US Politics: A Sinematic view on voting rights and the filibuster

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Really, yes.

Really, no.  Just ratify an amendment that negates that last part of Article V.  The 12th Amendment replaces the original text of Article II Section 1.3 in how we elect presidents and vice presidents.  While not explicit because the framers were ashamed that they owned slaves, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments negate the 3/5ths compromise in the original text of Article I Section 2.3.  The 21st amendment literally repeals the 18th amendment.  Amendments can replace, negate, nullify, what have you the original text.  Otherwise there wouldn't be much point in having amendments.  Not to mention the problem of requiring unanimity among states is precisely why they needed to overthrow the Articles of Confederation in the first place.

[Martell Spy]

The GOP backlash against corporations isn’t real — yet
How culture wars and the diploma divide are pushing corporate America and the GOP apart.

https://www.vox.com/22545125/republicans-corporate-america-education-polarization

Quote

 

Yet the tremors are worth taking seriously: They are manifestations of a tectonic shift in American politics toward polarization along educational lines.

Whites with college degrees, a longtime Republican demographic, have shifted into the Democratic camp; noncollege whites have become the GOP’s most important base. These fundamental shifts are realigning the interests of both the corporate world and the GOP — leading the former to lean into social liberalism, while the latter embraces right-wing cultural war as its principal message.

These trends have been building up over time, and they suggest that the GOP anti-corporate turn could one day swell into something consequential, instead of mainly posturing.

An important test case is happening now. The House is currently considering a series of anti-trust bills targeting Big Tech, the corporate sector populist Republicans hate most of all. How Republicans handle this legislative fight will give us a clue as to how serious the GOP’s anti-corporate turn is.

“The longstanding relationship between the business community and the Republican Party is now changing,” says Didi Kuo, a Stanford political scientist who studies business and politics. “I’m really not sure what happens next.”

 

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

Really, no.  Just ratify an amendment that negates that last part of Article V.  The 12th Amendment replaces the original text of Article II Section 1.3 in how we elect presidents and vice presidents.  While not explicit because the framers were ashamed that they owned slaves, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments negate the 3/5ths compromise in the original text of Article I Section 2.3.  The 21st amendment literally repeals the 18th amendment.  Amendments can replace, negate, nullify, what have you the original text.  Otherwise there wouldn't be much point in having amendments.  Not to mention the problem of requiring unanimity among states is precisely why they needed to overthrow the Articles of Confederation in the first place.

The Article’s have no force and effect.  The provision of Article VII of the US Constitution giving it force and effect when 9 States ratified is a direct abrogation of the Unanimous consent requirement of the Articles of Confederation.  There has been no amendment removing the unanimous  consent requirement of Art V.  Until it is amended unanimous consent is required to remove equal representation in the Senate.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

There has been no amendment removing the unanimous  consent requirement of Art V.  Until it is amended unanimous consent is required to remove equal representation in the Senate.

....Which is why I said an amendment would suffice.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Just now, DMC said:

....Which is why I said an amendment would suffice.

I doubt it.  An attempt to amend would immediately be challenged.  And you and I both know the numbers for a basic amnedment don’t exist even if such an amendment would be endorsed by the SCOTUS.

This is not to say the current structure of the Senate is a good thing, but that without a complete shitcanning of the US Constitution it is incredibly unlikely to change.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

13 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

It just doesn't seem possible, not even close to likely. And if it did happen, the Koch brother would probably be right there to manipulate it all with his henchmen.

It isn't likely, but hey, when I'm high, anything seems possible.

13 hours ago, DMC said:

I'm still not hearing a realistic solution beyond appointment by executive decree, which again I do not support.

Not really sure what this means.  And it doesn't seem easy to draft a better set of rules, evidenced by no one presenting any set of rules that would solve the problem beyond executive decree.

Just because no one has proposed anything, doesn't mean there aren't clear rules that can be created to stop McConnells of the world. By a single veto, I mean--the Senate gets to veto only one option per nomination. Before the veto, maybe the rules dictate they have some input into a handful of potential nominees being considered, and if they still veto someone (like Garland), then the President gets executive decree. This isn't something I'm thinking about the details too much except to say it's necessary. It seems like a couple of people with average intelligence could sit down and work out a better set of rules.

56 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

You still need 100% of the State to sign on to change equal representation in the Senate.

If you have 3/4's of states on board (impossible, I know) amendments can be added without Congress, right?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

If you have 3/4's of states on board (impossible, I know) amendments can be added without Congress, right?

It’s not that simple with the Senate:

US Const. Art. V:

and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I doubt it.  An attempt to amend would immediately be challenged.  And you and I both know the numbers for a basic amnedment don’t exist even if such an amendment would be endorsed by the SCOTUS.

I never said an amendment was in any way realistic.  Of course it's not.  And even if it was, still certainly the chance SCOTUS would overturn it.  But they'd be doing so for political reasons, not constitutional reasons.  My point is this notion that unanimity is required - rather than simply an amendment that, ya know, nullifies that in its first clause - is based on bullshit.  By that rationale the Senate should still be chosen by state legislatures.

2 minutes ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

By a single veto, I mean--the Senate gets to veto only one option per nomination. Before the veto, maybe the rules dictate they have some input into a handful of potential nominees being considered, and if they still veto someone (like Garland), then the President gets executive decree. This isn't something I'm thinking about the details too much except to say it's necessary. It seems like a couple of people with average intelligence could sit down and work out a better set of rules.

I don't think giving the president a couple whacks at it that are gonna be voted down only to revert to executive decree is the answer either, no.  Advise and consent is important.  It's royally fucked right now, but that's because of polarization, not because of the rules. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

By that rationale the Senate should still be chosen by state legislatures

Absolutely not.  The 17th Amendment explicitly makes Senators subject to direct election.  There is no such provision regarding equal representation.  Further, election of Senators by State Legislatures was not subject to a veto provision like the final clause of Art V of the US Constitution.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The 17th Amendment explicitly makes Senators subject to direct election.

Right!  And just like it supersedes Article I Section 3.1, a hypothetical 28th amendment could negate what is said at the end of Article V.  I honestly don't know how you're not getting this at this point.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, DMC said:

Right!  And just like it supersedes Article I Section 3.1, a hypothetical 28th amendment could negate what is said at the end of Article V.  I honestly don't know how you're not getting this at this point.

That there is no provision in the US Constitution providing States with individual veto power over a change to States ability to elect Senators from State Legislatures.  Allowing the equal representation provision to be amended by normal procedures compeletly undercuts and nullifies the point of giving States individualized veto power over equal representation in the Senate.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

14 hours ago, DMC said:

I'm still not hearing a realistic solution beyond appointment by executive decree, which again I do not support.

I honestly don't think just allowing the President to appoint Supreme Court Justices without Senate confirmation would be any worse than the status quo. Not that it would be a good idea, just that the Senate is just such an insane institution that I'm in favor of stripping it of any powers it can be stripped of. Of course, the reality is that it can feasibly be stripped of no powers since amending the Constitution is practically impossible today. But who knows what we might end up with after the coming years and decades of political dysfunction and attendant crises strain our system of government to the point of actual collapse! 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Allowing the equal representation provision to be amended by normal procedures compeletly undercuts and nullifies the point of giving States individualized veto power over equal representation in the Senate.

Yep.  Amendments often nullify provisions in the original text of the constitution.  As I've cited, frequently.  What is your actual argument here?  That they shouldn't be able to?  Because that's, well, unconstitutional.

1 minute ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

I honestly don't think just allowing the President to appoint Supreme Court Justices without Senate confirmation would be any worse than the status quo.

I dunno, I'd rather not give the GOP free rein in this regard.  And even if it didn't have an empirical effect, I still disagree with giving the president that power just based on principle.  Even though the Senate is, of course, an institutional iniquity.  If you wanna change advise and consent based on idealistic grounds, I guess give the vote to the House.  Don't think there'd be much practical difference though - even if gerrymandering was eradicated. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

47 minutes ago, DMC said:

Yep.  Amendments often nullify provisions in the original text of the constitution.  As I've cited, frequently.  What is your actual argument here?  That they shouldn't be able to?  Because that's, well, unconstitutional.

My argument is that the express terms of the US Constitution make changing equal representation in the Senate much more difficult than the normal amendment process.  If we can just amend the more difficult amendment process via the normal amendment process… what was the point of making the process of changing equal representation in the Senate more difficult in the first place?

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If we can just amend the more difficult amendment process via the normal amendment process… what was the point of making the process of changing equal representation in the Senate more difficult in the first place?

The point was the beginning of that provision in Article V:

Quote

Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

It was about the slave trade.  That's not something I think is essential to maintain among the original text.  Plus, ya know, times up on the 1808 deadline.  Regardless, your logic is fundamentally flawed.  Again, just because the original text says something has to be a certain way does not mean amendments can't supersede that.  That's the entire point of having amendments.  And if we didn't hold to that ideal, this country would even be a far shittier place than it is.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, DMC said:

The point was the beginning of that provision in Article V:

It was about the slave trade.  That's not something I think is essential to maintain among the original text.  Plus, ya know, times up on the 1808 deadline.  Regardless, your logic is fundamentally flawed.  Again, just because the original text says something has to be a certain way does not mean amendments can't supersede that.  That's the entire point of having amendments.  And if we didn't hold to that ideal, this country would even be a far shittier place than it is.

The final clause about equal representation in the Senate is independent of the clauses you cite.  

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

The final clause about equal representation in the Senate is independent of the clauses you cite.  

LOL, you asked for why that part was put in and that's why.  Come back to me when you have any substantive argument.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

6 minutes ago, DMC said:

LOL, you asked for why that part was put in and that's why.  Come back to me when you have any substantive argument.

It is illogical to require unanimous consent to change equal representation in the Senate but to allow the hightened requirements to amend that same provision to be amended through the normal process.

That structurally eliminates the original hightened requirement.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Sounds like a grand old argument as to why the Constitution should be ripped to shreds. 

Seriously, we're debating specifics of a 250 year old document written by men, some of whom, raped their slaves when they were horny and bored.

Time for a new one.

[DMC]

13 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is illogical to require unanimous consent to change equal representation in the Senate but to allow the hightened requirements to amend that same provision to be amended through the normal process.

Yep, it is.  So is, btw, Article VII, which requires only 9 out of 13 states to ratify in order for the constitution to take effect when abolishing the Articles required unanimity.  The constitution is fundamentally contradictory.  Congrats, you've passed AP American History.  That still doesn't mean we can't amend the constitution in a way that nullifies the original text of the constitution once again - as we've done numerous times before.  Your argument here is either sophomoric or deliberately contrary.