SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Failed)

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[Governor Scott]

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.

[Redalgo]

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

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[Governor Scott]

Yes.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[TJ in Wisco]

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.

[Governor Scott]

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.

[Big DaddyTX]

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

[Senator Clarence]

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

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well no easy final vote I see.

Is Senator TJ satisfied with the sponsor's response?

[TJ in Wisco]

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

Article II Section 2 states:

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.

[Governor Scott]

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.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Governor Scott]

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.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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?

[Governor Scott]

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.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Governor Scott]

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.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Governor Scott]

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.

[Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are we ready for a final vote here?

[Redalgo]

I am if you are, Mr. Senator.

[Governor Scott]

Yes.