What's new
By:
Filters

Yep, Dems are going for it all:

Why did the Constitution grant Congress authority over its own election process? What a huge mistake. Literally placed the lunatics in charge of the asylum. Arguably worse than putting Congress in charge of defining the Supreme Court.
 
Grnd93 said:
tell me something I don’t know. The next 2-4 years are going to be a shitshow
Click to expand...

That is an understatement.

Eric said:
Why did the Constitution grant Congress authority over its own election process? What a huge mistake. Literally placed the lunatics in charge of the asylum. Arguably worse than putting Congress in charge of defining the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

It was a Federal group of lunatics, or individual (state level) lunatics.
 
Eric said:
Why did the Constitution grant Congress authority over its own election process? What a huge mistake. Literally placed the lunatics in charge of the asylum. Arguably worse than putting Congress in charge of defining the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

2nd worst, perhaps... On federalist papers 31.. the arguments for unfettered taxation are insanity... essentially relaying on the honor of man that it would never be an issue.
 
Eric said:
Why did the Constitution grant Congress authority over its own election process? What a huge mistake. Literally placed the lunatics in charge of the asylum. Arguably worse than putting Congress in charge of defining the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Because at the time the Senate was accountable to and elected by State legislatures and Congress didn't have nearly as much scope or authority as they do today because the Feds didn't have their hands in anywhere near as much shit.
 
Motorcharge said:
Because at the time the Senate was accountable to and elected by State legislatures and Congress didn't have nearly as much scope or authority as they do today because the Feds didn't have their hands in anywhere near as much shit.
Click to expand...
True and agreed. But still . . . . JFC. It literally says the rules for elections are delegated to state legislatures . . . then goes on to say Congress can overrule. WTF.
 
Eric said:
True and agreed. But still . . . . JFC. It literally says the rules for elections are delegated to state legislatures . . . then goes on to say Congress can overrule. WTF.
Click to expand...

Federal supremacy. Given that a few states explicitly violated the Constitution and Congress didn't do a fucking thing about it speaks volumes.
 
Pony_Driver said:
Federal supremacy. Given that a few states explicitly violated the Constitution and Congress didn't do a fucking thing about it speaks volumes.
Click to expand...
It was never Congress responsibility to do anything about it in the first place. That's why there is a Supreme Court.
 
Pony_Driver said:
Federal supremacy. Given that a few states explicitly violated the Constitution and Congress didn't do a fucking thing about it speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

Yup. States can make their own rules about elections, but they can't violate COTUS when they make those rules. Supposed to be a check on state bullshit laws.
 
Eric said:
It was never Congress responsibility to do anything about it in the first place. That's why there is a Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

They both had supremacy and both fucking whiffed on it.
 
Eric said:
It was never Congress responsibility to do anything about it in the first place. That's why there is a Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Wrong, congress can legally "do something" about election laws. Try reading up on the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Told states they couldn't impose unconstitutional requirements on voters.
 
SanDiegoCJ said:
Wrong, congress can legally "do something" about election laws. Try reading up on the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Told states they couldn't impose unconstitutional requirements on voters.
Click to expand...
Read the thread again. I already acknowledged that Congress has the authority to overrule states (in most cases) when it comes to voting/election law. The statement you quoted was my response to another persons statement about enforcement of State actions that are unconstitutional. Again, if a state law is unconstitutional then its not Congress responsibility to rule the state law unconstitutional, its the supreme courts responsibility to rule it unconstitutional.
 
Coming back to the bill. The voter registration stuff . . . whatever . . . not such a big deal. The attacks on free speech . . . that's a big deal and I can't imagine it will pass Constitutional muster. I have not made it to the campaign finance section yet.
 
Eric said:
Read the thread again. I already acknowledged that Congress has the authority to overrule states (in most cases) when it comes to voting/election law. The statement you quoted was my response to another persons statement about enforcement of State actions that are unconstitutional. Again, if a state law is unconstitutional then its not Congress responsibility to rule the state law unconstitutional, its the supreme courts responsibility to rule it unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Not how I read it, so that's why I replied as I did.
 
Eric said:
Coming back to the bill. The voter registration stuff . . . whatever . . . not such a big deal. The attacks on free speech . . . that's a big deal and I can't imagine it will pass Constitutional muster. I have not made it to the campaign finance section yet.
Click to expand...

What is this constitutional muster you speak of?
 
rockota said:
What is this constitutional muster you speak of?
Click to expand...
I have no doubt that parts of this bill, if enacted into law, will be overturned by the Supreme Court. And that's when Congress will expand the Court so that they can install some lap dawgs.
 
Eric said:
I have no doubt that parts of this bill, if enacted into law, will be overturned by the Supreme Court. And that's when Congress will expand the Court so that they can install some lap dawgs.
Click to expand...

I’m not sure scotus is anything but lapdogs in practice now. I don’t completely distrust the reports that roverts refused to hear the Texas case over fear of violence and precedence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh