Proposed Constitutional Amendments at the Convention of States (Poll)

[kyzr]

Obviously we disagree. The question for me is why you think limiting term limits of bad politicians fixes anything when, in my mind, none of the root causes that put that politician in power in the first place. I just do not see anything that supports the idea that term limits actually change anything. Indeed, it is awfully strange to state that the prime problem we have with politicians is that they have to damn much experience. This concept is nonsensical in any other context whatsoever. In no other field anywhere would we state that the prime problem is experience except in this one instance. The ultimate question seems to never be answered here: why is it the case in this one filed where experience is a bad thing?

That just restates what you already said. How does that address my question?

? It was a well known problem that led to the current constitution. Why do you think that regulating commerce is in the constitution in the first place? Because it was easily recognized as one of the chief failures in the articles of confederation. Our founders recognized that federal power was lacking in interstate commerce which made trade very difficult, both inter and intra nationally. The idea that you would no longer be able to create a product and sell it in the US but instead you would need to create a product and sell in in CA and repeat the process 49 more times. That would absolutely destroy the value of trade with the US in general and have a massive impact on our ability to trade internationally.

1. Experience at being a politician is a bad thing. I want pols who want to make life better for the rest of us, and not to be bribed by the highest bidders. Knowing that you will be out of congress in a few years would make better legislation. The way it is now incumbents never lose, they have no skin in the game.

2. The States would have ultimate control of their land and resources. That answers your question as I understand it.

3. Read the "Reorganization Proposals" in the following link. There are many ways to regulate commerce.

United States Department of Commerce - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[kyzr]

Not ‘stop’ the Federal government – eliminate the Federal government; eliminate federalism, eliminate the Republic, eliminate the rights and protected liberties of the people as safeguarded by the Federal government. These aren’t ‘amendments’ to the Constitution – this is a call by the authoritarian, anti-democratic right to do away with the Constitution altogether and balkanize the American nation, allowing states to violate citizens' rights where those rights would no longer exist - the conservative goal to establish tyranny and totalitarianism.

If 26 states believe that a law, or regulation, or executive order, is wrong they can repeal it.
Your drama queen concerns are unproven. I can give a few examples:
1. If states want to protect genetic females from unfair competition with trannys they could.
2. If states want to protect the unborn from "partial-birth abortions", aka "infanticide" they could.
3. If states wanted to protect parental rights, they could.
4. If states wanted to protect their children from being exposed to deviant behaviors in school, they could.
5. If states want the borders closed, they could close them.

You may consider your rights violated, whereas I might consider my rights violated, the best solution is a state by state solution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. You don't know that Term Limits won't improve Congress, i.e. prove it. Getting rid of the old fart "dead wood" has to improve things. There won't be more political parties either. Big money donors won't buck the Rs and Ds, they know where the "bases" are. Germany isn't like the US.

2. The US Constitution says how USSC justices are selected. There is no amendment pending to change that.

3. I'm seeing Biden as more corrupt than Thomas or Trump.

5. You can't "gerrymander" states. Their borders are set. There is no "popular vote" in the Constitution. The Founders were very careful to not allow the big states to dominate the small states. That's why we have a Senate and a House. IMHO States will jump at the chance to have more power over the Feds for when the opposition passes onerous legislation.
Like allowing trans men to compete against females, as an example.

1) Yes, I know that term limits won't improve Congress.

No, I can't prove it. Why?

1) Because no national parliament has bothered with term limits. Why do you think this is?

List of political term limits - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's because it's pointless.

With Proportional Representation there would be more political parties, and that I can prove, based on the simple FACT that every PR system with free and fair elections has more political parties.

In Germany they have 6, with parties requiring 5% to get into the Bundestag.
In Denmark they have 10, with parties requiring 2% to get into the Folketing.

I could list all of them, but I won't.

2) Yes, I know there's no amendment in place right now to change how Supreme Court justices are appointed. What's your point?
We're talking about how things could be better, you need to change things to do that, just because the change isn't happening now, doesn't mean it can't change.

3) So, you see Biden as more corrupt that Thomas. Again, what's your point? Does this have anything to do with our conversation?

5) I'm not sure what you're talking about.

If the states got to decide what to do then how would this function? Almost certainly having a majority of members in the House and Senate would do it. Which means they'd gerrymander the house and the senate. You can gerrymander within states for control of that state.

 

[FA_Q2]

1. Experience at being a politician is a bad thing. I want pols who want to make life better for the rest of us, and not to be bribed by the highest bidders. Knowing that you will be out of congress in a few years would make better legislation. The way it is now incumbents never lose, they have no skin in the game.

Sure, it is bad in this one lone example. Because you don't like them.

This is just a feel good measure, I see noting more than feelings backing this up.

2. The States would have ultimate control of their land and resources. That answers your question as I understand it.

So the feds have zero control in your scheme.

That is just silly. You did not answer the question because you claim to want something that does not allow the feds to take and developed land against the will of the stated to develop it and then only point to regulatory powers that do the exact opposite of that, not allowing development. What you seem to be wanting cannot exist if the government retains regulatory power. So far, your proposals seem more intent on eliminating the federal government rather than making any improvements.

3. Read the "Reorganization Proposals" in the following link. There are many ways to regulate commerce.

United States Department of Commerce - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are. And not a single one of the proposals in that reference even hint at removing federal powers to regulate commerce. All the effective ways of regulating commerce require the feds to do this because you cannot have true free trade within the states if each state regulates commerce separately. There is a reason that intrastate trade is utterly seamless. remove the feds from the picture and trade between CA and NV will be similar to trade between England and Switzerland. That is obviously a FAR inferior position to be in.

It is interesting that you want to take the a model that is so successful that the US has become the wealthiest nation on the face of the planet and shit can it replacing it with a system I have already shown FAILED.

Your link did nothing whatsoever to address the hard fact that we have tried individual state commerce and it failed.

 

[Missourian]

No to a Constitutional Convention.

I only trust our corrupt idiots a microscopic cuñt hair more than I trust their corrupt idiots.

Better to give them as little power to fuck things up as humanly possible.

 

[kyzr]

1) Yes, I know that term limits won't improve Congress. No, I can't prove it. Why? Because no national parliament has bothered with term limits. Why do you think this is? It's because it's pointless.
With Proportional Representation there would be more political parties, and that I can prove, based on the simple FACT that every PR system with free and fair elections has more political parties.
In Germany they have 6, with parties requiring 5% to get into the Bundestag. In Denmark they have 10, with parties requiring 2% to get into the Folketing. I could list all of them, but I won't.

2) Yes, I know there's no amendment in place right now to change how Supreme Court justices are appointed. What's your point?
We're talking about how things could be better, you need to change things to do that, just because the change isn't happening now, doesn't mean it can't change.

3) So, you see Biden as more corrupt that Thomas. Again, what's your point? Does this have anything to do with our conversation?

5) I'm not sure what you're talking about. If the states got to decide what to do then how would this function? Almost certainly having a majority of members in the House and Senate would do it. Which means they'd gerrymander the house and the senate. You can gerrymander within states for control of that state.

1. OK, so you are a hard no on term limits.

2. How would you change how USSC justices are appointed? If there is another Convention of States you could propose it and see if its supported.

3. #3 is the Balanced Budget Amendment. I simply noted that billionaires can spend their money any way they like, its "free speech", and you said that Justice Thomas was bribed to say that spending money is free speech, to which I said Joe Biden took bribes not Clarence Thomas, only one vote of 9 justices. I still support a Balanced Budget Amendment to get back to fiscal sanity.

5. The House and Senate have nothing to do with gerrymandering State Legislatures. State legislatures are voted on by county not legislative district. County borders don't change. What country are you from?

 

[kyzr]

Sure, it is bad in this one lone example. Because you don't like them. This is just a feel good measure, I see nothing more than feelings backing this up.

So the feds have zero control in your scheme. That is just silly. You did not answer the question because you claim to want something that does not allow the feds to take and developed land against the will of the stated to develop it and then only point to regulatory powers that do the exact opposite of that, not allowing development. What you seem to be wanting cannot exist if the government retains regulatory power. So far, your proposals seem more intent on eliminating the federal government rather than making any improvements.

There are. And not a single one of the proposals in that reference even hint at removing federal powers to regulate commerce. All the effective ways of regulating commerce require the feds to do this because you cannot have true free trade within the states if each state regulates commerce separately. There is a reason that intrastate trade is utterly seamless. remove the feds from the picture and trade between CA and NV will be similar to trade between England and Switzerland. That is obviously a FAR inferior position to be in.
It is interesting that you want to take the a model that is so successful that the US has become the wealthiest nation on the face of the planet and shit can it replacing it with a system I have already shown FAILED. Your link did nothing whatsoever to address the hard fact that we have tried individual state commerce and it failed.

1. OK, Term Limits is just a "feel good" measure. I like it.

2. If you recall Harry Reed and the state of NV regarding storage of spent nuclear fuel. Harry Reed said NO to Yucca Mt. So states do have some power now.

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If states had ultimate power ANWR would NOT be shut down to drilling. Nor could Biden shut down the KeystoneXL pipeline, as examples. Those are none of the Federal governments business.

3. I'll defer to your argument that if US Commerce isn't broken, don't fix it. Excellent point.

 

[FA_Q2]

2. If you recall Harry Reed and the state of NV regarding storage of spent nuclear fuel. Harry Reed said NO to Yucca Mt. So states do have some power now.

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If states had ultimate power ANWR would NOT be shut down to drilling. Nor could Biden shut down the KeystoneXL pipeline, as examples. Those are none of the Federal governments business.

No, but the XL pipeline would have never even been a possibility without the feds being able to start the process as the pipeline would have had to been negotiated with 6 separate governments. Beyond that, Biden would not be able to shut it down but Montana could, South Dakota could, Nebraska could, Kansas could, Oklahoma could and Texas could. Each could do so at any time in the future as well.

How likely do you think anyone would be willing to invest the resources, time, effort and future profitability into a system that could be ended at any time by 6 separate governments at any time that fluctuate FAR more than the US as a whole? This would certainly achieve the goal of ending all of these possibilities in their tracks.

And how can you say that this is none of the federal governments business? Keystone was an international affair. If the feds are empowered in any area whatsoever it is in international affairs.

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. OK, so you are a hard no on term limits.

2. How would you change how USSC justices are appointed? If there is another Convention of States you could propose it and see if its supported.

3. #3 is the Balanced Budget Amendment. I simply noted that billionaires can spend their money any way they like, its "free speech", and you said that Justice Thomas was bribed to say that spending money is free speech, to which I said Joe Biden took bribes not Clarence Thomas, only one vote of 9 justices. I still support a Balanced Budget Amendment to get back to fiscal sanity.

5. The House and Senate have nothing to do with gerrymandering State Legislatures. State legislatures are voted on by county not legislative district. County borders don't change. What country are you from?

2) I'd change a lot of things about the whole political system.
Say for example the US had Proportional Representation, then you could expect more political parties. Having judges that are appointed by consensus within those political parties would lead to justices who are more fair minded.

For example, the Swiss executive is a seven person body, to get a seat on the executive you need to be elected in an election comprising the two houses of the legislature. Already you have to have consensus. The Federal Assembly has six groups (made up of political parties with similar goals) in the National Council (like the House) and five in the Council of States (like the Senate) and one independent.
Switzerland votes with each Canton selecting how it wants to vote, so it's not proportional, though some Cantons use PR within their Canton, others use FPTP, depends on the size anyway, some are only large enough to have one representative in each house, others have two in the Senate (it doesn't quite make sense).
So, in order to get elected to the executive, you have to make a lot of friends. Same would be for the Supreme Court.
Certainly having the president choose someone seems to be a very bad idea. And only have two political parties choose seems a bad idea too.

5) Are you suggesting that each county has one representative?

Not at all.

Let's take North Carolina

North Carolina House of Representatives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

120 districts.

Each district has about 73,000 to 88,000 people.

However Pitt has a population of 170,000. You can't cram 170,000 people into one district. So, what happens? It gets split. Pitt county is split into two, one is Republican, one is Democrat.
8th is mostly black, 9th is majority white. Could just be how it goes, or it could have been gerrymandered

Here's a little map I picked up, not very good. You can see the 120th district, nice and neat, four counties.
Look at 111th district and 110th district.

You can see something a little weird there. Literally a district sticking out into one country, and then being part of another country. Why?

North Carolina got told off by the Supreme Court for gerrymandering state elections.

SCOTUS temporarily blocks new NC political maps, elections

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling ordering North Carolina legislators to redraw state legislative districts by March 15 and hold special elections within the altered districts this fall.

www.citizen-times.com

"SCOTUS temporarily blocks new NC political maps, elections"

That's from 2017.

"RALEIGH - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling ordering North Carolina legislators to redraw state legislative districts by March 15 and hold special elections within the altered districts this fall."

So, I'm going to ask what country you're from...

 

[kyzr]

No, but the XL pipeline would have never even been a possibility without the feds being able to start the process as the pipeline would have had to been negotiated with 6 separate governments. Beyond that, Biden would not be able to shut it down but Montana could, South Dakota could, Nebraska could, Kansas could, Oklahoma could and Texas could. Each could do so at any time in the future as well.
How likely do you think anyone would be willing to invest the resources, time, effort and future profitability into a system that could be ended at any time by 6 separate governments at any time that fluctuate FAR more than the US as a whole? This would certainly achieve the goal of ending all of these possibilities in their tracks.
And how can you say that this is none of the federal governments business? Keystone was an international affair. If the feds are empowered in any area whatsoever it is in international affairs.

The new KeystoneXL pipeline was a second pipeline to increase capacity from the Canadian tar sands. It is totally funded by TC Energy.
The pipeline is officially canceled. States have their say before the permits are given, they like the royalties and jobs and tax revenue pipelines bring.
Biden has no problem selling SPR oil to China, but stops a Canadian pipeline? So the oil travels by train and truck instead of a pipeline.
Agreed that it would have Federal input via the permitting process since Canada is involved. Biden cost TC Energy $billions.

Keystone XL

On June 9, 2021, TC Energy confirmed that after a comprehensive review of its options, and in consultation with its partner, the Government of Alberta, it has terminated the Keystone XL Pipeline Project (the Project).

www.keystonexl.com

The Keystone XL pipeline is dead. Now what?

The Keystone XL may never move any oil, but its impact will still linger in the form of the pipes, worker camps, and other assets stranded along its 1,200-mile path.

www.nationalgeographic.com

 

[kyzr]

2) I'd change a lot of things about the whole political system. Say for example the US had Proportional Representation, then you could expect more political parties. Having judges that are appointed by consensus within those political parties would lead to justices who are more fair minded.

For example, the Swiss executive is a seven person body, to get a seat on the executive you need to be elected in an election comprising the two houses of the legislature. Already you have to have consensus. The Federal Assembly has six groups (made up of political parties with similar goals) in the National Council (like the House) and five in the Council of States (like the Senate) and one independent. Switzerland votes with each Canton selecting how it wants to vote, so it's not proportional, though some Cantons use PR within their Canton, others use FPTP, depends on the size anyway, some are only large enough to have one representative in each house, others have two in the Senate (it doesn't quite make sense).
So, in order to get elected to the executive, you have to make a lot of friends. Same would be for the Supreme Court.
Certainly having the president choose someone seems to be a very bad idea. And only have two political parties choose seems a bad idea too.

5) Are you suggesting that each county has one representative? Not at all. Let's take North Carolina, 120 districts. Each district has about 73,000 to 88,000 people.
However Pitt has a population of 170,000. You can't cram 170,000 people into one district. So, what happens? It gets split. Pitt county is split into two, one is Republican, one is Democrat.
8th is mostly black, 9th is majority white. Could just be how it goes, or it could have been gerrymandered
Here's a little map I picked up, not very good. You can see the 120th district, nice and neat, four counties. Look at 111th district and 110th district.

You can see something a little weird there. Literally a district sticking out into one country, and then being part of another country. Why?
North Carolina got told off by the Supreme Court for gerrymandering state elections. "SCOTUS temporarily blocks new NC political maps, elections" That's from 2017.

"RALEIGH - The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked a lower court ruling ordering North Carolina legislators to redraw state legislative districts by March 15 and hold special elections within the altered districts this fall." So, I'm going to ask what country you're from...

1. My location is listed below my avatar.

2. Making Supreme court justices run for office instead of being super-experts in US Law is a dumb idea. Just look at how many USSC decisions are not strict "party line" votes. In your version every case would be a party line vote. The US system requires the senate to confirm the president's nominee. So there shouldn't be any political hacks on the USSC. The US system isn't broken, so we don't need to fix it. I couldn't imagine the "amendment" to implement your proposed system. Never happen.

5. NC's legislature is configured differently than PA's. In PA legislative districts can't be gerrymandered. They are by county, not "parts" of counties. Big counties have multiple reps.

Pennsylvania House of Representatives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[frigidweirdo]

1. My location is listed below my avatar.

2. Making Supreme court justices run for office instead of being super-experts in US Law is a dumb idea. Just look at how many USSC decisions are not strict "party line" votes. In your version every case would be a party line vote. The US system requires the senate to confirm the president's nominee. So there shouldn't be any political hacks on the USSC. The US system isn't broken, so we don't need to fix it. I couldn't imagine the "amendment" to implement your proposed system. Never happen.

5. NC's legislature is configured differently than PA's. In PA legislative districts can't be gerrymandered. They are by county, not "parts" of counties. Big counties have multiple reps.

Pennsylvania House of Representatives - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1) Not the point.

2) I didn't say Supreme Court justices should run for office.

And no, I think you completely missed the point I was making.
Right now the Supreme Court is ONLY political hacks. My point was that they should be chosen by a wide range of people, rather than currently where it isn't. With PR and more political parties, and having to be acceptable to different sections of society, you'll get justices who aren't political hacks.

5) So... PA and NC do things differently.... whats your point? You literally acted like I don't know what I'm talking about. The simple fact is states CAN gerrymander their state elections, and your proposal makes that much more enticing...

 

[FA_Q2]

The new KeystoneXL pipeline was a second pipeline to increase capacity from the Canadian tar sands. It is totally funded by TC Energy.
The pipeline is officially canceled. States have their say before the permits are given, they like the royalties and jobs and tax revenue pipelines bring.
Biden has no problem selling SPR oil to China, but stops a Canadian pipeline? So the oil travels by train and truck instead of a pipeline.
Agreed that it would have Federal input via the permitting process since Canada is involved. Biden cost TC Energy $billions.

Keystone XL

On June 9, 2021, TC Energy confirmed that after a comprehensive review of its options, and in consultation with its partner, the Government of Alberta, it has terminated the Keystone XL Pipeline Project (the Project).

www.keystonexl.com

The Keystone XL pipeline is dead. Now what?

The Keystone XL may never move any oil, but its impact will still linger in the form of the pipes, worker camps, and other assets stranded along its 1,200-mile path.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Not sure how that interacts with anything I said at all.

What is the point you are trying to make in regard to my statements?

 

[kyzr]

1) Not the point.

2) I didn't say Supreme Court justices should run for office. And no, I think you completely missed the point I was making.
Right now the Supreme Court is ONLY political hacks. My point was that they should be chosen by a wide range of people, rather than currently where it isn't. With PR and more political parties, and having to be acceptable to different sections of society, you'll get justices who aren't political hacks.

5) So... PA and NC do things differently.... whats your point? You literally acted like I don't know what I'm talking about. The simple fact is states CAN gerrymander their state elections, and your proposal makes that much more enticing...

2. We disagree. Right now there are conservative justices who adhere to the Constitution, and liberal justices who interpret the Constitution very liberally. Both are appointed by the president, who is elected by the Electoral College and NOT the popular vote. Liberal justices are political hacks, conservative justices are legal experts. Electing justices guarantees that they would be political hacks.

5. That's my point. We don't gerrymander in PA, and you do in NC. I don't know how many states gerrymander their legislatures, some apparently do and some don't. Either way, that shouldn't deter states from wanting the power to repeal a Federal Law, or regulation that a majority of states oppose.

 

[kyzr]

Not sure how that interacts with anything I said at all.
What is the point you are trying to make in regard to my statements?

As I understood your point it was that if we give states power to control resources in their state that chaos would ensue because states would run roughshod over proposed development of resources. My examples were the KeystoneXL pipeline and the ANWR area in AK. Biden stopped KeystoneXL and ANWR. If the states controlled their resources KeystoneXL and ANWR would be developed. I oppose Federal control of state resources.

 

[Dragonlady]

Here is a summary of the proposed Amendments to the US Constitution pending approval at the Convention of States.
If/when 38 state legislatures approve any of the following proposed amendments they are approved, and NOT subject to review by the president, congress, nor the Supreme Court.

1) Term limits for Congress (9 terms in the House and 3 terms in the Senate)
2) Cap U.S. Supreme Court judges at nine & a quorum at six
3) Balanced Budget Amendment
4) Set boundaries to the Commerce Clause ( the Department of Commerce will be eliminated, states regulate commerce)
5) Enable states to overrule federal laws and regulations (a simple majority of all state legislatures (i.e. 26) can repeal any federal law)
6) Stop the federal government from seizing states' land and resources (all land and resources within a state shall be regulated by that state)

That creates 50 countries, and demolishes the federal government. There isn't a single idea of merit in the bunch.

Term limits create a government of incompetents and and grifters, and the limits are laughable. 18 years in the Senate. or House. Instead of the casual grift you have now, members will be on the clock to cash in before they're forced out. I'd be all for a mandatory retirement age, but term limits - no.

Not a word from you on the SC other than to prevent reform or expansion??? Nothing about the Court being owned by dark money interests, and free from scrutiny or ethics. How about an established process for approving judges so that the Senate can't sit on a President's appointment for a year before the election, or ram through an appointment after voting has already started, as Republicans did under Mitch McConnell. How about codifying the process. If a seat becomes vacant within 3 months of the Presidential election, the Senate MUST opine on the appointment BEFORE the election. Or if the seat becomes vacant during a President's term, and not within 3 months of the election. It's his pick regardless of whether he/she wins re-election. No partisan "keep the seat open for our side" games.

4, 5 and 6 make the states independent nations. No.



1. Mandatory retirement age and/or term limits.

 

[Dragonlady]

2. We disagree. Right now there are conservative justices who adhere to the Constitution, and liberal justices who interpret the Constitution very liberally. Both are appointed by the president, who is elected by the Electoral College and NOT the popular vote. Liberal justices are political hacks, conservative justices are legal experts. Electing justices guarantees that they would be political hacks.

5. That's my point. We don't gerrymander in PA, and you do in NC. I don't know how many states gerrymander their legislatures, some apparently do and some don't. Either way, that shouldn't deter states from wanting the power to repeal a Federal Law, or regulation that a majority of states oppose.

Right now you have liberal judges who interpret the Constitution as the Founders intended - in the light of the 21st Century modern superpower of 300 million people you now inhabit, and Conservatives who want the nation run as a small agrarian nation of under 5 million people,running along the East Coast of the Atlantic Ocean.

Your Founders wanted the Constitution to be a living thing that was amended to suit the times you live in. But you're not doing that. Both parties are too busy fighting over which vision of the nation you should go with. The Founders were the wildest leftist radicals of their day. They took on the King of England - who ruled by the Divine Right of God, the most powerful monarch in the world, and they won. They created a society which was not stratified by wealth, heredity, or the station of your birth. Where a person succeed by the quality of their character, and their willingness to work hard and prosper.

Republicans have turned the nation into a feudal nation where the rich elites, structure the tax codes and labour laws to keep working Americans on the edge of poverty, and forcing them to accept whatever jobs or wages they can get. And if they ask for too much, well then you'll just hire illegals to replace them.

Republicans have given you the lowest real wages,, and the highest levels of poverty in the First World. And they blame all of your problems on Democrats. If you would just stop giving people RIGHTS, they could all get so much richer.

Impoverishing the people with every economic crash. Enriching the wealthy at every opportunity. That's today's Republican Party.

 

[frigidweirdo]

2. We disagree. Right now there are conservative justices who adhere to the Constitution, and liberal justices who interpret the Constitution very liberally. Both are appointed by the president, who is elected by the Electoral College and NOT the popular vote. Liberal justices are political hacks, conservative justices are legal experts. Electing justices guarantees that they would be political hacks.

5. That's my point. We don't gerrymander in PA, and you do in NC. I don't know how many states gerrymander their legislatures, some apparently do and some don't. Either way, that shouldn't deter states from wanting the power to repeal a Federal Law, or regulation that a majority of states oppose.

2) you say you disagree, and then you go and point out that the current system is flawed. Huh.

5) Your point is that gerrymandering can happen in states. Great. So, you agree that if you give states the power to get rid of federal laws with a simple majority, that gerrymandering will become and important issue for states.

 

[kyzr]

That creates 50 countries, and demolishes the federal government. There isn't a single idea of merit in the bunch.

Term limits create a government of incompetents and and grifters, and the limits are laughable. 18 years in the Senate. or House. Instead of the casual grift you have now, members will be on the clock to cash in before they're forced out. I'd be all for a mandatory retirement age, but term limits - no.

Not a word from you on the SC other than to prevent reform or expansion??? Nothing about the Court being owned by dark money interests, and free from scrutiny or ethics. How about an established process for approving judges so that the Senate can't sit on a President's appointment for a year before the election, or ram through an appointment after voting has already started, as Republicans did under Mitch McConnell. How about codifying the process. If a seat becomes vacant within 3 months of the Presidential election, the Senate MUST opine on the appointment BEFORE the election. Or if the seat becomes vacant during a President's term, and not within 3 months of the election. It's his pick regardless of whether he/she wins re-election. No partisan "keep the seat open for our side" games.

4, 5 and 6 make the states independent nations. No.



1. Mandatory retirement age and/or term limits.

1. The Federal government would be fine, out of money but fine. The Constitution has Division and Separation of Powers. You being from Canada wouldn't know that.

2. You type lies with no proof. Term Limits would stop vegetables like Feinstein and McConnell, et.al., from staying too long. The proposed mandatory retirement age is 75, good call.

3. The USSC isn't owned by anyone, they have life terms, they don't need money to get re-elected. 9 justices is the right number. You may not recall the "Biden Rule", huh?

In Context: Biden Rule on SCOTUS nominations amid election

The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has prompted a look back at what Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden said

www.politifact.com

Biden said that if a vacancy arose, Bush shouldn’t nominate a justice, and if he did, Biden would discourage the Senate from holding confirmation hearings amid campaign season. Biden said that such a nomination process would be more bitter than the one for Clarence Thomas the year before.

 

[kyzr]

2) you say you disagree, and then you go and point out that the current system is flawed. Huh.

5) Your point is that gerrymandering can happen in states. Great. So, you agree that if you give states the power to get rid of federal laws with a simple majority, that gerrymandering will become and important issue for states.

2. The current system isn't flawed. That's just how it works. There are conservative and liberal justices who argue the intent of the US Constitution, then count the votes.

5. I just proved to you that the PA legislature can't be gerrymandered like NC's. The point being that 26 states could kill a Federal Law or regulation that they deem onerous. The point isn't about gerrymandering state legislatures.