"We're in the endgame, now"

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
13,655
3,535
136
The US Constitution is a broken mess. Time for the next version.
Have you ever read any of the histories of the last American Civil War? It was ugly. Both sides committed atrocities. The next one will be just as bad, only this time we have nukes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,734
11,906
136
The US Constitution is a broken mess. Time for the next version.
It’s not the constitution that is broken but the people who are charged with interpreting it, enforcing it, and protecting it that are broken.

The fix is simple yet monumental.

End the filibuster. It’s a self imposed restriction that hinders the senates ability to operate.

Remove the limit or expand the number of house representatives there are.

Expand the courts and remove the ability to use or rely on the “shadow docket”.

Campaign finance reform, specifically removing outside money from it.

The above doesn’t require a constitutional amendment or holding a super majority in either chamber and it restores peoples ability to be represented by someone who shares similar views.
 
Last edited:

gothuevos

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2010
1,166
864
136
So if this goes through, could a state legislature pass a blatantly ridiculous election law (ie, not allow women to vote for example), and the state courts couldn't do anything about it? And the federal government couldn't intervene either?
 

NTMBK

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2011
9,836
3,945
136
It’s not the constitution that is broken but the people who are charged with interpreting it, enforcing it, and protecting it that are broken.
Nah. It's badly written and has lots of dumb ideas. Electoral college? Dumb. Idaho getting as many Senators as California? Dumb. Second Amendment? Dumb. Lifetime appointments for Supreme Court Justices? Dumb.

Throw it out and start over. You deserve better rules.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
10,623
5,326
136
Nah. It's badly written and has lots of dumb ideas. Electoral college? Dumb. Idaho getting as many Senators as California? Dumb. Second Amendment? Dumb. Lifetime appointments for Supreme Court Justices? Dumb.

Throw it out and start over. You deserve better rules.

Surely the Number One problem with the Constitution is that it's so impossibly-difficult to amend? Seems to me that's because the system for doing so was devised when the country was far smaller and less diverse, and as the country has grown in size and complexity it's no longer fit for purpose.

Maybe they need to pack the court with judges who will creatively-interpret the existing rules so as to make Constitutional amendments much easier? Then go to work cleaning it up.
 
Last edited:

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
10,623
5,326
136
So if this goes through, could a state legislature pass a blatantly ridiculous election law (ie, not allow women to vote for example), and the state courts couldn't do anything about it? And the federal government couldn't intervene either?
I was thinking maybe they'd go after women's right to vote next. After all, it's not something that passes the "rooted in the history and traditions" test. In general the thing about that "test" is that it is intrinsically reactionary, attaching huge importance to a past where land-owning white men had all the power. And the logical strategy for the Insane Court Posse would surely be to prioritise self-reinforcing attacks on the mechanisms of democracy itself, rather than first going for all the social issues like contraception and gay marriage.

However, the suffragists managed to pass an actual Constitutional amendment to enumerate that point specifically, so presumably that one is safe? They'll probably have to settle for minor things like facilitating more gerrymandering, voter-suppression, and the corporate purchase of politicians.
 
Last edited:

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
10,987
7,877
146
I was thinking maybe they'd go after women's right to vote next. After all, it's not something that passes the "rooted in the history and traditions" test. In general the thing about that "test" is that it is intrinsically reactionary, attaching huge importance to a past where land-owning white men had all the power. And the logical strategy for the Insane Court Posse would surely be to prioritise self-reinforcing attacks on the mechanisms of democracy itself, rather than first going for all the social issues like contraception and gay marriage.

However, the suffragists managed to pass an actual Constitutional amendment to enumerate that point specifically, so presumably that one is safe?
I'd expect minority and voting from city districts to get ratcheted down first, even moreso than it currently is. May not be necessary if they can simply shuffle through electors until they get one that agrees to vote R no matter what, however.
 

StinkyPinky

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2002
6,679
630
126
I have lots of ideas about how to make the government less corrupt (and scotus for that matter)

Remove the fillibuster
Make lobbying illegal (it's basically legal bribery)
Term limits for scotus, and increase the size of it
Term limits for senators so we don't get geriatrics running the show
Age limit for president and vice president, not allowed to be over 70 on election date
Every week, one senator must be punched in the face by Mike Tyson. Done by lottery. Televised globally.
 

kt

Diamond Member
Apr 1, 2000
5,753
864
126
I have lots of ideas about how to make the government less corrupt (and scotus for that matter)

Remove the fillibuster
Make lobbying illegal (it's basically legal bribery)
Term limits for scotus, and increase the size of it
Term limits for senators so we don't get geriatrics running the show
Age limit for president and vice president, not allowed to be over 70 on election date
Every week, one senator must be punched in the face by Mike Tyson. Done by lottery. Televised globally.
How about instead a punch to the face, they get punched in the nut? That way they will know how it feels for someone else being in charge of their reproductive system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Captante

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
10,623
5,326
136
I have lots of ideas about how to make the government less corrupt (and scotus for that matter)

Remove the fillibuster
Make lobbying illegal (it's basically legal bribery)
Term limits for scotus, and increase the size of it
Term limits for senators so we don't get geriatrics running the show
Age limit for president and vice president, not allowed to be over 70 on election date
Every week, one senator must be punched in the face by Mike Tyson. Done by lottery. Televised globally.
How about supreme Court Justices instead of Senators in that last one?
Would be a kind of "stochastic term limit".
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,471
31,823
136
I was thinking maybe they'd go after women's right to vote next. After all, it's not something that passes the "rooted in the history and traditions" test. In general the thing about that "test" is that it is intrinsically reactionary, attaching huge importance to a past where land-owning white men had all the power. And the logical strategy for the Insane Court Posse would surely be to prioritise self-reinforcing attacks on the mechanisms of democracy itself, rather than first going for all the social issues like contraception and gay marriage.

However, the suffragists managed to pass an actual Constitutional amendment to enumerate that point specifically, so presumably that one is safe? They'll probably have to settle for minor things like facilitating more gerrymandering, voter-suppression, and the corporate purchase of politicians.
No, that would violate the 19th amendment. Generally speaking if two parts of the Constitution are in conflict but one part is explicit, the explicit part wins out.

Then again with this court who knows.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
10,623
5,326
136
No, that would violate the 19th amendment. Generally speaking if two parts of the Constitution are in conflict but one part is explicit, the explicit part wins out.

Then again with this court who knows.
I feel petulantly obligated to point out I conceded that very point in the post you quoted!

Fortunate that the suffragists managed to get that explicitly stated in a (rare) amendment. Anything not explicitly enumerated is presumably now up for being reconsidered, based on this intrinsically-right-wing test they've settled on.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,471
31,823
136
I feel petulantly obligated to point out I conceded that very point in the post you quoted!

Fortunate that the suffragists managed to get that explicitly stated in a (rare) amendment. Anything not explicitly enumerated is presumably now up for being reconsidered, based on this intrinsically-right-wing test they've settled on.
Oh man you're right, haha. My mistake!
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
10,623
5,326
136
Endgame indeed...



More than one quarter of US residents feel so estranged from their government that they feel it might “soon be necessary to take up arms” against it, a poll released on Thursday claimed.

This survey of 1,000 registered US voters, published by the University of Chicago’s Institute of Politics (IOP), also revealed that most Americans agree the government is “corrupt and rigged against everyday people like me”.
The survey indicates that distrust in government varies among party lines. While 56% of participants said they “generally trust elections to be conducted fairly and counted accurately”, Republicans, Democrats and independents were dramatically split on this point. Nearly 80% of Democrats voiced overall trust in elections, but that number dipped to 51% among independents and a mere 33% of Republicans.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
76,471
31,823
136

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
30,734
11,906
136
I have lots of ideas about how to make the government less corrupt (and scotus for that matter)

Remove the fillibuster easy
Make lobbying illegal (it's basically legal bribery) requires a constitutional amendment so almost impossible to achieve.
Term limits for scotus, and increase the size of it Also requires a constitutional amendment.
Term limits for senators so we don't get geriatrics running the show Doable but may not be a good idea.
Age limit for president and vice president, not allowed to be over 70 on election date Doable.
Every week, one senator must be punched in the face by Mike Tyson. Done by lottery. Televised globally. [Idiocracy here we

Responses in bold.
 

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
54,488
7,090
126
Endgame indeed...


Fuck's sake...
Republican voters agreed that “Democrats are generally bullies who want to impose their political beliefs on those who disagree,” and “an almost identical percentage of Democrats (74%) express that view of Republicans”.
Democrats aren't making anyone get abortions, or get gay married, or making them transgender. They're just allowing people who want to do those things to do them. Y'know, that whole "freedom" thing the Christian fascists profess to love.
Contrast that with the actions of Republicans, who literally are imposing their political beliefs on abortion, and gunning for those other items. And forcing us to pay for religious schools. And allowing corporations to further fuck over life on the entire planet for decades and centuries to come.
But "both sides same", of course.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
10,623
5,326
136
I would be interested to see how that number compares to times in the past because I don't have that much trouble believing that somewhere around 25% of the country has thought that for a long time.
Probably true, but the proportion of Republican voters who don't trust elections is surely new, and presumably a consequence of the Trumpist Republican Party's behaviour.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY