Do Democrats Really Care About The Constution?

Bro sounds worried. I would be to with everything Trump has gotten away with. Things aren’t looking too good in maga world. Did he not get everything he wanted these past two years? Oh well. Elect a better president next time.

A lot of straw man arguments for a single video, in particular that Democrats don't love the Constitution. Yes, the Democrats acknowledge that it is a flawed document, written by flawed people, and that it is currently interpreted by a politically motivated Supreme Court; that doesn't mean they hate or of want to ignore it.

I'll agree that Democrats and Republicans are both "guilty" of wanting the Constitution to be interpreted to fit their own political beliefs, but I won't claim either side of not loving it, or wanting to abolish it, just because they want to "twist" what it says to fit their political agenda.

Of course, much of this is why I dislike politics now and have really limited my time on this forum -- both sides no longer really listen to the other. The United States works when both sides listen, even though they fundamentally disagree with each other, but despite that find ways to work together in ways they both feel will help the country. Unfortunately, we are to a point where the sides actively straw man what each other say, and where they oppose something just because the party "in power" supports it. And then claim not to be hypocritical once the party that wasn't in power now comes to power, and argues for the very things they argued against previously (and the other side switches position to oppose it). The issue is that neither side ends up doing what is best for the country but, rather, they ensure they do what is best for "their side" first -- and even better if they can "harm" the other side in the process.

Why would the emotions of a certain group of people regarding the US constitution be relevant to anything?

Didn't the right have some saying about people on the left and their feelings?

Gas is apparently so expensive now, conservative guys can’t even sit in their trucks to record their “complain about the left” videos anymore. Gotta just go for a walk.

Some do and some don't. I would guess it is about the same number as on the GOP side. The difference likely is just about what they accept and what they wish to remove.

His crack about atheists not understanding scripture shows the lens he views everything through. His view on everything is the right view and no one else is qualified to have an opinion.

To be fair that sort of lens is exactly what the far left uses. And it is just as wrong when used by the far left as when it is used by the far right.

The constitution does have a weakness. It assumes that those in power are acting at least somewhat in good faith. That is a weakness any governing document is going to share.

There have been several presidents both before and after the 22nd amendment who were popular enough to have been elected to a third term. But I can only recall one who has talked about trying to run for a 3rd term after the 22nd amendment was ratified.

Servus said:

This is an interesting opinion regarding whether or not Democrats really care about the Constitution:

Click to expand...

101 seconds of propaganda owes me two minutes of my time back.

The notion that the left/right spectrum can be used with any degree of certainty fell by the way around about the time when States were attempting to sue other states for those other states following their own elections laws.

The new divide is between libertarianism and authoritarianism.
Pick your side, carefully.

Pommer said:

101 seconds of propaganda owes me two minutes of my time back.

The notion that the left/right spectrum can be used with any degree of certainty fell by the way around about the time when States were attempting to sue other states for those other states following their own elections laws.

The new divide is between libertarianism and authoritarianism.
Pick your side, carefully.

Click to expand...

Propaganda is supposed to be cleaver enough to fool people. This falls well short of doing that.

Servus said:

This is an interesting opinion regarding whether or not Democrats really care about the Constitution:

Click to expand...

It's funny how right wingers complain about things not in the Constitution but deny people their Constitutional rights.

I agree that some Democrats are against the 2nd amendment but Republicans violate many more.

The short answer: No

But I'd give that same critique to the republicans as well.

I just touched on it in another thread.

"Constitutionality" (via the various interpretation styles which range from strict semantic meaning - to it should chance to whatever makes sense for our time period) is something that factions from both political stripes take liberties with on the basis of political expediency.


Strict constitutional interpretation would mean that the federal government would have to strictly abide by the 10th amendment.

I can easily toss out a variety of things both the Democratic and Republican parties have ran afoul of on that one.

Where I live, Strip clubs were closed and sex shops were closed. Schools did E learning. And churches did video/ camera learning in the COVID-19 time. Of course, some people broke the law. The no Kings thing is to encourage people to remember, that Trump isn't a King. Even though Trump does AI images of being God.

The fact that the democrats want to undermine the electoral vote tells me they care little about the constitution. Basically they want to require state electors to vote with the national popular vote in a presidential election. So if an individual state votes republican but the national vote is democratik, that state’s electors must vote democratic.

Of course, the proponents say this is a compact among a select group of states but the popular vote of a few states could make the votes of smaller states almost meaningless. Frequent swing states within the compact would have to have their electors vote with the rest of the so called “compact”. Getting rid of the electoral college seems to be the goal of this scheme.

A lot of abuse is heaped on the electoral vote but it actually keeps the electorate balanced. The idea of tiny states like Rhode Island having 2 senators while California only has 2 must also bother the so called mass popular vote advocates.




Of course we also have the power grab in Virginia with redistricting.

Lukaris said:

Of course we also have the power grab in Virginia with redistricting.

Click to expand...

Here's to their success!

TX midterm redistricting seems to have - hopefully - backfired. My preference would be some kind of non-partisan district determinations mandatory on all states so we could stop this stupid race to the bottom. But that would require a const amendment, I think. Short of that, I expect both sides to play by the current rules to their highest advantage. And so here we are.

Lukaris said:

Of course, the proponents say this is a compact among a select group of states but the popular vote of a few states could make the votes of smaller states almost meaningless.

Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like they already are? States only matter to candidates if they can sway the election; so the states with "power" are Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and whatever other medium to large state is in play (such as Georgia, Nevada, etc).

Lukaris said:

A lot of abuse is heaped on the electoral vote but it actually keeps the electorate balanced.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. This is why we keep having Republicans with the presidency despite losing the popular vote. Again, it isn't helping the small states but rather gives power to the swing states. And most states end up either solidly "blue" or solidly "red" -- no real balance (and often no power in the states for the minority that votes the wrong color, particularly with gerrymandering).

Lukaris said:

The idea of tiny states like Rhode Island having 2 senators while California only has 2 must also bother the so called mass popular vote advocates.

Click to expand...

The Senate is a great thing -- it actually gives the small states equal power, though it is balanced out by the House (aside from the gerrymandering) which is meant to represent the people of the nation.

Lukaris said:

The fact that the democrats want to undermine the electoral vote tells me they care little about the constitution. Basically they want to require state electors to vote with the national popular vote in a presidential election. So if an individual state votes republican but the national vote is democratik, that state’s electors must vote democratic.

Click to expand...

The Constitution lets the states decide how the electors in the electoral college are chosen. This includes choosing them based on the nationwide popular vote. They can choose electors by state popular vote, legislature vote, nationwide popular vote, district-based vote, random selection, or even requiring the candidates to go on a game show and awarding electors to the winner.

Lukaris said:

Of course, the proponents say this is a compact among a select group of states but the popular vote of a few states could make the votes of smaller states almost meaningless. Frequent swing states within the compact would have to have their electors vote with the rest of the so called “compact”. Getting rid of the electoral college seems to be the goal of this scheme.

Click to expand...

And doing so in a way that is allowed by the Constitution given the plenary power states have over the choosing of electors. How does this mean anyone doesn't care about the Constitution?

Lukaris said:

A lot of abuse is heaped on the electoral vote but it actually keeps the electorate balanced. The idea of tiny states like Rhode Island having 2 senators while California only has 2 must also bother the so called mass popular vote advocates.

Click to expand...

Keeping states "balanced" is an argument for the Senate, but not the electoral college. Look at the examples you just gave. Sure, they get equal number of Senators. But in the electoral college, Rhode Island gets 4 and California gets 54. California gets way more electors than Rhode Island does. How does the electoral college keep things balanced?

Arguing for the electoral college with arguments like keeping the electorate balanced and the like don't add up. Indeed, any argument for the electoral college must also be something that will not fall to the question of "well if the electoral college is such a great idea, then why doesn't any state elect their governor in this way, if it's so great?" So many arguments for the electoral college fail simply by posing that question to it.

The best argument for the electoral college, I think, is that in a country as big as the United States a nationwide recount for a close election would be a complete nightmare. The notorious 2000 election in Florida was bad enough, doing that in every state at once would be so much worse. Whether this is enough to warrant keeping it around is another matter, but I think it's the best argument and it's one of the few that doesn't fall into the above problem I just noted.

Lukaris said:

Of course we also have the power grab in Virginia with redistricting.

Virginia takes redistricting wars to the voters as Democrats seek 10-1 congressional map

The referendum is seeking to amend the state's constitution to use the Democratic-controlled Assembly's redrawn congressional maps, which will give Democrats an advantage in 10 of the state's 11 House districts.

www.cbsnews.com

Click to expand...

Redistricting is constitutional, so how it shows they don't care about the constitution is odd. Also, I don't think anyone has the right to criticize the Democrats for the Virginia gerrymander if they weren't also criticizing the Republicans for the Texas gerrymander last year, which this Virginia gerrymander is largely in response to.

durangodawood said:

Here's to their success!

TX midterm redistricting seems to have - hopefully - backfired. My preference would be some kind of non-partisan district determinations mandatory on all states so we could stop this stupid race to the bottom. But that would require a const amendment, I think. Short of that, I expect both sides to play by the current rules to their highest advantage. And so here we are.

Click to expand...

A Constitutional Amendment would not be required to stop gerrymandering for House of Representatives. That's because the US Constitution says:

"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 Places of chusing Senators."

So all it would take is a regular law to end gerrymandering for the House of Representatives to no longer be gerrymandered. However, you would need a constitutional amendment to do anything about the gerrymandering that occurs in regards to districts for state legislatures.

durangodawood said:

Here's to their success!

Click to expand...

They succeed.

JSRG said:

A Constitutional Amendment would not be required to stop gerrymandering for House of Representatives. That's because the US Constitution says:

"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 Places of chusing Senators."

So all it would take is a regular law to end gerrymandering for the House of Representatives to no longer be gerrymandered. However, you would need a constitutional amendment to do anything about the gerrymandering that occurs in regards to districts for state legislatures.

Click to expand...

This is not the first time Ive needed to be reminded about the chusing.

SimplyMe said:

No, it doesn't. This is why we keep having Republicans with the presidency despite losing the popular vote. Again, it isn't helping the small states but rather gives power to the swing states. And most states end up either solidly "blue" or solidly "red" -- no real balance (and often no power in the states for the minority that votes the wrong color, particularly with gerrymandering).

Click to expand...

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. If the Electoral College doesn't prevent large states from running roughshod over small states, it doesn't help swing states, either. What it ends up doing is like levelizing analog data: It trims the peaks and raises the valleys. That gives smaller states more say than they would otherwise, and keeps large states from "running the show."

Example: Currently, Wyoming has the lowest population with about 589,000. California has the highest with about 39,000,000. Wyoming only has about 1.5% of the popular vote of California. Wyoming has 3 electoral votes. California has 54. Wyoming has about 5.6% of the electoral votes of California. And that's why we usually hear popular vote only pushed whenever we in flyover country don't vote the way our self-appointed "betters" think we should. Truth be told, they'd be perfectly happy with us having no say at all and just shut up and be governed.