CDZ Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

[TNHarley]

The Constitution isnt flawed. Our voting base is, and has been, for over a century.

 

[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.

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....

What's that throwing the baby out with the bathwater' all about? The baby's already been thrown out if the system is flawed, and you admitted that it is.
So don't you want it corrected?
I'm not into hearing any deceitful analogies.

 

[postman]

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?

The voting rights had, states that previously created biased elections, with those unconstitutional laws thrown out by the courts. They could not subsequently change their election laws, without previous federal approval.

In short, it made those states that previously broke the law, to submit their proposed changes to the feds before they could enact them.

After the USSC struck down that requirement, the feds could only see how a state changed its laws after they were already in place. And couldn't do anything about it, except by a formal legal challenge through the courts.

 

[postman]

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....

What does the media have to do with impeaching a judge for violating the constitution? Anything brought before a judge, and all the judge has to say, or to rule on, is part of the public record. You don't need the media to say what happened, federal courts are open to the public.

 

[Donald H]

The Constitution isnt flawed. Our voting base is, and has been, for over a century.

Then maybe you would want some ironclad mechanism to correct the flawed voting base?
That would be circular logic being applied to the problem.

Do you perhaps think it's un-american to admit that the system is flawed and it's going to need the addressing of your Constitution to fix it?

America's quality of life has declined to 15th. in the world and that begs the question of your 'good enough' excuse being good enough!

Same with the 'bath water and baby analogy!

 

[postman]

The Constitution isnt flawed. Our voting base is, and has been, for over a century.

The Constitution must indeed be flawed, if the constitution allows for it to be amended. (aka fixed)

 

[Donald H]

What does the media have to do with impeaching a judge for violating the constitution? Anything brought before a judge, and all the judge has to say, or to rule on, is part of the public record. You don't need the media to say what happened, federal courts are open to the public.

Maybe the debate can come back on topic after all the petty b.s. is aired by both sides?
That's for you Americans, not me.

 

[TNHarley]

Do you perhaps think it's un-american to admit that the system is flawed and it's going to need the addressing of your Constitution to fix it?

The system is very flawed. Most of the "system" shouldnt even exist.

 

[TNHarley]

The Constitution isnt flawed. Our voting base is, and has been, for over a century.

The Constitution must indeed be flawed, if the constitution allows for it to be amended. (aka fixed)

Amendments were smart.
Sadly, we havent needed them in a long time. We, the voters, just let call 3 branches just do whatever in the fuck they want. No amendment process necessary.

 

[Donald H]

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?

The voting rights had, states that previously created biased elections, with those unconstitutional laws thrown out by the courts. They could not subsequently change their election laws, without previous federal approval.

In short, it made those states that previously broke the law, to submit their proposed changes to the feds before they could enact them.

After the USSC struck down that requirement, the feds could only see how a state changed its laws after they were already in place. And couldn't do anything about it, except by a formal legal challenge through the courts.

Thank you.

 

[Rambunctious]

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....

What does the media have to do with impeaching a judge for violating the constitution? Anything brought before a judge, and all the judge has to say, or to rule on, is part of the public record. You don't need the media to say what happened, federal courts are open to the public.

The media must investigate and inform...they do neither at this point in time...so bad judges can just go on and on and on brutalizing our constitution....and the people are blind to it until it personally hits them....like restaurant owners and small business owners today....

 

[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....

What's that throwing the baby out with the bathwater' all about? The baby's already been thrown out if the system is flawed, and you admitted that it is.
So don't you want it corrected?
I'm not into hearing any deceitful analogies.

I admitted the states systems are flawed, not the constitution.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater would be undermining states rights to federalize this as a knee jerk reaction instead of attempting to correct the problem at the state level, where it lies.

Im not into dealing with thin skinned posters that post in the CDZ and then get all pissy and accuse others of deceitful postings when someone disagrees in a respectful manner and uses a simple analogy. Jeez, Louise.

 

[Rambunctious]

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.

Leaving elections to the states does not give governors the right to change the state voting laws...each change must be voted on in the legislature of the state.....that didn't happen because of covid....and those changes are anti constitutional and harms voters of the entire nation in every state....this is why the supreme court must step in.....

 

[postman]

Amendments were smart.
Sadly, we havent needed them in a long time. We, the voters, just let call 3 branches just do whatever in the fuck they want. No amendment process necessary.

As I said earlier, amendments put flaws into the constitution, since there is no requirement that amendments explain what they mean to do, instead of just providing the text.

Ex: The 22nd amendment did not say whether it meant to modify the 12th

 

[postman]

What does the media have to do with impeaching a judge for violating the constitution? Anything brought before a judge, and all the judge has to say, or to rule on, is part of the public record. You don't need the media to say what happened, federal courts are open to the public.

The media must investigate and inform...they do neither at this point in time...so bad judges can just go on and on and on brutalizing our constitution....and the people are blind to it until it personally hits them....like restaurant owners and small business owners today....

First, how would you know the federal judges are violating the constitution if some form of media didn't put that idea into your head?

You complaint isn't with the mass media, but with your differing with what each of them says. The 1st gives even the lunatic fringe a voice that can be amplified just as loud as any other media.

 

[postman]

Leaving elections to the states does not give governors the right to change the state voting laws...each change must be voted on in the legislature of the state.....that didn't happen because of covid....and those changes are anti constitutional and harms voters of the entire nation in every state....this is why the supreme court must step in.....

Actually that's a question of what the legislature enacted. Many legislatures granted vast emergency powers to the governor. And as we have both federal and state declared emergencies, those powers are in effect. And if those laws say the governor has the power to suspend, enact or modify laws in order to protect the citizens of his state, the legislature handed the governor that power to change law.

 

[Rambunctious]

Leaving elections to the states does not give governors the right to change the state voting laws...each change must be voted on in the legislature of the state.....that didn't happen because of covid....and those changes are anti constitutional and harms voters of the entire nation in every state....this is why the supreme court must step in.....

Actually that's a question of what the legislature enacted. Many legislatures granted vast emergency powers to the governor. And as we have both federal and state declared emergencies, those powers are in effect. And if those laws say the governor has the power to suspend, enact or modify laws in order to protect the citizens of his state, the legislature handed the governor that power to change law.

Not many a few did....and those inactions did not involve changing dates of submissions of ballots and not checking signatures...look it up...the judges have refused to but that doesn't change the fact that it happened...some counties in certain key states cheated...there is no other explanation to the numbers...
The question is do we have a court left in the United States that will adhere to the constitution or not?....if not we are both screwed....

 

[TNHarley]

Amendments were smart.
Sadly, we havent needed them in a long time. We, the voters, just let call 3 branches just do whatever in the fuck they want. No amendment process necessary.

As I said earlier, amendments put flaws into the constitution, since there is no requirement that amendments explain what they mean to do, instead of just providing the text.

Ex: The 22nd amendment did not say whether it meant to modify the 12th

Fair enough

 

[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 ~~

 

[Donald H]

The question is do we have a court left in the United States that will adhere to the constitution or not?....if not we are both screwed....

Trump has loaded up your Scotus with rightist judges so you must have a court that would adhere to the Constitution, in your opinion. What else could Trump do to make the political right happy?

When it comes to there being no more rightist solutions to the problem, does that indicate that the bias of the courts has been skewed to the right, all that is possible?

Is there no limit on extremism to the political right in a democratic country? Would any more extremism require a change to being a fascist state?

Your opinions are of value too but you must stop short of the personal insults. That in itself is a last resort of extremists.