Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 02 Mar '15 22:41 / 1 edit
    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/supreme-court-independent-redistricting-115642.html

    "The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments that it’s unconstitutional for a state to isolate its legislature from the redistricting process, citing the federal constitution’s Election Clause. And if the court sides with the plaintiffs, it could upend political districts and election laws from coast to coast before 2016."
  2. 04 Mar '15 02:29
    Originally posted by JS357
    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/supreme-court-independent-redistricting-115642.html

    "The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments that it’s unconstitutional for a state to isolate its legislature from the redistricting process, citing the federal constitution’s Election Clause. And if the court sides with the plaintiffs, it could upend political districts and election laws from coast to coast before 2016."
    Do you think that the decision, one way or the other, will alter practices of gerrymandering by both parties?
  3. 04 Mar '15 05:21
    Originally posted by normbenign
    Do you think that the decision, one way or the other, will alter practices of gerrymandering by both parties?
    If a party gets to have their way, no.

    Is there a way to keep it from being patrisan? It appears not. So we are doomed.
  4. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    04 Mar '15 14:33 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by JS357
    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/supreme-court-independent-redistricting-115642.html

    "The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments that it’s unconstitutional for a state to isolate its legislature from the redistricting process, citing the federal constitution’s Election Clause. And if the court sides with the plaintiffs, it could upend political districts and election laws from coast to coast before 2016."
    It's a foolish case where a hypertechnical, literal reading of the Constitution flies in the face of the basic principles of the Framers.

    The Legislature is nothing more than the People's agents having no more power than the People have granted them. If and when the People act by popular referendum or initiative they are acting directly as a Legislature bypassing their agents for reasons they in their wisdom find sufficient. The idea that the People in the States were disabled from doing so in this area by the Elections Clause of the Constitution would have never occurred to the Framers.

    An instrument should be judged by what its makers intended drawing on all available evidence not merely one word out of context. Nowhere did the Framers ever suggest that the Constitution should be interpreted in such a cramped and unrealistic manner as the Scalias of the world insist.

    The result of the referendum which created an independent body to fix election districts was an act of the People which infringed no Natural Right that any person possessed not is it inconsistent with the basic principles the Framers believed in. In fact, the People were trying to stop the undemocratic practice of gerrymandering which damages and to a certain extent defeats the very principle of democratic representation the House is supposed to be based on. The law should be upheld.

    EDIT: Suppose the People of Arizona abolished their State Legislature and decided to govern their State by direct democracy (something they surely have the legitimate power to do); all bills to be decided by "one person, one vote". By the logic the right wing justices were using, that would mean they could not make any rules concerning the elections of the members of that State's Federal delegation in the House of Representatives because the "State legislature" has to do so! This is, of course, manifestly absurd.
  5. 05 Mar '15 01:45
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    It's a foolish case where a hypertechnical, literal reading of the Constitution flies in the face of the basic principles of the Framers.

    The Legislature is nothing more than the People's agents having no more power than the People have granted them. If and when the People act by popular referendum or initiative they are acting directly as a Legislatu ...[text shortened]... esentatives because the "State legislature" has to do so! This is, of course, manifestly absurd.
    So do you say that the text isn't relevant, only the intent, which is virtually impossible for anyone to agree upon, since none of us can read minds in the present never mind two centuries ago.
  6. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    05 Mar '15 01:48
    Originally posted by normbenign
    So do you say that the text isn't relevant, only the intent, which is virtually impossible for anyone to agree upon, since none of us can read minds in the present never mind two centuries ago.
    Where, pray tell, did I say the text isn't "relevant"? Nowhere of course. But where the text has to be interpreted it is inappropriate to ignore all other relevant evidence.

    Mind reading isn't required; there is plenty of written evidence regarding what the political philosophy of the Framers' was.
  7. 05 Mar '15 01:54 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Where, pray tell, did I say the text isn't "relevant"? Nowhere of course. But where the text has to be interpreted it is inappropriate to ignore all other relevant evidence.

    Mind reading isn't required; there is plenty of written evidence regarding what the political philosophy of the Framers' was.
    You spoke of text which could be rightfully ignored given the presumed knowledge of the framer's intent. If the text means what it says, in most properly worded law, the intent is clear, and doesn't require interpretation or translation.

    What prevails if the text and intent don't agree?
  8. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    05 Mar '15 01:59
    Originally posted by normbenign
    You spoke of text which could be rightfully ignored given the presumed knowledge of the framer's intent. If the text means what it says, in most properly worded law, the intent is clear, and doesn't require interpretation or translation.

    What prevails if the text and intent don't agree?
    No, I did not. Why don't you read the text of my post? Since you can't understand it, I highly doubt your ability to interpret the text of the Constitution is any better.
  9. 05 Mar '15 02:02 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    No, I did not. Why don't you read the text of my post? Since you can't understand it, I highly doubt your ability to interpret the text of the Constitution is any better.
    "It's a foolish case where a hypertechnical, literal reading of the Constitution..." My understanding of that, is that the text here is superseded by a proper interpretation, based on the understanding of intent.

    It may have been your hope that I and others would not understand what you wrote, but alas, that isn't the case.

    Instead of arguing by insult and intimidation, just try reason on the actual text. I might agree with you, but I can't agree to intent superseding the actual text. If that were the case, a written Constitution would be superfluous.
  10. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    05 Mar '15 02:10
    Originally posted by normbenign
    "It's a foolish case where a hypertechnical, literal reading of the Constitution..." My understanding of that, is that the text here is superseded by a proper interpretation, based on the understanding of intent.

    It may have been your hope that I and others would not understand what you wrote, but alas, that isn't the case.

    Instead of arguing by in ...[text shortened]... uperseding the actual text. If that were the case, a written Constitution would be superfluous.
    Maybe you read only the first paragraph of a post and figure that is all that is necessary. Maybe that is how you think documents should be interpreted.

    However, if you had bothered to look a 1/8 inch further you would have found this:

    The Legislature is nothing more than the People's agents having no more power than the People have granted them. If and when the People act by popular referendum or initiative they are acting directly as a Legislature bypassing their agents for reasons they in their wisdom find sufficient. The idea that the People in the States were disabled from doing so in this area by the Elections Clause of the Constitution would have never occurred to the Framers.

    Figure it out.
  11. 05 Mar '15 02:14
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Maybe you read only the first paragraph of a post and figure that is all that is necessary. Maybe that is how you think documents should be interpreted.

    However, if you had bothered to look a 1/8 inch further you would have found this:

    The Legislature is nothing more than the People's agents having no more power than the People have granted them. ...[text shortened]... lections Clause of the Constitution would have never occurred to the Framers.

    Figure it out.
    What is the "hyper-technical" reading you reject in favor of intent?

    Actually, I tend to agree with your position, but don't agree with your method of arriving there.
  12. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    05 Mar '15 03:03
    Originally posted by normbenign
    What is the "hyper-technical" reading you reject in favor of intent?

    Actually, I tend to agree with your position, but don't agree with your method of arriving there.
    That by the word "Legislatures" in the Elections Clause the Framers meant not the workings of the legislative power set up by the People of a State but only a body of elected representatives.

    This is elevating a common term usage over the logical conclusion to be drawn by the political philosophy of the Framers regarding the purpose of Legislatures and of the necessity for a democratically elected House of Representatives which would be defeated by the ruling that the right wingers on the SCOTUS will probably provide here to benefit the Republican Party.
  13. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    10 Mar '15 00:24 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by JS357
    http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/supreme-court-independent-redistricting-115642.html

    "The Supreme Court on Monday will hear arguments that it’s unconstitutional for a state to isolate its legislature from the redistricting process, citing the federal constitution’s Election Clause. And if the court sides with the plaintiffs, it could upend political districts and election laws from coast to coast before 2016."
    If the IRC is abolished, it will send us back to the stone age here in Arizona. As a Democrat, I suffered for years under a solid conservative Legislature who considers it more important to pass laws like SB 1070 instead of funding the CPS (Child Protective Services). If only they (the IRC) would spend some time looking at state legislative districting, instead of mainly looking at the the federal House districts, then some good could come out of all this. While 5 out of 9 US Representatives from Arizona are now Democrat (I don't have the details in front of me, but), I cannot remember a time ever when there was a majority of Dems in the House contingent from Arizona. Our state legislature, however, is a huge joke and has controlled the districting for years, to the point where now it's almost impossible to be elected as a Democrat to the state legislature, except in specific small areas where Dems are strong. And our education system is barely above dead last in the country because of this. We don't need the Arizona Legislature in charge of anything, much less making the district borders favoring even more Republicans in the state offices.