution comes down to us through the English law. ...another, phrase, "natural born citizen"...as understood at the time of the founding would exclude Ted Cruz from running for president........but apparently we're all going to look the other way.

BTW are you two talking about Pierce Butler? I have a picture of this founder in my gallery,...he was actually a member of the British army posted in Boston during the Boston massacre. Later he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. I bet not too many kids learn that ironic fact in history class.

We need more words in the document to dictate behavior of those in office. Beyond that, the rules are fine. I think (notice I said think) the founders would welcome endless debate and hard nosed deal making to move legislation through the Congress. What they wouldn't welcome (in my opinion) is Party appointees acting as traffic cops deciding what the other 99 or 434 members will get to debate.

well its nice to see you think there should be some changes, but beyond that the rules are not fine..............

The Senate as I've shown in another thread.......is based on state lines drawn up on the basis of religious differences, which gives the eastern seaboard states too much power. i.e. RI = California

The house has not kept up with the representative ratio we had at our founding, even though it was adjusted for years....until I believe the early 1900s.

Supreme Court appointments should be more randomized. with a mandatory retirement window.

 

[candycorn]

Wrong.

If you write down what you're thinking, I know nothing other than what you're thinking.
If your significant other writes down what you're thinking, I'm getting their take on what you're thinking.
If someone who spends 6-8 hours a day in a room with you writes down what you're thinking, I get even less than that.

You have zero idea what 50-60 men were thinking 240 years ago.

We know what they agreed to and that is basically it.

The reasons for the agreement may have been any number of reasons. Washington (the man), for example was held in awe by many who attended--was elected unanimously by it's members decades after his heroics on the battlefield. If he had some ulterior motive on one front or another, it likely would not have been widely discussed or published. Franklin was another who was larger than life in the eyes of many. Read Pierce's writings on the man...."The heavens obey him...." Hell, the "corruption" that you guys have magically just discovered may have been at play in that very room. Who knows if one, more, some, or all of those agreeing prospered personally from agreeing to let a document go forward. Much less is known about the ratifications in the individual states and what form of horse-trading took shape then and there. I'm certainly not stating it was present but I'm certainly not ruling it out. Any more (or less) than it can be ruled in or out by what we think we know based on some notes taken by a few members of the group.

Anyway, outside of the agreements reached, we know little. Anyone who swears they know the intentions, motivations, or even if the 50-60 men regretted their actions (or not) later in life is not being truthful. For one thing. Some of the delegates died untimely deaths. Others lived lives of quiet reflection. Some were victims of scandal and others went on to hold high public office where they may have been blessed/cursed by the document they agreed to thus creating regret or affection.

Surely we know some of the stories but the entire picture cannot be known.


I have.

The solution is voting. We get the government we deserve; have for 239 years.

When people do not become engaged citizens, let the parties run the government, and or allow corruption to take root; the parties do what is best for them (which is why you have congressional districts shaped like a decaying corpse) and the corrupt continue to be corrupt (did you know Rick Perry was retired while he was the Governor of Texas and was drawing both a pension and a salary from the State????)

If you want to change things, vote. It's really that simple.

PS: Not everyone who runs for office is corrupt. That's a cop-out.

The founding documents ARE what the Founders said, what they wrote, transcripts of their speeches and debates. So we KNOW what they were thinking unless you are prepared to call each and every one a liar. Try reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime. Read the letters they wrote and the transcripts of their words and the abundance of other material they left us. To say we can't know what they were thinking is simply absurd. To say that we don't know what THEY intended with the wording of the Constitution is absurd.

When the integrity of the intended process, when those in government become corrupt, they take away the people's right to self govern as the Founders intended. No amount of voting corrects that because only professional politicians who will agree to the government system are able to attain any power at all.

This thread is not about gerrymandering or any state corruption or Rick Perry. It is about a means to restore the ability of the people to take back the authority that the Constitution originally intended.

So, knowing what you know, you can tell me how Pierce (from Georgia) would have felt about abortion, taxation, whether we should be able to purchase new lands, the space program? I'd love to find out what his writings on the subjects were.

You say you can tell what they were thinking.

Prove it.

The floor is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen...

Get ready for the mother of all cop-outs, an appeal to the "rules" being violated, or anything other than a supporting statement to what she just claimed.

The point is (as I just made), you can't know the intent of the framers just based on what a few of them wrote, cherry picking those that agree with you and moving on from there.

That is true that you cant know..........but the words of the Constitution itself are a kind of contract between the people and their governors. That is why words should maintain their original meaning unless re-defined by the people themselves....A words like treaty.....which has been morphed NOT to include trade agreements for some reason... But also words like marriage......which, although not in the constitution comes down to us through the English law. ...another, phrase, "natural born citizen"...as understood at the time of the founding would exclude Ted Cruz from running for president........but apparently we're all going to look the other way.

BTW are you two talking about Pierce Butler? I have a picture of this founder in my gallery,...he was actually a member of the British army posted in Boston during the Boston massacre. Later he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. I bet not too many kids learn that ironic fact in history class.

We need more words in the document to dictate behavior of those in office. Beyond that, the rules are fine. I think (notice I said think) the founders would welcome endless debate and hard nosed deal making to move legislation through the Congress. What they wouldn't welcome (in my opinion) is Party appointees acting as traffic cops deciding what the other 99 or 434 members will get to debate.

well its nice to see you think there should be some changes, but beyond that the rules are not fine..............

The Senate as I've shown in another thread.......is based on state lines drawn up on the basis of religious differences, which gives the eastern seaboard states too much power. i.e. RI = California

The house has not kept up with the representative ratio we had at our founding, even though it was adjusted for years....until I believe the early 1900s.

Supreme Court appointments should be more randomized. with a mandatory retirement window.

Just from a political standpoint, I'm surprised the GOP hasn't seen to bump up the size of government since it has most of the State Houses. Certainly, if you believe in proportional representation, the proportions are way out of whack. From the purposes of the thread, I don't see where being ignored by more people will change things .

As for supreme court "terms", I think it needs to be two-phased. First, there needs to be 3 judges each time being replaced. If you have one judge up for replacement in, lets say, 2017; you'll have cagey attorneys hold of on law suits until there is a more favorable law suit due to the politics possibly being more favorable in 2017. If there are multiple justices up for retirement during a term, the court's schedule may not coincide with the calculation. Secondly, the terms need to be long enough so that politics is lessened.

Politics have always been the silent partner in our courts. This is really nothing new.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Do you think Obamacare will ever be repealed and other ideas will take over ?

If not, then I would ask where I move to get out from under that ?

No.
It doesn't violate your human rights.

That wasn't the question I asked.

I asked "If I don't like Obamacare...where do I move to get away from it ?"

Albania I suppose.

Where do you get the idea you shouldn't have to pay for things you personally do not like. A lot of people don't like submarines....yet they pay for them. Even more don't like Congress.

Submarines sit under the cause of National Defense. That is clearly spelled out in the Constitution.

As to your reply, it's simply a dodge when you know the answer.

Yes but in our nation, you're allowed to be a pacifist. Your contention is that you shouldn't have to pay for things you don't like.

BTW: I have always felt like I don't have to pay for things I don't like. More importantly, I don't pay for things I don't want.

Or do you go into a shop and pay for clothes you think are ugly ? For whatever reason.

The context of this conversation was clear from the start. The fact that you don't recall that isn't my problem.

No, your problem is that you helped pay for highways you don't use, environmental laws that have no effect on you, Obama's vacation, research into diseases to which you are immune, etc... So, yes, you DO pay for things you don't want and you seem not to know it. The fact that you don't know this isn't my problem.

You see, in our system, you are warmed by the fires started by others and you, through your taxes, keep the fires going for others. The problem is that some no longer find the people sitting around the fires to be "worthy".

This isn't even a legitimate argument given the context of our discussion.

YOU SEE, in our system, not all fires are the same. Not every state spends the same amounts on roads. Not ever state spends the same amount on education....etc etc. Not ever state has the same tax rates.

These people make selections, as a state, all the time. And they are doing the things they want while others do the the things they want.

You know the argument, but won't address the fundamental issue.

This is just deflection.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The "founders" didn't think one way or another about anything. A group of men--about 60 in all--could not have the same exact definition of the most pressing issues or the best remedy for those issues.

Anyone who claims she knows what they were thinking is telling you a story.

Correct.

“[Had the Framers] known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom.”

LAWRENCE V. TEXAS

The principles the Framers enshrined in the Constitution are immutable, forever safeguarding the protected liberties of the people.

The people then invoke those principles when they perceive the government has overreached in its authority, using Constitutional jurisprudence to seek relief from government excess, where the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, authorized by the doctrine of judicial review, Articles III and VI, and the original intent and understanding of the Founding Generation.

That's funny...considering the reference in the opinion to a previous case:

"Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled."

So where does that leave the ever sweeping claim of bullcrap made in the quoted section Lawrence ?

Answer: In the garbage can with the rest of the SCOTUS opining. They rule on cases. They are not prophets speaking for God.

Which is good because that would be a theocracy. I prefer our republic. You?

Again, your off-handed comments don't add to the discussion.

Had I left out the reference to prophets......it simply would have been a matter of saying that the dicta of Lawrence vs Texas is bullcrap since the decision itself provides a contradiction of some import.

As to theocracy.......I'm all for it.....when the right person takes over.

For now.....our republic (which you don't seem to acknowledge as such) is wonderful.

 

[dcraelin]

The founding documents ARE what the Founders said, what they wrote, transcripts of their speeches and debates. So we KNOW what they were thinking unless you are prepared to call each and every one a liar. Try reading the federalist and anti-federalist papers sometime. Read the letters they wrote and the transcripts of their words and the abundance of other material they left us. To say we can't know what they were thinking is simply absurd. To say that we don't know what THEY intended with the wording of the Constitution is absurd.

When the integrity of the intended process, when those in government become corrupt, they take away the people's right to self govern as the Founders intended. No amount of voting corrects that because only professional politicians who will agree to the government system are able to attain any power at all.

This thread is not about gerrymandering or any state corruption or Rick Perry. It is about a means to restore the ability of the people to take back the authority that the Constitution originally intended.

So, knowing what you know, you can tell me how Pierce (from Georgia) would have felt about abortion, taxation, whether we should be able to purchase new lands, the space program? I'd love to find out what his writings on the subjects were.

You say you can tell what they were thinking.

Prove it.

The floor is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen...

Get ready for the mother of all cop-outs, an appeal to the "rules" being violated, or anything other than a supporting statement to what she just claimed.

The point is (as I just made), you can't know the intent of the framers just based on what a few of them wrote, cherry picking those that agree with you and moving on from there.

That is true that you cant know..........but the words of the Constitution itself are a kind of contract between the people and their governors. That is why words should maintain their original meaning unless re-defined by the people themselves....A words like treaty.....which has been morphed NOT to include trade agreements for some reason... But also words like marriage......which, although not in the constitution comes down to us through the English law. ...another, phrase, "natural born citizen"...as understood at the time of the founding would exclude Ted Cruz from running for president........but apparently we're all going to look the other way.

BTW are you two talking about Pierce Butler? I have a picture of this founder in my gallery,...he was actually a member of the British army posted in Boston during the Boston massacre. Later he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. I bet not too many kids learn that ironic fact in history class.

We need more words in the document to dictate behavior of those in office. Beyond that, the rules are fine. I think (notice I said think) the founders would welcome endless debate and hard nosed deal making to move legislation through the Congress. What they wouldn't welcome (in my opinion) is Party appointees acting as traffic cops deciding what the other 99 or 434 members will get to debate.

well its nice to see you think there should be some changes, but beyond that the rules are not fine..............

The Senate as I've shown in another thread.......is based on state lines drawn up on the basis of religious differences, which gives the eastern seaboard states too much power. i.e. RI = California

The house has not kept up with the representative ratio we had at our founding, even though it was adjusted for years....until I believe the early 1900s.

Supreme Court appointments should be more randomized. with a mandatory retirement window.

Just from a political standpoint, I'm surprised the GOP hasn't seen to bump up the size of government since it has most of the State Houses. Certainly, if you believe in proportional representation, the proportions are way out of whack. From the purposes of the thread, I don't see where being ignored by more people will change things .

As for supreme court "terms", I think it needs to be two-phased. First, there needs to be 3 judges each time being replaced. If you have one judge up for replacement in, lets say, 2017; you'll have cagey attorneys hold of on law suits until there is a more favorable law suit due to the politics possibly being more favorable in 2017. If there are multiple justices up for retirement during a term, the court's schedule may not coincide with the calculation. Secondly, the terms need to be long enough so that politics is lessened.



Politics have always been the silent partner in our courts. This is really nothing new.

I agree, the GOP is far less 'responsible" in governmewnt when they have power. dont understand last part of first statement

we may be getting l
close to agreement on supreme court, mandatory retirement window and 3 judges replaced per term I think can mesh

I dont think long terms is necessarily the answer, perhaps a pension(which Im sure they get now) and available part-time....substitute status .........a random selection is something I think could help take politics out.

 

[candycorn]

So, knowing what you know, you can tell me how Pierce (from Georgia) would have felt about abortion, taxation, whether we should be able to purchase new lands, the space program? I'd love to find out what his writings on the subjects were.

You say you can tell what they were thinking.

Prove it.

The floor is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen...

Get ready for the mother of all cop-outs, an appeal to the "rules" being violated, or anything other than a supporting statement to what she just claimed.

The point is (as I just made), you can't know the intent of the framers just based on what a few of them wrote, cherry picking those that agree with you and moving on from there.

That is true that you cant know..........but the words of the Constitution itself are a kind of contract between the people and their governors. That is why words should maintain their original meaning unless re-defined by the people themselves....A words like treaty.....which has been morphed NOT to include trade agreements for some reason... But also words like marriage......which, although not in the constitution comes down to us through the English law. ...another, phrase, "natural born citizen"...as understood at the time of the founding would exclude Ted Cruz from running for president........but apparently we're all going to look the other way.

BTW are you two talking about Pierce Butler? I have a picture of this founder in my gallery,...he was actually a member of the British army posted in Boston during the Boston massacre. Later he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. I bet not too many kids learn that ironic fact in history class.

We need more words in the document to dictate behavior of those in office. Beyond that, the rules are fine. I think (notice I said think) the founders would welcome endless debate and hard nosed deal making to move legislation through the Congress. What they wouldn't welcome (in my opinion) is Party appointees acting as traffic cops deciding what the other 99 or 434 members will get to debate.

well its nice to see you think there should be some changes, but beyond that the rules are not fine..............

The Senate as I've shown in another thread.......is based on state lines drawn up on the basis of religious differences, which gives the eastern seaboard states too much power. i.e. RI = California

The house has not kept up with the representative ratio we had at our founding, even though it was adjusted for years....until I believe the early 1900s.

Supreme Court appointments should be more randomized. with a mandatory retirement window.

Just from a political standpoint, I'm surprised the GOP hasn't seen to bump up the size of government since it has most of the State Houses. Certainly, if you believe in proportional representation, the proportions are way out of whack. From the purposes of the thread, I don't see where being ignored by more people will change things .

As for supreme court "terms", I think it needs to be two-phased. First, there needs to be 3 judges each time being replaced. If you have one judge up for replacement in, lets say, 2017; you'll have cagey attorneys hold of on law suits until there is a more favorable law suit due to the politics possibly being more favorable in 2017. If there are multiple justices up for retirement during a term, the court's schedule may not coincide with the calculation. Secondly, the terms need to be long enough so that politics is lessened.



Politics have always been the silent partner in our courts. This is really nothing new.

I agree, the GOP is far less 'responsible" in governmewnt when they have power. dont understand last part of first statement

Currently the GOP controls state houses and state legislatures in most of the states so it would reason that the maps would be drawn--if they increased the size of the House--to favor them. The same would happen in blue states. The net result would be likely more red seats but the % would not change. This isn't important until you consider that the electorate is changing. In that case, it's better to have more seats going forward than it would be otherwise if the electorate was staying static.

we may be getting l
close to agreement on supreme court, mandatory retirement window and 3 judges replaced per term I think can mesh

Not me. I think that if you were to tell a lot of hard right republicans that you're going to have 16 years of Obama/Clinton and that they would get to put in 2/3 of the court, you may just see some attempted 2nd amendment solutions.

But that is just one model. I can envision 20 year terms for justices with a mandatory retirement age of eighty so you will have some gals/guys in their 60's not getting full terms as justices. Also, there are untimely deaths, retirements, etc...

A lot of ways it can become just another nakedly political arm; which is why I say leave it alone; focus on what we can control; Congress and pass some plain spoken, practical, verbiage to the Constitution so the McConnell's, Bohners, Reids, or Pelosi's of the world have no more power than (what I think) the founders intended.

 

[Foxfyre]

So, knowing what you know, you can tell me how Pierce (from Georgia) would have felt about abortion, taxation, whether we should be able to purchase new lands, the space program? I'd love to find out what his writings on the subjects were.

You say you can tell what they were thinking.

Prove it.

The floor is yours.

Ladies and gentlemen...

Get ready for the mother of all cop-outs, an appeal to the "rules" being violated, or anything other than a supporting statement to what she just claimed.

The point is (as I just made), you can't know the intent of the framers just based on what a few of them wrote, cherry picking those that agree with you and moving on from there.

That is true that you cant know..........but the words of the Constitution itself are a kind of contract between the people and their governors. That is why words should maintain their original meaning unless re-defined by the people themselves....A words like treaty.....which has been morphed NOT to include trade agreements for some reason... But also words like marriage......which, although not in the constitution comes down to us through the English law. ...another, phrase, "natural born citizen"...as understood at the time of the founding would exclude Ted Cruz from running for president........but apparently we're all going to look the other way.

BTW are you two talking about Pierce Butler? I have a picture of this founder in my gallery,...he was actually a member of the British army posted in Boston during the Boston massacre. Later he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. I bet not too many kids learn that ironic fact in history class.

We need more words in the document to dictate behavior of those in office. Beyond that, the rules are fine. I think (notice I said think) the founders would welcome endless debate and hard nosed deal making to move legislation through the Congress. What they wouldn't welcome (in my opinion) is Party appointees acting as traffic cops deciding what the other 99 or 434 members will get to debate.

well its nice to see you think there should be some changes, but beyond that the rules are not fine..............

The Senate as I've shown in another thread.......is based on state lines drawn up on the basis of religious differences, which gives the eastern seaboard states too much power. i.e. RI = California

The house has not kept up with the representative ratio we had at our founding, even though it was adjusted for years....until I believe the early 1900s.

Supreme Court appointments should be more randomized. with a mandatory retirement window.

Just from a political standpoint, I'm surprised the GOP hasn't seen to bump up the size of government since it has most of the State Houses. Certainly, if you believe in proportional representation, the proportions are way out of whack. From the purposes of the thread, I don't see where being ignored by more people will change things .

As for supreme court "terms", I think it needs to be two-phased. First, there needs to be 3 judges each time being replaced. If you have one judge up for replacement in, lets say, 2017; you'll have cagey attorneys hold of on law suits until there is a more favorable law suit due to the politics possibly being more favorable in 2017. If there are multiple justices up for retirement during a term, the court's schedule may not coincide with the calculation. Secondly, the terms need to be long enough so that politics is lessened.



Politics have always been the silent partner in our courts. This is really nothing new.

I agree, the GOP is far less 'responsible" in governmewnt when they have power. dont understand last part of first statement

we may be getting l
close to agreement on supreme court, mandatory retirement window and 3 judges replaced per term I think can mesh

I dont think long terms is necessarily the answer, perhaps a pension(which Im sure they get now) and available part-time....substitute status .........a random selection is something I think could help take politics out.

But in this highly charged, win-at-all-costs, ultra partisan world in which too many Supreme Court Justices decide according to partisan or ideological criteria rather than on the Constitution, do you really want a President who doesn't respect the Constitution having automatic power to appoint three justices who could tilt the balance of power so severely as to give that President pretty much a free rein to do anything he wants? A two-term President would automatically nominate at least six justices. I see that as a very dangerous thing.

I think we need a much stronger check on the authority given to the Supreme Court and a means to reject a terrible decision when it makes one. Michelsen's proposed amendment actually does that to a very limited extent. But there are probably better ways to do it than what he has come up with.

 

[dcraelin]

That is true that you cant know..........but the words of the Constitution itself are a kind of contract between the people and their governors. That is why words should maintain their original meaning unless re-defined by the people themselves....A words like treaty.....which has been morphed NOT to include trade agreements for some reason... But also words like marriage......which, although not in the constitution comes down to us through the English law. ...another, phrase, "natural born citizen"...as understood at the time of the founding would exclude Ted Cruz from running for president........but apparently we're all going to look the other way.

BTW are you two talking about Pierce Butler? I have a picture of this founder in my gallery,...he was actually a member of the British army posted in Boston during the Boston massacre. Later he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. I bet not too many kids learn that ironic fact in history class.

We need more words in the document to dictate behavior of those in office. Beyond that, the rules are fine. I think (notice I said think) the founders would welcome endless debate and hard nosed deal making to move legislation through the Congress. What they wouldn't welcome (in my opinion) is Party appointees acting as traffic cops deciding what the other 99 or 434 members will get to debate.

well its nice to see you think there should be some changes, but beyond that the rules are not fine..............

The Senate as I've shown in another thread.......is based on state lines drawn up on the basis of religious differences, which gives the eastern seaboard states too much power. i.e. RI = California

The house has not kept up with the representative ratio we had at our founding, even though it was adjusted for years....until I believe the early 1900s.

Supreme Court appointments should be more randomized. with a mandatory retirement window.

Just from a political standpoint, I'm surprised the GOP hasn't seen to bump up the size of government since it has most of the State Houses. Certainly, if you believe in proportional representation, the proportions are way out of whack. From the purposes of the thread, I don't see where being ignored by more people will change things .

As for supreme court "terms", I think it needs to be two-phased. First, there needs to be 3 judges each time being replaced. If you have one judge up for replacement in, lets say, 2017; you'll have cagey attorneys hold of on law suits until there is a more favorable law suit due to the politics possibly being more favorable in 2017. If there are multiple justices up for retirement during a term, the court's schedule may not coincide with the calculation. Secondly, the terms need to be long enough so that politics is lessened.



Politics have always been the silent partner in our courts. This is really nothing new.

I agree, the GOP is far less 'responsible" in governmewnt when they have power. dont understand last part of first statement

we may be getting l
close to agreement on supreme court, mandatory retirement window and 3 judges replaced per term I think can mesh

I dont think long terms is necessarily the answer, perhaps a pension(which Im sure they get now) and available part-time....substitute status .........a random selection is something I think could help take politics out.

But in this highly charged, win-at-all-costs, ultra partisan world in which too many Supreme Court Justices decide according to partisan or ideological criteria rather than on the Constitution, do you really want a President who doesn't respect the Constitution having automatic power to appoint three justices who could tilt the balance of power so severely as to give that President pretty much a free rein to do anything he wants? A two-term President would automatically nominate at least six justices. I see that as a very dangerous thing.

I think we need a much stronger check on the authority given to the Supreme Court and a means to reject a terrible decision when it makes one. Michelsen's proposed amendment actually does that to a very limited extent. But there are probably better ways to do it than what he has come up with.

well that is why I want a random selection process, similar to what we had in the Articles of Confederation, as the last p art of the SC justice selection process.

 

[Foxfyre]

We need more words in the document to dictate behavior of those in office. Beyond that, the rules are fine. I think (notice I said think) the founders would welcome endless debate and hard nosed deal making to move legislation through the Congress. What they wouldn't welcome (in my opinion) is Party appointees acting as traffic cops deciding what the other 99 or 434 members will get to debate.

well its nice to see you think there should be some changes, but beyond that the rules are not fine..............

The Senate as I've shown in another thread.......is based on state lines drawn up on the basis of religious differences, which gives the eastern seaboard states too much power. i.e. RI = California

The house has not kept up with the representative ratio we had at our founding, even though it was adjusted for years....until I believe the early 1900s.

Supreme Court appointments should be more randomized. with a mandatory retirement window.

Just from a political standpoint, I'm surprised the GOP hasn't seen to bump up the size of government since it has most of the State Houses. Certainly, if you believe in proportional representation, the proportions are way out of whack. From the purposes of the thread, I don't see where being ignored by more people will change things .

As for supreme court "terms", I think it needs to be two-phased. First, there needs to be 3 judges each time being replaced. If you have one judge up for replacement in, lets say, 2017; you'll have cagey attorneys hold of on law suits until there is a more favorable law suit due to the politics possibly being more favorable in 2017. If there are multiple justices up for retirement during a term, the court's schedule may not coincide with the calculation. Secondly, the terms need to be long enough so that politics is lessened.



Politics have always been the silent partner in our courts. This is really nothing new.

I agree, the GOP is far less 'responsible" in governmewnt when they have power. dont understand last part of first statement

we may be getting l
close to agreement on supreme court, mandatory retirement window and 3 judges replaced per term I think can mesh

I dont think long terms is necessarily the answer, perhaps a pension(which Im sure they get now) and available part-time....substitute status .........a random selection is something I think could help take politics out.

But in this highly charged, win-at-all-costs, ultra partisan world in which too many Supreme Court Justices decide according to partisan or ideological criteria rather than on the Constitution, do you really want a President who doesn't respect the Constitution having automatic power to appoint three justices who could tilt the balance of power so severely as to give that President pretty much a free rein to do anything he wants? A two-term President would automatically nominate at least six justices. I see that as a very dangerous thing.

I think we need a much stronger check on the authority given to the Supreme Court and a means to reject a terrible decision when it makes one. Michelsen's proposed amendment actually does that to a very limited extent. But there are probably better ways to do it than what he has come up with.

well that is why I want a random selection process, similar to what we had in the Articles of Confederation, as the last p art of the SC justice selection process.

My various occupations have often involved working closely with lots of attorneys and judges. And while there are attorneys I rate as great and while there are judges I respect completely, there are an awful lot of them I would not want put into any random pool for a position as important as the Supreme Court.

 

[dcraelin]

That is true that you cant know..........but the words of the Constitution itself are a kind of contract between the people and their governors. That is why words should maintain their original meaning unless re-defined by the people themselves....A words like treaty.....which has been morphed NOT to include trade agreements for some reason... But also words like marriage......which, although not in the constitution comes down to us through the English law. ...another, phrase, "natural born citizen"...as understood at the time of the founding would exclude Ted Cruz from running for president........but apparently we're all going to look the other way.

BTW are you two talking about Pierce Butler? I have a picture of this founder in my gallery,...he was actually a member of the British army posted in Boston during the Boston massacre. Later he was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. I bet not too many kids learn that ironic fact in history class.

We need more words in the document to dictate behavior of those in office. Beyond that, the rules are fine. I think (notice I said think) the founders would welcome endless debate and hard nosed deal making to move legislation through the Congress. What they wouldn't welcome (in my opinion) is Party appointees acting as traffic cops deciding what the other 99 or 434 members will get to debate.

well its nice to see you think there should be some changes, but beyond that the rules are not fine..............

The Senate as I've shown in another thread.......is based on state lines drawn up on the basis of religious differences, which gives the eastern seaboard states too much power. i.e. RI = California

The house has not kept up with the representative ratio we had at our founding, even though it was adjusted for years....until I believe the early 1900s.

Supreme Court appointments should be more randomized. with a mandatory retirement window.

Just from a political standpoint, I'm surprised the GOP hasn't seen to bump up the size of government since it has most of the State Houses. Certainly, if you believe in proportional representation, the proportions are way out of whack. From the purposes of the thread, I don't see where being ignored by more people will change things .

As for supreme court "terms", I think it needs to be two-phased. First, there needs to be 3 judges each time being replaced. If you have one judge up for replacement in, lets say, 2017; you'll have cagey attorneys hold of on law suits until there is a more favorable law suit due to the politics possibly being more favorable in 2017. If there are multiple justices up for retirement during a term, the court's schedule may not coincide with the calculation. Secondly, the terms need to be long enough so that politics is lessened.



Politics have always been the silent partner in our courts. This is really nothing new.

I agree, the GOP is far less 'responsible" in governmewnt when they have power. dont understand last part of first statement

Currently the GOP controls state houses and state legislatures in most of the states so it would reason that the maps would be drawn--if they increased the size of the House--to favor them. The same would happen in blue states. The net result would be likely more red seats but the % would not change. This isn't important until you consider that the electorate is changing. In that case, it's better to have more seats going forward than it would be otherwise if the electorate was staying static.

we may be getting l
close to agreement on supreme court, mandatory retirement window and 3 judges replaced per term I think can mesh

Not me. I think that if you were to tell a lot of hard right republicans that you're going to have 16 years of Obama/Clinton and that they would get to put in 2/3 of the court, you may just see some attempted 2nd amendment solutions.

But that is just one model. I can envision 20 year terms for justices with a mandatory retirement age of eighty so you will have some gals/guys in their 60's not getting full terms as justices. Also, there are untimely deaths, retirements, etc...

A lot of ways it can become just another nakedly political arm; which is why I say leave it alone; focus on what we can control; Congress and pass some plain spoken, practical, verbiage to the Constitution so the McConnell's, Bohners, Reids, or Pelosi's of the world have no more power than (what I think) the founders intended.

smaller districts are harder to gerrymander,.............

it is just a nakedly political arm now!...a study I linked provides evidence to that effect.

you will have to outline waht your thinking on rules for Bohners etc.

 

[dcraelin]

well its nice to see you think there should be some changes, but beyond that the rules are not fine..............

The Senate as I've shown in another thread.......is based on state lines drawn up on the basis of religious differences, which gives the eastern seaboard states too much power. i.e. RI = California

The house has not kept up with the representative ratio we had at our founding, even though it was adjusted for years....until I believe the early 1900s.

Supreme Court appointments should be more randomized. with a mandatory retirement window.

Just from a political standpoint, I'm surprised the GOP hasn't seen to bump up the size of government since it has most of the State Houses. Certainly, if you believe in proportional representation, the proportions are way out of whack. From the purposes of the thread, I don't see where being ignored by more people will change things .

As for supreme court "terms", I think it needs to be two-phased. First, there needs to be 3 judges each time being replaced. If you have one judge up for replacement in, lets say, 2017; you'll have cagey attorneys hold of on law suits until there is a more favorable law suit due to the politics possibly being more favorable in 2017. If there are multiple justices up for retirement during a term, the court's schedule may not coincide with the calculation. Secondly, the terms need to be long enough so that politics is lessened.



Politics have always been the silent partner in our courts. This is really nothing new.

I agree, the GOP is far less 'responsible" in governmewnt when they have power. dont understand last part of first statement

we may be getting l
close to agreement on supreme court, mandatory retirement window and 3 judges replaced per term I think can mesh

I dont think long terms is necessarily the answer, perhaps a pension(which Im sure they get now) and available part-time....substitute status .........a random selection is something I think could help take politics out.

But in this highly charged, win-at-all-costs, ultra partisan world in which too many Supreme Court Justices decide according to partisan or ideological criteria rather than on the Constitution, do you really want a President who doesn't respect the Constitution having automatic power to appoint three justices who could tilt the balance of power so severely as to give that President pretty much a free rein to do anything he wants? A two-term President would automatically nominate at least six justices. I see that as a very dangerous thing.

I think we need a much stronger check on the authority given to the Supreme Court and a means to reject a terrible decision when it makes one. Michelsen's proposed amendment actually does that to a very limited extent. But there are probably better ways to do it than what he has come up with.

well that is why I want a random selection process, similar to what we had in the Articles of Confederation, as the last p art of the SC justice selection process.

My various occupations have often involved working closely with lots of attorneys and judges. And while there are attorneys I rate as great and while there are judges I respect completely, there are an awful lot of them I would not want put into any random pool for a position as important as the Supreme Court.

In the articles each state I believe could chhose 1 or 2 judges to throw into the pool, we now have a committe I think that makes recommendations to the president......something similar to thse could be done.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just from a political standpoint, I'm surprised the GOP hasn't seen to bump up the size of government since it has most of the State Houses. Certainly, if you believe in proportional representation, the proportions are way out of whack. From the purposes of the thread, I don't see where being ignored by more people will change things .

As for supreme court "terms", I think it needs to be two-phased. First, there needs to be 3 judges each time being replaced. If you have one judge up for replacement in, lets say, 2017; you'll have cagey attorneys hold of on law suits until there is a more favorable law suit due to the politics possibly being more favorable in 2017. If there are multiple justices up for retirement during a term, the court's schedule may not coincide with the calculation. Secondly, the terms need to be long enough so that politics is lessened.



Politics have always been the silent partner in our courts. This is really nothing new.

I agree, the GOP is far less 'responsible" in governmewnt when they have power. dont understand last part of first statement

we may be getting l
close to agreement on supreme court, mandatory retirement window and 3 judges replaced per term I think can mesh

I dont think long terms is necessarily the answer, perhaps a pension(which Im sure they get now) and available part-time....substitute status .........a random selection is something I think could help take politics out.

But in this highly charged, win-at-all-costs, ultra partisan world in which too many Supreme Court Justices decide according to partisan or ideological criteria rather than on the Constitution, do you really want a President who doesn't respect the Constitution having automatic power to appoint three justices who could tilt the balance of power so severely as to give that President pretty much a free rein to do anything he wants? A two-term President would automatically nominate at least six justices. I see that as a very dangerous thing.

I think we need a much stronger check on the authority given to the Supreme Court and a means to reject a terrible decision when it makes one. Michelsen's proposed amendment actually does that to a very limited extent. But there are probably better ways to do it than what he has come up with.

well that is why I want a random selection process, similar to what we had in the Articles of Confederation, as the last p art of the SC justice selection process.

My various occupations have often involved working closely with lots of attorneys and judges. And while there are attorneys I rate as great and while there are judges I respect completely, there are an awful lot of them I would not want put into any random pool for a position as important as the Supreme Court.

In the articles each state I believe could chhose 1 or 2 judges to throw into the pool, we now have a committe I think that makes recommendations to the president......something similar to thse could be done.

That would not prevent the President from choosing the justices who would further the President's agenda, however. Until we make sure that the justices who go onto the SCOTUS are constitutional scholars and are committed 100% to original intent of the Constitution, they will continue to rewrite it however the ideological leanings dictate.

 

[dcraelin]

I agree, the GOP is far less 'responsible" in governmewnt when they have power. dont understand last part of first statement

we may be getting l
close to agreement on supreme court, mandatory retirement window and 3 judges replaced per term I think can mesh

I dont think long terms is necessarily the answer, perhaps a pension(which Im sure they get now) and available part-time....substitute status .........a random selection is something I think could help take politics out.

But in this highly charged, win-at-all-costs, ultra partisan world in which too many Supreme Court Justices decide according to partisan or ideological criteria rather than on the Constitution, do you really want a President who doesn't respect the Constitution having automatic power to appoint three justices who could tilt the balance of power so severely as to give that President pretty much a free rein to do anything he wants? A two-term President would automatically nominate at least six justices. I see that as a very dangerous thing.

I think we need a much stronger check on the authority given to the Supreme Court and a means to reject a terrible decision when it makes one. Michelsen's proposed amendment actually does that to a very limited extent. But there are probably better ways to do it than what he has come up with.

well that is why I want a random selection process, similar to what we had in the Articles of Confederation, as the last p art of the SC justice selection process.

My various occupations have often involved working closely with lots of attorneys and judges. And while there are attorneys I rate as great and while there are judges I respect completely, there are an awful lot of them I would not want put into any random pool for a position as important as the Supreme Court.

In the articles each state I believe could chhose 1 or 2 judges to throw into the pool, we now have a committe I think that makes recommendations to the president......something similar to thse could be done.

That would not prevent the President from choosing the justices who would further the President's agenda, however. Until we make sure that the justices who go onto the SCOTUS are constitutional scholars and are committed 100% to original intent of the Constitution, they will continue to rewrite it however the ideological leanings dictate.

yes it would prevent the president from choosing because the president would have nothing to do with it........the last step would be pulling a name out of a hat.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well that would be one way to d

But in this highly charged, win-at-all-costs, ultra partisan world in which too many Supreme Court Justices decide according to partisan or ideological criteria rather than on the Constitution, do you really want a President who doesn't respect the Constitution having automatic power to appoint three justices who could tilt the balance of power so severely as to give that President pretty much a free rein to do anything he wants? A two-term President would automatically nominate at least six justices. I see that as a very dangerous thing.

I think we need a much stronger check on the authority given to the Supreme Court and a means to reject a terrible decision when it makes one. Michelsen's proposed amendment actually does that to a very limited extent. But there are probably better ways to do it than what he has come up with.

well that is why I want a random selection process, similar to what we had in the Articles of Confederation, as the last p art of the SC justice selection process.

My various occupations have often involved working closely with lots of attorneys and judges. And while there are attorneys I rate as great and while there are judges I respect completely, there are an awful lot of them I would not want put into any random pool for a position as important as the Supreme Court.

In the articles each state I believe could chhose 1 or 2 judges to throw into the pool, we now have a committe I think that makes recommendations to the president......something similar to thse could be done.

That would not prevent the President from choosing the justices who would further the President's agenda, however. Until we make sure that the justices who go onto the SCOTUS are constitutional scholars and are committed 100% to original intent of the Constitution, they will continue to rewrite it however the ideological leanings dictate.

yes it would prevent the president from choosing because the president would have nothing to do with it........the last step would be pulling a name out of a hat.

Okay, that would be one way to do it. But I still want some restrictions on the high court to ensure that it does follow the existing Constitution and the existing law, that it cannot rewrite the Constitution or the law to suit itself, and that the people have some remedy for a rogue court that does not do its job.

Again with so many 5/4 decisions from the high court, they either don't know what the Constitution says or some are deliberately ignoring it.

 

[dcraelin]

Well that would be one way to d

well that is why I want a random selection process, similar to what we had in the Articles of Confederation, as the last p art of the SC justice selection process.

My various occupations have often involved working closely with lots of attorneys and judges. And while there are attorneys I rate as great and while there are judges I respect completely, there are an awful lot of them I would not want put into any random pool for a position as important as the Supreme Court.

In the articles each state I believe could chhose 1 or 2 judges to throw into the pool, we now have a committe I think that makes recommendations to the president......something similar to thse could be done.

That would not prevent the President from choosing the justices who would further the President's agenda, however. Until we make sure that the justices who go onto the SCOTUS are constitutional scholars and are committed 100% to original intent of the Constitution, they will continue to rewrite it however the ideological leanings dictate.

yes it would prevent the president from choosing because the president would have nothing to do with it........the last step would be pulling a name out of a hat.

Okay, that would be one way to do it. But I still want some restrictions on the high court to ensure that it does follow the existing Constitution and the existing law, that it cannot rewrite the Constitution or the law to suit itself, and that the people have some remedy for a rogue court that does not do its job.

Again with so many 5/4 decisions from the high court, they either don't know what the Constitution says or some are deliberately ignoring it.

right I agree at least somewhat..........maybe if the Court finds something unconstitutional the Congress has a time frame in which they can counter that with a proposed amendment, during which time the courts opinion would not take effect.