Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 01, 2014, 04:00:11 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  Atlas Fantasy Elections
| |-+  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Gustaf, MasterJedi)
| | |-+  SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Failed)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Failed)  (Read 1427 times)
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« on: July 22, 2012, 01:21:50 pm »
Ignore

Quote
AN AMENDMENT

Article II, Section 2, subsection 2 of the Constitution shall be amended to read:

1) The President and Vice President shall be chosen by the people through direct election without the intercession of Electors. The official certified results of the several Regions shall be confirmed and certified by the Department of Federal Elections.

2) Ballots shall provide a method for Citizens to rank Their choices. Should no one candidate win a majority of votes, the candidate with the least number of votes shall be disqualified and his voters' ballots Recounted using their Next named choice. This Process shall continue until a Candidate receives a majority.

3) These provisions shall take effect with the next general elections.

Sponsor: Scott
« Last Edit: August 05, 2012, 02:05:00 pm by Senator North Carolina Yankee »Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2012, 01:22:31 pm »
Ignore

Same deal here, Scott, 24 hours to advocate for this.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18845
United States
View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2012, 01:32:14 pm »
Ignore

This was introduced on behalf of a constituent.  Basically, the intent of this bill is to enshrine the idea that the president be elected by popular vote so as to prevent future court cases as we recently experienced when Tweed sued the SoFE.
Logged
Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2507
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2012, 03:07:48 pm »
Ignore

I've got your back on this one, Sen. Scott. You won't be getting any trouble from me!
Logged

"I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized." ~ Nelson Mandela
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: July 24, 2012, 09:48:08 am »
Ignore

Is a finally vote desired once debate time expires tomorrow afternoon?
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18845
United States
View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 24, 2012, 09:51:54 am »
Ignore

Yes.
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: July 24, 2012, 11:15:46 am »
Ignore

Okay people, gag the chatter on the contents of the bill so as to not trigger the cloture rule. Tongue
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4847
United States


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: July 24, 2012, 11:18:09 am »
Ignore

How would this prevent future court cases like Tweed? The current constitution is quite clear that the senate determines election procedure. There was nothing vague or unclear in this.
Logged

Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18845
United States
View Profile
« Reply #8 on: July 24, 2012, 03:32:29 pm »
Ignore

How would this prevent future court cases like Tweed? The current constitution is quite clear that the senate determines election procedure. There was nothing vague or unclear in this.

This only strengthens the current election procedure laws by incorporating them into the Constitution.
Logged
Sheriff Buford TX Justice
AndrewCT
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7153


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: July 24, 2012, 03:48:37 pm »
Ignore

I have no idea what's going on right now.
Logged

My parents are pretty good about smelling a rat. 
Let me put this as clear as I can (saying this to myself, as well, so I can see it): I WILL get a job with CADD and I WILL keep the job.
President John Hay
clarence
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4737
United States


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: July 24, 2012, 07:26:10 pm »
Ignore

I have no idea what's going on right now.
Logged

Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: July 25, 2012, 07:32:25 am »
Ignore

Well no easy final vote I see.

Is Senator TJ satisfied with the sponsor's response?
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Governor TJ
TJ in Cleve
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4847
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: July 25, 2012, 12:38:16 pm »
Ignore

Not really, I still think the constitution is quite explicit and the amendment is unnecessary.

Article II Section 2 states:
Quote
The Senate shall have necessary power to determine regulations for the procedure of and the form of Presidential elections and shall have necessary power to determine a procedure for declaration of candidacy for such elections. All elections to the Presidency shall be by public post.

And the Consolidated Electoral Reform Act clearly outlines the procedure for a presidential election.

The only thing this amendment would do is prevent the senate from changing the election procedure without a subsequent constitutional amendment.
Logged

Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18845
United States
View Profile
« Reply #13 on: July 25, 2012, 01:01:35 pm »
Ignore

I don't see what's wrong with that idea.  The amendment shouldn't have been needed in the first place, but I think it's important we enshrine this procedure in the Constitution so that it makes it even more complicated to bring up cases like Tweed's.

Other than that, this amendment doesn't change much.
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2012, 08:15:17 am »
Ignore

The Tweed case was based on violating the standard interpretations of Constitution as it stood thus amending it wouldn't adequately guard against that potentially occuring with more success in the future. My suggestion would be to ensure that those who get appointed to the Supreme Court respect the Constitution.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18845
United States
View Profile
« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2012, 10:57:54 am »
Ignore

The Tweed case was based on violating the standard interpretations of Constitution as it stood thus amending it wouldn't adequately guard against that potentially occuring with more success in the future. My suggestion would be to ensure that those who get appointed to the Supreme Court respect the Constitution.

It is my understanding that the Court could have, if it voted to, thrown away the election procedure passed by the Senate on the grounds that it violates the Constitutional clauses that Tweed referred to in his case.  We should always appoint judges that respect the Constitution, but should anything happen like this again, the Court would only further compromise its own legitimacy if it were to rule in favor of the losing candidate.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2012, 02:13:43 pm by Senator Scott »Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2012, 11:09:46 am »
Ignore

The Tweed case was based on violating the standard interpretations of Constitution as it stood thus amending it wouldn't adequately guard against that potentially occuring with more success in the future. My suggestion would be to ensure that those who get appointed to the Supreme Court respect the Constitution.

It is my understanding that the Court have, if it voted to, thrown away the election procedure passed by the Senate on the grounds that it violates the Constitutional clauses that Tweed referred to in his case.  We should always appoint judges that respect the Constitution, but should anything happen like this again, the Court would only further compromise its own legitimacy if it were to rule in favor of the losing candidate.

But in order to have done that, the court would have had to throw out the portion of the Constitution reserving that authority to the Senate, would it not?
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18845
United States
View Profile
« Reply #17 on: July 26, 2012, 11:14:30 am »
Ignore

The Tweed case was based on violating the standard interpretations of Constitution as it stood thus amending it wouldn't adequately guard against that potentially occuring with more success in the future. My suggestion would be to ensure that those who get appointed to the Supreme Court respect the Constitution.

It is my understanding that the Court have, if it voted to, thrown away the election procedure passed by the Senate on the grounds that it violates the Constitutional clauses that Tweed referred to in his case.  We should always appoint judges that respect the Constitution, but should anything happen like this again, the Court would only further compromise its own legitimacy if it were to rule in favor of the losing candidate.

But in order to have done that, the court would have had to throw out the portion of the Constitution reserving that authority to the Senate, would it not?

Not necessarily.  The Senate has authority over many things, but if a law is seen to be in violation of the Constitution, it can be struck down.
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: July 26, 2012, 11:27:28 am »
Ignore

The Tweed case was based on violating the standard interpretations of Constitution as it stood thus amending it wouldn't adequately guard against that potentially occuring with more success in the future. My suggestion would be to ensure that those who get appointed to the Supreme Court respect the Constitution.

It is my understanding that the Court have, if it voted to, thrown away the election procedure passed by the Senate on the grounds that it violates the Constitutional clauses that Tweed referred to in his case.  We should always appoint judges that respect the Constitution, but should anything happen like this again, the Court would only further compromise its own legitimacy if it were to rule in favor of the losing candidate.

But in order to have done that, the court would have had to throw out the portion of the Constitution reserving that authority to the Senate, would it not?

Not necessarily.  The Senate has authority over many things, but if a law is seen to be in violation of the Constitution, it can be struck down.

So looking at it like this, a bill authorized by a certain section of the Constitution, is found to be unconstitutional based on what is in another section of the same document. What is to stop a similarly rogue Supreme Court from declaring an election authorized by this amendment you have proposed and overturning it in similar fashion for violating that same other portion of the Constitution.

I guess my point is that a rogue supreme court is rogue and can only be stopped on a case by case basis by impeaching the judges in question. There isn't really anything that would pre-empt such a court, all things being considered.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18845
United States
View Profile
« Reply #19 on: July 26, 2012, 11:58:28 am »
Ignore

The Tweed case was based on violating the standard interpretations of Constitution as it stood thus amending it wouldn't adequately guard against that potentially occuring with more success in the future. My suggestion would be to ensure that those who get appointed to the Supreme Court respect the Constitution.

It is my understanding that the Court have, if it voted to, thrown away the election procedure passed by the Senate on the grounds that it violates the Constitutional clauses that Tweed referred to in his case.  We should always appoint judges that respect the Constitution, but should anything happen like this again, the Court would only further compromise its own legitimacy if it were to rule in favor of the losing candidate.

But in order to have done that, the court would have had to throw out the portion of the Constitution reserving that authority to the Senate, would it not?

Not necessarily.  The Senate has authority over many things, but if a law is seen to be in violation of the Constitution, it can be struck down.

So looking at it like this, a bill authorized by a certain section of the Constitution, is found to be unconstitutional based on what is in another section of the same document. What is to stop a similarly rogue Supreme Court from declaring an election authorized by this amendment you have proposed and overturning it in similar fashion for violating that same other portion of the Constitution.

I guess my point is that a rogue supreme court is rogue and can only be stopped on a case by case basis by impeaching the judges in question. There isn't really anything that would pre-empt such a court, all things being considered.

If the Constitution directly lays out the election procedure, the Court would have a pretty difficult job ruling directly against it, wouldn't you think?

Again, I affirm that this amendment doesn't change anything and merely strengthens the validity of our current electoral process.
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: July 26, 2012, 12:05:54 pm »
Ignore

The Tweed case was based on violating the standard interpretations of Constitution as it stood thus amending it wouldn't adequately guard against that potentially occuring with more success in the future. My suggestion would be to ensure that those who get appointed to the Supreme Court respect the Constitution.

It is my understanding that the Court have, if it voted to, thrown away the election procedure passed by the Senate on the grounds that it violates the Constitutional clauses that Tweed referred to in his case.  We should always appoint judges that respect the Constitution, but should anything happen like this again, the Court would only further compromise its own legitimacy if it were to rule in favor of the losing candidate.

But in order to have done that, the court would have had to throw out the portion of the Constitution reserving that authority to the Senate, would it not?

Not necessarily.  The Senate has authority over many things, but if a law is seen to be in violation of the Constitution, it can be struck down.

So looking at it like this, a bill authorized by a certain section of the Constitution, is found to be unconstitutional based on what is in another section of the same document. What is to stop a similarly rogue Supreme Court from declaring an election authorized by this amendment you have proposed and overturning it in similar fashion for violating that same other portion of the Constitution.

I guess my point is that a rogue supreme court is rogue and can only be stopped on a case by case basis by impeaching the judges in question. There isn't really anything that would pre-empt such a court, all things being considered.

If the Constitution directly lays out the election procedure, the Court would have a pretty difficult job ruling directly against it, wouldn't you think?

Again, I affirm that this amendment doesn't change anything and merely strengthens the validity of our current electoral process.

If a court is going to go rogue anything is possible. The arguments Tweed made were 100% kookvile legally as it was.
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18845
United States
View Profile
« Reply #21 on: July 26, 2012, 12:13:43 pm »
Ignore

The Tweed case was based on violating the standard interpretations of Constitution as it stood thus amending it wouldn't adequately guard against that potentially occuring with more success in the future. My suggestion would be to ensure that those who get appointed to the Supreme Court respect the Constitution.

It is my understanding that the Court have, if it voted to, thrown away the election procedure passed by the Senate on the grounds that it violates the Constitutional clauses that Tweed referred to in his case.  We should always appoint judges that respect the Constitution, but should anything happen like this again, the Court would only further compromise its own legitimacy if it were to rule in favor of the losing candidate.

But in order to have done that, the court would have had to throw out the portion of the Constitution reserving that authority to the Senate, would it not?

Not necessarily.  The Senate has authority over many things, but if a law is seen to be in violation of the Constitution, it can be struck down.

So looking at it like this, a bill authorized by a certain section of the Constitution, is found to be unconstitutional based on what is in another section of the same document. What is to stop a similarly rogue Supreme Court from declaring an election authorized by this amendment you have proposed and overturning it in similar fashion for violating that same other portion of the Constitution.

I guess my point is that a rogue supreme court is rogue and can only be stopped on a case by case basis by impeaching the judges in question. There isn't really anything that would pre-empt such a court, all things being considered.

If the Constitution directly lays out the election procedure, the Court would have a pretty difficult job ruling directly against it, wouldn't you think?

Again, I affirm that this amendment doesn't change anything and merely strengthens the validity of our current electoral process.

If a court is going to go rogue anything is possible. The arguments Tweed made were 100% kookvile legally as it was.

Indeed, they were, but I see no reason not to reaffirm the tradition that we've already been going by for a very long time.  Should the Court ever decide to act against the will of the people by handing an election to a losing candidate, impeachment would only be further justified.
Logged
Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 29447
United States


View Profile
« Reply #22 on: July 28, 2012, 10:48:42 am »
Ignore

Are we ready for a final vote here?
Logged

He's BACK!!! His Time Has Come Once Again! Now We're All Gonna Die! No One is Safe From His Wrath!



Redalgo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2507
United States


View Profile
« Reply #23 on: July 28, 2012, 12:04:26 pm »
Ignore

I am if you are, Mr. Senator.
Logged

"I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to see realized." ~ Nelson Mandela
Scott
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18845
United States
View Profile
« Reply #24 on: July 28, 2012, 12:07:43 pm »
Ignore

Yes.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines