CDZ Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

[Donald H]

The Constitution is NOT flawed. SCOTUS needs to turn WI, MI, PA and GA fatally flawed results back to the respective Legislatures

Texas has a legal right to fair and legal practice in those states. You can't brush that under the carpet.
It's not going to be easy for any American to accept that the union of states is fatally flawed.

Isn't it a peculiar situation that doesn't exist in some other country? I'm not sure but I suspect it is and if it isn't then that other country must grapple with the same question.

Or is it your Constitution that is flawed, but not fatally because it can be amended.

 

[danielpalos]

Texas has a legal right to fair and legal practice in those states.

Good; let's audit Texas first, for the metrics. Metadata for the general welfare not the general warfare!

 

[Donald H]

Any lawyers present? Constitutional experts?

The regular forum members appear to have gone dark!

Well the first test in a law suit is you must have damages or there is nothing to sue for by you. If I cared that much I would look up the case law. I have not even looked at their arguments. As far as a flawed document sure the constitution has flaws all things do. The constitution is a living document it can change.

It's being suggested that Texas is suffering damages, and if the charges are in fact legitimate then they will suffer damage.

The damage being an illegitimate president elected.

None of this is too complicated for anybody if they take it seriously and sincerely attempt to answer the question.

 

[Donald H]

Texas has a legal right to fair and legal practice in those states.

Good; let's audit Texas first, for the metrics. Metadata for the general welfare not the general warfare!

Finding something illegal in Texas, is your attempt to skirt the question. Don't argue with me on which side is right. I couldn't give a fk.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The Constitution has been compromised; I'm not sure if that means it was fatally flawed.

This current dispute seems pretty clear-cut, though. State legislatures determine state voting procedures.

The founders did a pretty good job with the Constitution, but remember............Jefferson warned us that our democracy could be seriously compromised or damaged if we allowed a demagogue into the office of the president.

For those of you who don't know what a demagogue is, here's the definition..................


demagogue
or dem·a·gog
[ dem-uh-gog, -gawg ]




SEE SYNONYMS FOR demagogue ON THESAURUS.COM
noun
1. a person, especially an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
2. (in ancient times) a leader of the people.
verb (used with object), dem·a·gogued, dem·a·gogu·ing.
3. to treat or manipulate (a political issue) in the manner of a demagogue; obscure or distort with emotionalism, prejudice, etc.
verb (used without object), dem·a·gogued, dem·a·gogu·ing.
4. to speak or act like a demagogue.

The way Trump continually speaks to his base is with emotional and prejudiced language. He rarely ever says how he's going to accomplish his goals. Incidentally, the wall STILL hasn't been built to the specs that Trump promised at the beginning, nor has Mexico paid one cent for it. Trump is a demagogue and has been using his bully pulpit and emotional language to divide this country.

 

[donttread]

The most obvious course this discussion must take now is on the question of the US Constitution being a fatally flawed document, in that one state's criminal malfeasance can't be allowed to stand when it has a direct influence on the other states. Both sides have a case that can be upheld by the Constitution!
The concept of the union of states becomes a flawed concept!

A very difficult concept for any American to accept, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable way out of the situation.

It's likely the whole thing will have to be shuffled off as a non-issue, and then that's when the plaintiffs will begin to understand that their only way forward is in violence.

Arguments?

Will this dispute call for Constitutional amendment? Can the US Constitution answer to the charges and the case that's valid for both sides?

There can be little doubt that the Scotus is wrestling with these questions right now!

I dunno "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear but it has been abused. Maybe it's not the Constitution but politicians that are flawed? I'm not certain you could write anything plain enough. The real answer was to elect the right people , which takes "Eternal Vigillance"

 

[dblack]

The most obvious course this discussion must take now is on the question of the US Constitution being a fatally flawed document, in that one state's criminal malfeasance can't be allowed to stand when it has a direct influence on the other states. Both sides have a case that can be upheld by the Constitution!
The concept of the union of states becomes a flawed concept!

A very difficult concept for any American to accept, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable way out of the situation.

It's likely the whole thing will have to be shuffled off as a non-issue, and then that's when the plaintiffs will begin to understand that their only way forward is in violence.

Arguments?

Will this dispute call for Constitutional amendment? Can the US Constitution answer to the charges and the case that's valid for both sides?

There can be little doubt that the Scotus is wrestling with these questions right now!

I think our Constitution IS flawed, in a number of ways. But US voters are entirely too stupid to improve upon it.

 

[Donald H]

Is it too soon to just come to the conclusion that there is no answer in the US Constitution? I think that could be, or some educated legal mind would have stepped up by now.

The union of the states is too fatally flawed for any constitution to cover for.

The only answer that's come close is the non-answer that 'the constitution isn't perfect'.

 

[danielpalos]

Texas has a legal right to fair and legal practice in those states.

Good; let's audit Texas first, for the metrics. Metadata for the general welfare not the general warfare!

Finding something illegal in Texas, is your attempt to skirt the question. Don't argue with me on which side is right. I couldn't give a fk.

Texas is welcome to show us the way by going first.

 

[Donald H]

The most obvious course this discussion must take now is on the question of the US Constitution being a fatally flawed document, in that one state's criminal malfeasance can't be allowed to stand when it has a direct influence on the other states. Both sides have a case that can be upheld by the Constitution!
The concept of the union of states becomes a flawed concept!

A very difficult concept for any American to accept, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable way out of the situation.

It's likely the whole thing will have to be shuffled off as a non-issue, and then that's when the plaintiffs will begin to understand that their only way forward is in violence.

Arguments?

Will this dispute call for Constitutional amendment? Can the US Constitution answer to the charges and the case that's valid for both sides?

There can be little doubt that the Scotus is wrestling with these questions right now!

I dunno "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear but it has been abused. Maybe it's not the Constitution but politicians that are flawed? I'm not certain you could write anything plain enough. The real answer was to elect the right people , which takes "Eternal Vigillance"

Thank you for your honest attempt!

I suggest that a Constitution must be capable of answering to the suggestion that politicians are flawed. Your Constitution surely must cover that which the law considers to be illegal activity. And so even your sincerity doesn't get us any closer to the answer that the Scotus must come up with.

Somehow each state will have to stand responsible before the law on their malfeasance but that can't possibly annul the result of the election.

This still leaves the question standing on whether or not the president was elected legitimately.

 

[evenflow1969]

Any lawyers present? Constitutional experts?

The regular forum members appear to have gone dark!

Well the first test in a law suit is you must have damages or there is nothing to sue for by you. If I cared that much I would look up the case law. I have not even looked at their arguments. As far as a flawed document sure the constitution has flaws all things do. The constitution is a living document it can change.

It's being suggested that Texas is suffering damages, and if the charges are in fact legitimate then they will suffer damage.

The damage being an illegitimate president elected.

None of this is too complicated for anybody if they take it seriously and sincerely attempt to answer the question.

Courts require that damages be provable and either be monitored. Maybe does not work in a court of law unless you are a lottery winner then maybe may bite you in the ass. First they would have to prove an illegal pres. Then they have to prove damages. Considering the party that is suing created some of those laws themselves it is not like to go any where at all. I would not take this case. I like to win. I guess if you think good old Rudy is a good attorney you will deal with these attorneys that are filing these long shots. Most clients I know do not want idiots that take hopeless causes. My clients would have nothing do with these idiots. Hey its a new day though people now aways will believe any thing. Maybe it does not hurt their reputation. I no longer shuffle paper. Wife gone kids gone. Money not really a thing to me any more. I pretty much just fish hunt and golf now a days. Been out the game for years what do I know

 

[dblack]

The most obvious course this discussion must take now is on the question of the US Constitution being a fatally flawed document, in that one state's criminal malfeasance can't be allowed to stand when it has a direct influence on the other states. Both sides have a case that can be upheld by the Constitution!
The concept of the union of states becomes a flawed concept!

A very difficult concept for any American to accept, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable way out of the situation.

It's likely the whole thing will have to be shuffled off as a non-issue, and then that's when the plaintiffs will begin to understand that their only way forward is in violence.

Arguments?

Will this dispute call for Constitutional amendment? Can the US Constitution answer to the charges and the case that's valid for both sides?

There can be little doubt that the Scotus is wrestling with these questions right now!

I dunno "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear but it has been abused. Maybe it's not the Constitution but politicians that are flawed? I'm not certain you could write anything plain enough. The real answer was to elect the right people , which takes "Eternal Vigillance"

Thank you for your honest attempt!

I suggest that a Constitution must be capable of answering to the suggestion that politicians are flawed. Your Constitution surely must cover that which the law considers to be illegal activity. And so even your sincerity doesn't get us any closer to the answer that the Scotus must come up with.

Somehow each state will have to stand responsible before the law on their malfeasance but that can't possibly annul the result of the election.

This still leaves the question standing on whether or not the president was elected legitimately.

Ahh... I see, you're hoping for something like a "Sore Loser's Amendment", that gives losers a do-over if their votes can prove they're batshit insane. Interesting, but I don't think it will fly.

 

[Donald H]

Texas has a legal right to fair and legal practice in those states.

Good; let's audit Texas first, for the metrics. Metadata for the general welfare not the general warfare!

Finding something illegal in Texas, is your attempt to skirt the question. Don't argue with me on which side is right. I couldn't give a fk.

Texas is welcome to show us the way by going first.

Texas doesn't need to do anything but present their case that says they are unduly and illegally influenced by illegal election practices in some other states.

Don't get the idea that I'm taking a side with Texas. If anything, I would be taking the other side. But that's not relevant here.

 

[Donald H]

Any lawyers present? Constitutional experts?

The regular forum members appear to have gone dark!

Well the first test in a law suit is you must have damages or there is nothing to sue for by you. If I cared that much I would look up the case law. I have not even looked at their arguments. As far as a flawed document sure the constitution has flaws all things do. The constitution is a living document it can change.

It's being suggested that Texas is suffering damages, and if the charges are in fact legitimate then they will suffer damage.

The damage being an illegitimate president elected.

None of this is too complicated for anybody if they take it seriously and sincerely attempt to answer the question.

Courts require that damages be provable and either be monitored. Maybe does not work in a court of law unless you are a lottery winner then maybe may bite you in the ass. First they would have to prove an illegal pres. Then they have to prove damages. Considering the party that is suing created some of those laws themselves it is not like to go any where at all. I would not take this case. I like to win. I guess if you think good old Rudy is a good attorney you will deal with these attorneys that are filing these long shots. Most clients I know do not want idiots that take hopeless causes. My clients would have nothing do with these idiots. Hey its a new day though people now aways will believe any thing. Maybe it does not hurt their reputation. I no longer shuffle paper. Wife gone kids gone. Money not really a thing to me any more. I pretty much just fish hunt and golf now a days. Been out the game for years what do I know

In any of that, did you make any relevant point that can further this debate on the question?
Can you state that case without all the confusing window dressing?

 

[Donald H]

The most obvious course this discussion must take now is on the question of the US Constitution being a fatally flawed document, in that one state's criminal malfeasance can't be allowed to stand when it has a direct influence on the other states. Both sides have a case that can be upheld by the Constitution!
The concept of the union of states becomes a flawed concept!

A very difficult concept for any American to accept, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable way out of the situation.

It's likely the whole thing will have to be shuffled off as a non-issue, and then that's when the plaintiffs will begin to understand that their only way forward is in violence.

Arguments?

Will this dispute call for Constitutional amendment? Can the US Constitution answer to the charges and the case that's valid for both sides?

There can be little doubt that the Scotus is wrestling with these questions right now!

I dunno "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear but it has been abused. Maybe it's not the Constitution but politicians that are flawed? I'm not certain you could write anything plain enough. The real answer was to elect the right people , which takes "Eternal Vigillance"

Thank you for your honest attempt!

I suggest that a Constitution must be capable of answering to the suggestion that politicians are flawed. Your Constitution surely must cover that which the law considers to be illegal activity. And so even your sincerity doesn't get us any closer to the answer that the Scotus must come up with.

Somehow each state will have to stand responsible before the law on their malfeasance but that can't possibly annul the result of the election.

This still leaves the question standing on whether or not the president was elected legitimately.

Ahh... I see, you're hoping for something like a "Sore Loser's Amendment", that gives losers a do-over if their votes can prove they're batshit insane. Interesting, but I don't think it will fly.

Has that any meaning or is it just more spam?
I wouldn't disagree on the point that some insanity is involved. But you fail to get us any closer to any answer.

 

[dblack]

The most obvious course this discussion must take now is on the question of the US Constitution being a fatally flawed document, in that one state's criminal malfeasance can't be allowed to stand when it has a direct influence on the other states. Both sides have a case that can be upheld by the Constitution!
The concept of the union of states becomes a flawed concept!

A very difficult concept for any American to accept, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable way out of the situation.

It's likely the whole thing will have to be shuffled off as a non-issue, and then that's when the plaintiffs will begin to understand that their only way forward is in violence.

Arguments?

Will this dispute call for Constitutional amendment? Can the US Constitution answer to the charges and the case that's valid for both sides?

There can be little doubt that the Scotus is wrestling with these questions right now!

I dunno "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear but it has been abused. Maybe it's not the Constitution but politicians that are flawed? I'm not certain you could write anything plain enough. The real answer was to elect the right people , which takes "Eternal Vigillance"

Thank you for your honest attempt!

I suggest that a Constitution must be capable of answering to the suggestion that politicians are flawed. Your Constitution surely must cover that which the law considers to be illegal activity. And so even your sincerity doesn't get us any closer to the answer that the Scotus must come up with.

Somehow each state will have to stand responsible before the law on their malfeasance but that can't possibly annul the result of the election.

This still leaves the question standing on whether or not the president was elected legitimately.

Ahh... I see, you're hoping for something like a "Sore Loser's Amendment", that gives losers a do-over if their votes can prove they're batshit insane. Interesting, but I don't think it will fly.

Has that any meaning or is it just more spam?
I wouldn't disagree on the point that some insanity is involved. But you fail to get us any closer to any answer.

There is no genuine legal concern behind Trump and his Trumpsters acting out over the election. They're just throwing a fit because they didn't get their way.

 

[evenflow1969]

Any lawyers present? Constitutional experts?

The regular forum members appear to have gone dark!

Well the first test in a law suit is you must have damages or there is nothing to sue for by you. If I cared that much I would look up the case law. I have not even looked at their arguments. As far as a flawed document sure the constitution has flaws all things do. The constitution is a living document it can change.

It's being suggested that Texas is suffering damages, and if the charges are in fact legitimate then they will suffer damage.

The damage being an illegitimate president elected.

None of this is too complicated for anybody if they take it seriously and sincerely attempt to answer the question.

Courts require that damages be provable and either be monitored. Maybe does not work in a court of law unless you are a lottery winner then maybe may bite you in the ass. First they would have to prove an illegal pres. Then they have to prove damages. Considering the party that is suing created some of those laws themselves it is not like to go any where at all. I would not take this case. I like to win. I guess if you think good old Rudy is a good attorney you will deal with these attorneys that are filing these long shots. Most clients I know do not want idiots that take hopeless causes. My clients would have nothing do with these idiots. Hey its a new day though people now aways will believe any thing. Maybe it does not hurt their reputation. I no longer shuffle paper. Wife gone kids gone. Money not really a thing to me any more. I pretty much just fish hunt and golf now a days. Been out the game for years what do I know

In any of that, did you make any relevant point that can further this debate on the question?
Can you state that case without all the confusing window dressing?

Whats confusing. In court facts matter, if ya can't prove them no case. Further mire writing laws and then calling foul is not going to go over well with a judge. The president that sends ain't happening. Imagine yourself sitting as a judge when a republican dominated state passes a law and then when the out come is not what they expect they sue to over turn effects of law. This induces them to write poor laws so they can just overturn them later. You gonna allow that in your court room? I sure as hell am not. Then the damages are nearly impossible to prove and also no evidence of widespread fraud. This shit is DOA goes no where

 

[Donald H]

The most obvious course this discussion must take now is on the question of the US Constitution being a fatally flawed document, in that one state's criminal malfeasance can't be allowed to stand when it has a direct influence on the other states. Both sides have a case that can be upheld by the Constitution!
The concept of the union of states becomes a flawed concept!

A very difficult concept for any American to accept, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable way out of the situation.

It's likely the whole thing will have to be shuffled off as a non-issue, and then that's when the plaintiffs will begin to understand that their only way forward is in violence.

Arguments?

Will this dispute call for Constitutional amendment? Can the US Constitution answer to the charges and the case that's valid for both sides?

There can be little doubt that the Scotus is wrestling with these questions right now!

I think our Constitution IS flawed, in a number of ways. But US voters are entirely too stupid to improve upon it.

That's the best answer so far in my opinion, and you're brave to offer it. Inevitably, the demands for the greater good will have to take precedence over the individual rights of the states. But that poses a very real political problem in that it would be a direct admittance that Texas has a legitimate case.

And so there won't be an annulment of the entire election now, and that at the same time makes the electing of Biden illegitimate. Is my conclusion correct, and if not then why not?

 

[Donald H]

The most obvious course this discussion must take now is on the question of the US Constitution being a fatally flawed document, in that one state's criminal malfeasance can't be allowed to stand when it has a direct influence on the other states. Both sides have a case that can be upheld by the Constitution!
The concept of the union of states becomes a flawed concept!

A very difficult concept for any American to accept, but there doesn't seem to be a suitable way out of the situation.

It's likely the whole thing will have to be shuffled off as a non-issue, and then that's when the plaintiffs will begin to understand that their only way forward is in violence.

Arguments?

Will this dispute call for Constitutional amendment? Can the US Constitution answer to the charges and the case that's valid for both sides?

There can be little doubt that the Scotus is wrestling with these questions right now!

I dunno "Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear but it has been abused. Maybe it's not the Constitution but politicians that are flawed? I'm not certain you could write anything plain enough. The real answer was to elect the right people , which takes "Eternal Vigillance"

Thank you for your honest attempt!

I suggest that a Constitution must be capable of answering to the suggestion that politicians are flawed. Your Constitution surely must cover that which the law considers to be illegal activity. And so even your sincerity doesn't get us any closer to the answer that the Scotus must come up with.

Somehow each state will have to stand responsible before the law on their malfeasance but that can't possibly annul the result of the election.

This still leaves the question standing on whether or not the president was elected legitimately.

Ahh... I see, you're hoping for something like a "Sore Loser's Amendment", that gives losers a do-over if their votes can prove they're batshit insane. Interesting, but I don't think it will fly.

Has that any meaning or is it just more spam?
I wouldn't disagree on the point that some insanity is involved. But you fail to get us any closer to any answer.

There is no genuine legal concern behind Trump and his Trumpsters acting out over the election. They're just throwing a fit because they didn't get their way.

This is not for you. Either make a contribution or go play.

 

[danielpalos]

Texas has a legal right to fair and legal practice in those states.

Good; let's audit Texas first, for the metrics. Metadata for the general welfare not the general warfare!

Finding something illegal in Texas, is your attempt to skirt the question. Don't argue with me on which side is right. I couldn't give a fk.

Texas is welcome to show us the way by going first.

Texas doesn't need to do anything but present their case that says they are unduly and illegally influenced by illegal election practices in some other states.

Don't get the idea that I'm taking a side with Texas. If anything, I would be taking the other side. But that's not relevant here.

Not the point. I am claiming any fixed Standard must be met by any States involved. Texas can go first not merely talk and accuse first.