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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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!

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes.

[Southern 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 Oregon]

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[AndrewTX]

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

[CLARENCE 2015!]

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

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Well no easy final vote I see.

Is Senator TJ satisfied with the sponsor's response?

[TJ in Oregon]

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

Article II Section 2 states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[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?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[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.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

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.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Are we ready for a final vote here?

[Redalgo]

I am if you are, Mr. Senator.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Yes.