Gerrymandering

[rory_20_uk]

It seems to be that the "right" in all its multitude of forms is prepared to work together (how the Christian Right deal with working with Trump defeats me) to defeat the "left" which is much more focused on absolute principles than being in power.

So, it seems that although the majority might be against Trump and what he stands for their unwillingness to work together is going to be a problem - AOC and her band of 4 will fight the rest of the Democrats rather than as they view it compromise.

The "right" are happily stuffing the judiciary, moving boundaries and optimising voter disenfranchisement whilst it seems the Democrats are sticking to their principles. The only thing that might work against this is the demographic shift.

[Don Corleone]

It seems to be that the "right" in all its multitude of forms is prepared to work together (how the Christian Right deal with working with Trump defeats me) to defeat the "left" which is much more focused on absolute principles than being in power.

So, it seems that although the majority might be against Trump and what he stands for their unwillingness to work together is going to be a problem - AOC and her band of 4 will fight the rest of the Democrats rather than as they view it compromise.

The "right" are happily stuffing the judiciary, moving boundaries and optimising voter disenfranchisement whilst it seems the Democrats are sticking to their principles. The only thing that might work against this is the demographic shift.

That's a good start boss, but you're missing the end goal. The entire point of gerrymandering (and voter disenfranchisement, as practiced so audaciously by Brian Kemp here in Georgia in 2018), is to counteract the effects of demographics. The whole point is that the 35% remain immune to the effects of the majority, staying in power regardless of the odds against them.

The rallying cry on the Trump-right right now betrays their thinking on this "The United States never was, and was never intended to be, a Democracy". Implied in that is that government by and for the 35% who support Trump is ordained in our Constitution.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Implied in that is that government by and for the 35% who support Trump is ordained in our Constitution.

One notes that, in fact, this is probably the case - remember that the US as originally constituted considered most of its non-white residents to be non-citizens and even non-people.

The theory of the Separation of Powers (Central to the US Constitution) implies that if the districts were not meant to be gerrymandered then the role of defining them would have been given to another branch than the Legislature, such as a commission appointed by the Executive.

One also notes that the US Constitution theorises the inevitable collapse of the Republic, which is why the several States have their own militarises.

I realise this is of little comfort but the point remains the same - people elected the ones doing the gerrymandering on less gerrymandered districts. People elected Trump - even though Hilary got more votes overall Trump clearly carried the plurality to States. The more the Courts abuse the Constitution the less it is worth, in principle and in fact. If the principles underlying the Constitution become devalued then the Republic collapses.

Remember, though, Rome is always falling.

[Montmorency]

One notes that, in fact, this is probably the case - remember that the US as originally constituted considered most of its non-white residents to be non-citizens and even non-people.

The theory of the Separation of Powers (Central to the US Constitution) implies that if the districts were not meant to be gerrymandered then the role of defining them would have been given to another branch than the Legislature, such as a commission appointed by the Executive.

One also notes that the US Constitution theorises the inevitable collapse of the Republic, which is why the several States have their own militarises.

I realise this is of little comfort but the point remains the same - people elected the ones doing the gerrymandering on less gerrymandered districts. People elected Trump - even though Hilary got more votes overall Trump clearly carried the plurality to States. The more the Courts abuse the Constitution the less it is worth, in principle and in fact. If the principles underlying the Constitution become devalued then the Republic collapses.

Remember, though, Rome is always falling.

That horse is a wild animal, you can't saddle it, let alone stable it.

Now check out the amendments to the Constitution.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That horse is a wild animal, you can't saddle it, let alone stable it.

Now check out the amendments to the Constitution.

Like the Second Amendment that everybody always takes out of context and misinterprets?

[Montmorency]

Like the Second Amendment that everybody always takes out of context and misinterprets?

OK, huh? I'm not sure what you mean. How about we get down to brass tacks: I'm doubt you have well-founded theories of what the Constitution says or entails. Since we're talking about a specific decision on a particular political controversy, to develop a position here about the implications or legal reasoning underlying the Court's decision, read and make reference to Robert's decision, Kagan's dissent, or case analysis.

Otherwise it's just "Englishman Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Lost Colonies' Constitution to Be"

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK, huh? I'm not sure what you mean. How about we get down to brass tacks: I'm doubt you have well-founded theories of what the Constitution says or entails. Since we're talking about a specific decision on a particular political controversy, to develop a position here about the implications or legal reasoning underlying the Court's decision, read and make reference to Robert's decision, Kagan's dissent, or case analysis.

Otherwise it's just "Englishman Passionate Defender of What He Imagines Lost Colonies' Constitution to Be"

The original Bill of Rights:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/W...2/introduction

Among the crimes of James II:

Disarming Protestants, &c.

By causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law.

The Right to bear arms:

Subjects’ Arms.


That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.

This is the enumerated "Right" in English Statute Law to which the Second Amendment refers in the Constitution. The reason that the Right is not enumerated in the Constitution itself is because the new United States took on all English Law, Common and Statute, when they gained independence.

James II used illegal religiously-based militias to keep the majority Protestant population pacified towards the end of his reign. So, the "Right to bear Arms" is not an absolute right but a general right subject to the law, and subject to restriction under the law so long as such restriction is not used to oppress certain groups.

The Bill of Rights also enumerates the need for a standing army to be authorised by Parliament, and not otherwise, and that's your "well regulated militia".

I'll sit and read the judgements later but you should not assume that I am as ignorant of your Constitution as you believe - it was after all written by English lawyers.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

One notes that, in fact, this is probably the case - remember that the US as originally constituted considered most of its non-white residents to be non-citizens and even non-people.

'Non people' is over-stating things. Amerinds who were taxpayers were full citizens. Those enslaved were .6 people. That definition is my nation's "original sin," but with 40+ percent of the population in slave-holding states, the original 13 could never have established a nation without compromise on this issue. And virtually no society gave the "distaff" any real status.

I realise this is of little comfort but the point remains the same - people elected the ones doing the gerrymandering on less gerrymandered districts. People elected Trump - even though Hilary got more votes overall Trump clearly carried the plurality to States. The more the Courts abuse the Constitution the less it is worth, in principle and in fact. If the principles underlying the Constitution become devalued then the Republic collapses.

But that takes a LOT. Sulla Felix marched on Rome in 88 BCE, but it was not until 27 BCE that the republic truly ceased to exist. Nevertheless, your point is valid.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

'Non people' is over-stating things. Amerinds who were taxpayers were full citizens. Those enslaved were .6 people. That definition is my nation's "original sin," but with 40+ percent of the population in slave-holding states, the original 13 could never have established a nation without compromise on this issue. And virtually no society gave the "distaff" any real status.

What about the "that's him" laws where whites in Southern states could effectively enslave blacks within line of sight?

[Montmorency]

Hmmm - I think the Supreme Court is probably correct here. Whilst the state Legislatures should act in the interests of the State and States in this matter I don't think the courts should be able to decide how elections are managed. If you want impartiality it needs to be written into the Constitution.

What is your Constitutional argument for believing that attempts to disenfranchise populations and undermine the integrity of the vote are non-justiciable at the federal level? Which was basically Chief Roberts' core holding.

Technical arguments are important. It can be argued that the tendency of the Supreme Court to "over-interpret" the Constitution in the past is what has led you to this point.

The judiciary need to be a-political or the average American cannot be expected to have any faith in them. If you're expecting your Supreme Court to wilfully misinterpret your Constitution to protect you from your democratically elected legislature then, well, things have already gone far to far, haven't they?

*sigh*

It's the other way around, and that horse is a wild animal, what were you thinking trying to mount it. The courts are routinely partisan in willfully misinterpreting the Constitution* to suit their ideological precepts - typically toward the Right - and it's as well-established as apple pie in America.

*More commonly just legislation I believe, because the Supreme Court is the final appeals court, not merely a constitutional court.

It seems to be that the "right" in all its multitude of forms is prepared to work together (how the Christian Right deal with working with Trump defeats me) to defeat the "left" which is much more focused on absolute principles than being in power.

So, it seems that although the majority might be against Trump and what he stands for their unwillingness to work together is going to be a problem - AOC and her band of 4 will fight the rest of the Democrats rather than as they view it compromise.

The "right" are happily stuffing the judiciary, moving boundaries and optimising voter disenfranchisement whilst it seems the Democrats are sticking to their principles. The only thing that might work against this is the demographic shift.

You're attributing blame to the wrong place - the Democratic Party is experiencing a revolt by its most conservative dozen or two dozen Reps - and the wrong concept - compromise is not the deficit, deliberate Reagan-over-the-shoulder assimilationism toward Republican priorities is. The left wing of the Dem party is exactly the one increasingly-vocally expressing the need for procedural radicalism in countering Republican illegitimacy.