• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we change the constitution so the House approves both Presidential appointments and Judges and justices?

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,303
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Interesting fact is that of the past four appointments to the SCOTUS, all four have been appointed by a president who did not get a majority of votes in their election and the appointments were approved by Senators who did not represent a majority of our population. Right now a president who has got elected without a majority of the votes in the 2016 is appointing Federal judges and the appointments are being once again approved by Senators who do not represent a majority of Americans. So why not have the House do those functions as the do represent a majority of Americans. It seems in the past four years and more, our country is run by the minority and this will continue possibly into the future. Why not the change?
 
Find a recent red/blue map of the states. Start counting red states. Stop when you get to 13.
 
Interesting fact is that of the past four appointments to the SCOTUS, all four have been appointed by a president who did not get a majority of votes in their election and the appointments were approved by Senators who did not represent a majority of our population. Right now a president who has got elected without a majority of the votes in the 2016 is appointing Federal judges and the appointments are being once again approved by Senators who do not represent a majority of Americans. So why not have the House do those functions as the do represent a majority of Americans. It seems in the past four years and more, our country is run by the minority and this will continue possibly into the future. Why not the change?
1. "a majority of the votes" is irrelevant when it comes to the President.
2. Senators do not have to "represent a majority of Americans". They only have to represent a majority of Senate districts.

The answer to your thread title question is: No.
 
- I don't like the outcome so I'd like to change the rules...

It is those very rules which has produced this ongoing tractor-trailer disaster.
 
Better idea: end the Senate.
 
It is those very rules which has produced this ongoing tractor-trailer disaster.
Yet, they are still the known rules of the land. The "majority" everyone likes to speak of can certainly disperse themselves to those backward states and alter the landscape. Beware - manual labor may be involved.
 
Yet, they are still the known rules of the land. The "majority" everyone likes to speak of can certainly disperse themselves to those backward states and alter the landscape. Beware - manual labor may be involved.

The rules were made for a time in the 1700's that is now gone with the wind. Republicans only defend them because it gives them a distinct advantage.
 
Interesting fact is that of the past four appointments to the SCOTUS, all four have been appointed by a president who did not get a majority of votes in their election and the appointments were approved by Senators who did not represent a majority of our population. Right now a president who has got elected without a majority of the votes in the 2016 is appointing Federal judges and the appointments are being once again approved by Senators who do not represent a majority of Americans. So why not have the House do those functions as the do represent a majority of Americans. It seems in the past four years and more, our country is run by the minority and this will continue possibly into the future. Why not the change?

In a word? NO!

This country was not founded as a "Democracy," nor was it founded as Parliamentary system. It could have been the latter, as that was the form used by England.

In fact we started with a Confederation under the Articles of Confederation, with a single-house legislative branch in Congress. It was made up of delegates appointed by the States, but still having only 1 vote per State regardless of the number of delegates. Pretty much how the Revolutionary Congress worked during the War for Independence.

Then came the "Constitutional Convention" and the evolution of our current form of representative government. The reasons for this system are taught in schools, and hashed about in this Forum and elsewhere.

Regardless, IT WORKS. It allows for the various States to have a level of independence of governance within their own borders, and a level of cooperation with other States in terms of commerce, defense, and foreign affairs.

It was specifically designed to prevent any State, group of States, or areas with the largest populations centers to have overwhelming dominance over the rest of the nation.

The Democrats (and any other socialist, communist, or even fascist groups) are not content with this arrangement, because it acts to deny them absolute control and so absolute power.

So we see all sorts of arguments to "Change the System." Arguments always portrayed as seeking something more "just," more "beneficial," more "fair." Yet always to the benefits of those seeking such change...at the cost to others who don't see things their way.

That's the problem with your suggestion. Those asserting the merits of such changes always claim the moral high ground, while clearly demonstrating neither morals nor honesty...just pure ideological power grabbing.

So they want to "stack the Court" like FDR wanted, so it could be politicized and serve the needs of those in power. They want to get rid of the Electoral College (or defang it via a work-around like "National Popular Vote" initiatives) and go "popular vote" which can be swayed like any other mob system in history. They force "direct popular voting" by mass-mailing without a willingness to actually test it and set up a secure, workable system. There are all sorts of things they want to do; anything and everything to change what made this country what it is...and turn it into who knows what.

Well, I don't want to see our nation turned into a "PANEM" ala "The Hunger Games" where the large population centers decide, while the producers simply obey. I like the system set up. It has done well and allows for change, but slow change which can be adapted to.
 
Last edited:
The rules were made for a time in the 1700's that is now gone with the wind. Republicans only defend them because it gives them a distinct advantage.

It doesn't change the fact that the rules are known before the game is played. We go through this EC nonsense every time the left loses a presidential election. When they win, mums the word.
 
In a word? NO!

This country was not founded as a "Democracy," nor was it founded as Parliamentary system. It could have been the latter, as that was the form used by England.

In fact we started with a Confederation under the Articles of Confederation, with a single-house legislative branch in Congress. It was made up of delegates appointed by the States, but still having only 1 vote per State regardless of the number of delegates. Pretty much how the Revolutionary Congress worked during the War for Independence.

Then came the "Constitutional Convention" and the evolution of our current form of representative government. The reasons for this system are taught in schools, and hashed about in this Forum and elsewhere.

Regardless, IT WORKS. It allows for the various States to have a level of independence of governance within their own borders, and a level of cooperation with other States in terms of commerce, defense, and foreign affairs.

It was specifically designed to prevent any State, group of States, or areas with the largest populations centers to have overwhelming dominance over the rest of the nation.

The Democrats (and any other socialist, communist, or even fascist groups) are not content with this arrangement, because it acts to deny them absolute control and so absolute power.

So we see all sorts of arguments to "Change the System." Arguments always portrayed as seeking something more "just," more "beneficial," more "fair." Yet always to the benefits of those seeking such change...at the cost to others who don't see things their way.

That's the problem with your suggestion. Those asserting the merits of such changes always claim the moral high ground, while clearly demonstrating neither morals nor honesty...just pure ideological power grabbing.

So they want to "stack the Court" like FDR wanted, so it could be politicized and serve the needs of those in power. They want to get rid of the Electoral College (or defang it via a work-around like "National Popular Vote" initiatives) and go "popular vote" which can be swayed like any other mob system in history. They force "direct popular voting" by mass-mailing without a willingness to actually test it and set up a secure, workable system. There are all sorts of things they want to do; anything and everything to change what made this country what it is...and turn it into who knows what.

Well, I don't want to see our nation turned into a "PANEM" ala "The Hunger Games" where the large population centers decide, while the producers simply obey. I like the system set up. It has done well and allows for change, but slow change which can be adapted to.

Hmmm...maybe a Hunger Games style selection process for President? It would work at the state level to select the electors. Hmmm...
 
The rules were made for a time in the 1700's that is now gone with the wind. Republicans only defend them because it gives them a distinct advantage.

1700s?? Holy moly, we should just ditch the whole Constitution since all those rules are so old!
 
It doesn't change the fact that the rules are known before the game is played. We go through this EC nonsense every time the left loses a presidential election. When they win, mums the word.
What about if the GOP starts to lose, what then. The game was set up over 200 years ago and things have changed. We can no longer trust any politico to keep their words or promises, and this fiasco is only the last time, not the first time we are seeing this. A country ruled by its minority will soon become a authoritarian state and that is where we are headed.
 
1700s?? Holy moly, we should just ditch the whole Constitution since all those rules are so old!
No, we should change the rules so that a the majority has a voice, which with the present rules they do not have. When a minority can continually rule in any kind of democracy, it is headed toward authoritarian rule. Look at Russia and Turkey as very good examples. And that is where this country is headed, but you must know that and agree with it happening.
 
We need a ThunderDome style election. Both parties put up a candidate and they battle to the death to win the election. Then if they break a deal they face the wheel to find out their punishment. Repeat the process for all appointments If you want mob rule might as well go all in.
 
Interesting fact is that of the past four appointments to the SCOTUS, all four have been appointed by a president who did not get a majority of votes in their election and the appointments were approved by Senators who did not represent a majority of our population. Right now a president who has got elected without a majority of the votes in the 2016 is appointing Federal judges and the appointments are being once again approved by Senators who do not represent a majority of Americans. So why not have the House do those functions as the do represent a majority of Americans. It seems in the past four years and more, our country is run by the minority and this will continue possibly into the future. Why not the change?
Popular vote advocate = uneducated
 
No, we should change the rules so that a the majority has a voice, which with the present rules they do not have. When a minority can continually rule in any kind of democracy, it is headed toward authoritarian rule. Look at Russia and Turkey as very good examples. And that is where this country is headed, but you must know that and agree with it happening.

The "Majority" already has a voice, in the HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

The one body that has ALWAYS been elected by the popular vote.

The one body that decides the most important aspects of national policy; i.e. how taxes are raised and spent, and what laws we must abide by nationally under a Federal system.

The Constitution is very clear on this...and the Representation of each State is determined by that same body. It has been modified from time to time by that same body. Yet the largest populated States have always had the largest representation in that Branch of our government, while sharing EQUAL representation in the Senate.
 
Interesting fact is that of the past four appointments to the SCOTUS, all four have been appointed by a president who did not get a majority of votes in their election and the appointments were approved by Senators who did not represent a majority of our population. Right now a president who has got elected without a majority of the votes in the 2016 is appointing Federal judges and the appointments are being once again approved by Senators who do not represent a majority of Americans. So why not have the House do those functions as the do represent a majority of Americans. It seems in the past four years and more, our country is run by the minority and this will continue possibly into the future. Why not the change?
How about this, instead of the people voting for president we could just have the people vote for their representative and then the representatives would choose a president, judges, etc. We could become a European style Parliamentary Republic instead of a Constitutional Republic. Heck, we could get rid of the Constitution altogether and just have community drum circles where whoever has the megaphone gets to speak and everyone "twinkles" their hands in approval.
 
No. Members of the House of Representatives, due to re-election every 2 years, are perpetually campaigning for office. Accordingly, every decision they make is singularly about what is best for their re-election at the moment. Thus, prior to a primary election the member may vote exactly opposite how that member would vote after a primary but before a general election - shifting from the partisan extreme to racing towards the middle. They also are more likely to be in a lame duck situation when voting.
 
1700s?? Holy moly, we should just ditch the whole Constitution since all those rules are so old!

"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

Thomas Jefferson
 
It doesn't change the fact that the rules are known before the game is played. We go through this EC nonsense every time the left loses a presidential election. When they win, mums the word.

Knowledge that the rules are inherently unfair and undemocratic and advantage one party over the other still makes them no longer acceptable.
 
"We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”

Thomas Jefferson

Yeah, that’s why an amendment process is included in the Constitution.
 
How about this, instead of the people voting for president we could just have the people vote for their representative and then the representatives would choose a president, judges, etc. We could become a European style Parliamentary Republic instead of a Constitutional Republic. Heck, we could get rid of the Constitution altogether and just have community drum circles where whoever has the megaphone gets to speak and everyone "twinkles" their hands in approval.
If we did it this way, we would certainly be closer to doing it the way that idiot Ginsburg wanted it done.

chuck-schumer-tweet-installed-v2.jpg


"installed" instead of "elected"
 
If we did it this way, we would certainly be closer to doing it the way that idiot Ginsburg wanted it done.



"installed" instead of "elected"

The Democrats sure do have a way of revealing their true intentions whenever they get pissed off.
 
Yeah, that’s why an amendment process is included in the Constitution.

For those things which would require it - yes.
 
Back
Top Bottom