Jump to content
270soft Forum
Sign in to follow this  
vcczar

Hypothetical Constitutional Convention Vote Article 4

Alterations to Article 4 of the Constitution  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. Which of the proposals are you in favor of? Click for "yea" and do not click for "nay."

    • State constitutions are dissolved for the one US Constitution, but state boundaries remain for the purposes of governance
    • Any fundraising or campaigning for a federal-level state representative (US Rep or US Senator) can only receive money, donor support, etc. from legal residents of that state.
    • The states may nullify minor laws (those not protecting civil rights, for national defense, and other determined major laws) at a federal funding penalty to be determined by Congress. "minor" laws would include business regulations, education, and things that often need more flexibility from region to region. I call this the "exception clause"
    • The right of determining voter suffrage rights should be transferred from the State to the Federal level.
    • Federal House constituencies should be drawn by the Federal government, with States retaining the power to draw constituencies for their State Legislatures.
    • More overtly recognized ability for Federal-State joint projects and Federal assistance to States who lack capabilities in their own State to fulfill infrastructure, security, policing and other need satisfactorily to their residents, as well as when State abilities are overwhelmed (like huge disasters, massive-scale terrorist attacks, usages of a WMD, or an armed rebellion that is so initially successful that the State Government is not in a functional position to formally 'ask' for intervention).
    • Officially repeal the Fugitive Slave Act


Recommended Posts

Other than repealing the fugitive slave thing, which was essentially done by the 13th amendment anyway, I'm against all these things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, pilight said:

Other than repealing the fugitive slave thing, which was essentially done by the 13th amendment anyway, I'm against all these things.

I'm wondering (and this question for all the others who inevitably vote against) how is having different states in the same country having different requirements for voting qualifications and franchise vary by State for FEDERL ELECTIONS defensible and justifiable, especially given the well-known and many blatant abuses State governments have made of that authority throughout US history?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, pilight said:

Other than repealing the fugitive slave thing, which was essentially done by the 13th amendment anyway, I'm against all these things.

Same.  I voted for Officially repeal the Fugitive Slave Act because I am not for any of the others.  But, this is kind of pointless considering it has already been Amended out of the Constitution through the 13 Amendment, as @pilight just pointed out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 minute ago, jvikings1 said:

Same.  I voted for Officially repeal the Fugitive Slave Act because I am not for any of the others.  But, this is kind of pointless considering it has already been Amended out of the Constitution through the 13 Amendment, as @pilight just pointed out.

it's been amended to death though not officially repealed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@jvikings1 @pilight @republicaninnyc

 

I did notice that, rather than answer my poignant and important question on one specific issue, it was just lumped casually and dismissively with other issues on the list, grouped as non-issues and not referenced individually. I strongly believe that individual and separate State voting franchise versus a Federal one across the board is NOT a non-issue at all and has been a power used and abused horribly and blatantly by State Governments in the past many times for vile political ulterior motives, and even arguably used (or attempted) in a few cases for such ulterior motives as late the 2016 election. It's been a source of great consternation, and something I cannot see being easily defended or justified EXCEPT to set up the power for future abuses by State Government for ulterior political motives in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Patine said:

I'm wondering (and this question for all the others who inevitably vote against) how is having different states in the same country having different requirements for voting qualifications and franchise vary by State for FEDERL ELECTIONS defensible and justifiable, especially given the well-known and many blatant abuses State governments have made of that authority throughout US history?

Having two levels of voting qualification, one for state elections and one for federal elections, would be unwieldy and confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, pilight said:

Having two levels of voting qualification, one for state elections and one for federal elections, would be unwieldy and confusing.

So does having each State have the ability to declare it's own qualifications entirely, and that has often proved the tool of injustice, political ulterior motive and consolidation (read: a form of electoral rigging, effectively), prejudice, and suppression of the political will of whole demographics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Patine said:

So does having each State have the ability to declare it's own qualifications entirely, and that has often proved the tool of injustice, political ulterior motive and consolidation (read: a form of electoral rigging, effectively), prejudice, and suppression of the political will of whole demographics.

Is there any reason to believe federal regulations on voting wouldn't be as bad or worse?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh. Voting should be regulated at the national level in regards to offices that involve the federal government (COngress and the Presidency). If we create an amendment saying all citizens over the age of 18 are able to vote, I think we can agree that can finally settle the debate of who can vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll wait another day or two before we move on to the next article. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 5:11 PM, vcczar said:

I'll wait another day or two before we move on to the next article. 

I'm unable to vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2017 at 12:17 AM, pilight said:

Is there any reason to believe federal regulations on voting wouldn't be as bad or worse?  

People moving could easily know the qualifications.

Is there any reason to believe federal regulations on voting wouldn't be better?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"More overtly recognized ability for Federal-State joint projects and Federal assistance to States who lack capabilities in their own State to fulfill infrastructure, security, policing and other need satisfactorily to their residents, as well as when State abilities are overwhelmed (like huge disasters, massive-scale terrorist attacks, usages of a WMD, or an armed rebellion that is so initially successful that the State Government is not in a functional position to formally 'ask' for intervention)."

You know the Chinese army constantly takes part in natural disaster relief, while wildfires in California rage, people freeze to death, are flooded, and the Army/National Guard is nowhere to be found, and we are wasting trillions each year on wasted military funding. I don't even see local government sending the National Guard even if things are pretty bad. So I don't think this issue would work either way. In addition, most federal assistance programs are just pork handouts from federal to local government. Federal government doesn't really have a strategic sense of investment but who has more influence vs who has less.

"Federal House constituencies should be drawn by the Federal government, with States retaining the power to draw constituencies for their State Legislatures." I'd prefer proportional representation or some sort of nonpartisan board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...