SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ballot Access News reports:
On August 5, U.S. District Court Judge Rosemary Collyer, a Bush Jr. appointee, ruled against Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in their debates lawsuit. The case had been filed on September 28, 2015, and is Johnson v Commission on Presidential Debates, U.S. District Court, D.C., 1:15cv-1580.
[...] The 27-page decision[Redirects to a PDF] [...] says, "Because Plaintiffs have no standing and because antitrust laws govern commercial markets and not political activity, those claims fail as a matter of well-established law."
[...] Footnote three, based on the judge's own research (or the research of her clerks), has factual errors. The judge relied on election returns published by the FEC, but the FEC returns do not say which candidates were [...] in states with a majority of electoral college votes, and the opinion's list of candidates is erroneous.
[...] Another factual error in the decision is on page 21. The decision says Ralph Forbes, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, lost a case over debates in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1998. Actually Forbes was a candidate for U.S. House.
In the comments, Richard Winger notes a similar case.
the lawsuit Level the Playing Field v FEC is still pending, before another judge, in the same court
The presidential debates were previously moderated by the League of Women Voters (1976, 1980, 1984). The Democrats and Republicans screwed things up in 1988. The Commission on Presidential Debates, a corporation controlled by the Democratic and Republican parties, has run each of the presidential debates held since 1988.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by TheGratefulNet on Monday August 08 2016, @04:21AM
but I don't think so. its rotton to the corp (sp. intentional).
two party system locks out any REASONABLE choice. ie, choies that might have a chance of representing the common, normal, non-crazy citizen.
we need another snowden event, of sorts. something to destroy the system so we can rebuild it properly.
do my words sound like I want to overthrow the government? are the black helis coming for me? perhaps. but I'm sick and tired of this bullshit. if I'm on a watchlist for saying we need a redo and constitution 2.0, then come and get me. I'm guilty as charged.
please, world, reinvent us. we can't seem to do it ourselves and we are long overdue for a redo.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mhajicek on Monday August 08 2016, @05:28AM
How about instead of redoing the constitution we follow the one we have?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday August 08 2016, @06:02AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @06:11AM
Amendments are fine. That's still an example of following the constitution. The very fact that the constitution can be amended indicates that it was known that changes would need to be made over time. Nothing religious about that.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday August 09 2016, @02:10AM
There's a real reluctance to amend. For example, where is the will to amend the Constitution to allow an Air Force? That is an example of an amendment that should be easy to pass, instead everyone just says defence is one of the reasons for the Constitution so it's fine, whereas right from the beginning, the Navy and Army were treated differently and the 2nd amendment mentions the Militia because it was considered important to avoid the tyranny that always comes with a large standing army.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Monday August 08 2016, @02:12PM
The one you have isn't even written in a language that the people understand.
No, the language is plenty understandable. It's just in some people's interests to act like it isn't and purposely misinterpret it.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @03:19PM
no shit! and coincidentally it's always people who want to take rights from the people, no matter the cause. all you statist authoritarians will get yours soon.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 08 2016, @06:12AM
Under the concept of "judicial review", the Supreme Court has decided that they can decide what the Constitution says and they have said (Citizens United) that everything is for sale to the highest bidder (not even excluding foreigners).
N.B. What the Constitution **actually** says is that SCOTUS is the final **appellate** court.
That is to say that their decision only applies to the case that they are hearing.
For their previous decision to apply to -another- case, that case would have to make its way through the system on its own.
The Constitution says that SCOTUS is -not- a law-making body.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Monday August 08 2016, @01:07PM
Under the concept of "judicial review", the Supreme Court has decided that they can decide what the Constitution says and they have said (Citizens United) that everything is for sale to the highest bidder (not even excluding foreigners).
Sounds like you think this is a bad idea. Citizens United is about freedom of speech of groups of people. And judicial review is one of these reasons we still have a functioning democracy.
N.B. What the Constitution **actually** says is that SCOTUS is the final **appellate** court.
Citizens United came up to the Supreme Court by appeal and had originally been filed in the US District court in Washington, DC in late 2007. So this was a standard appellate jurisdiction case.
That is to say that their decision only applies to the case that they are hearing. For their previous decision to apply to -another- case, that case would have to make its way through the system on its own.
Then the Constitution should have said that. Last I checked "appellate jurisdiction" merely meant cases had to pass through lesser courts (which had original jurisdiction, assigned by Congress) first (meeting certain conditions such as standing) and then be appealed to the Supreme Court. And what's the point of keeping a law on the books that the Supreme Court is going to rule on a case-by-case basis as unconstitutional every time it comes to the Supreme Court? There's been a lot of bad law thrown out on the basis of its unconstitutionality.
Further, by overturning law rather than merely ignoring it, we reduce the risk that some future court will use reinterpretation of that nascent law to radically alter existing precedent.
The Constitution says that SCOTUS is -not- a law-making body.
No law was made in the Citizens United case. Instead, existing law was reversed. Roe v. Wade would be an example of actual law being made by the Supreme Court (particularly, the creation of the trimester framework).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Tuesday August 09 2016, @02:05AM
The American system is common law. Under common law higher courts have always been able to set precedent and once you get to the highest court, only statute can override the courts and in America the highest statute is the Constitution, with treaties next, then acts of Congress along with the Acts of the various States, who have their own Constitutions to limit them.
When Statutes conflict, it is up to the Courts to straighten it out, unless the Legislature(s) does. Congress passes a law limiting speech, the courts should cast down the speech limiting parts of the law. Unluckily as often as not the courts re-interpret the law, eg the 1st only deals with political speech and then various cases and precedents about what is political speech.
Try to follow the Constitution, and when it is realized that it can't be followed in the modern era, amend it so it can be followed. There's a high enough bar to amending that it should be an improvement. It is really a bad habit to have the entire government routinely ignore the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @06:15AM
Not to mention illegal [cornell.edu]:
Unless you honesty think that pushing for the government to routinely ignore the constitution doesn't qualify as "advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of government". A government which is not bound by its constitution is not a constitutional form of government.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:40AM
Unluckily legality only matters if it is likely to be prosecuted. Lots of things are illegal but defacto legal as they're never prosecuted, and the government ignoring the Constitution falls into this category.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday August 08 2016, @06:43PM
The constitution we have is better than the one we are told we have, but it is unusable in a world with fast transportation and communication.
Additionally, even at the time it was written it was known to have defects. Patrick Henry's evaluation of it was "I smell a rat. It squints towards monarchy."
The constitution originally presupposed that the primary power resided in the states. This was quite reasonable with the slow transportation and communication that was available at the time, and way, actually, the only feasible way forwards. Properly the constitution should have been changed by amendment as the conditions changed, but it was easier and faster to just start reinterpreting pieces in way obviously contrary to their intended meaning. E.g. "A well organized militia" doesn't either say or imply anything about the government either controlling or approving of that militia. And the action claimed was "the right to bear arms". I'm not really sure that's workable in a dense metropolitan society. The way Marshal Matt Dillon brought law and order to Dodge City way by curtailing the wearing of guns within the city limits. It pretty much worked, but I'm not sure it was constitutionally defensible.
Additionally the original constitution doesn't have ANYONE as the final authority as to what it means. The Supreme Court just stepped in and declared that it held that role, and nobody challenged it. Because John Marshall used that as grounds to decide a case in the direction that the president wanted it decided...and then that role wasn't used again for decades. NOW it's traditional, but it's NOT a part of the constitution. There are other flaws.
The constitution can't be used as written because the people who were supposed to be keeping it current refused to do proper maintenance, and instead took short cuts that were, given a reasonable interpretation, illegal, and often malfeasance...as well as being violation of their oath of office, but that doesn't have much of an enforcement clause.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Joe Desertrat on Monday August 08 2016, @08:30PM
The constitution can't be used as written because the people who were supposed to be keeping it current refused to do proper maintenance, and instead took short cuts that were, given a reasonable interpretation, illegal, and often malfeasance...as well as being violation of their oath of office, but that doesn't have much of an enforcement clause.
That is because the people who are supposed to be keeping tabs on the office holders and judges have dropped the ball. You hear congress has around a 90% disapproval rate, but around 90% are returned to office every election. We've allowed media to be consolidated to where a tiny few corporations control access to news on a national scale. Too many people do not even vote, let alone make any effort to find out any facts about issues they claim to care about. Blogs originally designed to get hits by being outrageous are being taken as news and shared on social media by people who should be capable of knowing better. We do not need a violent revolution, we simply need people to care enough to make an effort to participate. If we had near 100% voter turnout and near 100% of office holders tossed out, the establishment would certainly take notice. Stop thinking "my guy is OK, it is the rest that are the problem" and grade them all on the performance of them all. Do it a few times in a row and they might start to actually govern professionally (either that or martial law would ensue). Our elected officials are simply a mirror of society, whining about it until distracted by a shiny bauble accomplishes nothing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @06:27AM
Article I, Section 8
Combine this with Amendment 10
And we see that the militias are to be firmly under state control, except for the navy which is approved full-term as a federal military, and the federal government can take the militias from the states and make them the federal army for no longer than two years.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday August 08 2016, @10:03PM
Because the one we have sucks. It's obviously not working, as proven by our broken political system, which should be reason enough, but I'll point out some massive problems with it:
1) the Electoral College: the President is elected by the states, not by the people, and the rules are different in every state. Worse, the ratio of voters:electors is different state-to-state, meaning not every citizen is equal (people in tiny states like RI have more power per vote).
2) the Second Amendment: no one can agree on what it means.
3) the separation of powers and checks and balances system doesn't work. In short, having people elect both the legislators in that branch, and the President in the executive branch, frequently leads to gridlock. This is not an efficient way to run a large, modern nation of over 300M people. All other successful modern democratic republics have Parliamentary systems, not ones like ours. Even when we conquered Germany and Japan in WWII and helped them set up new governments (and again in Iraq much more recently), did we encourage them to set up Presidential systems like ours? Nope, they all got parliamentary systems. And at least for Germany and Japan, they seem to have worked out rather well. The advantages of a parliamentary system are that it's quite normal for there to be more than 2 parties, and the executive is elected by the Parliament, not the people, so there's no gridlock like we get when we have one party controlling Congress and another party in the White House. Furthermore, because there's more than 2 parties, and none of them have a majority, they have to form coalitions to get stuff done; no one has enough power to force their way unopposed or to bring everything to a halt.
The Bill of Rights is good, but should be folded into the main document. We can actually see this with the Confederate Constitution (the Constitution the Confederate States wrote for themselves): they just took the regular US Constitution, stuck the Bill of Rights into the main document, and made a few other changes several of which were actually really good ideas (but the one legalizing slavery wasn't). But the biggest problem is the whole tricameral system; it just isn't that great in practice and leads to too many problems: gridlock, and an executive with too much power. I'm sure it seemed like a great idea in the late 1700s, when all the other powerful nations were still monarchies, but humanity has come a long way since then. We should get rid our of NIH problem and just adopt the system that most other decent nations have.
4) Another change I'd like to see is the ability to redraw state borders more easily to improve administrative efficiency. We have too many states, and their borders are entirely the product of history rather than modern usefulness. Any time there's a state border dividing a metro area, that's something that should not exist. A few examples: Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine would be better off combined into a single state, and New York should be broken in two, with "upstate" being one state, and NYC and its surrounding areas in NY, CT, and NJ being another. WDC should be turned into a new state, along with all of northern VA and much of MD too. California should be broken into at least 2 states. A new Constitution should make it easier to make changes like these.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @12:01AM
I fail to see why we need an entirely new constitution for this. We can simply amend the old one. If you have enough support to make a new constitution from scratch, then you have enough support for constitutional amendments. And there's nothing wrong with amendments; whether the bill of rights is in the "main" part of the constitution or not is irrelevant.
But I fear what sorts of authoritarian nonsense people would come up with. Would these changes be good for individual liberty or not?
2) the Second Amendment: no one can agree on what it means.
There are also disputes over the first, fourth, fifth, etc. amendments. The fact of the matter is, if someone likes or dislikes a particular policy, they often don't care what the constitution says. Authoritarians are shredding our constitution and they would do the same to any new one; they are a plague.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Tuesday August 09 2016, @01:52AM
One thing Americans are united on is not following the Constitution, though they do have some disagreements about some of the Amendments.
How many Americans are screaming about the Air Force being unconstitutional? Nowhere does the Constitution give the Federal government the power to form another offensive or defensive force, which is why up till after WWII the Army and Navy had their respective air corps. Be really easy to pass an amendment to empower the creation of an Air Force too but no-one wants to.
The First Amendment. Everyone thinks it is OK for Congress to pass laws limiting speech, they just have to say National Security. Something that the 1st doesn't mention as an exception.
The Second Amendment, everyone wants to limit the term "People", felons, not covered. Potential terrorists, not covered. Non-citizens, not covered. The mentally ill, not covered. The 2nd is also very simple and not really open to interpretation.
The other amendments are more open to interpretation, but most of them also refer to the people, yet I routinely see claims that they only apply to American citizens.
Then there are parts like the Interstate Commerce Clause that should probably be better defined.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @03:57AM
The First Amendment. Everyone thinks it is OK for Congress to pass laws limiting speech, they just have to say National Security. Something that the 1st doesn't mention as an exception.
The 1st amendment also doesn't say you lose your right to say "swear words" over a public broadcast, but that doesn't stop people from pretending that's the case. I don't see 'If it's considered publicly-owned, then free speech no longer applies.' in the 1st amendment, but that's the excuse people typically use. The 1st amendment also doesn't allow for protest permits, free speech zones, or any censorship in general.
Basically, many people feel it's okay to take away other people's rights if they don't like that right. Oh, you said a word that I'm offended by? You're looking at pornography that I'm offended by? Then I'm going to do everything in my power to get the government to at least limit those activities even if an outright ban isn't possible; to hell with the Constitution.
Then there are parts like the Interstate Commerce Clause that should probably be better defined.
Sometimes the federal government even claims the power to regulate activities that are not commerce, not interstate, or not either. The excuse is usually the "necessary and proper" clause, but the text of the commerce clause simply does not grant the government such a power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @06:38AM
Article I, Section. 8.
As planes didn't exist at the time and could not even be conceived, the air force would fall under the concept of "armies", and indeed, it was known as part of the army for quite a long time after the invention of planes and their integration into warfare. The navy was listed as completely distinct because the founders feared a standing army would be used for oppression, but a standing navy was critical at the time for protecting the nation's sovereignty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 09 2016, @09:01PM
Yet we have a standing army. They use a cute little trick every few years to work around this restriction, but it doesn't change that they're violating the constitution.
What's funny is that pretty much everyone would agree that we should have a standing army, so they could easily amend the constitution to allow for it.
(Score: 2) by dry on Wednesday August 10 2016, @05:46AM
It still doesn't mention an Air force and makes a point of treating the Army and Navy differently. Amend it and make it clear.
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Monday August 08 2016, @02:12PM
actually, things got really close to breaking down in both parties when selecting a presidential candidate. i wouldn't be surprised if both parties split specifically because politicians are not listening to their people. the basis of new parties would have to address campaign financing directly if they want any serious backing from people rather than corporations.
change is possible but it will be an uphill battle for sure.