America is held hostage by flyover states

[Minister of Truth]

Facts bother the right.

It HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED.

MY GUESS...everything in the Constitution can be changed and amended...or the document is worthless.

One does not need to test the plain and obvious. That clause was written to prevent people, such as leftists, from forcing an amendment upon a state. The left already thinks the Constitution is worthless, or they wouldn't use judicial review to invent extralegal and unconstitutional measures, or make statements similar to yours.

 

[Ross Dolan]

One does not need to test the plain and obvious. That clause was written to prevent people, such as leftists, from forcing an amendment upon a state. The left already thinks the Constitution is worthless, or they wouldn't use judicial review to invent extralegal and unconstitutional measures, or make statements similar to yours.

The bottom line, Threedee...IS THAT IT HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED.

And despite the fact that you consider yourself to be a constitutional scholar...it is NOT plain and obvious. IT HAS TO BE TESTED.

All I can do is to hope that the Supreme Court will NEVER rule that anyone at any time can obligate future generations to observe standards that they set up for their own time.

If, in fact, the Supreme Court ever does rule that the subject clause CANNOT be amended...simply because people of 250 years ago dictated that it cannot...the document is worthless. We are not free. We are subject to the dictates of people dead for over 200 years.

Now you can take your constitutional scholarship and shove it as far up your ass as you can reach...and then shove your opinion of what "the left" "thinks" up there with it.

 

[Minister of Truth]

The bottom line, Threedee...IS THAT IT HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED.

And despite the fact that you consider yourself to be a constitutional scholar...it is NOT plain and obvious. IT HAS TO BE TESTED.

All I can do is to hope that the Supreme Court will NEVER rule that anyone at any time can obligate future generations to observe standards that they set up for their own time.

If, in fact, the Supreme Court ever does rule that the subject clause CANNOT be amended...simply because people of 250 years ago dictated that it cannot...the document is worthless. We are not free. We are subject to the dictates of people dead for over 200 years.

Now you can take your constitutional scholarship and shove it as far up your ass as you can reach...and then shove your opinion of what "the left" "thinks" up there with it.

My opinion is that leftists are tyrants. You want to do something unconstitutional for the purpose of subjugating people with whom you disagree.

 

[Ross Dolan]

My opinion is that leftists are tyrants. You want to do something unconstitutional for the purpose of subjugating people with whom you disagree.

No problem.

Now you should start a conversation with someone who cares what your absurd opinion is about "leftists." I am not one of those people.

Trump supporters...and most of the leftist-haters here in JPP seem to be made in the mold of the Germans of 1930's Germany...people who DEMANDED a tyrant rule over them. To hear you denounce others for doing what it seems YOU are ACTUALLY doing is entertaining, but as I said...I really am not all that interested in your (what I consider seriously defective) opinions on this issue.

Thanks for sharing them, nonetheless.

 

[Minister of Truth]

No problem.

Now you should start a conversation with someone who cares what your absurd opinion is about "leftists." I am not one of those people.

Trump supporters...and most of the leftist-haters here in JPP seem to be made in the mold of the Germans of 1930's Germany...people who DEMANDED a tyrant rule over them. To hear you denounce others for doing what it seems YOU are ACTUALLY doing is entertaining, but as I said...I really am not all that interested in your (what I consider seriously defective) opinions on this issue.

Thanks for sharing them, nonetheless.

"no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

To violate this, would make you a Nazi. To want to violate this, makes you un-American.

 

[Ross Dolan]

"no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

If you want to think people of 250 years ago...with an axe to grind...still obligate us...think it.

The issue has not been tested.

When (IF) it is ever properly tested...we will know.

To violate this, would make you a Nazi.

I suppose if the founding fathers had insisted that no state should be deprived of its right to have slaves in the Constitution, Nazis like you would insist that we adhere to their decision.

American conservatism adores the kind of scum that would use that kind of reasoning.

To want to violate this, makes you un-American.

If the founding fathers had insisted that no state should be deprived of its right to have slaves as part of the Constitution, un-American garbage like you would insist that we adhere to their decision...else we be declare by garbage like you to be un-American.

American conservatism adores the kind of garbage that would use that kind of reasoning.

Respectfully as possible, Three...I disagree with you.

Surely we can discuss it politely...and without rancor...right?

 

[Flash]

This has never been tested. You, and others who claim as you do, may be wrong.

Many things in the Constitution are rather vague, but this looks pretty clear:

"Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

I suppose if all fifty states ratified the amendment they are giving their consent.

I was wrong about that being the only provision which cannot be amended. The other was the provision that Congress could not end the slave trade until 1808 (20 years).

 

[Minister of Truth]

If you want to think people of 250 years ago...with an axe to grind...still obligate us...think it.

The issue has not been tested.

When (IF) it is ever properly tested...we will know.



I suppose if the founding fathers had insisted that no state should be deprived of its right to have slaves in the Constitution, Nazis like you would insist that we adhere to their decision.

American conservatism adores the kind of scum that would use that kind of reasoning.




If the founding fathers had insisted that no state should be deprived of its right to have slaves as part of the Constitution, un-American garbage like you would insist that we adhere to their decision...else we be declare by garbage like you to be un-American.

American conservatism adores the kind of garbage that would use that kind of reasoning.

Respectfully as possible, Three...I disagree with you.

Surely we can discuss it politely...and without rancor...right?

But the founding fathers did none of those things. Keep equating liberty with slavery like a good leftist. Remember how "wage slaves" were used to justify slavery? If you don't like living under the oppressive Constitution, then get the fuck out. If you want a respectful debate, then feel free to start over without insults.

You can start by composing a lengthy post explaining how the plain words of Article V can be bypassed.

 

[Flash]

Facts bother the right.

It HAS NEVER BEEN TESTED.

MY GUESS...everything in the Constitution can be changed and amended...or the document is worthless.

It cannot be tested unless 3/4 of the states ratify an amendment to change senate representation.

To change the senate distorts the intention of the framers to create a republic rather than a democracy. They specifically sought to avoid majority rule that allows one group to impose its will on others and to allow territorial representation so different regions of the country do not become rebellious if more highly populated areas impose unwanted policies.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Many things in the Constitution are rather vague, but this looks pretty clear:

"Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

I suppose if all fifty states ratified the amendment they are giving their consent.

I was wrong about that being the only provision which cannot be amended. The other was the provision that Congress could not end the slave trade until 1808 (20 years).

The congress is not allowed to bind a future congress from amending or repealing laws it enacts.

I doubt the Supreme Court would hold that the provision made during the convention is immutable. But the only way to find out would be for action to be taken that requires judicial review. Until then...the issue is moot. That is all I have asserted.

 

[Ross Dolan]

But the founding fathers did none of those things. Keep equating liberty with slavery like a good leftist. Remember how "wage slaves" were used to justify slavery? If you don't like living under the oppressive Constitution, then get the fuck out. If you want a respectful debate, then feel free to start over without insults.

You can start by composing a lengthy post explaining how the plain words of Article V can be bypassed.

Fuck you very much for that, Three.

I guess the hypotheticals triggered you...but that was to be expected.

As Flash pointed out, if all the states got together and decided to change the Senate/Electoral injustice...that would be one way of "bypassing" it.

And if the SCOTUS decided the "plain words" of Article V are not so plain...or forced to be written in order to arrive at a Constitution...that would be another way.

 

[Flash]

The congress is not allowed to bind a future congress from amending or repealing laws it enacts.

I doubt the Supreme Court would hold that the provision made during the convention is immutable. But the only way to find out would be for action to be taken that requires judicial review. Until then...the issue is moot. That is all I have asserted.

Congress is not binding a future Congress--the Constitution is binding Congress and the states to follow its provisions. No actions require judicial review although I'm sure we would see many lawsuits filed (which the courts do not have to review).

 

[Ross Dolan]

It cannot be tested unless 3/4 of the states ratify an amendment to change senate representation.

Okay...we agree. It CAN BE TESTED.

To change the senate distorts the intention of the framers to create a republic rather than a democracy.

No it doesn't.

If the number of senators for each state were determined by population...that would not effect the fact that we are a Republic.

They specifically sought to avoid majority rule that allows one group to impose its will on others and to allow territorial representation so different regions of the country do not become rebellious if more highly populated areas impose unwanted policies.

The reason for the 2 senators from each state had much more to do with the institution of slavery...than with imposition of whatever.

FOR THE RECORD: I do not see the senate composition being changed from its present state (2 from each state)...and I think any change might be made by having some of the more populous states break up into other states. North and South New Jersey would be easily imagined...and would get a bit more representation for our 9 million people in the senate and in the EC.

Breaking California into three states would do the same thing.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Fuck you very much for that, Three.

I guess the hypotheticals triggered you...but that was to be expected.

As Flash pointed out, if all the states got together and decided to change the Senate/Electoral injustice...that would be one way of "bypassing" it.

And if the SCOTUS decided the "plain words" of Article V are not so plain...or forced to be written in order to arrive at a Constitution...that would be another way.

Try re-reading Article V again. Each effected state has to give its consent, so, ratification would require 100% approval.

Thank you for admitting that the left does not believe in the rule of law (or in basic literacy). If five justices believe we should throw the Japanese into concentration camps, as the left once did, then the Constitution magically has a provision for it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Congress is not binding a future Congress--the Constitution is binding Congress and the states to follow its provisions.

I did not say the congress is binding a future congress. I used that context as an example for why the SCOTUS MIGHT decide that provision should not bind us now.

No actions require judicial review although I'm sure we would see many lawsuits filed (which the courts do not have to review).

Frankly, I think that stuff is a LONG way off. We are merely discussing possibilities.

Right now we should focus on getting the Republic through the trauma of the disgusting abomination in the White House...and the equally disgusting, cowardly administration currently in power.

At least, that is how I see things.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Try re-reading Article V again. Each effected state has to give its consent, so, ratification would require 100% approval.

If SCOTUS says that is not so...IT IS NOT SO.

Stop pretending that it is settled law.

It is not.

Thank you for admitting that the left does not believe in the rule of law (or in basic literacy). If five justices believe we should throw the Japanese into concentration camps, as the left once did, then the Constitution magically has a provision for it.

I do not speak for the left. I am NOT a liberal...nor do I fancy myself a "leftist." I realize that the assholes on the right think anyone not as much a puppet as they...is perforce a "leftist" or "liberal"...but that is a function of the sickness known as American conservatism...not of logic.

 

[Minister of Truth]

If SCOTUS says that is not so...IT IS NOT SO.

Stop pretending that it is settled law.

It is not.




I do not speak for the left. I am NOT a liberal...nor do I fancy myself a "leftist." I realize that the assholes on the right think anyone not as much a puppet as they...is perforce a "leftist" or "liberal"...but that is a function of the sickness known as American conservatism...not of logic.

So, you're just spouting leftist platitudes today, then?

 

[Ross Dolan]

So, you're just spouting leftist platitudes today, then?

No.

 

[Minister of Truth]

No.

Cool, keep them coming. I bet Plessey is your next favourite SCOTUS ruling of all-time, after Dred Scott.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Cool, keep them coming. I bet Plessey is your next favourite SCOTUS ruling of all-time, after Dred Scott.

Whatever makes you happy, Three.

Poor American conservatives. Must be shitting your pants wondering what you are going to be required to accept next. The Russians; Kim being a wonderful guy; the abomination wishing his people would be more like Kim's!

If this were a movie...it would be panned for being too unrealistic!