Won't this Bill (HR1) be immediately challenged in the Courts as Unconstitutional if it gets rammed through Congress with an end to the Fillibuster?

[Rich2018]

Read the Federalist Papers. The Founders never envisioned the federal government in a election tyrant position like you're hoping for. Democrats will lie, cheat, steal, support a pandemic and any other means necessary to foist their totalitarian dreams upon the entire country.

Hilarious....considering all the voter suppression the GOP is currently doing.

 

[highroller]

Article I, sec 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and
Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except
as to the Place of Choosing Senators.

I’m not really sure how many times you can directly quote the constitution and people here are like “but what does that *really* mean”

 

[iguanaman]

they wrote the constitution. they wanted the senate to represent the states and to be appointed by the state's legislatures.
that you feel it was a mistake doesn't change the original intent.

You are correct. The framers made many compromises to get States to join the union. Compromises that were unacceptable to the strong Federal Govt. that was required to ensure unity, prosperity and a Govt. of the people and for the people. Things have changed dramatically in 245 years and so has our Govt. mostly through amendments to our Constitution which the framers so correctly provided for.

 

[highroller]

Things have changed dramatically in 245 years and so has our Govt. mostly through amendments to our Constitution which the framers so correctly provided for.

I have never seen a constitutional amendment added.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I'm sure it's been noted, but there is no Constitutional problem with deleting the Filibuster. It's just a Senate rule, regarding time allowed to debate.

 

[What if...?]

The Constitution expressly provides the States with the authority to enact its own Election Laws.

It also didn't include the filibuster. In fact, it clearly defines what requires a super majority. The rest is supposed to be simple majority.

 

[What if...?]

The consist of the last of the United States of America as the International Corporate-Fascist Democratic Party of the plutocrats furiously re-institute slavery in the USA and across the world. But, then, most progressive Democrats demand to be slaves of and to exist solely for the purpose of serving the richest corporations and people on earth - their own lives totally irrelevant.

Yet the Republican's favorite thing to do is give tax breaks to the rich.

His does that fit your narrative?

 

[Ug make hammer]

I have never seen a constitutional amendment added.

The 27th was a long time on the shelf (2 centuries!) and only served to stop Congress from CUTTING their own salaries. They wanted to after the 2008 crash.

Before that, the 26th was used as leverage to remove drinking rights from 18+. The new succession rules (the 25th) allow the scary possibility of the House appointing anyone AT ALL as Speaker, then impeaching President and Vice-President simultaneously. Maybe it's a good thing if there's never another Amendment!

 

[iguanaman]

Yet the Republican's favorite thing to do is give tax breaks to the rich.

His does that fit your narrative?

And more tax breaks for corporations too. The Govt. has to pay them now while they pocket billions in profits. Joko has adopted the old Karl Rove trick of taking your candidates biggest liability and accusing your opponent of it by lying. It sounds stupid but it is the go to tactic for the Right in the Trump era. He made it famous by using it on Hillary by calling her "crooked".

 

[Rich2018]

I have never seen a constitutional amendment added.

There's been 27 of them.