SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Failed)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Scott

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well no easy final vote I see.

Is Senator TJ satisfied with the sponsor's response?

[Southern 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.

[Southern 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?

[Southern 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.

[Southern 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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are we ready for a final vote here?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Senators this is now at final vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Clarence and Wormyguy haven't voted on this yet.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Vote on Final Passage of the No-Nonesense Elections Amendment:

Aye (5): AndrewPA, Ben, Redalgo, sbane, and Scott
Nay (4): Clarence, NC Yankee, Seatown, and TJ in Cleve
Abstain (0):

Didn't Vote (1): Wormyguy

With four votes in the negative and time having expired, the amendment has failed to pass the Senate.