|
Mulva posted:I'm not married to it, if the German system is better then let's do that. I just want to get rid of a co-equal executive, a first past the post/winner take all voting system, and scheduled elections. Why are scheduled elections the big boogeyman?
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
why the gently caress would I want congress deciding when it should face elections
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 18:24
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:why the gently caress would I want congress deciding when it should face elections let alone our congress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:why the gently caress would I want congress deciding when it should face elections Because the government would be dissolved and elections held when a budget is not passed and the government runs out of spending authority.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:why the gently caress would I want congress deciding when it should face elections I think he meant the ability to dissolve parliament when it's unable to do it's job. Like when supply bills in the British House of Commons don't get a majority, the government fails and there must be new elections (or a new coalition that can pass supply). This would end all phony government shutdowns in the USA, since the Congressmen would immediately face reelection.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Because the government would be dissolved and elections held when a budget is not passed and the government runs out of spending authority. That only happens because of our divided system of government. Instead, we'd get the Ryan budget with no chance for a new election until the maximum time before elections runs out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That only happens because of our divided system of government. Instead, we'd get the Ryan budget with no chance for a new election until the maximum time before elections runs out. So make the maximum time 2 years and an intermediate election is called if a supply bill fails.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Because the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. Everyone hates their own political system and is convinced that if only they used someone else's all their problems would disappear - when in reality you just change one set of problems you hate for a different set you will hate just as much. I don't see how I could hate a thunderdome system of government.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:So make the maximum time 2 years and an intermediate election is called if a supply bill fails. Why wouldn't they just pass a continuing resolution?
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Well CRs avoid government shutdown so then there would be no risk that the US government would shut down.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 18:43
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Well CRs avoid government shutdown so then there would be no risk that the US government would shut down. So basically it would be what we have now, except even more reason to pass a CR if the clock's running out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 18:46
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Since were dreaming, can we get rid of the 2nd amendment, move to a Westminster Parliamentary system and get MMP? Are we looking for regressive actions? I thought progressive reforms were what you're aiming for? Mulva posted:I'm not married to it, if the German system is better then let's do that. I just want to get rid of a co-equal executive, a first past the post/winner take all voting system, and scheduled elections. This makes more sense - first past the post is poison to any system that isn't a deadlocked status quo enforcement of a 2-party system.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
FPtP doesn't necessarily mean 2 party system although it doesn heavily favour it, almost exclusively so in individual races, which the USA's presidential race heavily rewards. That said ne advantage of unpredictable election dates is that, as long as people deem it unseemly or a waste of money, running electoral campaigns is off the books until an election is called, so at least you'd limit it to 6-8 weeks of campaigns every few years. The dirty/proud secret of Westminster democracy though is how much of what is and isn't acceptable is based totally upon tradition. If people basically adapt to a new way of doing things like when to hold elections, hey, that's a constitutional change. Technically in the UK if MPs were happy to go along with holding PM Questions Time via Tweets, Twitter based debate would become a part of the UK constitution without any need for a vote. Of course if enough people laughed at it and everyone was sufficiently embarassed it would be like a consitutionaly ammendement failing and it would be rejects so back to laughing and jeering in Westminster Palace. Also I'm actually kind of curious about the idea Thomas could support the idea of people who are Federal Citizens without being citizens of an individual state. I mean based on all past legal ideas in the USA it's really not going to fly, or at least it would be very uncontroversial for a Federal citizen to gain or hold citizenship of a State. I'm wondering if such a stance would 1) be possible and 2) actually have any genuine impact. Or is it just so far out there (whether or not it's something he might hold to) that it wouldn't matter a whit.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Unscheduled elections would help curb the eternal campaign season, but a lot of the same pressures would be there, in particular with regards to fundraising and media coverage. i don't think it would go away by any means. Also, there are very obviously things that we could do to improve the US political system without radically restructuring the Constitution (and therefore without all the time and effort that would take) - most notably, serious campaign finance reform, and independent redistricting commissions. All the theorycrafting about the perfect system seems a bit utopian, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 19:06
|
|
|
MrNemo posted:FPtP doesn't necessarily mean 2 party system although it doesn heavily favour it, almost exclusively so in individual races, which the USA's presidential race heavily rewards. That said ne advantage of unpredictable election dates is that, as long as people deem it unseemly or a waste of money, running electoral campaigns is off the books until an election is called, so at least you'd limit it to 6-8 weeks of campaigns every few years. The dirty/proud secret of Westminster democracy though is how much of what is and isn't acceptable is based totally upon tradition. If people basically adapt to a new way of doing things like when to hold elections, hey, that's a constitutional change. Technically in the UK if MPs were happy to go along with holding PM Questions Time via Tweets, Twitter based debate would become a part of the UK constitution without any need for a vote. Of course if enough people laughed at it and everyone was sufficiently embarassed it would be like a consitutionaly ammendement failing and it would be rejects so back to laughing and jeering in Westminster Palace. The US had a lot of tradition that smoothed over the more troublesome aspects of our government. I think the only two left is not using Congress's power to place subjects outside the Supreme Court's review, and not expanding/contracting the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 19:09
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Why are scheduled elections the big boogeyman? Because it forces everyone to focus on the next election to the exclusion of all else. Literally the day after the 2012 election the 2014 campaign started, then the day after that the 2016. Removing scheduled elections and setting a close election date when Congress is dissolved would break that cycle. It would also help, but not eliminate, the influence of special interests especially in the house. MrNemo posted:FPtP doesn't necessarily mean 2 party system although it doesn heavily favour it, almost exclusively so in individual races, which the USA's presidential race heavily rewards. This too, a FPtP winner take all system will always inevitably narrow down to two parties, because the price of voting for a third party is that the party you disagree with the most will win. Gynocentric Regime fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Aug 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Because it forces everyone to focus on the next election to the exclusion of all else. Literally the day after the 2012 election the 2014 campaign started, then the day after that the 2016. Removing scheduled elections and setting a close election date when Congress is dissolved would break that cycle. It would also help, but not eliminate, the influence of special interests especially in the house. No, it sounds like it would do exactly the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 19:19
|
|
|
computer parts posted:No, it sounds like it would do exactly the opposite. Well it needs to be paired with an overturning of Citizens United and serious campaign finance reform, but allowing Representatives and Senators to give the finger to the NRA without having to worry about being primaried would be worth it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Well it needs to be paired with an overturning of Citizens United and serious campaign finance reform, but allowing Representatives and Senators to give the finger to the NRA without having to worry about being primaried would be worth it. Again, it seems like it would do the exact opposite. The only people who vote in unplanned elections (or those without an important person in it) are typically older and more conservative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Again, it seems like it would do the exact opposite. The only people who vote in unplanned elections (or those without an important person in it) are typically older and more conservative. If only there were some way to make it...easier...to vote. Somehow. But alas we do not live in that world, and we have to take our horse and buggy on a Tuesday to the goddamn church.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
mdemone posted:If only there were some way to make it...easier...to vote. Somehow. It's kind of a useless debate since we already start with the premise of "I have a magic wand that lets me do anything". Just cure racism and class inequality and you won't have to worry about Citizens United or set elections.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
computer parts posted:It's kind of a useless debate since we already start with the premise of "I have a magic wand that lets me do anything". That's just as valid since we are just dreaming 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
mdemone posted:If only there were some way to make it...easier...to vote. Somehow. That's not something that would change even with universal implementation of vote-by-mail and automatic registration (though ratios would likely change somewhat). And the notion that somehow the NRA's influence would disappear under this plan is laughable- the NRA has as much influence as it does because it represents and advises a sizable constituency that is very willing to make the effort to vote on issues that concern it. A world where Citizens United is overturned and elections are publicly financed is one in which Comcast might lose a lot of lobbying clout, but the importance of appeasing the NRA would likely increase relative to now- especially if elections are going to be called on short notice (meaning citizens will feel the need for guidance).
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 19:40
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:The US had a lot of tradition that smoothed over the more troublesome aspects of our government. I think the only two left is not using Congress's power to place subjects outside the Supreme Court's review, and not expanding/contracting the Supreme Court. Depending on how you define tradition / aspect, the parliamentary procedure of the Senate is also largely this, since the Senate (as a body) traces back to the original founders and operates with a huge swath of gentlemen's agreements. The Senate could actually be worse, and certainly more chaotic, if the senators chose to make it so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Senate rules are written an redone and voted on every 2 years. You can read them yourself.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
I think senators should be shot once their term runs out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:I think senators should be shot once their term runs out. HELLO SECRET SERVICE THIS IS A JOKE HA HA 
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Senate rules are written an redone and voted on every 2 years. You can read them yourself. Unless it is me that is completely wrong, I think you're speaking of the House's rules, which is because the entire body is elected every two years. The Senate is a single body that never has a mass-election.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Unless it is me that is completely wrong, I think you're speaking of the House's rules, which is because the entire body is elected every two years. The Senate is a single body that never has a mass-election. Every time a new House is voted in it is a new Congress. The Senate can establish rules that last until altered or for the duration of a single congress or other time limit. For an extended look at senate rules procedures quote:The Constitution gives each house of Congress plenary power over its own rules. For changes in its code of Standing Rules, the Senate has typically exercised this power through adoption of a Senate Resolution (S.Res.). This form of measure, called a “simple resolution,” is constitutionally appropriate for this purpose because it requires adoption only in the chamber where it originates, with no participation by the other chamber or the President. Largely by adopting simple resolutions in the exercise of its constitutional rulemaking power, the Senate has, at various points throughout its history, adopted, amended, and recodified its body of Standing Rules. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42929.pdf farraday fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Aug 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
I think we are drifting away from the question at hand, about who is a natural born citizen. Now, I would like to present a very interesting article on the topic. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/rubio-jindal-cruz-santorum-birthers Esteemed Journalist, Jack Cashill posted:When the challenge was made against Barack Obama, people said “how dare you question he’s a natural born citizen because he was born in Hawaii." Even if he was born in Hawaii, that does not make him a natural born citizen. It’s a very strict term. I won’t say very strict -- there’s a real meaning to the term, it’s not that it’s perfectly defined but the understanding is well understood. The understanding is that you be born of American parents with unquestioned loyalty to the United States. So for instance, had Obama been born [somewhere] other than Hawaii he would not have been eligible to run for President. Even though his mother was an American, just like Ted Cruz’s mother was American, the difference is that according to the law you’d have to be an American citizen for five years after the age of 14. She simply wasn’t old enough to confer that status on Obama. Now, I know a few folks who are good at sounding like they know a lot have dismissed this concept out of hand. But perhaps they haven't read the Constitution as closely as these people in the article have. And after all, what does common sense say? If an American military couple stationed in another country are blessed with a child, should the mother have to come back to the US just to make sure she gives birth to an American citizen? Of course not! And if this nonsense about a Cuban embassy opening up in the US goes through, we would otherwise give the privileges of citizenship to the sons and daughters of as many Cuban spies as they could move through those doors!
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:I think we are drifting away from the question at hand, about who is a natural born citizen. Now, I would like to present a very interesting article on the topic. I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic or not, and as much as I have respect for WND reporters, I think the proposition you bolded tends to be dismissed out of hand because its proponents can't cite any basis in law for its validity. For example, neither the words "unquestioned" nor "loyalty" appear in the Constitution. On the other hand, the Fourteenth Amendment does say "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ... are citizens of the United States," rather strongly suggesting two routes of citizenship: from birth or through naturalization. While there might be some question as to whether statutory citizenship conferred at birth due to having American citizen parents living abroad (Romney) or retroactive annexation of territory subject to a status of forces agreement (McCain), I am not aware of any authority that would support the contention that some 14th Amendment birthright citizens are not "Natural Born" for the purposes of Article II.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
that idiot posted:The intent of the law is to prevent people with split allegiances from becoming President of the United States, no matter where they were born. If that were the intent, it would have said so, rather than "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Which is what it actually says. The only actual question, historically, has been the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" bit (which is meant to rule out kids of foreign diplomats), but you'd have a pretty hard case trying to argue that Mrs. Obama wasn't subject to the jurisdiction of the State of Hawaii. After all, that's why he has a birth certificate there!  But I unironically agree! Let's just replace the "natural-born citizen" requirement for President with something that says: "No person except a Citizen of the United States, bearing no other oath of allegiance to any other Nation" or something like that. Then we'd avoid "people with split allegiances" becoming President. Quorum fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Aug 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 06:35
|
|
|
Would one need a constitutional amendment to broaden the acts/speech that counts as renouncing your citizenship?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 07:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Would one need a constitutional amendment to broaden the acts/speech that counts as renouncing your citizenship? I don't believe so, it may not even need a bill to be passed. The Executive branch has wide latitude to adopt and modify immigration rules within the current law.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:I'm not sure whether you're being sarcastic or not, Sarcastic. I was thinking of keeping it up. But so many candidates jumped on this bandwagon, that it stopped being funny and got pretty worrying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Would one need a constitutional amendment to broaden the acts/speech that counts as renouncing your citizenship? Until the 1920s a woman lost her citizenship when she married a foriegn national. It only took an act of Congress to end that, so it would technically only take an act of Congress to reenact it. If marriage is enough to renounce, it seems like they can make it pretty broad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:Sarcastic. I was thinking of keeping it up. But so many candidates jumped on this bandwagon, that it stopped being funny and got pretty worrying. I also find it deeply worrying, but I think there is a lot more support for this among the voters than people might think. I come from a family of immigrants, my parents both being from overseas, all who take very liberal positions on most issues -- and pretty much everyone in my family who immigrated here is completely for the position of denying citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. I know this isn't the politics thread, but I can't think of a faster way to completely destroy your support among latinos than come out against Jus Soli. You're literally telling a large portion of the people you are trying to court that they don't deserve to be citizens. Someone at the GOP headquarters is probably pulling their hair out over this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
They need to keep doing this so they become the Whig Party faster than predicted.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 19:16
|
|
|
My hope is that the nativist appeals to the birthright citizenship amendment leads to calling for a convention that lead to all kinds of shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2015 20:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:16 |
|
|
euphronius posted:My hope is that the nativist appeals to the birthright citizenship amendment leads to calling for a convention that lead to all kinds of shenanigans. I think that if the States actually convened a Convention now, that it wold be a disastrous poo poo show and probably lead to actual crisis. IIRC, the rules just require 2/3 of the Legislatures to call one, they then determine the delegates, the convention itself sets its rules, and then any amendments are ratified by 3/4 of the Legislatures? That sounds like an unworkable poo poo show to me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2015 02:12
|
|