CDZ Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

[MarathonMike]

The Constitution is not 'flawed' with regard to election integrity. Original jurisdiction and the Constitutional requirement for state legislatures to control the state's election NOT the state's courts were there. The failure IMO was not having an explicit requirement for the Federal Government and SCOTUS to insure national election integrity.

The Texas lawsuit would have been a powder keg for sure and so the SCOTUS sidestepped it. But the result is we have a tainted election process that a large percentage of Americans no longer trust. That is VERY bad place to be.

So in short, not flawed but insufficient.

 

[Donald H]

The Constitution is not 'flawed' with regard to election integrity. Original jurisdiction and the Constitutional requirement for state legislatures to control the state's election NOT the state's courts were there. The failure IMO was not having an explicit requirement for the Federal Government and SCOTUS to insure national election integrity.

The Texas lawsuit would have been a powder keg for sure and so the SCOTUS sidestepped it. But the result is we have a tainted election process that a large percentage of Americans no longer trust. That is VERY bad place to be.

So in short, not flawed but insufficient.

That's funny Mike. You can't handle the words 'fatally flawed' so you needed to find a synonym, and make a fool ass of yourself denying the obvious.

So let's just call it insufficient for your sake. You don't seem to understand what 'fatally flawed' means.

 

[MarathonMike]

The Constitution is not 'flawed' with regard to election integrity. Original jurisdiction and the Constitutional requirement for state legislatures to control the state's election NOT the state's courts were there. The failure IMO was not having an explicit requirement for the Federal Government and SCOTUS to insure national election integrity.

The Texas lawsuit would have been a powder keg for sure and so the SCOTUS sidestepped it. But the result is we have a tainted election process that a large percentage of Americans no longer trust. That is VERY bad place to be.

So in short, not flawed but insufficient.

That's funny Mike. You can't handle the words 'fatally flawed' so you needed to find a synonym, and make a fool ass of yourself denying the obvious.

So let's just call it insufficient for your sake. You don't seem to understand what 'fatally flawed' means.

I understand what fatally flawed means and I stand by what I wrote. The Founders put the provisions for dealing with election malfeasance in place. The SCOTUS could have taken the case based on those provisions. If it were fatally flawed, there would have been NO Constitutional basis for state to state challenge of election malfeasance and that is not the case.

 

[Donald H]

The Constitution is not 'flawed' with regard to election integrity. Original jurisdiction and the Constitutional requirement for state legislatures to control the state's election NOT the state's courts were there. The failure IMO was not having an explicit requirement for the Federal Government and SCOTUS to insure national election integrity.

The Texas lawsuit would have been a powder keg for sure and so the SCOTUS sidestepped it. But the result is we have a tainted election process that a large percentage of Americans no longer trust. That is VERY bad place to be.

So in short, not flawed but insufficient.

That's funny Mike. You can't handle the words 'fatally flawed' so you needed to find a synonym, and make a fool ass of yourself denying the obvious.

So let's just call it insufficient for your sake. You don't seem to understand what 'fatally flawed' means.

I understand what fatally flawed means and I stand by what I wrote. The Founders put the provisions for dealing with election malfeasance in place. The SCOTUS could have taken the case based on those provisions. If it were fatally flawed, there would have been NO Constitutional basis for state to state challenge of election malfeasance and that is not the case.

Sure Mike, if insufficient is easier to swallow for you.

Your Scotus didn't take the case because there was no remedy and so most likely arranged for two dissenting opinions on the issue of 'standing'. They couldn't very well ignore the fact that there must be 'standing' for any other state to object to election malfeasance that had an negative influence on them. And that's not saying that there was malfeasance, only that there is a need to decide at some future time.

It's not a difficult concept for anybody to understand but the fact that there was no remedy has demanded that it be swept under the carpet for a while.

Because of the insufficency, you can be assured that it will be revisited, but in an atmosphere of cooperation.

 

[MarathonMike]

The Constitution is not 'flawed' with regard to election integrity. Original jurisdiction and the Constitutional requirement for state legislatures to control the state's election NOT the state's courts were there. The failure IMO was not having an explicit requirement for the Federal Government and SCOTUS to insure national election integrity.

The Texas lawsuit would have been a powder keg for sure and so the SCOTUS sidestepped it. But the result is we have a tainted election process that a large percentage of Americans no longer trust. That is VERY bad place to be.

So in short, not flawed but insufficient.

That's funny Mike. You can't handle the words 'fatally flawed' so you needed to find a synonym, and make a fool ass of yourself denying the obvious.

So let's just call it insufficient for your sake. You don't seem to understand what 'fatally flawed' means.

I understand what fatally flawed means and I stand by what I wrote. The Founders put the provisions for dealing with election malfeasance in place. The SCOTUS could have taken the case based on those provisions. If it were fatally flawed, there would have been NO Constitutional basis for state to state challenge of election malfeasance and that is not the case.

Sure Mike, if insufficient is easier to swallow for you.

Your Scotus didn't take the case because there was no remedy and so most likely arranged for two dissenting opinions on the issue of 'standing'. They couldn't very well ignore the fact that there must be 'standing' for any other state to object to election malfeasance that had an negative influence on them. And that's not saying that there was malfeasance, only that there is a need to decide at some future time.

It's not a difficult concept for anybody to understand but the fact that there was no remedy has demanded that it be swept under the carpet for a while.

Because of the insufficency, you can be assured that it will be revisited, but in an atmosphere of cooperation.

IMO there is a clear and urgent need for an amendment that puts teeth into the Constitution with regard to insuring national election integrity. Otherwise our election process will spiral down into something akin to an African country. We may already be there.

 

[cnm]

That's the best answer so far in my opinion, and you're brave to offer it. Inevitably, the demands for the greater good will have to take precedence over the individual rights of the states. But that poses a very real political problem in that it would be a direct admittance that Texas has a legitimate case.

And so there won't be an annulment of the entire election now, and that at the same time makes the electing of Biden illegitimate. Is my conclusion correct, and if not then why not?

No. Begging the question, false assumptions.

 

[Donald H]

IMO there is a clear and urgent need for an amendment that puts teeth into the Constitution with regard to insuring national election integrity. Otherwise our election process will spiral down into something akin to an African country. We may already be there.
[/QUOTE]

That's pretty much it Mike, and hopefully you're not saying that from a position of political bias due to the election debates.

And so maybe it all boils down to both parties having the will to patch the leaks that need attention to prevent the fate you predict could happen.

But consider that it could be that some politicians would prefer the leaks exist so they can take advantage of them.

A watertight Constitution wouldn't allow for the problems that would/will inevitably crop up in the next election. I don't hear the Scotus proclaiming that they will take remedial action but that is probably because admitting there is a problem would open a huge can of worms. The two dissenting opinions, for what they were, laid it at rest in the best way possible.

 

[Donald H]

That's the best answer so far in my opinion, and you're brave to offer it. Inevitably, the demands for the greater good will have to take precedence over the individual rights of the states. But that poses a very real political problem in that it would be a direct admittance that Texas has a legitimate case.

And so there won't be an annulment of the entire election now, and that at the same time makes the electing of Biden illegitimate. Is my conclusion correct, and if not then why not?

No. Begging the question, false assumptions.

M Mike gets it and you would serve yourself well to read what we're talking about, even if you have to follow along with your finger.

 

[cnm]

M Mike gets it and you would serve yourself well to read what we're talking about, even if you have to follow along with your finger.

I freely admit that in your Gish Gallop you can pile up bullshit faster than it can be cleared away. That's the whole point of Gish Gallops. No worries.

 

[Donald H]

The ruling class in America can keep you fools living in poverty forever if it was up to me.

But lowered living standards in a country that has the ability to provide the best life style for all, is something that causes the people to be more amenable to more wars.

The world's most socially responsible countries first become demonized and made to be communists so they will be seen as lesser human beings. China is the current victim country being demonized obviously.

Thank Dog for M.A.D. (mutually assured destruction.)

America can cause misery to the people of the world but it can't take the final step. If it does then all humanity goes down together.

 

[anotherlife]

The US constitution is not flawd, though it does say that government is derived from the governed and not from God. Also it is a written document which forces it out of people's heart into lowly trickeries of wiseguys.

 

[danielpalos]

...no, only right wingers incompetent and foreign influenced understanding of our federal Constitution is fatally flawed.

 

[Donald H]

...no, only right wingers incompetent and foreign influenced understanding of our federal Constitution is fatally flawed.

If it can be wrongly interpreted by either the right or the left, Americans or foreigners, it's flawed daniel. But the word 'insufficient' works as well.

Can't you Americans even address the issue in a sensible way? Politics and politicians in America aren't honest enough to allow their Constitution to be wishy-washy or silent on the matter of elections that effect everybody. Other countries already have mechanisms in place to prevent your experience in which Texas had to take the question to the Scotus.
And then only got a partial and temporary answer to the complaint.

Maybe when everybody's brains aren't so full with the fight over Trump?

 

[Blues Man]

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

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

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

no.

The Constitution clearly states that any matters of governance and law not attributed to any of the 3 branches of the federal government are the purview of the states.

So it's up to the 2 states in question to come up with a solution.

It might actually aid the discussion if you give an example

 

[Donald H]

The Constitution clearly states that any matters of governance and law not attributed to any of the 3 branches of the federal government are the purview of the states.

In your example, that leaves all the other stated ungrounded and depending on the two states to deal correctly with the issue. This current example points out that flaw.

So it's up to the 2 states in question to come up with a solution.

That's no doubt correct but they didn't and then found that the matter needed to be taken to the Scotus.

It might actually aid the discussion if you give an example

You could think of it as a parallel to International laws that must be respected and to which all countries must abide. Renegade countries pose a big problem and could become a cause for war.

The state that doesn't abide by common laws for all states can be said to be renegade. There can be hundreds of example why that is so.

Georgia for instance can decide an election for the losing candidate and that has the potential to wrongly decide an entire federal election for president. The US Constitution, by your own submission, is powerless to deal with the issue and correct it.

There's your example you've asked for. How can the issue be dealt with sufficiently.

 

[danielpalos]

If it can be wrongly interpreted by either the right or the left, Americans or foreigners, it's flawed daniel. But the word 'insufficient' works as well.

You are mistaken. Our federal Constitution is only idiot proof not wilful misconduct proof. Our Constitution is not flawed. There are simply not enough ethics and morals to go around on the right wing.

 

[postman]

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.

That flaw is called "states rights" That as long as a state operates within the bounds of the US constitutional limits, they're free to do whatever they want. And if New York wants to tax the hell out of their people, and Florida has no state income tax. New York can't force Florida to adopt a state income tax, nor can Florida force New York to give theirs up.

 

[postman]

You are mistaken. Our federal Constitution is only idiot proof not wilful misconduct proof. Our Constitution is not flawed. There are simply not enough ethics and morals to go around on the right wing.

Actually our constitution is flawed by not requiring amendments to spell out how they change either the original articles, or previous amendments, when there is a potential conflict.

 

[danielpalos]

You are mistaken. Our federal Constitution is only idiot proof not wilful misconduct proof. Our Constitution is not flawed. There are simply not enough ethics and morals to go around on the right wing.

Actually our constitution is flawed by not requiring amendments to spell out how they change either the original articles, or previous amendments, when there is a potential conflict.

It doesn't seem that way to me, have any examples?

 

[postman]

Actually our constitution is flawed by not requiring amendments to spell out how they change either the original articles, or previous amendments, when there is a potential conflict.

It doesn't seem that way to me, have any examples?

Sorry for the delay, but one famous example is a conflict between the 12th amendment saying:

But no person constitutionally ineligible for the office of President, shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

And the 22nd amendment saying:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice......

Legal opinions have varied, but one is that if a person ineligible to the office of president because of the 22nd amendments term limits, would not be eligible to be elected vice-president because of the final clause of the 12th amendment.

Yet there is no indication either way, what the intention of 22nd amendment was for two term presidents running for vice president.