The framers did not intend to make it easy .What they gave us is options ;options we have not used .There are some who fear a convention could become a run away convention . They use the 1st Constitutional Convention as an example where delegates were sent to amend the Articles of Confederation ;and instead created a whole new governing model. I don't believe that is possible today . The states can control the convention up front by setting the terms about what amendments can be debated .

What I'm saying is some needed amendments like term limits on Congress will NEVER be passed by Congress . As far as SCOTUS goes ;I'd set term limits on them ,and an over rule /veto mechanism on their decisions . The most direct representation we have is Congress and then the Presidency . So yeah they should be able to change a SCOTUS call .

Quote:

---

an over rule /veto mechanism on their decisions . The most direct representation we have is Congress and then the Presidency . So yeah they should be able to change a SCOTUS call .

---

At least worth considering. The trick is to have a system that provides for change but in a well-reasoned, rational manner.

27 amendments in 243 years 10 of them right off the bat ; only 3 after a Republican Congress had total control after the civil war . I'd say the system is well reasoned and rational.

Quote:

---

I'd say the system is well reasoned and rational.

---

I'm talking about the year to year operations of the Congress. Rather than be driven by temporary emotional outbursts such as BLM, we need a deliberative system that takes the time to get it right.

What's BLM, and the relevance to the subject?

Then we need to repeal the 17th amendment . It is one of 4 amendments passed when progressivism first was gaining national prominence. It turned the Senate from a state appointed body to one of a popular vote . (the others were the income tax ;prohibition (since repealed ) and women suffrage ;the one they got right …. all passed in a 10 year period at the height of the progressive movement ….although THOSE progressives would be sickend as to where the progressive movement has gone....or maybe not )

As envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution, the Senate was to represent state interests in Congress. The House of Representatives was meant to be the part of the legislative branch closest to the people.Our bicameral legislature ; a lower chamber with proportional representation based on population and an upper chamber with representation equal for every state regardless of population , was not created thoughtlessly . It was borne out of intense and lengthy debate on the structure of America’s future government and,how to balance the interests of small states versus large states.The agreement reached between small-state interests seeking equal representation for all states regardless of population and large states seeking proportional representation across the board was known as the Connecticut Compromise, or, the “Great Compromise.” It satisfies the immediate interests of both large and small states, while effectively guarding against mob rule.

Without question, the 17th Amendment has led to more growth in the federal government since it eliminates the state voices that would traditionally advocate for a balance of power between state and federal government. The direct election of senators has almost completely undermined federalism. Repeal of the 17th amendment would be on my wish list for a convention .

Yeah that's what we need a governing body appointed by party bosses. Good luck trying to take from the population and give back to the straight politicians. It's bad enough elected officials are corrupted by big money interests isn't it? I think the balance of SCOTUS can be found in good consensus legislation that require more than divided partisan support. I've never know SCOTUS to buck the legislative body with that kind of clout and the WH behind them. Correct me if I'm wrong I think that's what the people want too.

Regardless I see no quick fixes to overturn SCOTUS without that demonstrative strong support. I prefer pragmatic and deliberative anyway than just a group wanting SCOTUS decisions over ignored because one party has control of the other branches by slim margins. Not at all thrilled about federalism just dilutes power of the people the whole concept behind self governance. Far as I'm concerned two elected senators for every state is fine by me. There are enough appointed powerbrokers in government already. You know those ACTING heads that have to need for advise and consent?

Now what's BLM? All I got is Bureau of Land Management.

Quote:

---

It's bad enough elected officials are corrupted by big money interests isn't it?

---

Before the 17th the Senate was a deliberative body with statesmen .

The argument that the popular vote for Senate selection gives the people a direct say in the legislative process is nonsense. That's why there's a House of Representatives.

The 17th Amendment was devastating to federalism It left the states powerless against a growing federal government. But you and I know it doesn't end there . The "progressives " want to abolish the Senate 1st and then abolish states .

The reason we are here now is because our government is doing things it was never designed to do. Senators and Congressional Reps were never supposed to serve for 30 years, Supreme Court isn't supposed to have unchecked and unlimited power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

As far as SCOTUS goes I'd set an over rule /veto mechanism on their decisions . The most direct representation we have is Congress and then the Presidency . So yeah they should be able to change a SCOTUS call .

---

Have Donald Trump able to change a SCOTUS call? Are you out of your mind?

Foreign observers must be shaking their heads in disbelief that adding a citizenship question to the U.S. census has proved so controversial.SCOTUS made an unconstitutional call saying that he could not reinstate a question about citizenship to the census. That's right REINSTATE .

The reason I know that is because they would not have ruled that way with any other President . The fact is that Congress exercised it's discretion and it's powers to delegate it's authority to the executive branch to conduct the census in the “form and content” that the secretary of commerce determines. That included the historical norm of including a citizenship question.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/13/141

This is how ridiculous this whole debate is …..

April 1 , 2020 ,the official counting day for the 2020 census, a caravan of 10,000 citizens of Hondurans storms across the U.S. border into California . Their leaders proclaim intent to remain as permanent residents.According to the Census Bureau’s Resident Rule , they can immediately fill out census forms and be included in the population of California for purposes of determining the state’s number of House seats and Electoral College votes.

https://www.federalregister.gov/docu...nce-situations

Or ; the 1 million people subject to deportation who remain in this country must be counted. The bureau’s current test is whether someone resides here, regardless of legal status, and nothing in its rule excludes them. So the apportionment of Representation to Congress ;and how many electoral votes the State gets is determined not by how many Legal residents there are ;but how many illegal residents resides in the state . That is totally F'ed up !

No I did not say he could change a SCOTUS call . I said he should've outright defy them . What are they going to do ? Recommend Congress impeach him ?

I see your point and I saw the coup of a party coming long before the dufus showed up to consolidate a stranglehold on repubs, but is that a function of the system, or a reaction of people who FEEL under represented by their duly elected government? Give repubs credit for quietly but relentlessly taking over state houses and governorships, Lets face it, you don't serve multiple terms without some powerful friends and big money. It's that undo influence that has thrown the balance of power out of whack. You know the new rules Tom, in some states if you don't fall in line you get replaced so the senate has to go along to get along. It's all about keeping power, but quiet as its kept SCOTUS doesn't have unlimited power. The divided congress is the powerless one here, caught between the fearless white house and the feckless senate who gives the WH all the power it needs to do literally whatever it wants.

To the point of the census question despite the evidence this is done as a conservative feel good to retain repub power, if it was as important and critical as you conservatives say there was a rationale simple path that should have been undertaken long time ago, that allowed a natural course through the courts. Like the Muslim ban legally and legislatively it was thrown together at the last minute and rejected. That was SLOPPY on repub part and incompetent. That's what comes from gut feelings driving decisions in a system that REQUIRES thoughtful pragmatic legal thinking.

Every body knows immigration has always been a wedge issue driven by fear, and the failure of congress to act as a collective instead of partisan body. RED meat for the repub base, will never translate to consensus in this instance and Robert should have just told the dufus to fix this legal crap. Repubs especially the wild eyed whipped up base is mad at SCOTUS and ready to burn the house down because they didn't get what they wanted when they wanted, and insult to injury the court rejected even hearing it again with new lawyers assigned.

Bottom line is the deal maker dufus is no statesman, and neither are the people around him who enable his incompetent sloppy legal machinations to be put forth. Add to that the simple fact he had no hope of meeting the deadline for such a deal to be done which wasn't that hard a lift because even you make the case from precedent. Why was it done away with in the first place? That's even easier to understand as historically people didn't want the government in on there business so didn't want to respond.

Who cuts their own throat and opens the door for government penalty? But repubs know that, and THAT was the purpose of this whole exercise to SCARE people! Just like announcing this round up, to scare people! Like zero tolerance designed to scare people! YUP, that's what we got since the dufus came down those steps announced he was running for prez, using fear and bluster and he never stopped campaigning even after he got what he went after and now seeks to keep it with more of the same.

Go ahead re elect the schemer, it's not like we don't deserve him.

Quote:

---

, you don't serve multiple terms without some powerful friends and big money.

---

That may be a part of it ;but incumbency in Congress is over 90% rates so are you saying that over 90% of the incumbents from both parties are corrupted by big money ? The swamp is deeper than I thought.

Quote:

---

but quiet as its kept SCOTUS doesn't have unlimited power.

---

on that point I totally disagree. There is no accountability except for the almost unheard of impeachment ;they serve forever even after their mental functions are gone . Do you think the carbonite sealed Ruth Ginsburg does any of her own opinions ?
https://babylonbee.com/img/articles/article-1978.jpg

Quote:

---

The divided congress is the powerless one here, caught between the fearless white house and the feckless senate who gives the WH all the power it needs to do literally whatever it wants.

---

The House has the power of the purse .That is a very powerful tool. That they abdicate their power is on them . As I pointed out ,they gave total control of the census to the Executive branch . They could take it back any time they want to do so.

Quote:

---

To the point of the census question despite the evidence this is done as a conservative feel good to retain repub power, if it was as important and critical as you conservatives say there was a rationale simple path that should have been undertaken long time ago, that allowed a natural course through the courts.

---

Bottom line is that whatever the motive for including the question ,it was not in the power of SCOTUS to referee and political dispute between the branches .

Quote:

---

Why was it done away with in the first place? That's even easier to understand as historically people didn't want the government in on there business so didn't want to respond.

---

Having taken the census as well as other government mandatory surveys I can assure you that a citizen question is one of the least intrusive . A person can be a resident and a noncitizen .What you are really telling me is that illegals are reluctant to answer the question. Well BOOOOOOHOOOOO ! I don't particularly care about their sensitivities .

Think of it like the belief that registering your guns means they are planning to come knock on your door and confiscate them. That's what migrants and illegals feel would happen and that knock on the door by the feds is exact the fear. Now you may not care about them, but if you look back far enough YOU were them looking for a safe BETTER place. Is it there fault the resident migrants have decided to change the rules? The reason is the same and boggles my mind a nation of immigrants wouldn't understand that.

LOL, my moonshine making peeps in Tennessee didn't deal with the census either back in the day. Good luck knocking on there door. So you see you should care about migrant sensibilities. You know, I knew a few who even to this day check in with authorities when directed. I do have sympathy for their fears and sensibilities since there is no criminal or evil intent just FEAR of where they came from and FEAR of going back. Can't blame them. Seems like a humane process should come easy in this regard but honestly I have no sympathy for INTENTIONAL cruelty, or even INCOMPETENCE!

Both are pervasive in todays climate!

, you don't serve multiple terms without some powerful friends and big money.

That may be a part of it ;but incumbency in Congress is over 90% rates so are you saying that over 90% of the incumbents from both parties are corrupted by big money ? The swamp is deeper than I thought.

Uh oh are you waking up? Good Morning!

but quiet as its kept SCOTUS doesn't have unlimited power.

on that point I totally disagree. There is no accountability except for the almost unheard of impeachment ;they serve forever even after their mental functions are gone . Do you think the carbonite sealed Ruth Ginsburg does any of her own opinions ?

That's an option. Unused as you say but viable. Takes a united congress to make a case based of facts law, and not just sour grapes which is the case now.

You must also recognize that TWO sides appear before a judge, NOT ONE. Tell that to the dufus who tanked this census issue by lack of timely preparation. That's not the fault of SCOTUS. He tried to shove a decision through by skipping to many steps and lying about it.

Has he corrupted and disrupted DOJ? Heck yes! That's the REAL problem and you are distracted by his noise and rhetoric.

please make a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants .Your case is weakened when you group them as 1 legitimate group .

Quote:

---

You must also recognize that TWO sides appear before a judge, NOT ONE. Tell that to the dufus who tanked this census issue by lack of timely preparation. That's not the fault of SCOTUS. He tried to shove a decision through by skipping to many steps and lying about it.

---

As I said ;motive should not be a consideration for SCOTUS . Either having a citizenship question is constitutional or not . It has been on and off the census many times so that question is already historically decided . And as I stated before ;article 2 of the 14th amendment almost mandates it .

Basically is states that if a state denies the franchise to anyone eligible to vote, its allotment of House seats shall be reduced in the proportion of citizens denied . .

Compliance is impossible without counting how many citizens live in each state.

That is why I favored the President issuing an EO stating that he was adding the question back into the census because it was impossible to comply with sec 2 of the 14th without having it in the census. His voting rights act argument was a weak secondary one he should've let alone. He is justified under the pretext I just mentioned .

Bad or nefarious intent is not allowed under our laws by anyone, not even the prez. Everybody on American soil is afforded some due process, so there is no difference between illegal or legal until a judge says so. A humane process is all I'm asking for everybody including the 50 million undocumented. No person in America can be rousted from their homes without a warrant signed by a judge or magistrate.

The corner store is a different matter, but I point out Obama NEVER announced any raids. He never disparaged or demonized aliens either, because those are the tools of the racist and reveals bad intent. Our laws require a lawful process and provides one, and anything less is despicable in my book.

I guess you would have to have peeps brought here in chains and vilified as less than to understand fear and terrorism and cruelty aimed at you. Just explaining my total disdain for the dufus and the way he does things. I just expect a lot better than what he is delivering.

Excuse the rant please.

Quote:

---

He never disparaged or demonized aliens either, because those are the tools of the racist and reveals bad intent

---

"I don't agree with you, so you must be a racist."

I guess you haven't read the latest racist tweets this morning by your dufus! If you did you would understand the post.

There is not even a hint of racism in that tweet. This is one of those deals where a liberal is so wise that he can detect racism in an otherwise completely race-neutral post.

The reference for elected citizens to go back to their country and fix it before telling US how to run OUR country isn't racist to YOU?

I did not comment because I find the tweet indefensible . It is also inaccurate on the fact that AOC is an American by birth .

Ilhan Omar is the only one born outside the US

.But they are citizens and elected public servants regardless of their politics . It is also bad politics because he helps the Dems unite in common cause just when there appeared to be a rift between Congressional leadership and the young guns.