[paraclete]

now this presupposed common sense exists in a political environment. Politics suffers from the not invented here syndrome, the idea that good ideas cannot exist outside of the party caucus

[talaniman]

Repub politics is built around party control and MO'MONEY. So are the dems, they just trickle down more crumbs at a greater pace. That's why dems look different than repubs, a more diverse coalition of the voting constituency. Logic and common sense and ideas have little to do with CONTROL of the purse strings or self enrichment.

What makes it the system that it is Clete, is it goes back and forth, progress is slow, but the power of policy can change every two years.

[paraclete]

What makes it the system that it is Clete, is it goes back and forth, progress is slow, but the power of policy can change every two years.

what you fail to recognise Tal is that two years is too short a time for policy to come into effect and so the winds blow this way and that and progress stalls. Congress they say is the opposite of progress

[talaniman]

Oh I think we recognize that, but we screw up so many elections we need as many as we can get.

[paraclete]

Oh I think we recognize that, but we screw up so many elections we need as many as we can get.

I find our election cycle at three years too short, but we do seem to have progress on some fronts as the government doesn't have to focus on an electoral cycle so frequently. Mind you, a six year senate term does wonders too and the lack of a postering braggart
chasing glory seems to allow leadership to actually maintain momentum

[talaniman]

Senators serve 6 years and Representatives serve for 2 before they must be re elected, and of course the prez faces re election every 4 years. It's staggered but every two years things could change in the house and senate. The prez is the only one term limited, thanks to Roosevelt and the 22nd amendment. More elections swing the pendulum faster in theory. It works well until they decided to buy the elected officials lawfully instead of under the table like was done before. Or just fund the campaign for a lackey to help their "DONORS".

Corruption is a team sport here.

[paraclete]

Corruption is a team sport here.

Yes I got that

[jlisenbe]

Corruption is a team sport here.

It's true everywhere, but I wouldn't trade our system of government for any other I know of.

[talaniman]

It's all the same, you silly humans. You just change the name but it's the same game. CONTROL THE MONEY, AND THE PEOPLE.

[paraclete]

It's true everywhere, but I wouldn't trade our system of government for any other I know of.

I think it can be improved on and has been

[jlisenbe]

I think it can be improved on

We agree on that. We need some limitations on the Supreme Court, for instance.

[talaniman]

We agree on that. We need some limitations on the Supreme Court, for instance.

You've already got your 5-4 majority. Isn't that good enough? How about some limits on the dufus in chief, or co signer Mitch and his band of sycophants. They finally visited a detention center, not the one cited in the IG report, a newer one and Pence said everything looks good to him, even though that one was overflowing with stinky migrants held without due process in the Texas heat.

You could start the improvements there before you bring in even more with raids in major cities.

[jlisenbe]

You've already got your 5-4 majority.

I don't think we have that.

The pres can veto congressional acts. The congress can overturn a veto with a super-majority. What checks and balances apply to SCOTUS??

[talaniman]

What sort of limits do you suggest? It would seem consensus and bi partisanship could solve that situation. Tom thinks term limits are the answer. I'm not completely sold on that either since it would just be another fight about who gets to appoint the judges they want.

[jlisenbe]

I'm talking about when the Supreme Court makes a highly questionable decision that is not supported by the Constitution such as the abortion decision in Roe V. Wade. Once they make a decision, there is no check or balance for it. The gay marriage decision is another questionable one. The only solution would be to pass a Constitutional amendment which is really, really difficult.

Even if you don't like those examples, I hope you get the point. There should be some way to override a SC decision.

[tomder55]

There should be some way to override a SC decision.

Very difficult since the country accepted the 'Marbury v Madison' decision that turned SCOTUS from a co-equal branch to the "supreme" "final arbiter " …..and that is NOT what the framers intended the court to be . SCOTUS has many historically terrible decisions that I have noted .It doesn't matter where you stand politically .We can all agree that the Dred Scott decision ,which was the single greatest contributor to the Civil War (because it negated the Congressional attempts to come to a political compromise to keep the union together ) was wrongly decided . (it voided the Missouri Compromise ) .There are very few people who would argue that 'Plessy v Ferguson ' (which codified into law Jim Crow laws in the South ) was correctly decided .We know that because a different SCOTUS reversed it. But that was the court reversing the court .

I have waited all my life the see a President (who is the only enforcement means SCOTUS has ) to say to them NO I do not recognize your decision and will not enforce it . Andrew Jackson said it in a case he was clearly wrong about . He backed down . I would've loved to see Trump say "stop me from printing and distributing a census with a citizen question " when every one knows that there has been a citizen question in the census in the recent past and there was no basis for saying it is unconstitutional . But he backed off .They say it would've created a constitutional crisis ...HOW ? Any more than the previous administration using the court system to spy on political opponents ?

J you say passing an amendment is difficult . I say in 21st century America it is virtually impossible to get one passed through the current process of amendments being initiated in Congress. Yet we all know that the system is begging for amendments ;ESPECIALLY one to reign in the appointed for like ,black robed oligarchs .
That is why I believe that amendments have to be initiated by the states by the other means the framers gave us to create and pass amendments .

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress

A convention could debate and propose one or as many amendments as it deems necessary . The amendments would still need the final ratification of 3/4 of the states. That doesn't change The big difference it that Congress is out of the process.

27 States have valid applications for an Art 5 convention .34 are needed . I believe it will happen .

[Athos]

After the states pass amendments, who reviews that process?

[tomder55]

the states ratify them according to Art 5 . But instead of the 2/3 of the states needed for a convention ;3/4 or 38 states are needed to ratify . That doesn't change as it is the same ratification process when Congress proposes them.

[jlisenbe]

;3/4 or 38 states are needed to ratify . That doesn't change as it is the same ratification process when Congress proposes them.

Daunting.

[talaniman]

Not an easy lift nor a quick one, but I would have loved the dufus to challenge the census question too, but for a different reason, since I think such a blatant rebuke of SCOTUS would have made a lie of the reason for bypassing the cases in the federal court because of the urgency of the July 30th printing deadline. So he wouldn't be just overriding SCOTUS, but the whole appeals process with an executive order. It would have invited another lengthy court case which would effectively been to late to stop the census and very embarrassing to maybe end up in front of the same SCOTUS again.

I would have enjoyed the circus.