|
Rigel posted:When the constitution was being negotiated, which colonies insisted on equal representation regardless of population, anyway? The small-population states wanted equal representation in a unicameral legislature (the New Jersey Plan), the same basic setup as in the Articles of Confederation; the big ones, those growing quickly, and those with huge western claims (in other words, the South) wanted proportional representation based on population or GDP (the Virginia Plan). On July 2, 1787, the equal representation vote was MA, PA, VA, NC, and SC, no; CT, NY, NJ, DE, and MD, yes; and GA divided, so they were at a deadlock. (NH delegates hadn't arrived yet, and RI boycotted the whole Convention.) VA, PA, MA, and NC alone made up more than half the national population at the time. Ben Franklin proposed a committee of one member from each state create a compromise, which eventually produced the Connecticut Compromise that created two houses of Congress, one for each representation method, and so after six weeks that finally broke the deadlock. Fuschia tude fucked around with this message at 02:18 on Jun 28, 2022 |
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 02:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Don’t forget that certain states had an interest in leveraging their, uh, large non-voting demographics
haveblue fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Jun 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 02:18
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Don’t forget that certain states had an interest in leveraging their, uh, large non-voting demographics Yup, and appeasing the South and the North eventually resulted in the 3/5 Compromise.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 02:19
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:Hey, im glad this came up. 100% serious question here. Are things like the House of Lords or Governor General in commonwealth countries as weird and messed up as I see them from an American perspective or are they somehow not actually consequential? I have a hard time wrapping my brain around how they actually work. Both are not really a big deal and I wish we had either of these quaint and odd things instead of the Senate. Generally, governor generals are purely ceremonial jobs, making appearances, signing things they are told to sign, and making speeches. Most of them hypothetically have real executive or judicial powers on behalf of the monarch, but in practice they do not do anything that the commonwealth doesn't want them to do, because they all quietly understand that the commonwealth could just decide its all stupid and stop pretending. The power of the house of lords is basically just the ability to hit pause on specific legislation and go "wait a second, this law looks bad to us. Are you sure this is a good idea? Maybe you should think about it more, here's a suggested amendment." The house of commons can ignore the house of lords and eventually can get what they want if they don't mind a delay. (either one month or one year depending on the bill). If its absolutely critical that the bill is not delayed then I guess the house of lords might have leverage.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 02:21
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Both are not really a big deal and I wish we had either of these quaint and odd things instead of the Senate. Doesn't the Commons generally know where the Lords will come out before it gets to them? Like it's very politically significant for there to be a delay at all, but they are never surprises?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 02:27
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:Doesn't the Commons generally know where the Lords will come out before it gets to them? Like it's very politically significant for there to be a delay at all, but they are never surprises? yeah, since delays are annoying and the house of lords knows they cant stop it, they usually have things hashed out behind the scenes before any vote. But since they have a whole separate fancy chamber and actually do vote on bills, its useful for us to know what the bottom line is and what power they really have if they don't agree.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 02:34
|
|
|
Rigel posted:Both are not really a big deal and I wish we had either of these quaint and odd things instead of the Senate. It's worthy to think that despite these systems in practice being ceremonial, and rarely if ever using their power, they still hold power, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitutional_crisis Queen Elizabeth II's official representative in Australia, Governor General Sir John Kerr, dismissed the prime minister. He appointed a replacement, who immediately passed the spending bill to fund the government. Three hours later, Kerr dismissed the rest of Parliament. Then Australia held elections to restart from scratch. This is a humongously substantial power, that was met in Australian parliament with comments such as "lmao can she do that???". She also can refuse royal assent to the UK parliament, effectively forcing the government to dissolve. Forcing these powers in TYOOL could lead to a constitutional crisis, and dismissal of the monarchy as a resolution, but I do think it's somewhat dangerous to just ignore the tremendous power that the Monarcy retains over sovereign nations. Vahakyla fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Jun 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 03:05
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:It's worthy to think that despite these systems in practice being ceremonial, and rarely if ever using their power, they still hold power, too. A nuke may only get one use as it were, but smart application or the right threat of it can still cause a lot of harm.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 03:46
|
|
|
It will surprise no one that the Australian prime minister who was removed by the Governor General was of course a progressive one
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 05:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/apocalypsedust/status/1541451874468974592?s=21&t=AQxn-TZ_UHrTZm6tnRWFdg (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 05:05
|
|
|
Rigel posted:The power of the house of lords is basically just the ability to hit pause on specific legislation and go "wait a second, this law looks bad to us. Are you sure this is a good idea? Maybe you should think about it more, here's a suggested amendment." The house of commons can ignore the house of lords and eventually can get what they want if they don't mind a delay. (either one month or one year depending on the bill). If its absolutely critical that the bill is not delayed then I guess the house of lords might have leverage. If we're bringing it up, we should also note that this reduced power of the UK House of Lords is only about 100 years old. Before that legislation required both houses to pass it, like the US congress, and therefore the House of Lords could block bills indefinitely, like the US Senate. They kept blocking immensely popular liberal budgets, to the point that it was completely ridiculous, the Commons started passing bills to strip the Lords of the power to block or change legislation, and only delay or suggest amendments instead, the Lords blocked that too of course, and the king (George V I think?) was afraid there would be a rebellion if they didn't cut it out so he threatened to create as many new peers as it took to get a majority of Lords who would vote for reform and they caved since they knew they'd lose anyway and have to sit next to peasants with shiny new titles. So uh ironically the vestigial powers of the monarch were used for good in that situation. E: Ah here it is, apparently it wasn't just the budget causing problems, also Irish Home Rule stuff because surprise surprise the Lords were super against that too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_Act_1911 VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 05:38 on Jun 28, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 05:36
|
|
|
Proust Malone posted:https://twitter.com/apocalypsedust/status/1541451874468974592?s=21&t=AQxn-TZ_UHrTZm6tnRWFdg hopefully that's only the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 05:43
|
|
|
It's the little things. People without institutional power may not be able to take away his job, but good luck getting good service anywhere ever again. Or going out in public without being hassled.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 06:35
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:It will surprise no one that the Australian prime minister who was removed by the Governor General was of course a progressive one Or that there are serious allegations that he had ties to the CIA.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 07:41
|
|
|
Angry Salami posted:Or that there are serious allegations that he had ties to the CIA. The PM or the governor General?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 10:37
|
|
|
The PM was an enemy of Nixon and also an enemy of the CIA because he wanted to know what the CIA was using a facility in Australia to do
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 12:52
|
|
|
I'm seeing memes on Facebook with his alleged home address. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 13:15
|
|
|
Isn’t that public information? This is probably a stupid question.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 13:16
|
|
|
It's very easy to find people post memes all the time with it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 13:42
|
|
|
It's public record, he didn't move it into a nondescript llc until 2021 unlike his fellow justices that probably also live in northern Virginia. I put together a presentation on public record searches for our legal assistants recently and he was the most famous person I could find that kind of info on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 15:37
|
|
|
ellasmith posted:Hey, im glad this came up. 100% serious question here. Are things like the House of Lords or Governor General in commonwealth countries as weird and messed up as I see them from an American perspective or are they somehow not actually consequential? I have a hard time wrapping my brain around how they actually work. Commonwealth countries aren’t a unified bloc in terms of their parliamentary systems - some are unitary states like the UK, some are federations (like Australia), some (few I think now) retain reserve powers vested in the Queen on whose behalf the Governors General act, some retain reserve powers vested in the Governor-General who does not accept instruction from the Queen despite her technically being HoS. Many commonwealth countries have weak (or no) upper houses, whereas some like Australia have a powerful upper house that can introduce and block legislation. Using the Australian example, we have a system that often gets called “Washminster”, in that it’s a parliamentary system with the executive role vested in elected ministers as opposed to the HoS through appointed secretaries, and it’s also a federal system with delineated powers between the States and the Federal government. So our senate also has an intrinsic small state gerrymander (Tasmania with a little over half a million residents gets 12 senators, just like New South Wales gets with a little over 8 million) because it was set up to protect the rights of states, just like in the US. There’s a few moderating factors on the kind of dysfunction that we see in the states though - mostly related to the electoral system: the senate is elected through multi-member proportional representation with optional preference distribution and voting is compulsory. This results in less traction on extremism (voting is not dominated by the most motivated people, voter suppression is harder when it’s compulsory), and it is rare for either major party to get a majority in both houses (voters can vote minor parties/independents without risking electing their least preferred candidate because of preference distribution and the multi-member system means that you can get elected with only 12% of the vote after preference distribution). That said, the senate can do almost anything that the lower house can do except raising money and taxation bills.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 16:19
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:It's the little things. Sometimes, it's the big things RFK got a heavy dose of innuendo about violence in the streets over him and his brother's waffling on the VRA. I feel like Obergefell would be another watershed moment in this regard...not sure how quietly the populace would take to such a stark reversal of what essentially is a societal norm I do not weep for a court that seeks to undo our democracy and has negative interactions with the very people that they clamor to strip the rights of. I sincerely hope no place is comfortable for them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 17:18
|
|
|
Listening to Opening Arguments podcast today was hard. They pointed out that one of the schools in the lawsuit against Maine (I forget the case name), had explicitly in its 9th grade social studies sylabus class objectives discussion how Islam was bad, wrong and dangerous and how students should fight against it. So the SC is making Muslim taxpayers in Maine pay to have schools attack them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 17:59
|
|
|
My oldest goes to a Christian school that sources their textbooks from bob Jones university. The social studies text is infuriating. Each topic in world history is presented, then rebutted I guess is the best word about how they were wrong and needed Jesus.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 18:22
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Listening to Opening Arguments podcast today was hard. They pointed out that one of the schools in the lawsuit against Maine (I forget the case name), had explicitly in its 9th grade social studies sylabus class objectives discussion how Islam was bad, wrong and dangerous and how students should fight against it. The only option in that case is for Maine to kill the program and preset remote learning as the public option. No more of this lazy voucher bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 18:39
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I'm seeing memes on Facebook with his alleged home address. I've seen all of their home addresses posted. Would you say they have a right to privacy with regards to that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 18:39
|
|
Cimber posted:Listening to Opening Arguments podcast today was hard. They pointed out that one of the schools in the lawsuit against Maine (I forget the case name), had explicitly in its 9th grade social studies sylabus class objectives discussion how Islam was bad, wrong and dangerous and how students should fight against it. That's mostly on Maine though. They could dictate a sylabus that schools that want are eligble for vouchers have to teach. But they required only NEASC accreditation and the school to be "nonsectarian".
|
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 18:41
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I've seen all of their home addresses posted. I would not but there's a lot of stochastism going around.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 19:28
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:I would not but there's a lot of stochastism going around. Well the security of their residences is now up to the states they live in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 19:54
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/GBBranstetter/status/1541852870181793793
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 20:16
|
|
|
Slavery is deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition, and therefore
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 20:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1541868069668143108
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
Roadie posted:Slavery is deeply rooted in our Nation’s history and tradition, and therefore “except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted”
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 20:49
|
|
|
I mean, what explanation do they need? It helps their side. That's all that's needed. The time of pretending has passed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 21:03
|
|
|
earlier this year they upheld horrible maps saying it was too close to the election to change them and since then have ordered i think three decent maps changed back to lovely ones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 21:06
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:earlier this year they upheld horrible maps saying it was too close to the election to change them and since then have ordered i think three decent maps changed back to lovely ones. Good lord. Is there really no nuance here?
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 21:22
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Good lord. Is there really no nuance here? Heads I win. Tails you lose.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:earlier this year they upheld horrible maps saying it was too close to the election to change them and since then have ordered i think three decent maps changed back to lovely ones. the solution to these badly drawn maps is to vote for candidates who want fair maps. oh they can't win because the maps are drawn so badly? well that's an issue for the states to figure out, oh and even if the states made rules about it no one has to pay attention to them
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 22:52
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:“except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted” You know, like "vagrancy".
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2022 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
BlueBlazer posted:The only option in that case is for Maine to kill the program and preset remote learning as the public option. No more of this lazy voucher bullshit. It’s doesn’t seem like it’s the only option - they could officially contract the specific secular schools instead of using the indirect voucher system. That would at least be different enough that the religious propaganda schools would have to go through the courts again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2022 04:24
|
|
