|
Title: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Failed) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 22, 2012, 01:21:50 PM 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 Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 22, 2012, 01:22:31 PM Same deal here, Scott, 24 hours to advocate for this.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 22, 2012, 01:32:14 PM 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.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: Redalgo on July 22, 2012, 03:07:48 PM I've got your back on this one, Sen. Scott. You won't be getting any trouble from me!
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 24, 2012, 09:48:08 AM Is a finally vote desired once debate time expires tomorrow afternoon?
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 24, 2012, 09:51:54 AM Yes.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 24, 2012, 11:15:46 AM Okay people, gag the chatter on the contents of the bill so as to not trigger the cloture rule. :P
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: TJ in Oregon on July 24, 2012, 11:18:09 AM 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.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 24, 2012, 03:32:29 PM 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. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: AndrewTX on July 24, 2012, 03:48:37 PM I have no idea what's going on right now.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on July 24, 2012, 07:26:10 PM I have no idea what's going on right now. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 25, 2012, 07:32:25 AM Well no easy final vote I see.
Is Senator TJ satisfied with the sponsor's response? Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: TJ in Oregon on July 25, 2012, 12:38:16 PM 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 (https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Consolidated_Electoral_System_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. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 25, 2012, 01:01:35 PM 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. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 26, 2012, 08:15:17 AM 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.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 26, 2012, 10:57:54 AM 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. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 26, 2012, 11:09:46 AM 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? Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 26, 2012, 11:14:30 AM 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. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 26, 2012, 11:27:28 AM 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. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 26, 2012, 11:58:28 AM 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. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 26, 2012, 12:05:54 PM 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. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 26, 2012, 12:13:43 PM 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. Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 28, 2012, 10:48:42 AM Are we ready for a final vote here?
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: Redalgo on July 28, 2012, 12:04:26 PM I am if you are, Mr. Senator.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Debating) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 28, 2012, 12:07:43 PM Yes.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (At Final Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 28, 2012, 01:21:21 PM Senators this is now at final vote, please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (At Final Vote) Post by: Kaine for Senate '18 on July 28, 2012, 01:23:13 PM Aye
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (At Final Vote) Post by: The world will shine with light in our nightmare on July 28, 2012, 01:38:27 PM Aye.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (At Final Vote) Post by: Sbane on July 28, 2012, 01:52:29 PM Aye
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (At Final Vote) Post by: Redalgo on July 28, 2012, 02:09:46 PM Aye
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (At Final Vote) Post by: LastVoter on July 28, 2012, 04:51:32 PM 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 Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (At Final Vote) Post by: AndrewTX on July 29, 2012, 08:12:20 AM Aye
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (At Final Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on July 30, 2012, 10:07:26 AM Nay
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (At Final Vote) Post by: TJ in Oregon on July 30, 2012, 11:00:02 AM Nay
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (At Final Vote) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 01, 2012, 11:45:16 AM Clarence and Wormyguy haven't voted on this yet.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (At Final Vote) Post by: CLARENCE 2015! on August 01, 2012, 11:46:20 AM Nay
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (At Final Vote) Post by: LastVoter on August 02, 2012, 10:08:07 PM Upon further consideration I change my vote to Nay.
Title: Re: SENATE BILL: No-Nonesense Elections Amendment (Failed) Post by: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee on August 05, 2012, 02:04:36 PM 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. |