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.

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.

States' rights could be the reason the Constitution is flawed, but that doesn't mean your taxation example is applicable here.

Some states' rights infringe on other states's rights when they don't observe and adhere to the rights of all states overall. The flaw is in there being no (insufficient) federal jurisdiction over election practices that have an influence on the entire country.

I provided an example of how that could be true in post #115. The US Constitution is flawed and the Scotus left the door open to address the fault in the future, which obviously needs to happen before the next federal election.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

It doesn't seem contradictory to me. A vp is not elected to the office of the president if they succeed the president.

 

[postman]

Some states' rights infringe on other states's rights when they don't observe and adhere to the rights of all states overall. The flaw is in there being no (insufficient) federal jurisdiction over election practices that have an influence on the entire country.

That could be said of any election scheme. The original presidential scheme had electors chosen by the legislature directly. Electors chosen by popular vote, and even electors not chosen at all.

You could argue that in a one man one vote equal protection scheme, that when a legislature of a hundred, decides their EC vote, they can usurp that of hundreds of thousands in a state, who chose the popular vote method.

Yet one state can't, and shouldn't be able to tell another state how that part of their election is run.

 

[postman]

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.

It doesn't seem contradictory to me. A vp is not elected to the office of the president if they succeed the president.

But they have brought up the 12th saying :

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

A term limited president would not be eligible for the office of president. And the argument is that the 12th thus extends that to the office of vice president.

Which presents a conflict over their intention. Just GOOGLE if Obama could run for Vice-president, and you'll see the conflict they raise in more precise legal arguments.

 

[Donald H]

Some states' rights infringe on other states's rights when they don't observe and adhere to the rights of all states overall. The flaw is in there being no (insufficient) federal jurisdiction over election practices that have an influence on the entire country.

That could be said of any election scheme. The original presidential scheme had electors chosen by the legislature directly. Electors chosen by popular vote, and even electors not chosen at all.

You could argue that in a one man one vote equal protection scheme, that when a legislature of a hundred, decides their EC vote, they can usurp that of hundreds of thousands in a state, who chose the popular vote method.

Yet one state can't, and shouldn't be able to tell another state how that part of their election is run.

Right, there are republics and there are democracies, but you've strayed from addressing the issue I've raised on why the US Constitution is fatally flawed.

"Fatally" flawed because it can't even demand the proper administration of an election. There must be federal jurisdiction over certain aspects of an election that effects all US citizens. That can't be done by individual states that have the ability to go renegade for the benefit of their political preferences.

 

[postman]

"Fatally" flawed because it can't even demand the proper administration of an election. There must be federal jurisdiction over certain aspects of an election that effects all US citizens. That can't be done by individual states that have the ability to go renegade for the benefit of their political preferences.

The 10th amendment clearly leaves elections to the states. And except for following federal guidance, as congress can set the date, and the citizenship requirement, they have no other say in how an election is run, or how election questions are decided.

They don't even have a say on WHEN a state has to certify their election by. They provide a "safe harbor" under 3 USC 5, but don't make that it a requirement to use it.

 

[Donald H]

Did some states turn renegade by cheating in the election for president?
If so then for which candidate was the cheating done?

 

[postman]

That can't be done by individual states that have the ability to go renegade for the benefit of their political preferences.

States have to adhere to the constitution. Such as when they Gerrymander beyond reason, it's a violation of equal protection. But no equal protection argument can be made to control what type of voting machines, layout of ballots, or other election details left to the states are even within a federal question.

One election district can use high tech touch screens, while another uses paper ballots, using a punch stylus, yet no equal protection argument can force them to change how they vote. Nothing can mandate a particular mechanism for voting.

 

[postman]

Did some states turn renegade by cheating in the election for president?
If so then for which candidate was the cheating done?

There is no federal requirement that elections be fair, or unbiased. When the USSC eviscerated the voting rights act, it pretty much said that states could do what they wanted.

 

[postman]

The constitution is not being obeyed by the elected officials and the courts and the Bill of Rights is being laughed at...by the same people....so of course if its not adhered to it won't work as intended...and these same seditious elected people have many of you morons convinced that the constitution is flawed....its you that's flawed wake the fuck up....

Every federal judge that you claim is not obeying the constitution, can be removed by impeachment, and conviction by the senate.

 

[Donald H]

Did some states turn renegade by cheating in the election for president?
If so then for which candidate was the cheating done?

There is no federal requirement that elections be fair, or unbiased. When the USSC eviscerated the voting rights act, it pretty much said that states could do what they wanted.

I hear you but I have to be cautious about taking your word for it on it being as bad as you suggest. That would be careless of me. Suffice to say that the problem as I've laid out is a real one that must be addressed.

It does though raise the issue of gerrymandering being done by individual states! No American should be content with that sort of unfairness.

Overall, the entire principle of states' autonomy is an impossible idea in some aspects. The entire union is flawed in some instances but I would suggest that it can be corrected.

And fwiw, I wouldn't suggest that Canada's Confederation doesn't have some similar flaws. Just that they haven't been brought to the forefront by dishonest politicians. I would still be eager to discuss some examples.

I don't fear the discussion but it's quite obvious that some Americans do!

 

[Fueri]

Nothing which is amendable/correctable is fatally flawed.

Flawed, certainly, in a few ways I can think of, including lack of term limits or any meaningful oversight of Congress, which makes the rules which govern itself, which is a serious flaw.

State control over its election procedures is not a flaw in the Constitution. It is by design. State's rights is an important part of the underpinnings of our system.

I think what happened this time around was a total joke in a lot of ways, but that isn't due to the Constitution, it is due to the underhandedness that pervades our political system at this point. That is due to dishonesty and lack of good faith of persons, not a fatal flaw in the Constitution. Flaw yes, as it allowed for this manipulation. Fatal flaw, no, as it can be corrected through the legislative process of the states going forward, but it should remain in the hands of the states, IMO, despite what happened here.

 

[Donald H]

That can't be done by individual states that have the ability to go renegade for the benefit of their political preferences.

States have to adhere to the constitution. Such as when they Gerrymander beyond reason, it's a violation of equal protection. But no equal protection argument can be made to control what type of voting machines, layout of ballots, or other election details left to the states are even within a federal question.

One election district can use high tech touch screens, while another uses paper ballots, using a punch stylus, yet no equal protection argument can force them to change how they vote. Nothing can mandate a particular mechanism for voting.

Thank you for all the information and I have no reason to doubt any of it. But it still leaves me wondering what side of the question you've taken. You've certainly quoted much to say that the cheating is possible. Even on the question of gerrymandering when I read such innocuous wording such as 'beyond reason'!
Not to suggest that the 'beyond reason' wouldn't just be invented out of your own head. Was it?

 

[Donald H]

Nothing which is amendable/correctable is fatally flawed.

Flawed, certainly, in a few ways I can think of, including lack of term limits or any meaningful oversight of Congress, which makes the rules which govern itself, which is a serious flaw.

State control over its election procedures is not a flaw in the Constitution. It is by design. State's rights is an important part of the underpinnings of our system.

I think what happened this time around was a total joke in a lot of ways, but that isn't due to the Constitution, it is due to the underhandedness that pervades our political system at this point. That is due to dishonesty and lack of good faith of persons, not a fatal flaw in the Constitution. Flaw yes, as it allowed for this manipulation. Fatal flaw, no, as it can be corrected through the legislative process of the states going forward, but it should remain in the hands of the states, IMO, despite what happened here.

Joke or not this time, I'll leave that to you to decide.

Fatally flawed is correct in that there is no mechanism to correct the flaw you admit to. The existing laws are no sufficient to correct the problem, or perhaps problems. But I'll stick to the one problem that is addressed by this thread.

It is beholding on the Scotus to write some new laws to correct the situation and then the flaw will no longer be fatal.

At least that's my submission so far.

 

[postman]

It does though raise the issue of gerrymandering being done by individual states! No American should be content with that sort of unfairness.

The bar of when gerrymandering becomes a violation of equal protection is extremely high. It requires that there be no other explanation for drawing a district the way it's constructed. Even in Texas where Tom DeLay gerrymandered the hell out of Texas, the USSC only overruled one of the districts, because there was no defense to the way it was drawn.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A portion of a controversial Texas congressional map was tossed out Wednesday by the Supreme Court, but the overall redistricting plan engineered by state Republicans was found to be proper.

The legislative plan led to the 2004 ouster of four Democratic incumbents from Congress, and sparked a bitter partisan battle. The map was was promoted by Republicans, including former majority leader Rep. Tom DeLay.


"A state may not trade off the rights of some members of a racial group against the rights of other members of that group," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "The question is therefore not whether line-drawing in the challenged area as a whole dilutes minority voting strength, but whether line-drawing dilutes the voting strength of the Latinos in District 23." The Court concluded that District 23 violated the Voting Rights Act, while nearby District 25 was found to be valid.

CNN.com - High court upholds most of Texas redistricting map - Jun 28, 2006

A portion of a controversial Texas congressional map was tossed out Wednesday by the Supreme Court, but the overall redistricting plan engineered by state Republicans was found to be proper.

www.cnn.com

 

[progressive hunter]

Nothing which is amendable/correctable is fatally flawed.

Flawed, certainly, in a few ways I can think of, including lack of term limits or any meaningful oversight of Congress, which makes the rules which govern itself, which is a serious flaw.

State control over its election procedures is not a flaw in the Constitution. It is by design. State's rights is an important part of the underpinnings of our system.

I think what happened this time around was a total joke in a lot of ways, but that isn't due to the Constitution, it is due to the underhandedness that pervades our political system at this point. That is due to dishonesty and lack of good faith of persons, not a fatal flaw in the Constitution. Flaw yes, as it allowed for this manipulation. Fatal flaw, no, as it can be corrected through the legislative process of the states going forward, but it should remain in the hands of the states, IMO, despite what happened here.

Joke or not this time, I'll leave that to you to decide.

Fatally flawed is correct in that there is no mechanism to correct the flaw you admit to. The existing laws are no sufficient to correct the problem, or perhaps problems. But I'll stick to the one problem that is addressed by this thread.

It is beholding on the Scotus to write some new laws to correct the situation and then the flaw will no longer be fatal.

At least that's my submission so far.

everything you just said is 100% the opposite,,,

now would be a good time for you to actually read the constitution to avoid anymore dumbass comments like this one,,

 

[Donald H]

Did some states turn renegade by cheating in the election for president?
If so then for which candidate was the cheating done?

There is no federal requirement that elections be fair, or unbiased. When the USSC eviscerated the voting rights act, it pretty much said that states could do what they wanted.

That's interesting to hear. Are you saying that the voting rights act already covered the situation by the feds having jurisdiction over the states in an applicable way?

And if so then would that mean there was deliberate planning being done so that cheating could happen?

 

[Fueri]

Nothing which is amendable/correctable is fatally flawed.

Flawed, certainly, in a few ways I can think of, including lack of term limits or any meaningful oversight of Congress, which makes the rules which govern itself, which is a serious flaw.

State control over its election procedures is not a flaw in the Constitution. It is by design. State's rights is an important part of the underpinnings of our system.

I think what happened this time around was a total joke in a lot of ways, but that isn't due to the Constitution, it is due to the underhandedness that pervades our political system at this point. That is due to dishonesty and lack of good faith of persons, not a fatal flaw in the Constitution. Flaw yes, as it allowed for this manipulation. Fatal flaw, no, as it can be corrected through the legislative process of the states going forward, but it should remain in the hands of the states, IMO, despite what happened here.

Joke or not this time, I'll leave that to you to decide.

Fatally flawed is correct in that there is no mechanism to correct the flaw you admit to. The existing laws are no sufficient to correct the problem, or perhaps problems. But I'll stick to the one problem that is addressed by this thread.

It is beholding on the Scotus to write some new laws to correct the situation and then the flaw will no longer be fatal.

At least that's my submission so far.

The flaw lies not in the Constitution, which was the question. If flaws in the voting procedures of the states are not correctable by state legislatures, the flaw lies there.

This isn't a federal issue and it shouldn't be, IMO, or it undermines states' rights. I don't like what happened here, but that doesn't mean we overreact and throw the baby out with the bathwater....

 

[Rambunctious]

The constitution is not being obeyed by the elected officials and the courts and the Bill of Rights is being laughed at...by the same people....so of course if its not adhered to it won't work as intended...and these same seditious elected people have many of you morons convinced that the constitution is flawed....its you that's flawed wake the fuck up....

Every federal judge that you claim is not obeying the constitution, can be removed by impeachment, and conviction by the senate.

Not without an honest press and news media...as long as the entrenched elected class have their mouth piece at the MSM we are stuck on stupid....just the way they like us....

 

[Donald H]

It does though raise the issue of gerrymandering being done by individual states! No American should be content with that sort of unfairness.

The bar of when gerrymandering becomes a violation of equal protection is extremely high. It requires that there be no other explanation for drawing a district the way it's constructed. Even in Texas where Tom DeLay gerrymandered the hell out of Texas, the USSC only overruled one of the districts, because there was no defense to the way it was drawn.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A portion of a controversial Texas congressional map was tossed out Wednesday by the Supreme Court, but the overall redistricting plan engineered by state Republicans was found to be proper.

The legislative plan led to the 2004 ouster of four Democratic incumbents from Congress, and sparked a bitter partisan battle. The map was was promoted by Republicans, including former majority leader Rep. Tom DeLay.


"A state may not trade off the rights of some members of a racial group against the rights of other members of that group," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for the majority. "The question is therefore not whether line-drawing in the challenged area as a whole dilutes minority voting strength, but whether line-drawing dilutes the voting strength of the Latinos in District 23." The Court concluded that District 23 violated the Voting Rights Act, while nearby District 25 was found to be valid.

CNN.com - High court upholds most of Texas redistricting map - Jun 28, 2006

A portion of a controversial Texas congressional map was tossed out Wednesday by the Supreme Court, but the overall redistricting plan engineered by state Republicans was found to be proper.

www.cnn.com

Do all states have an option on how high they will set the bar? If so then that would suggest that other states' rights are being violated by states that set the bar very low.
But let's not get too deep into gerrymandering, which is somewhat of a diversion from the topic.