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!

Your question was answered by SCOTUS on Dec 11, 2020:

"The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot."
~~ Search ~~

And that would indicate to me that it's Article 3 that is fatally flawed, but not having the wording, I can't say for sure. In that it refers to a lack of standing by another state indicates that is the issue.

And of course the case was dismissed because it was a case that didn't have a remedy, as it pertained to the election that was still in progress. There were also two dissenting opinions that made it obvious that the issue will need to be revisited.

You present nothing new and notable that can add to the discussion, other than facts that were mentioned in this thread a week or more ago.

It's a very simple concept to understand that one or more states can't be permitted to infringe on the rights of other states to have a fair election play out. The current situation allows any state to set the bar lower than can be allowed in a fair election.

What is the problem with that logic that exists in American heads? It can only be the bad feelings of the Democrat supporters for this particular example. And likewise, the support of Texas by the Republican supporters.

You all need some time to get over it and then you'll be more willing to do what is right for your country. Next time the shoe may be on the other foot for both sides.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

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!

Your question was answered by SCOTUS on Dec 11, 2020:

"The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot."
~~ Search ~~

And that would indicate to me that it's Article 3 that is fatally flawed, but not having the wording, I can't say for sure. In that it refers to a lack of standing by another state indicates that is the issue.

And of course, the case was dismissed because it was a case that didn't have a remedy, as it pertained to the election that was still in progress. There were also two dissenting opinions that made it obvious that the issue will need to be revisited.

You present nothing new and notable that can add to the discussion, other than facts that were mentioned in this thread a week or more ago.

It's a very simple concept to understand that one or more states can't be permitted to infringe on the rights of other states to have a fair election play out. The current situation allows any state to set the bar lower than can be allowed in a fair election.

What is the problem with that logic that exists in American heads? It can only be the bad feelings of the Democrat supporters for this particular example. And likewise, the support of Texas by the Republican supporters.

You all need some time to get over it and then you'll be more willing to do what is right for your country. Next time the shoe may be on the other foot for both sides.

And that would indicate to me that it's Article 3 that is fatally flawed, but not having the wording, I can't say for sure. In that it refers to a lack of standing by another state indicates that is the issue.

Article III of the US Constitution established the third branch of the Federal Government, the Judiciary. If you are unaware of the contents of Article III as you claim or any other portion within the four corners of our founding document, I suggest you edify yourself.

I don't suppose it may have crossed your mind that the argument the State of Texas presented to the Supremes for adjudication may have been "fatally flawed" in the eyes of the Court because Texas didn't have standing (legal term...look it up and memorize its meaning) to bring that type of action one State against another! I gave you the link to the SCOTUS decision and I suggest you try to digest it in the light of the law. I'll leave you with another link to the US Constitution for you to see exactly what Article III says about one State bringing the TYPE OF ACTION regarding elections in other States given you've never read or don't understand that Article. IF you don't find what you need in Article III then start looking at caselaw!

US Constitution;
~~

U.S. Constitution

www.law.cornell.edu

~~

 

[Donald H]

Article III of the US Constitution established the third branch of the Federal Government, the Judiciary. If you are unaware of the contents of Article III as you claim or any other portion within the four corners of our founding document, I suggest you edify yourself.

If article 3 doesn't apply to the issue at hand here then I have no interest in it. You implied it did when you mentioned it. Does it or doesn't it? All that you're adding now is something about it that doesn't apply. Third branch? That's nice but who cares?

I don't suppose it may have crossed your mind that the argument the State of Texas presented to the Supremes for adjudication may have been "fatally flawed" in the eyes of the Court because Texas didn't have standing (legal term...

I've no need to look up the term; I understand it already. And the Scotus gave a divided opinion on the question. Due to an election in process a definitive decision on the question was said to be impossible at that time.

look it up and memorize its meaning) to bring that type of action one State against another! I gave you the link to the SCOTUS decision and I suggest you try to digest it in the light of the law.

I'll leave you with another link to the US Constitution for you to see exactly what Article III says about one State bringing the TYPE OF ACTION regarding elections in other States given you've never read or don't understand that Article. IF you don't find what you need in Article III then start looking at caselaw!

The question on the Scotus decision is clear to me and I would think you too. The court intentionally erred out of necessity due to there being no resolution available at the time. It erred in that Texas would have 'standing' at another time and circumstance in which it's rights as a state will be violated and infringed upon by another state.

US Constitution;
~~

U.S. Constitution

www.law.cornell.edu

~~

I would be looking for deficiencies and that's not necessary because the deficiencies are already noted. They're agreed to by the Trump supporters and debated as not being deficiencies by the Trump opponents.

Unbiased and clearer heads must eventually prevail when there isn't an election at stake.

You're going to have to try to keep this immediate issue separate from impending questions on the same challenge to state law. An entire country can't possibly be governed by 50 different interpretations of the law. That's a very simple concept for you to accept and I've already proposed a scenario in which the question applies.

Can you think of any more instances in which a state will have legal standing to question a criminal act in another? I can think of quite a few.

You can take my use of the word 'state' to mean any one of your 50 little states or even as a 'state' meaning another country. The final decision will always need to be the same.

 

[Donald H]

And again, the US Constitution has shown that it's fatally flawed in that it has no resolution for dealing with a sitting president who is promoting violence, sedition, and treason against America's elected government!

Or if it is not fatally flawed then it can only be that it's not being interpreted correctly due to political dogma and party bias.

Trump can't be stopped and the possibility of him being permitted to promote revolution against existing government can't be completely discounted.

If Trump tries again, there is a possibility that the revolutionaries will be coming fully armed and dangerous!

 

[danielpalos]

And again, the US Constitution has shown that it's fatally flawed in that it has no resolution for dealing with a sitting president who is promoting violence, sedition, and treason against America's elected government!

Or if it is not fatally flawed then it can only be that it's not being interpreted correctly due to political dogma and party bias.

Trump can't be stopped and the possibility of him being permitted to promote revolution against existing government can't be completely discounted.

If Trump tries again, there is a possibility that the revolutionaries will be coming fully armed and dangerous!

It could only be made idiot proof not wilful misconduct proof.

 

[Donald H]

It could only be made idiot proof not wilful misconduct proof.

Clever framers! They bowed to the needs of the slaveholders and made it much too wide open to interpretations coming from all sides and all angles. For that reason I would suggest that there's little that needs salvaging.

Just look as how the 2nd. amendment has been manhandled by the extremist kooks to say that Americans have the right to hand grenades and shoulder launched missiles!

 

[danielpalos]

It could only be made idiot proof not wilful misconduct proof.

Clever framers! They bowed to the needs of the slaveholders and made it much too wide open to interpretations coming from all sides and all angles. For that reason I would suggest that there's little that needs salvaging.

Just look as how the 2nd. amendment has been manhandled by the extremist kooks to say that Americans have the right to hand grenades and shoulder launched missiles!

It must take morals to faithfully execute our supreme law of the land. There is absolutely nothing ambiguous or unclear in our federal Constitution.

 

[Donald H]

It must take morals to faithfully execute our supreme law of the land. There is absolutely nothing ambiguous or unclear in our federal Constitution.

See, I could interpret that 2A to mean that you have a right to pack heat out in the woods somewhere that a gun might be needed and not downtown on Main street where a stray bullet is almost sure of taking out some innocent bystander. (or child)
Any particular reason why I'm not as right as a gungoon packing heat to the Capital to muder a Demo?

Let me know and then we'll leave your last word as off-topic.

 

[danielpalos]

It must take morals to faithfully execute our supreme law of the land. There is absolutely nothing ambiguous or unclear in our federal Constitution.

See, I could interpret that 2A to mean that you have a right to pack heat out in the woods somewhere that a gun might be needed and not downtown on Main street where a stray bullet is almost sure of taking out some innocent bystander. (or child)
Any particular reason why I'm not as right as a gungoon packing heat to the Capital to muder a Demo?

Let me know and then we'll leave your last word as off-topic.

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Don't grab guns, grab gun loves and Regulate them Well until we have no more security problems in our free States!