APP - 'The Constitutional Flaw That's Killing American Democracy'

midcan5

Member
The damage the Trump administration did to American freedoms and democracy is difficult to measure. For most of us the damage is irrelevant - to our personal lives - but for others, personal freedom and even our environment, it is a tragedy.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/framers-constitution-democracy/671155/

"The recent set of watershed Supreme Court opinions pulsates with the language of democratic accountability. Dobbs v. Jackson, overruling Roe v. Wade, makes its refrain the promise to “return” the abortion question "to the people and their elected representatives." Concurring in West Virginia v. EPA, which restricts regulators' ability to decarbonize the electricity grid, Justice Neil Gorsuch explained that the point of the decision was to keep power in the hands of "the people's representatives" rather than "a ruling class of largely unaccountable 'ministers.'" In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down New York State’s 117-year-old limitation on carrying weapons, Justice Clarence Thomas presented the Court's severe, originalist approach to the Second Amendment as a vindication of a judgment 'by the people' against wishy-washy federal judges who had let the restriction stand. Indeed, while these opinions have little in common besides their conservative outcomes—Dobbs eliminated a personal right, Bruen expanded a right, and West Virginia curtailed agency interpretations of statutes such as the Clean Air Act—they all claim to protect the rightful power of "the people.""

'David Litt: A court without precedent'

"Liberal critics, in turn, have appealed to democracy in attacking the Court as "radical" and "illegitimate." Majorities tend to support abortion rights, climate action, and gun control, they point out, so whatever mythic "people" the justices have in mind, they are going against those people as they actually exist today. Calls to add justices to the Court, deny it jurisdiction over certain cases, or even impeach some conservative justices all come in the name of greater democratic control. Some progressives hope to get back to a more democratic Constitution, whether it is in the spirit of the reformist Warren Court of the 1950s and '60s (the Court that gave us Brown v. Board of Education and the one-person-one-vote principle); the New Deal vision of a "second bill of rights," including rights to good work and economic security; or even an 'abolition constitution' rooted in radical traditions of freedom and equality."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/framers-constitution-democracy/671155/
 
The damage the Trump administration did to American freedoms and democracy is difficult to measure. For most of us the damage is irrelevant - to our personal lives - but for others, personal freedom and even our environment, it is a tragedy.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/framers-constitution-democracy/671155/

"The recent set of watershed Supreme Court opinions pulsates with the language of democratic accountability. Dobbs v. Jackson, overruling Roe v. Wade, makes its refrain the promise to “return” the abortion question "to the people and their elected representatives." Concurring in West Virginia v. EPA, which restricts regulators' ability to decarbonize the electricity grid, Justice Neil Gorsuch explained that the point of the decision was to keep power in the hands of "the people's representatives" rather than "a ruling class of largely unaccountable 'ministers.'" In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down New York State’s 117-year-old limitation on carrying weapons, Justice Clarence Thomas presented the Court's severe, originalist approach to the Second Amendment as a vindication of a judgment 'by the people' against wishy-washy federal judges who had let the restriction stand. Indeed, while these opinions have little in common besides their conservative outcomes—Dobbs eliminated a personal right, Bruen expanded a right, and West Virginia curtailed agency interpretations of statutes such as the Clean Air Act—they all claim to protect the rightful power of "the people.""

'David Litt: A court without precedent'

"Liberal critics, in turn, have appealed to democracy in attacking the Court as "radical" and "illegitimate." Majorities tend to support abortion rights, climate action, and gun control, they point out, so whatever mythic "people" the justices have in mind, they are going against those people as they actually exist today. Calls to add justices to the Court, deny it jurisdiction over certain cases, or even impeach some conservative justices all come in the name of greater democratic control. Some progressives hope to get back to a more democratic Constitution, whether it is in the spirit of the reformist Warren Court of the 1950s and '60s (the Court that gave us Brown v. Board of Education and the one-person-one-vote principle); the New Deal vision of a "second bill of rights," including rights to good work and economic security; or even an 'abolition constitution' rooted in radical traditions of freedom and equality."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/framers-constitution-democracy/671155/
Armed with a shiny new rogue Supreme Court, delusional Conservatives in a number of states jumped the gun.

They immediately got to work taking away rights from women while bragging that they were just getting started.

In an election year!

Serious error in judgement. The rogue court called for the people to rise up if they don't like the rulings.

I believe we are about to see that happen.
 
Not sure what the laugh images are supposed to mean? But seriously I find more hate for our democracy today, so laughing may be a mental outlet for some.


'Decades of political decisions and policies have created a massive and growing chasm between the economic and social disaster unfolding in small-town and rural parts of the United States, and the prosperity and safety of cities and suburbs. Many of those successful urban and suburban areas have reaped the rewards of electing largely moderate, competent Democratic leaders. Meanwhile, rural areas have elected Republicans drawn from a party that is increasingly incompetent, corrupt, and willing to engage in outright racism to win elections."

https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2022/03/21/republican-conservative-america-angry
 
The damage the Trump administration did to American freedoms and democracy is difficult to measure. For most of us the damage is irrelevant - to our personal lives - but for others, personal freedom and even our environment, it is a tragedy.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/framers-constitution-democracy/671155/

"The recent set of watershed Supreme Court opinions pulsates with the language of democratic accountability. Dobbs v. Jackson, overruling Roe v. Wade, makes its refrain the promise to “return” the abortion question "to the people and their elected representatives." Concurring in West Virginia v. EPA, which restricts regulators' ability to decarbonize the electricity grid, Justice Neil Gorsuch explained that the point of the decision was to keep power in the hands of "the people's representatives" rather than "a ruling class of largely unaccountable 'ministers.'" In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which struck down New York State’s 117-year-old limitation on carrying weapons, Justice Clarence Thomas presented the Court's severe, originalist approach to the Second Amendment as a vindication of a judgment 'by the people' against wishy-washy federal judges who had let the restriction stand. Indeed, while these opinions have little in common besides their conservative outcomes—Dobbs eliminated a personal right, Bruen expanded a right, and West Virginia curtailed agency interpretations of statutes such as the Clean Air Act—they all claim to protect the rightful power of "the people.""

'David Litt: A court without precedent'

"Liberal critics, in turn, have appealed to democracy in attacking the Court as "radical" and "illegitimate." Majorities tend to support abortion rights, climate action, and gun control, they point out, so whatever mythic "people" the justices have in mind, they are going against those people as they actually exist today. Calls to add justices to the Court, deny it jurisdiction over certain cases, or even impeach some conservative justices all come in the name of greater democratic control. Some progressives hope to get back to a more democratic Constitution, whether it is in the spirit of the reformist Warren Court of the 1950s and '60s (the Court that gave us Brown v. Board of Education and the one-person-one-vote principle); the New Deal vision of a "second bill of rights," including rights to good work and economic security; or even an 'abolition constitution' rooted in radical traditions of freedom and equality."

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/08/framers-constitution-democracy/671155/

I would say the above reasoning is badly flawed.

Dobbs eliminated a personal right, Bruen expanded a right, and West Virginia curtailed agency interpretations of statutes such as the Clean Air Act—

This conclusion is just wrong. Abortion was returned to the states to decide. What apparently the author of that piece thinks and wants is a uniform federal diktat on the issue rather than a hodgepodge of varying state laws set by lower government on what amounts to a local issue, not a federal one.
In NY v. Buren the court was correct in that NY state law made it incumbent on the individual to show cause rather than the state to show a reason for denial of a right. That is, the NY law allowed bureaucrats and other government officials to deny a concealed carry permit on the basis of what amounted to "I said no," on the part of the state. NY's law failed because it had no objective criteria for rejecting or accepting an applicant.
As for the Clean Air Act, the objections that have gone to court are ones related to EPA regulations under that act. The EPA has acted egregiously on many occasions in making regulations for that act, among others. They have repeatedly tried to refuse letting Congress see their original data for making regulations. On other occasions, their regulatory thinking clearly shows they just made stuff up. Again, W. Virginia had sufficient cause to show they were being singled out for different treatment.

Majorities tend to support abortion rights, climate action, and gun control, they point out, so whatever mythic "people" the justices have in mind, they are going against those people as they actually exist today.

That is nothing but an irrelevant appeal to popularity. The courts should not be basing their decisions on what's popular at the moment, but on established law, precedent, and sound reasoning.

What seems to irk this author most is the current court is the anthesis of what he believes is a good supreme court. That court would be a Left-leaning activist one that makes up law out of thin air based on some reading of tea leaves or psychic power to channel meaning out of the Constitution or other documents where there is nothing in writing. For instance, he mentions the New Deal. The Supreme Court initially shot down 90%+ of the New Deal as unconstitutional. As FDR appointed new justices to the court, he eventually got a majority (after his attempt--much like Democrats today--at court packing failed to gain traction) and the New Deal was allowed into law.

Thus, this article is really just the author whining that the Supreme Court isn't doing things HE would like them to do and nothing more.
 
Not sure what the laugh images are supposed to mean? But seriously I find more hate for our democracy today, so laughing may be a mental outlet for some.

the laugh emojis are not entirely directed at you, maybe about 25%.

seriously, the article is full of whining by a person so ignorant of the actual Constitution, it's laughable. The rest of it, towards you, is that those of you on the left seem to think that ONLY republicans are damaging to the Constitution, rights, and freedom............and then when it's pointed out that BOTH sides are doing it, they foam at the mouth and call me every name they can think of............
 
One thing missing from the above counter arguments is human beings have a right to manage their lives. I have known several women who have had abortions and are good people, why should a 'state' control their lives. Already rape victims and children have had to travel to other states. While a bit off topic, the pieces below cover how authoritarians are growling worldwide.

"Authoritarian values endorse the priority of tough security to protect the tribe against threats from outsiders, adherence to conventional group norms, and loyal obedience to tribal leaders."

'Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit and Authoritarian-Populism'

https://www.pippanorris.com/cultural-backlash-1

"Authoritarian populists have disrupted politics in many societies, as exemplified by Donald Trump in the U.S. and Brexit in the UK.

The danger is that populist rhetoric undermines public confidence in the legitimacy of liberal democracy while authoritarian values actively corrode its principles and practices."


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/americas-far-right-embraces-hungarys-autocratic-president

'How to kill a democracy in 10 easy steps (spoiler alert: exhaust your citizens)'

http://justice-everywhere.org/democ...sy-steps-spoiler-alert-exhaust-your-citizens/
 
midcan, what most people are missing is the actual constitutional aspect of the overturning of R v W.......why is that? people seem to forget the timeline of how the nation was created and what documents take precedence over others.....

the STATE is NOT controlling peoples lives. the PEOPLE have control over their lives, yet they are also bound to accept the consequences of their decisions.

Now, I also believe that abortion should indeed be a medical option for rape and incest/molestation survivors........but I'm just a single voice in the crowd..........

It wasn't any different when I was out advocating for constitutional carry in Tx.

Talking about authoritarianism, one has to confront their own political ideology and see how much authoritarianism exists in their own parties agenda and values
 
One thing missing from the above counter arguments is human beings have a right to manage their lives. I have known several women who have had abortions and are good people, why should a 'state' control their lives. Already rape victims and children have had to travel to other states. While a bit off topic, the pieces below cover how authoritarians are growling worldwide.

"Authoritarian values endorse the priority of tough security to protect the tribe against threats from outsiders, adherence to conventional group norms, and loyal obedience to tribal leaders."

'Cultural Backlash: Trump, Brexit and Authoritarian-Populism'

https://www.pippanorris.com/cultural-backlash-1

"Authoritarian populists have disrupted politics in many societies, as exemplified by Donald Trump in the U.S. and Brexit in the UK.

The danger is that populist rhetoric undermines public confidence in the legitimacy of liberal democracy while authoritarian values actively corrode its principles and practices."


https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/americas-far-right-embraces-hungarys-autocratic-president

'How to kill a democracy in 10 easy steps (spoiler alert: exhaust your citizens)'

http://justice-everywhere.org/democ...sy-steps-spoiler-alert-exhaust-your-citizens/

I see this differently and put the authoritarians and totalitarians as the opposite of those articles.

The danger is from those that want things like one-size-fits-all government and laws. For example, the authoritarians would want public education to the exclusion of all other choices. If they allow private schools, these must adhere and hew closely to the public education curricula. Home schooling would be outlawed.

Another would be social laws--like abortion--where a federal standard is enforced. There can be no variants to this standard, and lower government gets little say.

The use of government to silence political opposition, as well as to allow legalized cheating in elections, is yet another. Two recent, and egregious, examples of the later are HR 1 the For the People Act, and the similar John Lewis Voter Rights Act. Neither passed, but even bringing these to the table shows the totalitarian bent of the authors.

I see authoritarians not so much as strong men and dictators per se, but rather people in power who want absolute power and to remain in power indefinitely. Trump has become an Emmanual Goldstein (see 1984) a boogeyman who is the enemy of the state. Those that support Trump, by extension, become enemies of the state along with anyone who questions what the state is doing.

That Norris and Inglehart would claim that Brexit is authoritarian is simply absurd. Brexit is the opposite of authoritarianism, but rather a clean break from it (eg., from the EU government).

Often, what really defines the authoritarian régime is things that affect you in daily life. Recently in Colorado, the government and utilities arbitrarily turned up tens of thousands of people's thermostats that they had control over without bothering to even notify the users. That is completely totalitarian in nature.

Being "anti-immigration" as the PBS piece discusses, is really the Left railing against those that put any restrictions on immigration at all. That is, PBS's position is in the end advocating for a one-world government and one that would be very authoritarian. Again, they argue for the anthesis of what they are saying. That is, they are advocating for authoritarian totalitarianism only they want it to be thoroughly radical Leftist, not Conservative or on the Right.
 
Back
Top