Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:09 pm

Ibanez wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:36 pm
There is.

No there isn't.

SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 6:09 pm

Ibanez wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 1:36 pm

There is.

No there isn't.

SDHornet wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:30 pm

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:10 am I agree with Klochbar:

Ibanez wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:55 am Well no shit. That's the not the issue.

SDHornet wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:57 pm Ted Cruz breaks down the numbers in similar situations. 29 SCOTUS vacancies in POTUS election years. 29 nominations by the POTUS. 19 times have been with POTUS and Senate controlled by the same party, 17 times nominee has been confirmed. 10 times with deferring POTUS and Senate parties with only 2 confirmations.

BDKJMU wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:10 am I agree with Klochbar:

∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:45 am The Constitution, while flawed, does have some beauty to it.

89Hen wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:01 am

∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:45 am The Constitution, while flawed, does have some beauty to it.

89Hen wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:01 am

∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:45 am The Constitution, while flawed, does have some beauty to it.

∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:37 am

89Hen wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:01 am

The flaws are pretty severe. It's a triumvirate type system where two branches will always gang up on one - a major reason historical triumvirates end up falling into disarray.

The Constitution also weakens the Legislative branch (the one which best represents the People) by further dividing it into two.

In a good democratic system, the Legislative branch would be the most powerful, with the Executive being a voice of the legislature. Our system was specifically built to keep power in the hands of privelaged men so the Legislative Branch is the weakest. Unlike the Executive and Judicial which are checked by two branches, the Legislative is divided into a House and Senate...which means it also checks itself.

Two Legislative chambers checking themselves is great in any Republic if the other branches were extensions of the legislature (as they should be). However, we have a significantly handicapped Legislative branch within the framework of Constitutional powers. Again, it must contend with itself, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. The Executive and Judicial branches must only contend with the other two branches...and in terms of the Executive nominating appointees...only half the Legislative branch.

But this was purposefully designed by the Framers so the Executive and Judicial branches (typically the most wealthy, educated, privelaged people) can easily overpower the Legislative branch and take away power from the People. It's really the same reasons we have an electoral college and the Constitution was written in a way that it's difficult to amend.

GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:46 am

∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:37 am

The flaws are pretty severe. It's a triumvirate type system where two branches will always gang up on one - a major reason historical triumvirates end up falling into disarray.

The Constitution also weakens the Legislative branch (the one which best represents the People) by further dividing it into two.

In a good democratic system, the Legislative branch would be the most powerful, with the Executive being a voice of the legislature. Our system was specifically built to keep power in the hands of privelaged men so the Legislative Branch is the weakest. Unlike the Executive and Judicial which are checked by two branches, the Legislative is divided into a House and Senate...which means it also checks itself.

Two Legislative chambers checking themselves is great in any Republic if the other branches were extensions of the legislature (as they should be). However, we have a significantly handicapped Legislative branch within the framework of Constitutional powers. Again, it must contend with itself, the Executive Branch, and the Judicial Branch. The Executive and Judicial branches must only contend with the other two branches...and in terms of the Executive nominating appointees...only half the Legislative branch.

But this was purposefully designed by the Framers so the Executive and Judicial branches (typically the most wealthy, educated, privelaged people) can easily overpower the Legislative branch and take away power from the People. It's really the same reasons we have an electoral college and the Constitution was written in a way that it's difficult to amend.

Dude, your understanding and comprehension of history and civics is truly staggering in terms of its incompleteness and incorrectness. If you really think the Framers were purposely planning to set up the Judiciary to be perhaps the strongest of the three branches and for it to exist to take power away from the people, then you need to get on the phone today and bitterly complain to the school board of the district that fed you that bastardization of history. And if you learned that tripe in college then you are probably entitled to a refund or you should seriously consider never donating to that institution again. You've been bamboozled.

∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:45 am SCOTUS keeps overturning the will of the People? Weaken it, because that's fundamental checks and balances. If the nation becomes more progressive with time (as is happening), it's asinine to think a conservative court should hold us back. The Executive and Legislative branches - as elected by the People - should knock down a Judicial branch not working for the People. In fact, it's their Constitutional duty.

The Constitution, while flawed, does have some beauty to it.

∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:37 am

89Hen wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:01 am

The flaws are pretty severe. It's a triumvirate type system where two branches will always gang up on one - a major reason historical triumvirates end up falling into disarray.

The Constitution also weakens the Legislative branch (the one which best represents the People) by further dividing it into two.

In a good democratic system, the Legislative branch would be the most powerful, with the Executive being a voice of the legislature. Our system was specifically built to keep power in the hands of privelaged men so the Legislative branch is the weakest. Unlike the Executive and Judicial which are checked by two branches, the Legislative is divided into a House and Senate...which means it also checks itself.

Two Legislative chambers checking themselves is great - and necessary - in any Republic if the other branches were extensions of the legislature. However, we have a significantly handicapped Legislative branch within the framework of Constitutional powers. Again, it must contend with the Executive branch, the Judicial branch, and itself. The Executive and Judicial branches must only contend with the other two branches (and in terms of the Executive nominating appointees, only half the Legislative branch).

But this was purposefully designed by the Framers so the Executive and Judicial branches (typically the most wealthy, educated, privelaged men) can easily overpower the Legislative branch and take away power from the People. It's fundamentally the same reasons we have an electoral college and the Constitution was written in a way which is difficult to amend.

If we're going to have it this way though, I'm ok with the Legislative doing EVERYTHING it can to weaken the other two.

∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:03 am

GannonFan wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:46 am

Dude, your understanding and comprehension of history and civics is truly staggering in terms of its incompleteness and incorrectness. If you really think the Framers were purposely planning to set up the Judiciary to be perhaps the strongest of the three branches and for it to exist to take power away from the people, then you need to get on the phone today and bitterly complain to the school board of the district that fed you that bastardization of history. And if you learned that tripe in college then you are probably entitled to a refund or you should seriously consider never donating to that institution again. You've been bamboozled.

Bamboozled or not, the system is set up this way. It was set up by white, privelaged men of their times with little to no input from anyone who would be represented by the Constitution, and we've continued this set-up as our foundation. The Constitution makes it difficult to take into account the needs of regular citizenry because it divides and checks the branch which best represents the People.

Instead of quickly changing items which citizens may want through democratic representation, items end up being generational battles, including battles against past necessities (ex. lifetime appointments from 30 year ago dictating today's path).

We can argue the history, but the practical flaws are still there.

Ibanez wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:42 am

∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:03 am

Bamboozled or not, the system is set up this way. It was set up by white, privelaged men of their times with little to no input from anyone who would be represented by the Constitution, and we've continued this set-up as our foundation. The Constitution makes it difficult to take into account the needs of regular citizenry because it divides and checks the branch which best represents the People.

Instead of quickly changing items which citizens may want through democratic representation, items end up being generational battles, including battles against past necessities (ex. lifetime appointments from 30 year ago dictating today's path).

We can argue the history, but the practical flaws are still there.

But it isn't. It's EVOLVED to what it's become. It was OBVIOUSLY set up by the men of their times and it's been amended by the people of its time. The Peoples Representatives gave the power to the Executive. The Executive took power to make change. It has evolved.

Baldy wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:19 am
To paraphrase John Adams, the United States is a nation of laws, not men. The role of the judiciary isn't to work for the people. It's job is to apply the law, period. It is insulated and cannot be subject to sudden whims of "the people".

I see why you hate the Constitution so much. You don't understand it.

∞∞∞ wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:45 am I also agree if it was changed to this: The People pick the Legislature; the Legislature increases the size of the Judiciary. That is how it works.

SCOTUS keeps overturning the will of the People? Weaken it, because that's fundamental checks and balances. If the nation becomes more progressive with time (as is happening), it's asinine to think a conservative court should hold us back. The Executive and Legislative branches - as elected by the People - should knock down a Judicial branch not working for the People. In fact, it's their Constitutional duty.

The Constitution, while flawed, does have some beauty to it.