Leftists' warped view of the Constitution? (Page 1/3)
82-T/A [At Work] OCT 17, 08:14 AM
I want to share this article with you all: https://www.vox.com/2024-el...-senate-constitution

Granted, this is from VOX. So, while not everything on VOX is radical left, everything IS "editorial," (meaning, not real news... just a single person's opinion). So I recognize that... but I believe that the views expressed in this article are rather common among a fair percentage of the left. I don't want to presume to know, but if I was pushed in a corner, I might say close to 30-35% of the left believes this.

The whole first 1/4th of the article talks about what it perceives as problems with the Constitution... as reasons for why Democrats can't accomplish their grand plan. The rest of it attempts to explain away different reasons why they think the Constitution is a failure in their eyes. My take-away is this:

- This person clearly does not understand the point, or the purpose of the Electoral College (yes, we are a republic of states, not a national democracy)

- This person does not understand the concept of "3 co-equal branches of government" (Yes, the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn a law if it's deemed unconstitutional)

- This person does not understand how the court system works (stating that the Supreme Court "sat" on a case while the lower courts worked it out... yes, that's how it was designed)

- This person views the Constitution as "problematic."


And on top of all of that... as this thread pointed out, there's no comment section. People have the right to say what they want, and a company certainly has the right to not include comments... but it seems to me, these people want to have their say, without having to be exposed to dissenting opinions. Which is fine on a private website... but it says more about them, than it does everyone else.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 10-17-2024).]

cliffw OCT 17, 09:05 AM
I read you whole post first. I decided to read your linked thread first. Now I do not want to read VOX, but will.
cliffw OCT 17, 09:08 AM
It starts out very badly. The title.


quote

The nightmare facing Democrats, even if Harris wins

If Harris wins, the Republican Party will almost certainly be able to veto anything she does, thanks to our broken Constitution.



The President is the one who can veto a bill.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 10-17-2024).]

82-T/A [At Work] OCT 17, 09:19 AM

quote
Originally posted by cliffw:

It starts out very badly. The title.

The President is the one who can veto a bill.





Yeah, they use metaphors and colloquialisms in a way that many people reading this won't be able to read past, and will instead take literally.

What they're saying here is that "Republicans" (i.e., what they consider conservative justices) will be able to throw out a law or executive order that a President Harris would have signed into law... but that's only possibly if / when said law or executive order is found to be un-Constitutional. I mean, I'm not saying anything you don't know... but it bares repeating how they misrepresent things for the dramatic effect.

The Democrats seem to constantly make law that's unconstitutional. That says more about them than it does the Constitution.
cliffw OCT 17, 09:30 AM
Todd, it's just too much for me read without amazed by the stupidity.

Any Court can not veto anything.

I always enjoy fighting 'City Hall' / authority if I think it needs my check and balance.

The article was written by this Boo Bah. You can comment on his work directly to him [/url=https://x.com/search?q=Ian%20Millhiser&src=typed_query]on X[/url]. I can't get the X hyperlink to work.

Boo Bah's other articles can be found at my Boo Bah hyperlink. If you can withstand the stupidity or want a good laugh.

[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 10-17-2024).]

ray b OCT 17, 11:22 AM
first with the Gop it was party over country
that is how they packed the court

but with the rump now it is
grifting first for him over party

and they don't see it
82-T/A [At Work] OCT 17, 11:36 AM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

first with the Gop it was party over country
that is how they packed the court

but with the rump now it is
grifting first for him over party

and they don't see it




You're right, I definitely don't see it.

I see Trump is a way to accomplish "country over party."

And by that, he's basically totally up-ended the Republican party, and completely reshaped it with a focus on "country first." I mean, the whole message is, "Make America Great Again."
olejoedad OCT 17, 12:24 PM
It's always a problem when the Supreme Court upholds their oath to the Constitution (according to some people).

If ALL politicians upheld their oath to the Constitution, there would be fewer problems in America.

[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 10-17-2024).]

NewDustin OCT 17, 01:42 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:

I want to share this article with you all: https://www.vox.com/2024-el...-senate-constitution

Granted, this is from VOX. So, while not everything on VOX is radical left, everything IS "editorial," (meaning, not real news... just a single person's opinion). So I recognize that... but I believe that the views expressed in this article are rather common among a fair percentage of the left. I don't want to presume to know, but if I was pushed in a corner, I might say close to 30-35% of the left believes this.

The whole first 1/4th of the article talks about what it perceives as problems with the Constitution... as reasons for why Democrats can't accomplish their grand plan. The rest of it attempts to explain away different reasons why they think the Constitution is a failure in their eyes. My take-away is this:

- This person clearly does not understand the point, or the purpose of the Electoral College (yes, we are a republic of states, not a national democracy)

- This person does not understand the concept of "3 co-equal branches of government" (Yes, the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn a law if it's deemed unconstitutional)

- This person does not understand how the court system works (stating that the Supreme Court "sat" on a case while the lower courts worked it out... yes, that's how it was designed)

- This person views the Constitution as "problematic."


And on top of all of that... as this thread pointed out, there's no comment section. People have the right to say what they want, and a company certainly has the right to not include comments... but it seems to me, these people want to have their say, without having to be exposed to dissenting opinions. Which is fine on a private website... but it says more about them, than it does everyone else.



I don't know if the "this person does understand" statements are true. Reading through that article, I think the author is being intellectually dishonest by not acknowledging any points against pure-majority-based elections for the President, but nothing they say suggests they misunderstand it. I would also venture to guess that their support of that system extends exactly as far as it would benefit them. The seems to be true with everything else; I would assume they understand these things very well but are not being honest in how they're framing things. It's insidious and gross, but I think it's overly dismissive label it as uniformed or unintelligent.

...that being said there are reforms the Constitution absolutely needs but it shouldn't be a partisan crapshoot.

[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 10-17-2024).]

NewDustin OCT 17, 01:55 PM
To your point, this is definitely a "leftist" set of views in that they call for reforms that would expressly and exclusively help the Democratic Party. It seems a pretty radical take to me, though; I don't know any Democrats personally who like the idea of wholesale Constitutional reform (not that that has any real reflection of life outside my circle). You can find radicals calling for maliciously-conceived Constitutional reform to support Republicans as well, but I don't think that's reflective of GOP voters at large, either.

Citing my personal experience again (and being open about the limitations that comes with), everyone reacts poorly to the flawed-Constitution conversation, even when you're trying to engage in good faith. You almost never get someone who goes "wait, they literally got that part completely wrong according to their own account? Huh, maybe we should change that or look into the unintended consequences of it?" I think the majority on both sides view the document as immaculate, and bristle at the suggestion it is not. I bet we could find some stats or polls on that.