• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Our Timidity is Killing the Constitution

Terryj said:
This whole issue can be fixed if Congress chooses to do so. Congress gave these powers to the Executive Branch and Congress can take them away. The emergency powers act gave the President powers that were never delegated to the President under Article 2 of the Constitution. Congress can fix this if they would just get off their collective butts and do something. It is easier to delegated responsibility than to have to take it up for yourself, this way it gives Congress someone to blame instead of accepting their own responsibility.
Click to expand...

So when you have a split congress like we have now, everyone should just go home?
 
NotreDame said:
Yes.

I’m out of school now, been out of school for the last 14 years.

But I venture back every fall.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Go Irish!
 
Terryj said:
No,not at all, Congress can come together and pull back the powers of the President that Congress has delegated to the President, this shouldn't be a bipartisan issue, it should be their job.
Click to expand...

Congress doing its job. How profound. And quaint. 《Sigh》
 
HumblePi said:
And even with the Mueller interview with Congress behind us and the dire warning Mueller gave the US about ongoing Russian interference, Mitch McConnell refuses to allow any new election-security legislation. I'm telling you, they're all hooked up with the Russians.

The democrats are making a huge mistake not beginning the process of an impeachment inquiry. They wasted time issuing subpoenas then wasted time issuing contempt citations, which are meaningless anyway. Now those cases are collecting mold and mildew in the court dockets while time is passing by. The only thing that forced Richard Nixon to turn over his Watergate tapes was the initiation of a formal impeachment inquiry and that's the only thing that will force these reluctant witnesses to testify before Congress. I've emailed and tweeted to members of Congress that have been reluctant to commit to proceeding with an impeachment inquiry to let them know how I feel about it. If enough people pressure their own congressman, they'll start listening.
Click to expand...

McConnell shouldn't allow ANY new security legislation, especially if Democrats think it up. They are so ****ing stupid, partisan, agenda driven and corrupt, I wouldn't let them vote on jack **** if it were me. I don't want my Congress just passing any old legislation anyway; ESPECIALLY IF DEMOCRATS ARE BEHIND IT. You can't trust them. They are liars at the grandest scale. Look at what they've propose Green New Deal and Medicare for All; both galactically stupid ideas.
 
American said:
McConnell shouldn't allow ANY new security legislation, especially if Democrats think it up. They are so ****ing stupid, partisan, agenda driven and corrupt, I wouldn't let them vote on jack **** if it were me. I don't want my Congress just passing any old legislation anyway; ESPECIALLY IF DEMOCRATS ARE BEHIND IT. You can't trust them. They are liars at the grandest scale. Look at what they've propose Green New Deal and Medicare for All; both galactically stupid ideas.
Click to expand...

Do you feel any better getting your rant off your chest? You know very well that the Senate is there for one purpose, to discuss bills before they're passed, which is their JOB. If a bill passes in the House with support of BOTH parties, it is the JOB of Mitch McConnell to at least take it to the floor to discuss. So, your rant holds no water.
 
HumblePi said:
Do you feel any better getting your rant off your chest? You know very well that the Senate is there for one purpose, to discuss bills before they're passed, which is their JOB. If a bill passes in the House with support of BOTH parties, it is the JOB of Mitch McConnell to at least take it to the floor to discuss. So, your rant holds no water.
Click to expand...

It used to be said with seriousness that the Senate was the greatest deliberative body in the world. (Not sure it was ever true, though.) Now it is a punchline. Nobody takes them seriously, at least as long as McConnell is in charge.
 
NWRatCon said:
The United States Constitution has been operational for 230 years. It has been the inspiration for hundreds of other constitutions the world over, and helped spread the concept of democratic representation since its inception. Yet, it is under its worst assault since the Civil War. That is not hyperbole. Our timidity in defending the principles and structure of the Constitution is allowing it to be killed by unscrupulous operators.

Consider: The current Senate Majority Leader refused for over a year to allow the Senate to execute its responsibility of "the Advice and Consent of the Senate" over a Supreme Court Justice, as called for in Article II, Section 2, cl. 2; Congress is given the authority "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, cl 1.), yet the President is usurping that authority to pay for a wall Congress will not appropriate funds for; the current occupant of the White House has committed repeated felonies while in office (and to get there), yet the House has yet to initiate a hearing about that (Article I, Section 3, cl. 5); previous Congresses and Presidents have created agencies to administer laws duly enacted through the Constitutional process, yet the President has appointed opponents of those agencies to head them and dismantle the legal apparatuses they are charged with enforcing (Article I, Section I, cl. 1; Article II, Section 2, cl 2.); the President, abetted by corrupt Attorneys General, has prohibited current - and even former - federal officers from appearing before Congress and inhibited their investigatory functions under the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, cl. 18); and the President has failed to abide by his oath to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." having left a full third of the inferior offices created by Congress vacant. (Article II, Section 3.)

In each of those instances, the people have not, as a body, risen up to raise holy hell about these malfeasances in office (there are so many more I can cite). As citizens and denizens of the United States it is our responsibility to hold our representatives accountable - and not just through elections. It is not just a right, but an obligation to " peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." After all, the Constitution was ordained and established by "We the People of the United States" and if we don't take responsibility to ensure that it is faithfully executed, who will?
Click to expand...

Biggest problem is that the US Constitution isn't fit for the 21st Century in a lot of ways.

Democracy? No thank you, we prefer to have a twisted system which doesn't do what it's supposed to do, and neither is it democratic.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Biggest problem is that the US Constitution isn't fit for the 21st Century in a lot of ways.

Democracy? No thank you, we prefer to have a twisted system which doesn't do what it's supposed to do, and neither is it democratic.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning that the Constitution isn't fit for our times. The reasoning behind this type of statement is due to those in power abusing the Constitution to prop up their agendas. Congress just got lazy and decided to give a great deal of power to the executive branch so they didn't have to deal with it. And worse of all, We the People in this country have done nothing about it because we have come to the conclusion that our government has to run everything. All this does is strip the liberties away from the people, and the government will gladly do that.

We are not a Democracy, we are a Representative Constitutional Republic with limited democracy.
 
Terryj said:
I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning that the Constitution isn't fit for our times. The reasoning behind this type of statement is due to those in power abusing the Constitution to prop up their agendas. Congress just got lazy and decided to give a great deal of power to the executive branch so they didn't have to deal with it. And worse of all, We the People in this country have done nothing about it because we have come to the conclusion that our government has to run everything. All this does is strip the liberties away from the people, and the government will gladly do that.

We are not a Democracy, we are a Representative Constitutional Republic with limited democracy.
Click to expand...

The first paragraph I completely agree with, the second is gobbledygook. I've seen this formulation before, but it borders on nonsense. We are a "representative democracy", in that we elect leaders to represent our interests - as opposed to direct democracy - that is our form of government. The flavor of our democracy is "constitutional", as opposed to civil. The structure of our government is "federal," as it divides sovereignty between a central government and state governments. "Republic," although favored at the time of our foundation as shorthand for representative democracy, has been largely superseded by its synonym "representative democracy" in political discourse, because of the acquired ambiguity of the term republic. As the founders used it, they meant representative democracy, but it is also sometimes used to describe a confederated system where power is vested in independent sovereign authorities, and only leant to a central authority. Ours is not, technically, that system but a federal one. That is why the term "republic" is general disfavored.
 
Last edited:
Terryj said:
I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning that the Constitution isn't fit for our times. The reasoning behind this type of statement is due to those in power abusing the Constitution to prop up their agendas. Congress just got lazy and decided to give a great deal of power to the executive branch so they didn't have to deal with it. And worse of all, We the People in this country have done nothing about it because we have come to the conclusion that our government has to run everything. All this does is strip the liberties away from the people, and the government will gladly do that.

We are not a Democracy, we are a Representative Constitutional Republic with limited democracy.
Click to expand...

Yes, the US isn't a democracy. It's just a country that goes around the world demanding that everyone else be democratic. Even to the point that Bush Dubya, elected without a majority of the votes tried to depose of Hugo Chavez, elected with a majority of the votes, and the people who did the leg work, were supposed to be promoting democracy.

However that doesn't mean that in the modern time the US shouldn't become a democracy.

The reasons why it's not fit for the modern era would include:


The claim of the Electoral College is that it benefits the smaller states. The problem right now is that the EC only benefits twelve states. Literally presidential candidates only focus on 12 states. Wyoming, the smallest population, is NOT one of these states.

A Campaign Map, Morphed By Money : It's All Politics : NPR

If you look at maps 3 and 4 it shows advertising spending by presidential candidates.

You have 41st state in terms of population, New Hampshire, then 32nd state, then 31st state, then 22nd state, 21st state, 20th state, 12th state, 10th state, 9th state, 7th state 5th state and 3rd state.

Hardly representative even of the smallest states. Only THREE of the 12 states are in the bottom 50% in terms of population size. Meaning 22 of the smallest states are almost completely ignored.

You have the reality that people now vote for a Federal President. Yes, the whole "states have the power and the federal govt represents those states" doesn't exist. The federal govt has supremacy, and yet the election kind of does a middle ground of promoting some states and not others.


The House elections are probably even worse. Gerrymandering is so bad it often means people don't get a say in who their representatives are.

FPTP is a bad system because people ended up voting negatively. This can be proven with the German elections where they have FPTP and PR on the same day. In 2017 8% of people changed their vote from big parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR. And this is with them already knowing that PR will decide the outcome of government. It was 10% in the election before this.

So people don't vote FOR Republican or Democrat in large numbers. They vote AGAINST Republican or Democrat in large numbers. You're looking at about 33% to 50% of people who do this.

The Supreme Court is ridiculous. So, the Republicans have won ONE popular vote since the 1980s, and that was Dubya's second election. And yet the Republicans have had 50% of Supreme Court justice picks and more Federal court picks. This has become a highly partisan issue and the fights are ridiculous. The Supreme Court is not representative of the country and yet has so much power. It was not designed to be so partisan. Nor was the presidency or Congress.
 
There is not much of your last post that I disagree with, although you kinda lost me with the arguments about FPTP (First Past the Post) and PR (Proportional Representation). But I do agree with the arguments that the current system is not effectively representative of the voting public.
Frigidweirdo said:
The claim of the Electoral College is that it benefits the smaller states. The problem right now is that the EC only benefits twelve states. Literally presidential candidates only focus on 12 states.
Click to expand...
Not only does this affect the Presidential election, it also means that the Senate races are usually not competitive. Presidential Elections State-by-State: Hardening Partisanship (FairVote). "ome states have not been competitive for [more] than a half-century and ... most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position for at least a decade."
Number of States Won Only by Republican Party, 1980-2012 = 13
Number of States Won Only by Democratic Party, 1992-2012 = 19
Number of Safe Democratic States Not Swing State since 1988 = 7
Number of Safe Republican States Not Swing State since 1988 = 16
Click to expand...

Frigidweirdo said:
The House elections are probably even worse. Gerrymandering is so bad it often means people don't get a say in who their representatives are.
Click to expand...
That is why there is a 90% reelection rate. The vast majority of House seats are "noncompetitive." Monopoly Politics 2020: Expect Noncompetitive Elections in More Than 80 Percent of Congressional Seats for Next Election (FairVote)
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Yes, the US isn't a democracy. It's just a country that goes around the world demanding that everyone else be democratic. Even to the point that Bush Dubya, elected without a majority of the votes tried to depose of Hugo Chavez, elected with a majority of the votes, and the people who did the leg work, were supposed to be promoting democracy.

However that doesn't mean that in the modern time the US shouldn't become a democracy.

The reasons why it's not fit for the modern era would include:


The claim of the Electoral College is that it benefits the smaller states. The problem right now is that the EC only benefits twelve states. Literally presidential candidates only focus on 12 states. Wyoming, the smallest population, is NOT one of these states.

A Campaign Map, Morphed By Money : It's All Politics : NPR

If you look at maps 3 and 4 it shows advertising spending by presidential candidates.

You have 41st state in terms of population, New Hampshire, then 32nd state, then 31st state, then 22nd state, 21st state, 20th state, 12th state, 10th state, 9th state, 7th state 5th state and 3rd state.

Hardly representative even of the smallest states. Only THREE of the 12 states are in the bottom 50% in terms of population size. Meaning 22 of the smallest states are almost completely ignored.

You have the reality that people now vote for a Federal President. Yes, the whole "states have the power and the federal govt represents those states" doesn't exist. The federal govt has supremacy, and yet the election kind of does a middle ground of promoting some states and not others.


The House elections are probably even worse. Gerrymandering is so bad it often means people don't get a say in who their representatives are.

FPTP is a bad system because people ended up voting negatively. This can be proven with the German elections where they have FPTP and PR on the same day. In 2017 8% of people changed their vote from big parties with FPTP to smaller parties with PR. And this is with them already knowing that PR will decide the outcome of government. It was 10% in the election before this.

So people don't vote FOR Republican or Democrat in large numbers. They vote AGAINST Republican or Democrat in large numbers. You're looking at about 33% to 50% of people who do this.

The Supreme Court is ridiculous. So, the Republicans have won ONE popular vote since the 1980s, and that was Dubya's second election. And yet the Republicans have had 50% of Supreme Court justice picks and more Federal court picks. This has become a highly partisan issue and the fights are ridiculous. The Supreme Court is not representative of the country and yet has so much power. It was not designed to be so partisan. Nor was the presidency or Congress.
Click to expand...

Bravo. One note, the SCOTUS was originally not even set up to review the constitutionality of laws or the other branches. It was more like a circuit court. Marbury changed everything which is why Marshall is one of the most important persons in our early history.
 
NWRatCon said:
There is not much of your last post that I disagree with, although you kinda lost me with the arguments about FPTP (First Past the Post) and PR (Proportional Representation). But I do agree with the arguments that the current system is not effectively representative of the voting public. Not only does this affect the Presidential election, it also means that the Senate races are usually not competitive. Presidential Elections State-by-State: Hardening Partisanship (FairVote). "ome states have not been competitive for [more] than a half-century and ... most states now have a degree of partisan imbalance that makes them highly unlikely to be in a swing state position for at least a decade."

That is why there is a 90% reelection rate. The vast majority of House seats are "noncompetitive." Monopoly Politics 2020: Expect Noncompetitive Elections in More Than 80 Percent of Congressional Seats for Next Election (FairVote)
Click to expand...


Totally.

I'd be happy to explain which parts of the FPTP and PR argument you don't understand.

The simple fact is in the US that democracy is there in appearance only at a national level.
 
Vadinho said:
Bravo. One note, the SCOTUS was originally not even set up to review the constitutionality of laws or the other branches. It was more like a circuit court. Marbury changed everything which is why Marshall is one of the most important persons in our early history.
Click to expand...

Yes, well the Supreme Court was always going to end up being an important part of the US government. I think the whole checks and balances demanded it.

But what checks and balances are there right now? Almost none, unless the Democrats are in power.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
Yes, well the Supreme Court was always going to end up being an important part of the US government. I think the whole checks and balances demanded it.

But what checks and balances are there right now? Almost none, unless the Democrats are in power.
Click to expand...

If you read anything about Marshall, you will see that he agreed with you which is why Marbury is the most important case in the history of the courts.
 
Vadinho said:
If you read anything about Marshall, you will see that he agreed with you which is why Marbury is the most important case in the history of the courts.
Click to expand...

Yes, oddly they got away with giving themselves the power to be the most powerful branch of govt when it was never remotely intended. Liberals are gonna love it when Trump gets two more appointments.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
The simple fact is in the US that democracy is there in appearance only at a national level.
Click to expand...

Yes our Founders were very wise men; they knew very few were qualified to vote. This is why our libcommies( opposite of wise men) want to register even prisoners to vote.
 
Frigidweirdo said:
The Supreme Court is not representative of the country and yet has so much power. It was not designed to be so partisan. Nor was the presidency or Congress.
Click to expand...

The govt in general has so much power when the purpose of our govt was to grant us freedom from govt power. Now we are on the verge of a AOC libNazi take over of our govt and our lives.
 
NWRatCon said:
we elect leaders to represent our interests - as opposed to direct democracy -.
Click to expand...

yes, our Founders knew we were not intelligent enough for direct democracy, but today's liberals know better. They just elected AOC and want to register prisoners to vote!!
 
Terryj said:
I'd be interested in hearing your reasoning that the Constitution isn't fit for our times..
Click to expand...

Very simple. To a liberal the Constitution was always not fit because it limited govt since govt is the source of evil in human history. Liberals want to give socialism yet another try and will not be dissuaded until 200 million human souls have been killed.
 
NWRatCon said:
The United States Constitution has been operational for 230 years. It has been the inspiration for hundreds of other constitutions the world over, and helped spread the concept of democratic representation since its inception. Yet, it is under its worst assault since the Civil War. That is not hyperbole. Our timidity in defending the principles and structure of the Constitution is allowing it to be killed by unscrupulous operators.

Consider: The current Senate Majority Leader refused for over a year to allow the Senate to execute its responsibility of "the Advice and Consent of the Senate" over a Supreme Court Justice, as called for in Article II, Section 2, cl. 2; Congress is given the authority "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" (Article I, Section 8, cl 1.), yet the President is usurping that authority to pay for a wall Congress will not appropriate funds for; the current occupant of the White House has committed repeated felonies while in office (and to get there), yet the House has yet to initiate a hearing about that (Article I, Section 3, cl. 5); previous Congresses and Presidents have created agencies to administer laws duly enacted through the Constitutional process, yet the President has appointed opponents of those agencies to head them and dismantle the legal apparatuses they are charged with enforcing (Article I, Section I, cl. 1; Article II, Section 2, cl 2.); the President, abetted by corrupt Attorneys General, has prohibited current - and even former - federal officers from appearing before Congress and inhibited their investigatory functions under the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, cl. 18); and the President has failed to abide by his oath to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." having left a full third of the inferior offices created by Congress vacant. (Article II, Section 3.)

In each of those instances, the people have not, as a body, risen up to raise holy hell about these malfeasances in office (there are so many more I can cite). As citizens and denizens of the United States it is our responsibility to hold our representatives accountable - and not just through elections. It is not just a right, but an obligation to " peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." After all, the Constitution was ordained and established by "We the People of the United States" and if we don't take responsibility to ensure that it is faithfully executed, who will?
Click to expand...

1. Garland - The Senate’s advice and consent role is an authorized legislative power, not a responsibility. The real issue is the politicization of the Supreme Court which acts as an inducement of such behavior, like the type taken by McConnell. But, that is the subject of another discussion.

2. The wall - I’m not sure why you cite to the General Welfare Clause instead of the Appropriations Clause. Notwithstanding, Trump is simply redirecting certain allocated funds to the border wall. Most of the justification is based upon funds allocated for drug interdiction. I’m not quite clear what the issue is.

3. The Senate impeachment clause is actually the 6th clause of the 3d article. But, I am co fixed why you would cite the Senate impeachment clause while deriding the House for not impeaching Trump. Help me out a bit. Moreover, there is precedent to not convict a president for obstruction of justice and perjury, though there was ample evidence - his name is Bill Clinton. And, we all know precedent matters in these things.

4. This is an inherent problem with the reliance upon non-specific legislation being fleshed out with agency regulations. The regulations can be changed using an alteration if interpretation or with the rulemaking authority as opposed to the legislative process. This happens in every administration, and is not peculiar to Trump.

5. The Congress does not have plenary authority to haul executive officials to inquire about any topic it may desire. The existence of executive privilege exists to allow the executive to effectively carry out its tasks.

6. This is somewhat silly. Your point may be valid if Trump just wasn’t nominating people, but his number of nominees is in line with other presidents. The number of nominations confirmed, on the other hand is a different matter. Moreover, there is no requirement that Trump appoint a person to every position that is available. I frankly do not have a problem with that.

If that is the best you got in your protestation that the Constitution is under assault, you have a fairly weak case.
 
clapee said:
1. Garland - The Senate’s advice and consent role is an authorized legislative power, not a responsibility. The real issue is the politicization of the Supreme Court which acts as an inducement of such behavior, like the type taken by McConnell. But, that is the subject of another discussion.

2. The wall - I’m not sure why you cite to the General Welfare Clause instead of the Appropriations Clause. Notwithstanding, Trump is simply redirecting certain allocated funds to the border wall. Most of the justification is based upon funds allocated for drug interdiction. I’m not quite clear what the issue is.

3. The Senate impeachment clause is actually the 6th clause of the 3d article. But, I am co fixed why you would cite the Senate impeachment clause while deriding the House for not impeaching Trump. Help me out a bit. Moreover, there is precedent to not convict a president for obstruction of justice and perjury, though there was ample evidence - his name is Bill Clinton. And, we all know precedent matters in these things.

4. This is an inherent problem with the reliance upon non-specific legislation being fleshed out with agency regulations. The regulations can be changed using an alteration if interpretation or with the rulemaking authority as opposed to the legislative process. This happens in every administration, and is not peculiar to Trump.

5. The Congress does not have plenary authority to haul executive officials to inquire about any topic it may desire. The existence of executive privilege exists to allow the executive to effectively carry out its tasks.

6. This is somewhat silly. Your point may be valid if Trump just wasn’t nominating people, but his number of nominees is in line with other presidents. The number of nominations confirmed, on the other hand is a different matter. Moreover, there is no requirement that Trump appoint a person to every position that is available. I frankly do not have a problem with that.

If that is the best you got in your protestation that the Constitution is under assault, you have a fairly weak case.
Click to expand...

Welcome to DP. I wish you could have introduced yourself with something better than this incredibly weak sauce, but at least you are addressing the content of the post, which I greatly appreciate. I'm a bit busy with a new roof, at present, but I'll try to be back with a detailed response later today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom