CDZ Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

[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.

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

Already did. Every single, legal "argument" I've seen protesting the results of the election is utter bullshit. The premise of your thread - "states' criminal malfeasance" - is pure fantasy, stirred up by an unscrupulous President and his army of idiot Trolls on the internet. They're what's fatally flawed about this country - not the Constitution.

 

[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?

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

You seem to be saying that Texas won't be able to produce the evidence? If that's true then the question is answered for this time only. And not to suggest that Texas can't! But it would shuffle the question under the carpet for now. If that's your objective then you're finished here.

The window dressing on the golf etc. was the confusion and you know very well what you were doing.

 

[GLASNOST]

Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

Since (at least) the 2nd. Amendment was declared "shall not be infringed upon". This is an amendment that states within itself that it may not be amended. How can the Constitution be taken seriously with that sort of unDemocratic nonsense incorporated into it? It is tantamount to saying, "This nation is based upon solid Democratic principles except for X, Y, and Z" where we employ Fascist principles instead".

 

[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.

Already did. Every single, legal "argument" I've seen protesting the results of the election is utter bullshit. The premise of your thread - "states' criminal malfeasance" - is pure fantasy, stirred up by an unscrupulous President and his army of idiot Trolls on the internet. You're what's fatally flawed about this country - not the Constitution.

There's some legitimate doubts being put forward on Georgia's administrating the election in a legal manner, and those allegations will need to be presented by Texas (and others) to the Scotus.
That is, if the Scotus decides to hear arguments.
Was there? Are you presenting a legal and binding decision?
Don't lose track of the question:
Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

 

[Donald H]

Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

Since (at least) the 2nd. Amendment was declared "shall not be infringed upon". This is an amendment that states within itself that it may not be amended. How can the Constitution be taken seriously with that sort of unDemocratic nonsense incorporated into it? It is tantamount to saying, "This nation is based upon solid Democratic principles except for X, Y, and Z" where we employ Fascist principles instead".

Good point!
Some amendments must be infringed upon. Just as it is equally true that the Constitution must not be infringed upon, but was infringed upon when it was amended.

Do I get that right? I'm not a US Consitution expert, nor am I an expert on any constitution.

 

[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

You seem to be saying that Texas won't be able to produce the evidence? If that's true then the question is answered for this time only. And not to suggest that Texas can't! But it would shuffle the question under the carpet for now. If that's your objective then you're finished here.

The window dressing on the golf etc. was the confusion and you know very well what you were doing.

Damages are a problem and the fact that Republican legislators passed the extended voting is a big issue. I am not an expert on this type of law so I have to go by law basics here. I would imagine the states that did this got it right. They likely gave themselves the power to do this through their own constitution.. regardless if this does go somewhere that particular legislators can be sued for it also. It goes no whete

 

[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.

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.

What do you have in mind when you talk of fixed standards?

 

[GLASNOST]

Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

Since (at least) the 2nd. Amendment was declared "shall not be infringed upon". This is an amendment that states within itself that it may not be amended. How can the Constitution be taken seriously with that sort of unDemocratic nonsense incorporated into it? It is tantamount to saying, "This nation is based upon solid Democratic principles except for X, Y, and Z" where we employ Fascist principles instead".

Good point!
Some amendments must be infringed upon. Just as it is equally true that the Constitution must not be infringed upon, but was infringed upon when it was amended.

Exactly! "Infringe" is just a Fascist way of denouncing the perfectly democratic right of amendment. This makes the Constitution " Fatally Flawed".

Do I get that right? I'm not a US Consitution expert, nor am I an expert on any constitution.

Nor am I.

 

[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?

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

You seem to be saying that Texas won't be able to produce the evidence? If that's true then the question is answered for this time only. And not to suggest that Texas can't! But it would shuffle the question under the carpet for now. If that's your objective then you're finished here.

The window dressing on the golf etc. was the confusion and you know very well what you were doing.

Damages are a problem and the fact that Republican legislators passed the extended voting is a big issue. I am not an expert on this type of law so I have to go by law basics here. I would imagine the states that did this got it right. They likely gave themselves the power to do this through their own constitution.. regardless if this does go somewhere that particular legislators can be sued for it also. It goes no whete

I think you are right that the states were legally within the law according to their respective constitutions. And so for the sake of argument, let's assume so. And now we turn to the question on whether their actions infringed on Texas's (and other litigants) rights, etc.

Here's a far out hypothetical for you: If I murder your wife in Alabama, where murder is legal, do you have recourse against me when you and your wife lived in Texas?
Or maybe I shouldn't go there because that's a question that has already been answered by your constitution?

We're going around in circles and that's an indication that there is no suitable answer or right answer.

 

[Donald H]

Is it now time we turn to guessing at the possible answer that will come from the Scotus?

My guess is that they will have to in some way sweep it under the carpet. Be that on account of refusing to hear the case, or some other method.

 

[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.

What do you have in mind when you talk of fixed standards?

Texas should go first, to see if it works.

 

[danielpalos]

I think you are right that the states were legally within the law according to their respective constitutions. And so for the sake of argument, let's assume so. And now we turn to the question on whether their actions infringed on Texas's (and other litigants) rights, etc.

Texas needs to prove they have Standing.

 

[22lcidw]

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!

The Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Income Tax, the 17th Amendment and arguably the 19th Amendment sealed our doom. We learned to live off of government largesse. All of us.

 

[danielpalos]

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!

The Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Income Tax, the 17th Amendment and arguably the 19th Amendment sealed our doom. We learned to live off of government largesse. All of us.

We should be solving simple poverty for economic purposes.

 

[Dick Foster]

IMHO the constitution could stand an amendment establishing uniform federal standards to be followed in the election of federal office holders however each state could still be free to bring wreck and ruin upon themselves for state and local offices. It would be a great opportunity to require proper biometricrily secured voter ID cards and uniform equally secure voting machines across the nation. While making it a federal capital offense to tamper with voting and election paraphernalia used for federal elections. Bonus points for making those executions public events.

 

[Donald H]

For those who are sincerely interested in this topic, here's the best answer that seems to be available so far on the question of Texas having a case. Keeping in mind that it is likely quite politically biased:

The five big problems with Texas' bid to overturn Biden's win

NBC News' Pete Williams joins Morning Joe to discuss why election law experts say the Texas lawsuit seeking to invalidate President-elect Joe Biden's election victory at the Supreme Court has several problems that doom it.

www.msnbc.com

Interesting mostly because it's causing some real concerns by the left's media!

In my opinion, Pete's objections don't hit the target, but they're certainly an invitation for anyone who would care to argue the point further.

Please be specifc on which point can be argued.

And to begin with, he doesn't have five!

 

[Donald H]

IMHO the constitution could stand an amendment establishing uniform federal standards to be followed in the election of federal office holders however each state could still be free to bring wreck and ruin upon themselves for state and local offices. It would be a great opportunity to require proper biometricrily secured voter ID cards and uniform equally secure voting machines across the nation. While making it a federal capital offense to tamper with voting and election paraphernalia used for federal elections. Bonus points for making those executions public events.

You have to be right on message for future elections! There are some real and very serious problems in that states are granted autonomy on issues that are in the national interest and can't be compromised upon by any individual state.

However, isn't that a direct admission that the Constitution is fatally flawed and needs to be amended to such an extent that it's almost irrelevant?

That's not a pleasant idea for any American but it just can't be swept under a carpet.

 

[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!

The Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Income Tax, the 17th Amendment and arguably the 19th Amendment sealed our doom. We learned to live off of government largesse. All of us.

We should be solving simple poverty for economic purposes.

Even though you lead the debate off-topic, you still do make the point that the US capitalist system is fatally flawed. And that's not to suggest that capitalism is fatally flawed! Socially responsible capitalism is the closest to the right answer we have come so far.

Even though China's communist system that practices capitalism is likely the only way forward for any country of over a billion people.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

Your presentation is flawed - you should be formal and detailed when posting to the CDZ.

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!

No. The concept of unsegregated states is a flawed concept. The original Constitution was intended for the union of different states with different cultures - we do not have that anymore, because of the over-reaching desegregation of the municipalities.

The American experiment in government was supposed to set the example for peace for the perpetually warring countries of Europe. But there were problems with the American system that prevents it from being replicated in other societies.

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?

The Constitution and all of the state constitutions are inherently flawed, and the errors have been exasperated by miscalculated adjustments during the 240 year evolution of United States government. The social disorderliness we endure is because of the political chaos that is directly related to the inherent flaw of the improper deployment of the three-part separation theory. This has led to the improper segregation, and subsequent, desegregation, and eventual plural-secular multi-cultural municipalities that lack proper community.

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!

The Supreme Court is well aware that the problem is the flawed deployment of the three-part separation theory in the three-level governing system, and they know that we need to have a three-level constitutional convention series to reorder the charters to correctly deploy the separation of government entities; which includes the proper supervision of the public election system. The courts should supervise the election just like they supervise the juries, which are small specific elections. But as we fail to admit, the judiciary is not separated from the other branches, because it is reliant on the nomination and confirmation of the political factions that are in majority power.

A Better Subdivisioning of the Three-part Model will Provide Better Checks & Balances

http://www.us4cc.info

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Donald H]

No. The concept of unsegregated states is a flawed concept. The original Constitution was intended for the union of different states with different cultures - we do not have that anymore, because of the over-reaching desegregation of the municipalities.

You've taken it right back to the root of the problem, even though that wasn't may intention. Undoubtedly it's racism that is the cause of all the problems in your country and that could have direct bearing on the inability of your Constitution to deal with this immediate issue. The union of the states had to include compromises to those who were being denied their slaves and so needed to be far from perfect. And as you suggest, it's not working and can't work well enough to withstand the rise of the black population

The American experiment in government was supposed to set the example for peace for the perpetually warring countries of Europe. But there were problems with the American system that prevents it from being replicated in other societies.

America has equalled and surpassed all other countries on resorting to war for answers to problems of inadequate natural resources to sustain a corrupt system of greed.

The Constitution and all of the state constitutions are inherently flawed, and the errors have been exasperated by miscalculated adjustments during the 240 year evolution of United States government. The social disorderliness we endure is because of the political chaos that is directly related to the inherent flaw of the improper deployment of the three-part separation theory. This has led to the improper segregation, and subsequent, desegregation, and eventual plural-secular multi-cultural municipalities that lack proper community.

In other words, racism.

The Supreme Court is well aware that the problem is the flawed deployment of the three-part separation theory in the three-level governing system, and they know that we need to have a three-level constitutional convention series to reorder the charters to correctly deploy the separation of government entities; which includes the proper supervision of the public election system. the courts should supervise the election just like they supervise the juries, which are small specific elections.

There are likely few moderately intelligent people who don't understand that racism is a huge issue. But it has been brought on by white Americans over many years of just not being able to come to accept that black people must be seen as equals eventually. Other countries accepted it and were able to move on. Now America has to suffer the same growing pains, which will be much more difficult to deal with, because of the long delay. Now it's almost insurmountable!

Your solutions are impossible unless your country is willing to split apart into two or three separate countries.