Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[josh]

If I were US President I would be grounding all these planes flying in America immediately.

No, you wouldn't.

It's not one of the president's powers.

But as ever, the rule of law escapes you.

I expect the FAA may order such a thing or that Boeing may ground them, itself. We'll see.

[REDSTATEWARD]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Nothing there that would preclude anything in HR1.

Thanks, Kiiid.

Dream on.

[whiskeypriest]

It's like I'm psychic!  Somehow I knew Red would just post an insult instead of elucidating how federalism is being raped. 

Everyone here knows what federalism* is, fuckhead.  The challenge was to demonstrate how HR 1 would rape it. 

* I'll bet even Bambi knows how to use Google search.

Then you are oblivious to HR 1.
It would usurp the authority of the States to run their elections and determine the eligibility of voters.
(in such matters as felons reacquiring the right to vote-see the 14th amendment)
It further sets up a three judge federal court to carry out redistricting in direct violation of Article III and the Tenth Amendment.
It requires political organizations to reveal the names of donors opening the donors up to intimidation.
It would expand the definition of Lobbyist to include political counseling thereby controlling political speech.
It turns the Federal Election Commission into a partisan body to be controlled by the elected President's party.
It gives Congress the power to set a ' code of conduct" for SCOTUS Justices making a mockery of the Separation of Powers outlined in Article III.
HR 1 is a democrat campaign tactic that insults the country's bedrock principle of Federalism.

"Article III" - ya mean this one??

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

To quote a frequent poster here:  "Huh?"

Nor do you make clear how article X, that 28 word summation of Federalism, would forbid fair districting presided over by the federal government, given that three other amendments all specify that Congress has the right to make laws to secure a fair and equitable voting process.  As you may have noticed (?), House seats are FEDERAL offices. 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And you yourself cite the 14th amendment on the matter of felons having the right to vote.  I think those dots aren't all that hard to connect, right? 

Again, "huh?"

I believe you have cited the 3rd and 10th Amendments. Not Article III.

Note.Red has never viewed the usurpation of a state's right to run an election.that was Bush v. Gore as a problem.

[josh]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Nothing there that would preclude anything in HR1.

Thanks, Kiiid.

Dream on.

Another of those cogent arguments for which you are famous.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Congress would be establishing an inferior court to consider redistricting. They have previously set up the Court of International Trade, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the US Bankruptcy Court and Bankruptcy Appellate Court, the US Tax Court, US Court of Appeals for Veteran's Claims, and the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The last three don't have full judicial power.

What is it that makes you think the proposed tribunal would violate Article III?

[bambu-wisdom]

If I were US President I would be grounding all these planes flying in America immediately.

No, you wouldn't.

It's not one of the president's powers.

But as ever, the rule of law escapes you.

I expect the FAA may order such a thing or that Boeing may ground them, itself. We'll see.

Hopefully before one crashes!

President bambu would find a way.
First thing he'd do would be to ask the FAA and Boeing very nicely to ground the planes.
If they didn't, by the time he'd finished scaring/begging the public not to fly in the planes there probably wouldn't be any passengers anyway.

[REDSTATEWARD]

It's like I'm psychic!  Somehow I knew Red would just post an insult instead of elucidating how federalism is being raped. 

Everyone here knows what federalism* is, fuckhead.  The challenge was to demonstrate how HR 1 would rape it. 

* I'll bet even Bambi knows how to use Google search.

Then you are oblivious to HR 1.
It would usurp the authority of the States to run their elections and determine the eligibility of voters.
(in such matters as felons reacquiring the right to vote-see the 14th amendment)
It further sets up a three judge federal court to carry out redistricting in direct violation of Article III and the Tenth Amendment.
It requires political organizations to reveal the names of donors opening the donors up to intimidation.
It would expand the definition of Lobbyist to include political counseling thereby controlling political speech.
It turns the Federal Election Commission into a partisan body to be controlled by the elected President's party.
It gives Congress the power to set a ' code of conduct" for SCOTUS Justices making a mockery of the Separation of Powers outlined in Article III.
HR 1 is a democrat campaign tactic that insults the country's bedrock principle of Federalism.

"Article III" - ya mean this one??

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

To quote a frequent poster here:  "Huh?"

Nor do you make clear how article X, that 28 word summation of Federalism, would forbid fair districting presided over by the federal government, given that three other amendments all specify that Congress has the right to make laws to secure a fair and equitable voting process.  As you may have noticed (?), House seats are FEDERAL offices. 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

And you yourself cite the 14th amendment on the matter of felons having the right to vote.  I think those dots aren't all that hard to connect, right? 

Again, "huh?"

Huh

[REDSTATEWARD]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Nothing there that would preclude anything in HR1.

Thanks, Kiiid.

Dream on.

Another of those cogent arguments for which you are famous.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Congress would be establishing an inferior court to consider redistricting.

Unconstitutional. Redistricting is the province of the states.

What is it that makes you think the proposed tribunal would violate Article III?

Read it

[barton]

"....and in such inferior courts  as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."  So what's the problem?  Congress can't establish a fair system of FEDERAL legislative districts?  You still have no cogent argument here, neither in terms of Art. 3 or the later amendments on enfranchisement.   Since districting that nullifies votes of certain defined groups has been identified as unconstitutional, the burden of the argument falls on you to show the problem with a clear remedy that flows from constitutional law.     

Oily, you are not the first to get Articles (they came first) and Amendments crossed.  The amendments, as their name suggests, have to amend something pre-existing. 
(also don't, as i did once, confuse the Articles with the articles of confederation, which predated the Constitution)

[LarryBnDC]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Nothing there that would preclude anything in HR1.

Thanks, Kiiid.

Dream on.

Another of those cogent arguments for which you are famous.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Congress would be establishing an inferior court to consider redistricting.

Unconstitutional. Redistributing is the province of the states.

What is it that makes you think the proposed tribunal would violate Article III?

Read it

Gerrymandering election districts to benefit one party regardless of population apportionment is constitutional, right?

Section Five of the VRA wasn’t unconstitutional it was just inconvenient for stacking the deck against minorities, but that was cool. SCOTUS repealed Section Five because the rightwing decided we have a black president and therefore LAWS protecting black people’s voting rights were no longer necessary.

If you believe that and can defend it with a straight face you are a liar, a cheat and an asshole... I think the racist shit can go unsaid.

[bambu-wisdom]

http://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/trump-brands-ann-coulter-a-wacky-nut-job-over-border-wall-criticism/ar-BBUAm6s?li=AAgfYrC&OCID=AVRES000

Trump brands Ann Coulter a ‘wacky nut job’ over border wall criticism

Donald Trump has rounded on former ally Ann Coulter, branding the right-wing commentator a “wacky nut job” over her criticism of his inability to secure funding for a border wall.

The president defended the apparent lack of progress on his signature policy during a string of tweets on Saturday, taking aim at Coulter in particular.

“Wacky Nut Job @AnnCoulter, who still hasn’t figured out that, despite all odds and an entire Democrat Party of Far Left Radicals against me (not to mention certain Republicans who are sadly unwilling to fight) I am winning on the Border,” he wrote.

#####

Well there you go.

He needs to take care...lest he be labelled a bigot or something like that. LOL

[REDSTATEWARD]

I believe you have cited the 3rd and 10th Amendments. Not Article III.
[/quote] No, I cited Article III and the 10th Amendment

Note.Red has never viewed the usurpation of a state's right to run an election.that was Bush v. Gore as a problem.

No. It wasn't

[kiidcarter8]

https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/elections/transgender-political-candidates-are-increasingly-common-the-money-backing-them-is-not/

[REDSTATEWARD]

"....and in such inferior courts  as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."  So what's the problem?  Congress can't establish a fair system of FEDERAL legislative districts? 

Only by Amending the Constitution.
[

   Since districting that nullifies votes of certain defined groups has been identified as unconstitutional, the burden of the argument falls on you to show the problem with a clear remedy that flows from constitutional law.

If you feel that way amend the Constitution       

Oily, you are not the first to get Articles (they came first) and Amendments crossed.  The amendments, as their name suggests, have to amend something pre-existing.

I didn't confuse either.

(also don't, as i did once, confuse the Articles with the articles of confederation, which predated the Constitution)

Huh?

[REDSTATEWARD]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Nothing there that would preclude anything in HR1.

Thanks, Kiiid.

Dream on.

Another of those cogent arguments for which you are famous.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Under Article III. Words have meaning.

Congress would be establishing an inferior court to consider redistricting.

It can't without amending the Constitution.

They have previously set up the Court of International Trade, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the US Bankruptcy Court and Bankruptcy Appellate Court, the US Tax Court, US Court of Appeals for Veteran's Claims, and the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. The last three don't have full judicial power.

All allowed by Article III
Defining Congressional Districts is a power assigned to the States by the Constitution.

[REDSTATEWARD]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii

Nothing there that would preclude anything in HR1.

Thanks, Kiiid.

Dream on.

Another of those cogent arguments for which you are famous.

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

Congress would be establishing an inferior court to consider redistricting.

Unconstitutional. Redistricting  is the province of the states.

What is it that makes you think the proposed tribunal would violate Article III?

Read it

Gerrymandering election districts to benefit one party regardless of population apportionment is constitutional, right?

It is.