That is the term for groups which receive special protection via legislation, as your cite demonstrates. Legislation is not the Constitution.
That’s a monstrous idea which would threaten to undermine national unity almost as much as erecting tariff barriers between state boundaries. I’ll take a moribund Congress any day over a revival “State’s rights”
I don’t view the necessity of having a supermajority to pass quality legislation as a problem.
If people want to pass laws, it should benefit a supermajority of the people.
It’s a nice idea in principle, but you seem to be missing the fact that the government has to continue to operate and provide essential services whether or not a supermajority of the people agree on the exact funding mix.
When, exactly, did California try to tell Kansas what to teach in their public schools?
Perhaps the point attempted to be made is that the rest of the country (CA by way of its participation in the Federal government) should not exert any control over what Kansas teaches in their schools?
And of course there is a church state separation so Kansas state funded schools are in fact prohibited from teaching Creationism as if it is science. If they choose to teach science without teaching evolution they perhaps can, but if they take Federal monies those funds can come with strings attached that real science be taught in public schools so funded.
It is of course Kansas’s “business” that colleges and universities across the country accept High School degrees from Kansas as valid, that students graduating from their High Schools are prepared to succeed in college, and that industry can come to Kansas and find a reasonably educated workforce.
Doubling back to “protected classes” vs “suspect classifications” … neither are actually phrases within the Constitution, both are in relation to rulings and implementations of the 14th amendment. A reasonable discussion is here. Rather than continue a hijack I think we can agree that the Constitution does not actually by itself provide everyone with equal rights.
With the establishment clause being incorporated to the states, and the recent SCOTUS ruling about teaching creationism, it doesn’t matter whether a public school gets federal money or not-- they cannot teach religion (creationism) in school. A private school can, but not a public school.
Not sure if you think I said anything that is inconsistent with that but if so you are mistaken.
Does the Cheetoh and Killary stuff bother anyone else? It just seems so immature to me. It’s like we used to do that with characters we didn’t like on tv show message boards. But then I got older and thought it was silly and really just undermined anything the poster said. But it’s so wide-spread this time. And I’ve seen more targeted against Trump than Clinton. I mean it’s not new. DemoCRAPS and ReTHUGlicans are ones I’ve seen for years now. But it is bothersome.
It’s stupid. But I liked “Shrub.” Molly Ivins was a genius.
Can you point to an example of a constitutionally protected class?
I like this idea a lot.
Also the idea of non-partisan open primaries. This is now the law in California – the top two (or more?) vote-getters are the candidates no matter what party they are. This is a contributor to the pleasant current situation in which democrats dominate everything. This has improved the running of government here immensely. The partisan gridlock has nearly vanished, compromise is now possible, things actually get done.
It also is not true that people don’t move to find more congenial politics. I know several people who moved from California to Idaho mostly for that reason. Generally people who are considering moving at least take into consideration how much their outlook is going to match their new neighbors. I’m relocating soon myself and pretty much I look at red states as off limits to me, no matter what their other amenities. Although the libertarian western high plains would be a lot easier for me to deal with than the confederacy.
This supermajority standard assumes that the status quo should be assumed to be correct policy that benefits the most people. There’s no reason to believe that.
That’s a nonsensical standard. Why not say that all legislation automatically passes unless a supermajority votes against it? “If people want to prevent the passing of laws, it should benefit a supermajority of the people.”
Either way, you’re empowering a minority to impose its will on the majority. We only have supermajority requirements for very specific purposes. Expanding them is not a good idea.
The fact that we have a de facto supermajority now means that a minority of one senator can essentially shut down the federal government or cause the federal government to default on its obligations. That’s empowering one person to control the board. That’s stupid.
You’re essentially making the country ungovernable.
To sum up: You’re not going to bridge any gaps by empowering minorities to prevent any changes in government policy.
You understand supermajority laws work both ways: suppose you have a bad law and want to get rid of it: you have to have 67% of the vote to do this. [Or the more traditional case where where the law is composed of both good and bad aspects: you will have great difficulty revising the law as you need 67%.]
Yep, when I moved from Ohio to California, I was relieved not to be in a battleground state any longer. When we were moving from California to the DC area, we explicitly chose Maryland over Virginia to avoid being in a battleground state (DC would have been even better!). I like liberal states and moved from one to another on purpose.
You mean the bad law that 67% voted for?
It depends on what you call a political reason - is “I’m LGBT and I need to get the hell out of this town” a political reason or something else? Is “My company is moving to a different jurisdiction because the laws are more favorable there” a political reason?
Misconceived for two reasons.
The Patriot Act is now widely regarded as bad law that many would like to amend with a 51% vote, not waiting for a supermajority. The Patriot Act passed the House and Senate by 84% and 99%.
THe Iraq War Resolution is now widely regarded as a colossal blunder, so much so that Hillary haters on both the Left and the Alt-Right put it at the very top of their reasons for hatred. That Resolution passed the House and Senate by votes of 69% and 77%.
But more importantly, your whole premise that supermajorities are available for good legislation is simply wrong. It may have been true in the olden days, when both parties were good-spirited and sought what was best for the country, but take a glance at major legislation in recent years:
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, widely credited by sober economists as key to Clinton-era prosperity, passed with a 50-50 Senate vote where V.P. Al Gore took his chair as President of the Senate to break the tie.
The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, showpiece of Dubya’s economic “plan,” passed due to a key 50-50 Senate vote where V.P. Dick Cheney took his chair as President of the Senate to break the tie.
Et cetera, et cetera. HTH.
Part of ending “partisan” politics is being honest about where the partisanship is coming from. The Republican party has devoted itself to not passing any legislature from the Democratic President and not working with the Democratic side in Congress. The Republicans have also started refusing to move on Democratically appointed judges.
Refusing to criticize the Republican Party for their toxic partisanship is not solving the partisanship problem. It’s just papering over Republican partisanship and rewarding them for their bad behavior. Toxic partisanship won’t go away until the public makes it clear to the partisans that their behavior needs to stop.
“Both sides are equally to blame” is false. Insisting that we cling to a falsity in fear of being called “partisan” makes the partisanship problem, worse.
This whole “we need to stop politicians from doing so many things” represents a buy-in to 40 years of right-wing propaganda denouncing politicians as a whole and government as a whole for doing anything.
It assumes that legislative action ought to be deemed “bad” as a default, which is a stupid position to take in a modern, complex world and economy. It makes people think that “punishing” politicians with things like term limits and balanced budget amendments and line-item vetoes and supermajority requirements actually accomplishes something good, when all it is is an exercise of revenge against a phantom menace.
Government does stuff every day that needs to be done every day. Giving minorities an effective veto over government action allows fringe elements to hold the entire country and economy hostage to demands that are no good.
Requiring supermajorities for routine governmental action is a breathtakingly stupid idea, and can only get traction in a country where a significant portion of the electorate is deeply ignorant of what government does and what we need it to do.