Constitution is outdated

[j brown's body]

No, it really didn't. Roe was a bandaid. And there were perpetual cases being brought before courts and perpetual legislation being drafted to test Roe. Eventually, Roe fell.

Nevertheless, it got us where you wanted us to be.

 

[BirdinHand]

Nevertheless, it got us where you wanted us to be.

Not really...it got us part of the way there. Medical choice, privacy, and freedom are nowhere close to settled law.

 

[Integrityrespec]

Needs to be updated.

Well tell your Congressmen to get busy trying to get that passed in Congress and the needed state legislatures.
An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.
With the conservatives in control of more state legislatures and the need for 2/3 of both houses to approve, don't expect the lefts radical agenda to make it.

 

[j brown's body]

The only arguments that matter are the ones the court made in originally deciding Roe and lots of legal types across the political spectrum - including justice Ginsberg - though the decision wrong.

Overturning an old decision is in no way "making law".

There us not a chance in this world that the conservative justices would have been swayed by Ginsberg's legal logic.

I'm not arguing that the decision was decided rightly or wrongly. Every decision has people who don't like it, but we live with it. We don't like it when people get away with crimes because the accused have rights. But we don't take away their rights, yet.

I am arguing that Justices overturning past decisions simply because they don't like them makes them into a virtual legislature. It is not the rule of law, but the of judges. Relying on past decisions to make law us crucial for legislatures, but that guidance is out the window. It's now all about what the current bunch want.

 

[j brown's body]

Not really...it got us part of the way there. Medical choice, privacy, and freedom are nowhere close to settled law.

I am responding to your comment that "I, personally, feel as though abortion should be legal, safe and regulated in all states - just as other medical procedures are."

That is what Roe gave us. It's only gone because we now have a radical court.

 

[Gaius46]

There us not a chance in this world that the conservative justices would have been swayed by Ginsberg's legal logic.

I'm not arguing that the decision was decided rightly or wrongly. Every decision has people who don't like it, but we live with it. We don't like it when people get away with crimes because the accused have rights. But we don't take away their rights, yet.

I am arguing that Justices overturning past decisions simply because they don't like them makes them into a virtual legislature. It is not the rule of law, but the of judges. Relying on past decisions to make law us crucial for legislatures, but that guidance is out the window. It's now all about what the current bunch want.

I won't say that your wrong about overturning past precedent. It shouldn't normally be done. Forget legislatures people need consistency in law so they know how to behave. As I said Roe - even though I thought it was a shit decision - should not have been overturned.

 

[Integrityrespec]

There us not a chance in this world that the conservative justices would have been swayed by Ginsberg's legal logic.

I'm not arguing that the decision was decided rightly or wrongly. Every decision has people who don't like it, but we live with it. We don't like it when people get away with crimes because the accused have rights. But we don't take away their rights, yet.

I am arguing that Justices overturning past decisions simply because they don't like them makes them into a virtual legislature. It is not the rule of law, but the of judges. Relying on past decisions to make law us crucial for legislatures, but that guidance is out the window. It's now all about what the current bunch want.

Ginsberg had her doubts about Roe.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Warning About Roe v. Wade Came True

The late Supreme Court judge had expressed concerns that the landmark ruling would be open to attacks due to how it was structured.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Integrityrespec]

I won't say that your wrong about overturning past precedent. It shouldn't normally be done. Forget legislatures people need consistency in law so they know how to behave. As I said Roe - even though I thought it was a shit decision - should not have been overturned.

You can't cherry pick the law. It's either constitutionally sound or not. Roe was not and even Ginsberg said as much.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Warning About Roe v. Wade Came True

The late Supreme Court judge had expressed concerns that the landmark ruling would be open to attacks due to how it was structured.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Gaius46]

You can't cherry pick the law. It's either constitutionally sound or not. Roe was not and even Ginsberg said as much.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Warning About Roe v. Wade Came True

The late Supreme Court judge had expressed concerns that the landmark ruling would be open to attacks due to how it was structured.

www.newsweek.com

Not cherry picking. It wasn't a good decision. But that is not the only consideration. Taking away what the majority consider a right at the federal level must be taken in account too.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Not cherry picking. It wasn't a good decision. But that is not the only consideration. Taking away what the majority consider a right at the federal level must be taken in account too.

Actually, I disagree with you on this. Creating a "right" but Court decision is court-made law. Making law is NOT the purview of any Court. Courts can only rule on what the law provides, typically following plain meaning, legislative intent, or ruling the law void for vagueness depending on the case at bar.

The old activist SCOTUS that Justice Ginsburg sat on should have made the decision the recent SCOTUS did. Then action could have been taken at State level, and even to Amend the Constitution if enough State's agreed.

All of that is still possible now.

 

[NatMorton]

My point was actually that YOU said you believe immigration should be shut down entirely and we should deport all immigrants by "any means necessary."

You are completely lost and now are talking to the wrong person. I never said any such thing; you’re confusing me with someone else.

 

[Jredbaron96]

I wrote a new Constitution a few months ago, with the changes I'd like to see. Obviously it would never have the support to become law, but it's a fun exercise. The main changes that I made:

• Replace the bicameral Congress with a unicameral Parliament, and replace the President with a Prime Minister.
• Abolish gerrymandering and replace it with a well-defined mathematical algorithm that cannot be gamed.
• Abolish filibusters, and prohibit Congress from imposing a supermajority vote threshold for anything aside from a few explicitly-stated things (e.g. impeachment, constitutional amendments).
• Mixed-member proportional system...so people elect their district's legislator (using ranked choice voting) and separately vote for which party they want controlling Parliament (also using ranked choice voting).
• Expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 19, and allow the PM to appoint one justice per year (with no out-of-schedule appointments for unexpected vacancies). If the new appointment would cause the total to exceed 19, the most senior justice retires immediately.
• Nerf the power of the states, the judiciary, and the executive. Greatly expand the power of legislature. The states and executive are directly accountable to Parliament, in my system. The judiciary is still independent, but it is constrained by the fact that Parliament has the power to pass any law that isn't specifically forbidden by the Constitution.
• We need several different paths to amend the Constitution, so that it's more politically plausible. It shouldn't be easy, but it shouldn't be impossible.

This is fine and all, but the most important reform would be to guarantee me a lifetime supply of Oreos.

 

[j brown's body]

You can't cherry pick the law. It's either constitutionally sound or not. Roe was not and even Ginsberg said as much.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Warning About Roe v. Wade Came True

The late Supreme Court judge had expressed concerns that the landmark ruling would be open to attacks due to how it was structured.

www.newsweek.com

The right-wingers on the court would have overturned it no matter what the decision was based on. They are personally opposed to abortion.

 

[American]

Lol

Talk about stating the obvious.

Watch, all the Trumpists will protest and say its fine. Why? Because it is so outdated that if they get 5 nuts on the court they can continue to live like its 1860.

They are bound and determined to buck nature and not progress.

1860 was caused by Democrats. Have a nice day.

 

[j brown's body]

1860 was caused by Democrats. Have a nice day.

Yet today's Republicans want to take us back there.

 

[noonereal]

1860 was caused by Democrats. Have a nice day.

This comment is not relevant to my post but I suppose you don't understand this.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

I wrote a new Constitution a few months ago, with the changes I'd like to see. Obviously it would never have the support to become law, but it's a fun exercise. The main changes that I made:

• Replace the bicameral Congress with a unicameral Parliament, and replace the President with a Prime Minister.
• Abolish gerrymandering and replace it with a well-defined mathematical algorithm that cannot be gamed.
• Abolish filibusters, and prohibit Congress from imposing a supermajority vote threshold for anything aside from a few explicitly-stated things (e.g. impeachment, constitutional amendments).
• Mixed-member proportional system...so people elect their district's legislator (using ranked choice voting) and separately vote for which party they want controlling Parliament (also using ranked choice voting).
• Expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 19, and allow the PM to appoint one justice per year (with no out-of-schedule appointments for unexpected vacancies). If the new appointment would cause the total to exceed 19, the most senior justice retires immediately.
• Nerf the power of the states, the judiciary, and the executive. Greatly expand the power of legislature. The states and executive are directly accountable to Parliament, in my system. The judiciary is still independent, but it is constrained by the fact that Parliament has the power to pass any law that isn't specifically forbidden by the Constitution.
• We need several different paths to amend the Constitution, so that it's more politically plausible. It shouldn't be easy, but it shouldn't be impossible.

I'm surprised you didn't ratify it too.

 

[Gatsby]

I'm surprised you didn't ratify it too.

Haha, I can add a clause saying that this will take effect with a majority vote from the Constitutional Convention, consisting of only myself.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I just love how these whining "liberal" activists have spent the last six years dealing with the Trump Administration and the lasting consequences of the Trump Administration and they are so baselessly self-righteous and baselessly overconfident that they think all they need to do to get what they want is remove the Constitutional limits on what the reich-wing are allowed to do to them.

As if... when they're allowed to do whatever they want, the "Republican base" are all just going to stop voting.

Idiots. Mindless, thoughtless, self-destructive shitgremlins.

 

[Gatsby]

I just love how these whining "liberal" activists have spent the last six years dealing with the Trump Administration and the lasting consequences of the Trump Administration and they are so baselessly self-righteous and baselessly overconfident that they think all they need to do to get what they want is remove the Constitutional limits on what the reich-wing are allowed to do to them.

As if... when they're allowed to do whatever they want, the "Republican base" are all just going to stop voting.

Idiots. Mindless, thoughtless, self-destructive shitgremlins.

I think the issue is less figuring out the limits on who is allowed to do what, and more that we currently have a system where no one is allowed to do much of anything. And so conflicts (legal, cultural, and occasionally physical conflicts) keep erupting at random times over random issues.

A lot of those problems would go away if we just had a system where we voted on who should govern us, then the winner gets to enact their agenda (aside from clear constitutional prohibitions, i.e. banning free speech). And if we don't like the agenda they enact? Then vote for someone else in the next election.

 

[Glitch]

Well tell your Congressmen to get busy trying to get that passed in Congress and the needed state legislatures.
An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.
With the conservatives in control of more state legislatures and the need for 2/3 of both houses to approve, don't expect the lefts radical agenda to make it.

What the OP is clearly not aware is that there are currently 61 proposed amendments to the US Constitution pending in the 117th Session of Congress. There are typically more than 50 proposed amendments to the US Constitution during every session of Congress, however, they very rarely make it to the floor for a vote and when they do they almost never get a two-thirds majority of both houses. The last proposed amendment to come close was the Balanced Budget Amendment that passed the House with a two-thirds majority, but failed in the Senate by one vote in July 1996.

Proposed Amendments to the US Constitution during the 117th Session of Congress

The last amendment to pass Congress with a two-thirds majority and obtain three-fourths of the State legislatures ratification, was the Twenty-Seventh Amendment in 1992. The amendment was actually introduced by James Madison in 1789, and it passed Congress with a two-thirds majority in 1789. However, it somehow managed to get lost during the ratification process and was not rediscovered until 1982 by a Texas A&M student. A decade later and it had obtained the three-quarter majority required to become ratified as the Twenty-Seventh Amendment.

 

[Mustachio]

You are completely lost and now are talking to the wrong person. I never said any such thing; you’re confusing me with someone else.

That’s step 1. Step 2 is “that’s not what I meant” and step 3 is “I win lol.” What a fun three step process you have there. So let’s skip it - you said it - you meant it.

It was interesting that you said in the same thread that you voted for Biden that sounds like it was also not true but who knows?

 

[NatMorton]

That’s step 1. Step 2 is “that’s not what I meant” and step 3 is “I win lol.” What a fun three step process you have there. So let’s skip it - you said it - you meant it.

It was interesting that you said in the same thread that you voted for Biden that sounds like it was also not true but who knows?

Prove I said it.

 

[Mustachio]

Prove I said it.

1 “I never said that”
Natmorton
I agree completely. By ”control our borders” I mean control entry into the US by any means. Trump’s physical wall was ridiculous as the leading cause of illegal immigration is legal immigrants overstaying their visas.

My point stands, however. Generally speaking, the left is not interested in border control in any form. They’re more interested in growing the country’s economic underclass — a demographic more dependent on government services and thus a more loyal voting block for the ‘party of government.’

Now comes 2. “That’s not what I meant.”

Then it’s “it’s quite clear what I meant and if you don’t know how to use the search engine it’s not my problem.”

But in discussing immigration you spew some great replacement nonsense and then suggest that we should have some kind of militarized immigration policy which would round up anyone without citizenship no matter how long they’ve been here or how successful they are. Because they’re Libs. It’s weird how you talk about immigration a lot and you never had any concern whatsoever for what the laws or Constitution say. You supported Roe v. Wade! And never once brought up the fact that it should go back to the states until it’s over turned and…

And then we get a great surprise which is that you have always wanted it to go back to the states and you care very deeply about the constitution! it was always the way you felt and you have never said otherwise. It’s so disingenuous, it’s a waste of time and I don’t care.

 

[it's just me]

Lol

Talk about stating the obvious.

Watch, all the Trumpists will protest and say its fine. Why? Because it is so outdated that if they get 5 nuts on the court they can continue to live like its 1860.

They are bound and determined to buck nature and not progress.

That's the legal process. You're just pissed that you couldn't do it first.