Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DMC

US Politics: A Feast for Crows

Recommended Posts

Yeah, that's the thing.  There really is an "abolish the Senate" movement.  I don't claim to know how to gauge how potent it is beyond just saying that it's fairly impotent given that the Senate itself would have to approve.  But other than that, it does exist. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Triskele said:

Yeah, that's the thing.  There really is an "abolish the Senate" movement.  I don't claim to know how to gauge how potent it is beyond just saying that it's fairly impotent given that the Senate itself would have to approve.  But other than that, it does exist. 

No, it wouldn’t.  If they could convince properly convined a properly Constitutional Convention to propose such an amendment and all 50 States ratified that amendment the Senate could be eliminated without its consent.

See US Const. Art V:

 on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No, there are folks who really do want to either abolish the Senate or change it such that it does take population into account.  They make compelling arguments.  Which is part of the reason why I think a real Constitutional Convention should be held and that nothing should be off the table.

There are folks that say a lot of things.  I know the protections from that ever happening - don't you?  A 'real' constitutional convention is still just another unrealistic alternative that may get pointless passage.  Ratification will be the same - 3/4 of state conventions - which is what held up the ERA and would almost certainly hold up any amendment that isn't entirely non-political.  In short, this idea has no merit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No, it wouldn’t.  If they could convince properly convined a properly Constitutional Convention to propose such an amendment and all 50 States ratified that amendment the Senate could be eliminated without its consent.

See US Const. Art V:

 

 

So there is hope!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Triskele said:

So there is hope!

A very faint hope.  There has never been a successful call for a Constitutional Convention since the orginal drafted the Constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

A very faint hope.  There has never been a successful call for a Constitutional Convention since the orginal drafted the Constitution.

I suppose after the Articles of Confederation, things looked pretty desperate and grim for the future of the nation. I wonder how bad it would/will have to get before politicians are able to make another convention happen (and have a successful outcome)?

Now that I think about it, the next time I hear some Repub tell me 'states' rights' are the pure intention of the founders, or are the way to go, I'll just refer them to the Articles of Confederation and the debacle of a decentralized federal government that almost destroyed the infant nation.

Edited by Simon Steele

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, SweetPea said:

 

20 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Yup. And yet somehow she still sounds so much smarter than Trump...
Like, at least she got the numbers right... :P

Perhaps AOC should give Paul "Numbers Guy" Ryan a call on how to convince lots of people that she is a serious policy wonk.
After all, Ryan spewed nonsense for years, but convinced lots of people that he was a "very serious person".
Anyway, I like AOC and have high hopes for her. I think she is the type of person that can perhaps end some of the bitter infighting between the Clinton and Sanders factions of the Democratic Party. Hopefully, she'll will learn to be a bit more cautious about what she says on Twitter because, as we all know, Twitter is an extremely effective way to stick one's foot in one's mouth. That said, I just have the feeling that she will receive a little extra special scrutiny for her gaffes as opposed to other sorts of people, like say Paul "Numbers Guy" (and Young Gun too!) Ryan.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

There's an old saying, "Junior Senators should be seen and not heard." 

Free reminder that Bernie Sanders is still the Junior Senator from Vermont. I guess that due to the accident of serving with someone who has been in the position for 44 years while Sanders has only been in Congress for 27, (and only in the Senate for 11, the fucking newcomer) he still hasn't earned the right to speak yet.

Sorry Bernie, maybe one of these days  Tywin will think you have the right to speak. Suck it up until then, and get off my lawn, you damn kid.

It's almost like making assumptions about people based on a job title or some other description is stupid and ignores a huge amount of context.

Edited by Paladin of Ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

DMC,

I’m not saying the Senate is something that should be above change.  I’m simply pointing out that equal representation in the Senate is literally the only thing in the US Constitution that would require unanimous ratification to change.

Why can't you first have an amendment to get rid of the sentence that says no state can be denied equal representation in the Senate without its consent, and then have another amendment changing that? I don't see why that particular sentence in the constitution is ultimately any more unchangeable by amendment than any other. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A topic that got ignored yesterday to gossip about Occasio-Cortez has rapidly come true: Wisconsin Republicans gutted the power of the governor and state Attorney General to spite Democrats, who won both positions in the midterms.

State Legislators had openly admitted they did this largely to prevent Democrats from being able to make changes to the agenda Republicans had set over the prior years.

Quote

“Most of these items are things that either we never really had to kind of address because, guess what? We trusted Scott Walker and the administration to be able to manage the back-and-forth with the legislature,” Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) said Monday in an interview with conservative radio host Jay Weber. “We don’t trust Tony Evers right now in a lot of these areas.”

Pretty high quality contempt for Democracy and the people right there. The sort you don't usually see outside of actual dictatorships.

Edited by Paladin of Ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ormond said:

Why can't you first have an amendment to get rid of the sentence that says no state can be denied equal representation in the Senate without its consent, and then have another amendment changing that? I don't see why that particular sentence in the constitution is ultimately any more unchangeable by amendment than any other. 

You’ve raised that before.  It’s an interesting twist.  It would absolutely be challenged if attempted and I suspect it would fail.  But, hey anything is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This Wisconsin news is really depressing.  The only good news is that it'll get challenged in court (obviously), and there's hope there. 

Wisconsin was the tipping point state in 2016, and looking ahead to the 2020 Presidential election, it looks like the best bet to be the tipping point state again.  Of course, Democrats have the southern path, to try and win one of NC/GA/FL/TX/AZ to replace a loss in WI.  But it seems pretty obvious to me that the easiest path for Republicans or Democrats to win the Presidency hinges on Wisconsin. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, DMC said:

It's not backed up by research either.  There's one article I recall that was panel data asking the same people for 30 years, and there was little change.  Gen X actually was pretty split on partisanship as youths, but once the millennials begin to dominate the GOP is clearly in trouble.

Incidentally, though anecdotal, both of my own parents (born in '56) have become more liberal with age. My mother was a lifelong Democrat, but George W. Bush was a breaking point for my father, who switched parties from Republican to Democrat in '04 and has increasingly embraced liberal politics ever since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

This Wisconsin news is really depressing.  The only good news is that it'll get challenged in court (obviously), and there's hope there. 

Wisconsin was the tipping point state in 2016, and looking ahead to the 2020 Presidential election, it looks like the best bet to be the tipping point state again.  Of course, Democrats have the southern path, to try and win one of NC/GA/FL/TX/AZ to replace a loss in WI.  But it seems pretty obvious to me that the easiest path for Republicans or Democrats to win the Presidency hinges on Wisconsin. 

With all the fuckery the state legislatures are trying to pull right now, Democrats should not be pinning their presidential hopes on Wisconsin or North Carolina at this point. Voter suppression in both is going to be off the charts in 2020.

I think the easiest Democratic path at this point is the Clinton states+PA+MI+AZ. Sinema's final victory margin was 2.4%, and that was against a pretty generic Republican who ran a pro-Trump campaign. Arizona is ready to elect statewide Democrats again, at least in the current Trump era (Ducey did win re-election in a landslide, but he was running as a pro-business moderate against an underfunded opponent). Plus, Arizona also just elected a Democrat to be state secretary of state (another statewide win), who will be able to block most attempts at voter suppression and even be able to expand voting access.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You’ve raised that before.  It’s an interesting twist.  It would absolutely be challenged if attempted and I suspect it would fail.  But, hey anything is possible.

I think the number of Senators from each state is set in stone and it's never going to change.

The HoR is another story. When was the last time the number of representatives was increased? The early 20th century? The population has grown exponentially since then but there are still the same number of representatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Fez said:

With all the fuckery the state legislatures are trying to pull right now, Democrats should not be pinning their presidential hopes on Wisconsin or North Carolina at this point. Voter suppression in both is going to be off the charts in 2020.

Won't the democratic governors in both be able to keep that down?  I know that's exactly what the WI and NC legislatures were attacking, but that was when they weren't in office yet.  The NC case is still in court, and thus far the rulings look favorable to Democrats, and the 2020 legislative map will be revised to be less egregious.  The WI case will go to court, and there's hope there as well, although with only 2 years I'm not sure there's time to get a decision prior to Nov 2020. 

I think Arizona is unlikely to come through as a tipping state for Democrats.  Yes, Sinema won against a competent Republican in McSally, but that was in a wave year for Democrats.  I suspect that if the election is close, Arizona is going red.  I honestly hold out more hope that somehow, someway, Florida comes through. 

Bonus - can you imagine the shitstorm if the Democrats pick up PA, MI and ME-2 (or NE-2), giving a 269-269 split?  We could have a Democratic President and Vice President Pence.  *

* Just kidding, Trump would declare a state of emergency before letting the House of Representatives pick a Democratic President. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in addition to the chicanery that went on in Bladen County, NC during the 2018 election for NC's 9th District, we have more news regarding Republican vote fraud/election tampering:

Long Island, NY election workers and party officials charged with forging signatures

Quote

A local Republican party leader, Amos Goodman, is expected to be charged later this week on similar counts.

Election workers William Mann and Gregory Dickerson and party leader Patricia Mansir allegedly wrote false names, some belonging to dead people, on Green Party, Independence and Republican nominating petitions to try to increase the chances for the Republican candidates.

It seems odd that Republicans are so concerned about the sanctity of the vote, but only pass election security laws that don't interfere with their chosen method of cheating in elections. Can't imagine why that would be.

Edited by The Great Unwashed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

I think the number of Senators from each state is set in stone and it's never going to change.

The HoR is another story. When was the last time the number of representatives was increased? The early 20th century? The population has grown exponentially since then but there are still the same number of representatives.

It was set early in the 20th Century, in part, because they ran out of space for new desks in the House chamber.  I strongly support increasing the number of House members.  I’d really love to do away with single member districts and elect on a state by state proportional representation system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

I think the number of Senators from each state is set in stone and it's never going to change.

The HoR is another story. When was the last time the number of representatives was increased? The early 20th century? The population has grown exponentially since then but there are still the same number of representatives.

The last time it was changed the size was increased so there’d be one representative for every 125,000 people, population growth and immigration in the prior ten years meant that the previous reapportionment of 100,000 per representative was now way off and they were more like every 160,000 people and that was viewed as unacceptably unrepresentative.

but there was a problem, they increased it to 435 because that is how many desks fit in the room. After this point politicians asked themselves what was more important: 

representation and democracy or antique desks? And for over a hundred years the desks have won that battle as being more important every time the question has been asked.

reapportionment standards were supposed to be in the bill of rights but it was one of the only amendements in that package which didn’t pass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×