CDZ Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

[$ecular#eckler]

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.

In other words, racism.

No. The inadequate information concerning the proper organization of three-level government was/is the problem.

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!

It is not insurmountable. Perhaps there will be growing pains, but it is not directly because of racism, it is because of constitutional dogma. Except for me, the people you encounter here, at USMB, are not the legal experts that will be leading the paradigm.

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

You did not comprehend my proposal, and that explains your flawed opening argument. You do not understand our governing system, just as we do not understand yours.

If you were really smart, you would not be concentrating on bemoaning the United States and would be concentrating on composing a better organization of government - that's where the big prize is.

 

[Donald H]

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.

In other words, racism.

No. The inadequate information concerning the proper organization of three-level government was/is the problem.

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!

It is not insurmountable. Perhaps there will be growing pains, but it is not directly because of racism, it is because of constitutional dogma.

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

You did not comprehend my proposal.

Why are you trying to hide racism under the title of some other completely different topic that doesn't even come close to answering the question?

Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?

You are totally concerned with racism, proven so by your own submissions and so until you can rise above that, you don't deserve my further comments on this topic.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

So far, of the six replacement constitution candidates published, and the dozen constitutional amendment system proposals published, only one was written by black composers.

The Progressive Constitution | Constitution Center

The Progressive Constitution by Caroline Fredrickson, Jamal Greene, and Melissa Murray

constitutioncenter.org

Black people are not prohibited from publishing proposals, nor are they prohibited from campaigning and participating in the reform of the government.

 

[Donald H]

So far, of the six replacement constitution candidates published, and the dozen constitutional amendment system proposals published, only one was written by black composers.

The Progressive Constitution | Constitution Center

The Progressive Constitution by Caroline Fredrickson, Jamal Greene, and Melissa Murray

constitutioncenter.org

Black people are not prohibited from publishing proposals, nor are they prohibited from campaigning and participating in the reform of the government.

It could be that they have suffered under so much suppression that they are incapable of living up to that which you consider your standards.

I'm a Canadian and we don't have the same problem with our black population. Or our 'off white' population either!

But America has a problem, as you so righteously suggest. Is there an answer to your problem? Your suggestions of some needed segregation won't do.

And it's off-topic anyway so I'm done with you.

 

[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. 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?

I haven't lost track of anything. I'm just tired of the stupid games. You're trying to put out an air of "serious jurisprudence" around an issue that's pure populist horseshit.

Or, as Arizona put it:
"Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court. They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election."

Pennsylvania also had a nice response:
"Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an a front to principles of constitutional democracy."

The Texas lawsuit has nothing to do with the Constitution. It's Trump, and Trumpsters, throwing a fit because they lost. Fuck them.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

It could be that they have suffered under so much suppression that they are incapable of living up to that which you consider your standards.

I tend to agree with you on this, and what I am trying to do is organize the constitutional convention that includes the non-white people to participate and guard the composing of the government chartering system from the biases that they claim are systemic in the subsisting system.

 

[Donald H]

It could be that they have suffered under so much suppression that they are incapable of living up to that which you consider your standards.

I tend to agree with you on this, and what I am trying to do is organize the constitutional convention that includes the non-white people to participate and guard the composing of the government chartering system from the biases that they claim are systemic in the subsisting system.

Your word salad doesn't impress me when it's obvious that you have a deep racist problem you need to deal with. You can't make them go away and there's no other way of dealing with it other than learning how to accept them and help them to step up and participate. You aren't capable of doing that and judging by your outrageous comments on segregation, it's a wonder you're pretending to even care.

White America has a bill to pay to non-white Americans and it's grown to be huge because of how long it's been neglected.

 

[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?

I haven't lost track of anything. I'm just tired of the stupid games. You're trying to put out an air of "serious jurisprudence" around an issue that's pure populist horseshit.

Or, as Arizona put it:
"Allegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court. They most certainly cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election."

Pennsylvania also had a nice response:
"Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims. Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an a front to principles of constitutional democracy."

The Texas lawsuit has nothing to do with the Constitution. It's Trump, and Trumpsters, throwing a fit because they lost. Fuck them.

It's not hard to understand if you just accept that it's all propelled by racism. Lunaphiles blew the whistle on that little secret.

But that doesn't get your Scotus off the hook, and so when they make their decision one side is going to be absolutely livid with rage over losing.

As a Canadian I couldn't care a lick on what side it is!

It's not finding a solution to your country's racism problem, either way.

 

[Picaro]

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!

much of it was left deliberately vague; the 'Founders' were much more interested in forming a trading union bloc than a nation, and many of them actually expected to constitution to stand for more than couple of decades after ratification. It was finally put to rest and buried under Lincoln, the Civil War briging in an era of judicial fiat that mainly benefited monopolies and oligarchies, a 'Golden Age' of robber barons and pirates using 'conservative' govt. tactics modern right wingers now snivel endlessly about but loved no end when they and the railroads owned the Senate and the Federal Courts and plundered the country at will in the 'good old days' of 1864 and the Chase Court up to the Depression of 1893 when even many of the rich knew the scam was done for.

 

[Picaro]

It could be that they have suffered under so much suppression that they are incapable of living up to that which you consider your standards.

I tend to agree with you on this, and what I am trying to do is organize the constitutional convention that includes the non-white people to participate and guard the composing of the government chartering system from the biases that they claim are systemic in the subsisting system.

Your word salad doesn't impress me when it's obvious that you have a deep racist problem you need to deal with. You can't make them go away and there's no other way of dealing with it other than learning how to accept them and help them to step up and participate. You aren't capable of doing that and judging by your outrageous comments on segregation, it's a wonder you're pretending to even care.

White America has a bill to pay to non-white Americans and it's grown to be huge because of how long it's been neglected.

'White America' owes nobody anything. There are no 'group rights' in the Constitution, implied or otherwise, just individual rights; the two aren't compatible with each other, so the people need to pick one over the other. Everybody is in some minority group or another, so individual rights is the only viable choice from a legal view.

 

[danielpalos]

How can this be fatally flawed?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

How can this be fatally flawed?

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The preamble is not the operations directives. The preamble is the diagnostics standards to evaluate the operations. The mission principles are noble. The problem is the operations system of the three-part separation model is improperly deployed, and I am suggesting that the primary goals to approach a more perfect union and domestic tranquility have been unwittingly foregone in exchange of abundant defense security and general welfare and liberty - higher standard of living.

The inherent inadequacies of the operations systems leads to the political chaos that trickles down causing the social disorderliness, and I believe that reasonable thinking Americans are beginning to recognize the diversion; and although, like you, nobody wants to admit that the almighty United States Constitution is flawed - and you do not care if your state constitution is just as flawed, or if there is perpetual evidence that other states are perpetually corrupt - nobody does anything about it.

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

http://www.us4cc.info

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Donald H]

It could be that they have suffered under so much suppression that they are incapable of living up to that which you consider your standards.

I tend to agree with you on this, and what I am trying to do is organize the constitutional convention that includes the non-white people to participate and guard the composing of the government chartering system from the biases that they claim are systemic in the subsisting system.

Your word salad doesn't impress me when it's obvious that you have a deep racist problem you need to deal with. You can't make them go away and there's no other way of dealing with it other than learning how to accept them and help them to step up and participate. You aren't capable of doing that and judging by your outrageous comments on segregation, it's a wonder you're pretending to even care.

White America has a bill to pay to non-white Americans and it's grown to be huge because of how long it's been neglected.

'White America' owes nobody anything. There are no 'group rights' in the Constitution, implied or otherwise, just individual rights; the two aren't compatible with each other, so the people need to pick one over the other. Everybody is in some minority group or another, so individual rights is the only viable choice from a legal view.

Avoiding the facts doesn't make them go away and white Americans turning the police on black people in an effort to silence them isn't going to work either.
But it's good that you're talking about America's problem!

 

[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!

much of it was left deliberately vague; the 'Founders' were much more interested in forming a trading union bloc than a nation, and many of them actually expected to constitution to stand for more than couple of decades after ratification. It was finally put to rest and buried under Lincoln, the Civil War briging in an era of judicial fiat that mainly benefited monopolies and oligarchies, a 'Golden Age' of robber barons and pirates using 'conservative' govt. tactics modern right wingers now snivel endlessly about but loved no end when they and the railroads owned the Senate and the Federal Courts and plundered the country at will in the 'good old days' of 1864 and the Chase Court up to the Depression of 1893 when even many of the rich knew the scam was done for.

If it was left deliberately vague as you suggest, that would explain why it can be interpreted in so many incorrect ways. And of course that leaves it fatally flawed and unable to deal with the issue at question. State "A" has autonomy and individual state's rights. But state "A" has a right to ensure that state "B" and "C"'s behaviour is legal and within the law if it can unlawfully effect state "A".

Is that covered by your Constitution? If so then where and how?

Now we can talk directly to the issue.

Or ignore it and hope it goes away? How will the Scotus resolve the question? Will they need to leave most questions unanswered?

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

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!

Yes when it says any nutjob can go and buy one of these (or a dozen)-

Yea I'd tend to think it seriously flawed!

 

[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!

Yes when it says any nutjob can go and buy one of these (or a dozen)-

View attachment 427801

Yea I'd tend to think it seriously flawed!

I can sympathize with your point but otherwise it's just useless spam that doesn't belong on a serious discussion in this section of the forum.
Please try to contribute something or otherwise don't comment here

 

[Donald H]

[/QUOTE]
Free States are sovereign and is why we have a federal Government. The full faith and credit of public acts also applies.


[/QUOTE]

Worth a comment if only to point out how wrong you are! You have a federal government. But you're not even coming close to answering the question.

 

[$ecular#eckler]

I can sympathize with your point but otherwise it's just useless spam that doesn't belong on a serious discussion in this section of the forum.
Please try to contribute something or otherwise don't comment here

Kettle, please meet the pot.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

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!

Yes when it says any nutjob can go and buy one of these (or a dozen)-

View attachment 427801

Yea I'd tend to think it seriously flawed!

I can sympathize with your point but otherwise it's just useless spam that doesn't belong on a serious discussion in this section of the forum.
Please try to contribute something or otherwise don't comment here

Touchy touchy -

"CDZ Is the United States Constitution Fatally Flawed?"

That was the question you asked and that was the question I answered. The aspects of the constitution that you are interested in don't interest me.

So don't be so precious and when someone answers your question don't be so rude!

 

[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!

Yes when it says any nutjob can go and buy one of these (or a dozen)-

View attachment 427801

Yea I'd tend to think it seriously flawed!

Posting the picture was spamming this thread. No other explanation is necessary.
That is, if you're not interested as you say.