It’s the public outrage at burning the flag that gives the act it’s impact, making it illegal would just increase the power and impact of the act and would probably result in it happening more rather than less
Also America’s almost religious reverence for their flag is already a subject of derision in other countries and this would make that worse
Here, special votingis an exception you need to justify (e.g. by being an essential worker on Election day), not the norm. In-person voting is the expected norm.
As it should be, IMO.
I already addressed essential workers in a previous post, I don’t see what keeping on harping about it is going to gain you.
Employers pay. Can you think of a good reason employers *shouldn’t *pay?
How does the probability that it’s more likely those mobs are the ones with AR-15s factor into your calculus?
This is a “zombie apocalypse” where the zombies are well-armed. Changes the Walking Dead fantasy just a bit, doesn’t it…
Quite honestly, the day they make it illegal to burn the flag, I’ll go out and burn the biggest one I can find. Just on general principle.
(And has been pointed out numerous times, burning is the proper way to dispose of an old, tattered flag)
Some amendment thoughts of my own:
The Electoral College has been stripped of its usefulness, and has become a de-facto direct vote, but with uneven weighting. It must be either
a) Replaced with a proper direct vote or
b) The Electors must be named and listed on presidential election ballots, and must do their own campaigning, debating, etc against one another. They may not pledge to a specific presidential candidate, nor be listed on ballots merely as a proxy for a specific presidential candidate.
The government’s takings power based on Eminent Domain may not be used to transfer property from one private entity to another private entity. Should the public entity that took property by Eminent Domain wish to transfer that property to a private entity, it can only be given to those it was taken from or their heirs, that right to expire 100 years after the taking had occurred. (Expiration added because several generations of inheritance could potentially make it impossibly messy to return property to the correct entities).
The right of assembly for political purposes is to be restricted so that the distinct branches of government do not create an intermingled alliance. The integrity of the system of checks and balances must be preserved (well, first restored, then preserved).
I can’t think of a reason why employers should pay. If you think this is a national benefit to provide an election day holiday, then the taxpayers should pay.
I’m not sure where this idea started that because I hired a guy to do a job for me that I must then pay for him not to do a job for me.
You do understand that among the major Western democracies it is the USA which is the anomalous one by not entitling workers to some form of paid leave as a matter of national mandate. Which however must be said it is not necessarily a *constitutional *issue.
I do, but I think it is unfair (and I realize it is a hijack so I will drop it). Society thinks it is beneficial for workers to have time off for voting without hitting them in the wallet. It also thinks that it is beneficial for workers to be guaranteed a minimum/living wage, social security pensions, no fault compensation for being hurt on the job, insurance in case of unemployment, time off for family reasons, etc. etc.
Those are all salutary purposes and I don’t disagree with society’s interest in them. However, the costs of them should therefore be paid for by taxpayers out of the general fund. Instead, it shirks its obligation to do that by passing on these costs to every employer in the nation, rich and poor, Amazon or mom and pop, even if the employer is on the brink of bankruptcy itself. It is a regressive form of taxation against the employers who are needed for the life blood of the economy.
With that, let’s resume our regularly scheduled thread.
My additional proposal in the exact legalese I would propose it in:
The Commerce Clause. Yeah, we thought we were pretty clear about that, but I guess you guys didn’t get the gist of it. It applies only to the actual commerce between states or Indian tribes or foreign governments. The manufacturing and creation of products are not commerce. Once the product reaches its destination state, the interstate nature of it is over. It further, and fuck me I don’t know how you guys messed it up, does not apply to things that “affect” commerce. It has to be commerce. So a guy growing wheat on his own property for his family’s use? You got it, not commerce. A lady growing marijuana for her own personal use and never selling it? I think we’re getting somewhere. And don’t even get me started on requiring someone to purchase a product. I think you’ve been warned. Don’t make us pass another amendment about this or else the heads of each branch of the government will be in time out.
Well, that is South Africa, where the ability of most of the population to vote is a rather recent thing.
Yes, you said vote by mail or early voting- and so why only cops, etc for vote by mail? And you know saying “I already addressed essential workers in a previous post, I don’t see what keeping on harping about it is going to gain you.” is being rather unnecessarily rude, because in writing that you also could have redone yout answer. That would be the way to do it in polite debate.
Yes, because in America, employers are not required to give paid holidays. And in the case of poorer workers, working 2-3 PT jobs, they wouldnt get a paid day off- or even a day off.
We do on a state by state basis.
But generally only for FT employees.
And if a worker has three PT jobs, 15 hours each, who pays for his day off?
And if we required many paid holidays and many sick days and vacation days, lower level minimum wage employers would simply stop having ANY FT employees, so no-one got benefits
Look, we could* try* election day as a holiday, but it certainly doesnt need a Constitutional amendment. Personally I think it would mean less voters not more.
I dont understand what abuse of the Commerce Clause you are talking about?
Federal laws against possession of drugs, for one.
The taxpayer is paying.
The taxpayer being the business owner. Consider it the “Being able to do business in a better society” tax.
That’s why we love it so.
Because you want to *encourage *in-person voting.
No, the *polite *thing would be to read the post I already made.
How it works now is irrelevant, a constitutional ammendment can make all of that meaningless.
Sounds to me like Ultra Vires is critical of the extremely broad interpretation of the federal commerce power which the Supreme Court adopted in the 20th century, such that pretty much any economic transaction, actual or potential, is considered to be inter-state commerce and therefore subject to federal jurisdiction. In essence, Congress now has a general power to legislate on all commercial activity, not just transactions which clearly cross state lines.
One of the major cases on that development was the Wickard case, which held that a farmer growing wheat for his own consumption was engaged in inter-state commerce:
I appreciate that this issue is a bit of a side matter to this thread, but this statement isn’t accurate. In federations, it’s not necessarily the case that labour standards such as paid vacations are handled at the national level. Canada, for example, does not have a national mandate for paid leave that applies to all workers. Labour standards are generally a matter of provincial law. (There is a federal labour code, but it only applies to about 10% of workers in the economy.). I don’t know how it works in other federations, like Australia or India.
However, the substantive point holds, because all Canadian provinces and territories have requirements for paid vacation leave, so all Canadian workers have that benefit. Just that it’s not a “national mandate”.
Whatever. Most of them are idiots who have never been on the “two-way firing range” and would scatter like flies the instant my bullets started heading their way. The point is, this pandemic has laid bare to me the fact that there are vast numbers of people in this country who are willing to infect me and to invade my space, and the government is affirming them. The country hasn’t even REALLY been tested yet. If those power grids go down, the water stops flowing, and the refrigeration stops refrigerating, it’s “nine meals to anarchy” with mobs of infected people running around. At least I’ve got a fighting chance instead of being at the mercy of these mobs.
No, I want to encourage voting. In person, by mail- it doesnt matter as long as people vote. Nothing magical about in person voting.
Why do i have to go back and search when all you had to type a line that was just as long as the line you had to type to NOT give me a honest answer.
No, actually it cant.
South Africa, with it’s extremely poor history of democracy, is not a nation we want to emulate.
That’s an interesting approach. But why not just use the House of Representatives as the body which chooses the President? It seems like you’re creating a separate body that is selected by the same means.