CDZ Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

[Donald H]

I highly suspect that the Scotus is seriously grappling with this one, if only to prepare a response that will serve to accommodate both sides as nearly as is possible.

The question has been adequately explained in that states have autonomous rights while other states have rights that say that their rights not be circumvented in any way.

That's a very difficult question and it's difficult because the US Constitution doesn't appear to have anything that can answer to the question.

And finally, this suggests that the union of states was fatally flawed, or, the US Constitution is fatally flawed because of the union of the states can't be dictated to under one Constitution that covers all autonomous states. The states each need to be seen as individual autonomous countries.

However, the immediate question is on how the Scotus will deal with the question put to it by Texas and other parties. Not insignificant as there are 17 or more states and the president involved in the lawsuit.

Does anybody have any answers, besides that which has already been offered here. Supposing that 'something' has been offered?

 

[Donald H]

My personal opinion is that the Scotus could put it on it's docket for future consideration, well after the inauguration of Biden.

 

[Donald H]

It seems to be impossible to find any legal arguments that don't stoop to political bias.

'It's a frivolous case': Legal experts weigh in on lawsuit seeking to overturn election results

The Supreme Court continues to weigh whether to take up the election lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and also supported by 17 Republican AGs.

www.khou.com

There hasn't been any cheating in the election for president?
So say the Biden side's supporters.

There has been cheating in the election for president?
Yes, there has but is it on a scale that would annull the election results.

There's no doubt the Democrats and their supporting media is very concerned.

 

[Donald H]

And so: Justice was carried out by the Scotus!

but

The Scotus failed to show that the Constitution demanded justice. The US Constitution is powerless on the matter and so has to be said to be fatally flawed.

I don't have the exact reading of the Scotus reading but maybe somebody does? It certainly does suggest that the issue is going to have be dealt with and settled in the future by an amending of the US Constitution on various issues that were raised in general.

Overall I have to say that the people who participated on this thread have failed to be able to rise above their partisan politics to discuss the issue in a rational matter.

For those who think they can participate further in a non-biased way, the question hasn't been answered yet.

Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

 

[Donald H]

And so: Justice was carried out by the Scotus!

but

The Scotus failed to show that the Constitution demanded justice. The US Constitution is powerless on the matter and so has to be said to be fatally flawed.

I don't have the exact reading of the Scotus reading but maybe somebody does? It certainly does suggest that the issue is going to have be dealt with and settled in the future by an amending of the US Constitution on various issues that were raised in general.

Overall I have to say that the people who participated on this thread have failed to be able to rise above their partisan politics to discuss the issue in a rational matter.

For those who think they can participate further in a non-biased way, the question hasn't been answered yet.

Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

And here's the important line from the Scotus ruling:

Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

Or in other words, maybe they will next time or maybe some other party will next time. Proof that the US Constitution isn't sufficient to handle the question and so the Constitution needs amending again.

 

[candycorn]

And so: Justice was carried out by the Scotus!

but

The Scotus failed to show that the Constitution demanded justice. The US Constitution is powerless on the matter and so has to be said to be fatally flawed.

I don't have the exact reading of the Scotus reading but maybe somebody does? It certainly does suggest that the issue is going to have be dealt with and settled in the future by an amending of the US Constitution on various issues that were raised in general.

Overall I have to say that the people who participated on this thread have failed to be able to rise above their partisan politics to discuss the issue in a rational matter.

For those who think they can participate further in a non-biased way, the question hasn't been answered yet.

Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

Yes considering our politics in 2020. No amendment will ever pass the divided nation even when all thinking persons agree that our system of government is not working as intended. We have a Senate refusing to give nominees a floor vote. We have a congress that routinely trashes the work of the other chamber and gives it no consideration. We have a President who feels that he is above the law and can self-pardon.

Essentially, we're not adults when it comes to admitting that the best minds in the world in 1787 couldn't have fathomed the political landscape 233 years later. Every thinking person wouldn't even consider living by an edict written by their great, great, great, great grandparents 233 years ago....but for some reason we look at the Constitution and think...."Wow, it's untouchable!"

 

[Picaro]

It could be that they have suffered under so much suppression that they are incapable of living up to that which you consider your standards.

I tend to agree with you on this, and what I am trying to do is organize the constitutional convention that includes the non-white people to participate and guard the composing of the government chartering system from the biases that they claim are systemic in the subsisting system.

Your word salad doesn't impress me when it's obvious that you have a deep racist problem you need to deal with. You can't make them go away and there's no other way of dealing with it other than learning how to accept them and help them to step up and participate. You aren't capable of doing that and judging by your outrageous comments on segregation, it's a wonder you're pretending to even care.

White America has a bill to pay to non-white Americans and it's grown to be huge because of how long it's been neglected.

'White America' owes nobody anything. There are no 'group rights' in the Constitution, implied or otherwise, just individual rights; the two aren't compatible with each other, so the people need to pick one over the other. Everybody is in some minority group or another, so individual rights is the only viable choice from a legal view.

Avoiding the facts doesn't make them go away and white Americans turning the police on black people in an effort to silence them isn't going to work either.
But it's good that you're talking about America's problem!

What 'facts' are being ignored? The ones you've made up in order to slay those strawmen? Black people have always been their own worst enemies; most white people had nothing to do with slavery, and in fact most had it worse than slaves over much of American history. Freeing them in the way Lincoln did was no great benefit to them; he merely piled them into 'Contraband Camps' and let them die. Afterwards they were generally subjected to the same treatment white immigrant labor got treated to.

 

[Picaro]

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!

much of it was left deliberately vague; the 'Founders' were much more interested in forming a trading union bloc than a nation, and many of them actually expected to constitution to stand for more than couple of decades after ratification. It was finally put to rest and buried under Lincoln, the Civil War briging in an era of judicial fiat that mainly benefited monopolies and oligarchies, a 'Golden Age' of robber barons and pirates using 'conservative' govt. tactics modern right wingers now snivel endlessly about but loved no end when they and the railroads owned the Senate and the Federal Courts and plundered the country at will in the 'good old days' of 1864 and the Chase Court up to the Depression of 1893 when even many of the rich knew the scam was done for.

If it was left deliberately vague as you suggest, that would explain why it can be interpreted in so many incorrect ways. And of course that leaves it fatally flawed and unable to deal with the issue at question. State "A" has autonomy and individual state's rights. But state "A" has a right to ensure that state "B" and "C"'s behaviour is legal and within the law if it can unlawfully effect state "A".

Is that covered by your Constitution? If so then where and how?

Now we can talk directly to the issue.

Or ignore it and hope it goes away? How will the Scotus resolve the question? Will they need to leave most questions unanswered?

What makes you think the Constitution was still in force after 1861? Or are you just going to blow more wind around and pretend you've said something relevant?

 

[Donald H]

It could be that they have suffered under so much suppression that they are incapable of living up to that which you consider your standards.

I tend to agree with you on this, and what I am trying to do is organize the constitutional convention that includes the non-white people to participate and guard the composing of the government chartering system from the biases that they claim are systemic in the subsisting system.

Your word salad doesn't impress me when it's obvious that you have a deep racist problem you need to deal with. You can't make them go away and there's no other way of dealing with it other than learning how to accept them and help them to step up and participate. You aren't capable of doing that and judging by your outrageous comments on segregation, it's a wonder you're pretending to even care.

White America has a bill to pay to non-white Americans and it's grown to be huge because of how long it's been neglected.

'White America' owes nobody anything. There are no 'group rights' in the Constitution, implied or otherwise, just individual rights; the two aren't compatible with each other, so the people need to pick one over the other. Everybody is in some minority group or another, so individual rights is the only viable choice from a legal view.

Avoiding the facts doesn't make them go away and white Americans turning the police on black people in an effort to silence them isn't going to work either.
But it's good that you're talking about America's problem!

What 'facts' are being ignored? The ones you've made up in order to slay those strawmen? Black people have always been their own worst enemies; most white people had nothing to do with slavery, and in fact most had it worse than slaves over much of American history. Freeing them in the way Lincoln did was no great benefit to them; he merely piled them into 'Contraband Camps' and let them die. Afterwards they were generally subjected to the same treatment white immigrant labor got treated to.

Your blatantly racist comments speak well for most white Americans who aren't as honest as you are about the problem America has with racism.

The issue should have been dealt with properly when the slaves were freed but your Constitution was written to pacify all parties. Now your country has a huge problem that has become too big to deal with. This will lead to attempts to deal with the problem by violent means that will repeatedly fail.

The incentive to deal with it by peaceful means is in doing it soon enough before the non-white become powerful enough to put up a good equal fight.

 

[Donald H]

What makes you think the Constitution was still in force after 1861? Or are you just going to blow more wind around and pretend you've said something relevant?

I said: State "A" has autonomy and individual state's rights. But state "A" has a right to ensure that state "B" and "C"'s behaviour is legal and within the law if it can unlawfully effect state "A".

That was swept under the carpet out of necessity and the ruling makes that pretty clear. For the reason I gave there, the union is fatally flawed and will remain so until the question is answered. Is there any possible answer?

In essense, the US is comprised of 50 small countries with enough autonomy given to each so that one state's laws under the Constitution aren't compatible to other state's laws.

Had the election results been overthrown by Trump in enough states to give him the needed 270, that would have an effect on democracy throughout the entire country.

And fascism would rule!

 

[Donald H]

The solution that's desperately needed before the next federal election:

It will be necessary to strip all states of the autonomy that allows them to hold their own elections, when that election can effect any other states.

Can anybody offer a solution that would be short of taking such sweeping measures?

Blame either side but it's now obvious that one of two factors have arisen.

1. All states can't be trusted to conduct fair elections.
or
2. All states can't be trusted to accept the results of other states' elections.

The Union is fatally flawed. The US Constitution is fatally flawed.

 

[Picaro]

It could be that they have suffered under so much suppression that they are incapable of living up to that which you consider your standards.

I tend to agree with you on this, and what I am trying to do is organize the constitutional convention that includes the non-white people to participate and guard the composing of the government chartering system from the biases that they claim are systemic in the subsisting system.

Your word salad doesn't impress me when it's obvious that you have a deep racist problem you need to deal with. You can't make them go away and there's no other way of dealing with it other than learning how to accept them and help them to step up and participate. You aren't capable of doing that and judging by your outrageous comments on segregation, it's a wonder you're pretending to even care.

White America has a bill to pay to non-white Americans and it's grown to be huge because of how long it's been neglected.

'White America' owes nobody anything. There are no 'group rights' in the Constitution, implied or otherwise, just individual rights; the two aren't compatible with each other, so the people need to pick one over the other. Everybody is in some minority group or another, so individual rights is the only viable choice from a legal view.

Avoiding the facts doesn't make them go away and white Americans turning the police on black people in an effort to silence them isn't going to work either.
But it's good that you're talking about America's problem!

What 'facts' are being ignored? The ones you've made up in order to slay those strawmen? Black people have always been their own worst enemies; most white people had nothing to do with slavery, and in fact most had it worse than slaves over much of American history. Freeing them in the way Lincoln did was no great benefit to them; he merely piled them into 'Contraband Camps' and let them die. Afterwards they were generally subjected to the same treatment white immigrant labor got treated to.

Your blatantly racist comments speak well for most white Americans who aren't as honest as you are about the problem America has with racism.

The issue should have been dealt with properly when the slaves were freed but your Constitution was written to pacify all parties. Now your country has a huge problem that has become too big to deal with. This will lead to attempts to deal with the problem by violent means that will repeatedly fail.

The incentive to deal with it by peaceful means is in doing it soon enough before the non-white become powerful enough to put up a good equal fight.

Ah, now you rown racism is showing here. You can't even grasp what I said re the sharp conflicts between emphasizing individual rights versus group rights, and just assume group rights are more important and 'fair', which of course only exacerbates the problems blacks have in assimilating and educating themselves; they have been in control of their own schools and welfare programs since Nixon's first term, and yet they only went from one disaster to a total massive collapse of their own 'culture', and you leftists think more of the same is in order and can't can't think of anything but more violence, corruption, and the political expediency of screwing over white working class rights in order to buy off violent black thugs who now rely on extortion and avoid addressing their own self-inflicted dysfunctions. You and your phony intellectualism are the problem, not the lack of imaginary 'white obligations' to thugs and and assorted black and brown racist gangsters.

 

[Picaro]

The solution that's desperately needed before the next federal election:

It will be necessary to strip all states of the autonomy that allows them to hold their own elections, when that election can effect any other states.

Can anybody offer a solution that would be short of taking such sweeping measures?

Blame either side but it's now obvious that one of two factors have arisen.

1. All states can't be trusted to conduct fair elections.
or
2. All states can't be trusted to accept the results of other states' elections.

The Union is fatally flawed. The US Constitution is fatally flawed.

lol most of the rest of the world deals with 'problems' like ours by the expedient of just murdering minorities out of existence. tha tis the 'solution' Democrats and BLM types are trying for now, as we can see from the death tolls who is killing themselves off the fastest.

 

[Donald H]

The solution that's desperately needed before the next federal election:

It will be necessary to strip all states of the autonomy that allows them to hold their own elections, when that election can effect any other states.

Can anybody offer a solution that would be short of taking such sweeping measures?

Blame either side but it's now obvious that one of two factors have arisen.

1. All states can't be trusted to conduct fair elections.
or
2. All states can't be trusted to accept the results of other states' elections.

The Union is fatally flawed. The US Constitution is fatally flawed.

lol most of the rest of the world deals with 'problems' like ours by the expedient of just murdering minorities out of existence. tha tis the 'solution' Democrats and BLM types are trying for now, as we can see from the death tolls who is killing themselves off the fastest.

I think you've covered half of the problem with that.

 

[donttread]

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!

I dunno "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear but it has been abused. Maybe it's not the Constitution but politicians that are flawed? I'm not certain you could write anything plain enough. The real answer was to elect the right people , which takes "Eternal Vigillance"

Thank you for your honest attempt!

I suggest that a Constitution must be capable of answering to the suggestion that politicians are flawed. Your Constitution surely must cover that which the law considers to be illegal activity. And so even your sincerity doesn't get us any closer to the answer that the Scotus must come up with.

Somehow each state will have to stand responsible before the law on their malfeasance but that can't possibly annul the result of the election.

This still leaves the question standing on whether or not the president was elected legitimately.

Ahh... I see, you're hoping for something like a "Sore Loser's Amendment", that gives losers a do-over if their votes can prove they're batshit insane. Interesting, but I don't think it will fly.

Has that any meaning or is it just more spam?
I wouldn't disagree on the point that some insanity is involved. But you fail to get us any closer to any answer.

There is no genuine legal concern behind Trump and his Trumpsters acting out over the election. They're just throwing a fit because they didn't get their way.

This is not for you. Either make a contribution or go play.

Already did. Every single, legal "argument" I've seen protesting the results of the election is utter bullshit. The premise of your thread - "states' criminal malfeasance" - is pure fantasy, stirred up by an unscrupulous President and his army of idiot Trolls on the internet. You're what's fatally flawed about this country - not the Constitution.

There's some legitimate doubts being put forward on Georgia's administrating the election in a legal manner, and those allegations will need to be presented by Texas (and others) to the Scotus.
That is, if the Scotus decides to hear arguments.
Was there? Are you presenting a legal and binding decision?
Don't lose track of the question:
Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

I haven't lost track of anything. I'm just tired of the stupid games. You're trying to put out an air of "serious jurisprudence" around an issue that's pure populist horseshit.

Or, as Arizona put it:
"Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court. They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election."

Pennsylvania also had a nice response:
"Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an a front to principles of constitutional democracy."

The Texas lawsuit has nothing to do with the Constitution. It's Trump, and Trumpsters, throwing a fit because they lost. Fuck them.

It's not hard to understand if you just accept that it's all propelled by racism. Lunaphiles blew the whistle on that little secret.

But that doesn't get your Scotus off the hook, and so when they make their decision one side is going to be absolutely livid with rage over losing.

As a Canadian I couldn't care a lick on what side it is!

It's not finding a solution to your country's racism problem, either way.

Our "racism problem" is over hyped. What we have are inner city poverty problems, blame card problems and lack of personal responsibility problems and activist in need of work problems along with embarrassing tribalism. There is one action that could do more to improve the inner city and it's relationships with police but neither side will go there because they've spent years using drugs as one of their fear factor boggiemen. The war on drugs is over, drugs won. We need to start treating addiction to such drugs medically not legally and treating use just as we do with alcohol and tobacco. That would lead to so much improvement and little more drug use with less OD's or at least that's what it has lead to elsewhere.

 

[donttread]

The solution that's desperately needed before the next federal election:

It will be necessary to strip all states of the autonomy that allows them to hold their own elections, when that election can effect any other states.

Can anybody offer a solution that would be short of taking such sweeping measures?

Blame either side but it's now obvious that one of two factors have arisen.

1. All states can't be trusted to conduct fair elections.
or
2. All states can't be trusted to accept the results of other states' elections.

The Union is fatally flawed. The US Constitution is fatally flawed.

lol most of the rest of the world deals with 'problems' like ours by the expedient of just murdering minorities out of existence. tha tis the 'solution' Democrats and BLM types are trying for now, as we can see from the death tolls who is killing themselves off the fastest.

The world was a shithole in the past making our brutal world look kind. Slavery was the norm, oppression almost universal in large socities. Even tribal socities practiced these things. I do not know how they slept at night but it was the norm. If we all sought repairations against those who had oppessed our ancestors we'd all probably owe each other. But we do not live in socieites which hold us responsible for the debts of other adults we are not married to. Much less of those who've been dead for 100 years. The CR movement opened the door but no one can walk through it for anyone else!

 

[Donald H]

Our "racism problem" is over hyped. What we have are inner city poverty problems, blame card problems and lack of personal responsibility problems and activist in need of work problems along with embarrassing tribalism.

That's a revealing list of the problems in your country but it's only part of it. And the list 'is' the racism problem. Think of the racism problem as the reason for that which you've mentioned, and not as a personal blame issue. It's what it is and that's a result of unequal treatment of black people. America created it's problems with black people. It made them what they are.

There is one action that could do more to improve the inner city and it's relationships with police but neither side will go there because they've spent years using drugs as one of their fear factor boggiemen.

America is afraid of socially responsible government. It's imagined to be communism.

The war on drugs is over, drugs won. We need to start treating addiction to such drugs medically not legally and treating use just as we do with alcohol and tobacco. That would lead to so much improvement and little more drug use with less OD's or at least that's what it has lead to elsewhere.

That's socially responsible government. And please, the word is 'led' not 'lead' as in the metal.
You do sound like a socially enlightened American. Is it real?

 

[candycorn]

The solution that's desperately needed before the next federal election:

It will be necessary to strip all states of the autonomy that allows them to hold their own elections, when that election can effect any other states.

Can anybody offer a solution that would be short of taking such sweeping measures?

Blame either side but it's now obvious that one of two factors have arisen.

1. All states can't be trusted to conduct fair elections.
or
2. All states can't be trusted to accept the results of other states' elections.

The Union is fatally flawed. The US Constitution is fatally flawed.

Silly post. While I'm all for standardizing the voting laws across all states as a way of improving our system, the system, as it is, is good enough. States will and should continue to run their elections. Can you imagine if we just had a popular vote....and someone demands a recount with no division among the 50 states?

 

[danielpalos]

...no, it isn't. Any questions?

 

[Donald H]

The solution that's desperately needed before the next federal election:

It will be necessary to strip all states of the autonomy that allows them to hold their own elections, when that election can effect any other states.

Can anybody offer a solution that would be short of taking such sweeping measures?

Blame either side but it's now obvious that one of two factors have arisen.

1. All states can't be trusted to conduct fair elections.
or
2. All states can't be trusted to accept the results of other states' elections.

The Union is fatally flawed. The US Constitution is fatally flawed.

Silly post. While I'm all for standardizing the voting laws across all states as a way of improving our system, the system, as it is, is good enough. States will and should continue to run their elections. Can you imagine if we just had a popular vote....and someone demands a recount with no division among the 50 states?

Not speaking to elections and balloting specifically, but when those who lick the boots of the wealthy begin to understand how bad it's getting, they will be the ones that are content with GOOD ENOUGH!

Canada has the highest quality of life in the entire world, 4 years running. That's the only 'good enough' we have to consider. The rest is your own business but you can't claim immunity from having to be told the truth mr. goodenough.