Explain to a non-American why it makes sense to change Congress every two years!

IMO, a little, yes -- Like many establishment republicans, including two former presidents, who did not vote for Trump in 2016. It is not clear if these groups want Biden, but they do not want Trump.

 

Do you understand that running advertisements themselves in support of a candidate or cause is NOT a contribution, and therefore bypasses the limitations?
It serves the purpose, dodges the regulations.

Political chicanery.

 

When a senate seat goes vacant, the state governor names someone to fill it until the next election.
The governor can name whoever they like, but a GOP governor will usually seat a GOP senator and a Dem governor will usually seat a Dem senator.

 

Sure, but you seemed to be saying that PACS are "not allowed to either coordinate or make contributions to candidate campaigns." I was making the point that this is only for SUPER PACS.

 

Well from the Lincoln Project's website: "Electing Democrats who support the Constitution over Republicans who do not is a worthy effort." They also refer to Trump being a threat to "the institutions." Do we know how Trump doesn't support the Constitution and how he is a threat to "the institutions?"

Also, Republican Voters Against Trump, one of Defending Democracy Together's projects, has on it's website, most explicitly, "Republican Voters Against Trump is a coalition of Republicans, former Republicans, conservatives, and former Trump voters who can’t support Trump for president this fall. Together their voices are powerful. And if they are heard, next January we will inaugurate Joe Biden as the next president, and the Republican Party can begin a post-Trump future."

 

Well you said that they probably wouldn't have had standing. Doesn't that mean that they may have?

 

Some wild eyes assert such but no one knows such because Trump scrupulously follows the Constitution and is an avid supporter of our institutions. It is disheartening to see some establishment Republicans using Alinsky tactics.

 

Which I had already stated the rules are different for different PAC classes. Are you trying to go down a rabbit hole here?

 

No, I said no congress person had standing in the DACA case because they had no direct harm from DACA. This is why even though congressional and executive Republicans were rock certain that Obamacare was unconstitutional they could not sue because they had no standing. I can't think of any example where congress could sue because a law they passed was unconstitutional. But don't forget standing is in the mind of and determined by the judge.

 

Not sure if this gets addressed later in the thread, but when you use the term "changed" in context to Congress, there is an implication that you mean that all members of Congress are potentially (albeit rarely) kicked out for new members. This might be part of your misunderstanding.

 

No, "change" as in as little as one person, even a person of a party replacing someone from the same party, but more significantly a seat switching party, and further still, when it results in a control shift from one party to another.

 

Yeah I realized that after a while, which is why I made the point, because it seemed like no one was getting that, and that you might need to reword to be clearer.

 

So any insights into the logic behind every two years? I started this thread when I heard Ben Shapiro's opinion, that there is a very real possibility that come January, Biden could be in the White House and Democrats could control the House and The Senate! I was STUNNED that this was possible.

 

There were several pieces of logic and you have to remember that they all stemmed from a different era, so you can't apply modern standards to them.

One was the idea that from the people they came and to the people they would return. They didn't want "professional" politicians, because of what we have now with the professional politicians, holding themselves elite over the general population.

Another factor was probably not wanting a mess of laws on the federal level. Most believed it was better to have the most power closer to the people, on the local level. The federal government was meant to handle the things that were national. So there shouldn't be too many law needed to be made at that level. Nowadays we have people who are spending years trying to get certain laws passed, just to affect small areas of influence.

You also have to remember that the political parties are not like they were then, nor as important to the population. People were more apt to vote a Republican for one office, and a Democrat for another. Actually, that's what I will be doing this fall for MD state offices. I'm voting to keep the current Governor (R) and the current comptroller (D). But nowadays, people only see the party, and ignore the person, no matter how bad the one from "their" party, or how good the one from the opposing. Hell they won't even consider a third party candidate, because of an insane fear of the other party. I doubt the founders ever figured that party would be this pervasive.

They also wanted to hold state rights separate from the people's rights, which is why the Senator's were initially chosen by the state, and not the people. Especially since the House was made of people from all over the country, that might make laws with no regards to the damage to a specific state.

And quite honestly, I don't think they ever conceived that the country would grow to be so large. I'd bet almost anything they never envisioned anything bigger than to the Mississippi River, if that.

Mind you this is all based on what I learned when I was younger, and my interpretations of all that. I am open to new evidence, as I know more about history has been learned or corrected. Personally I don't think the limits were strong enough. I would push for a law that didn't allow someone to cumulatively hold elected offices, at any level, for more than 20 or 30 years at the outside. Career politicians are, as a whole, the worst.

 

If they TRULY didn't want 'professional' politicians, then surely the better way to achieve that was to put
in place term limits, rather than just making elections every two years just HOPING that it would happen naturally.

 

You're forgetting that the people back then didn't think like we do today. For example, were we to create the Constitution today (let's set aside the divisiveness for the moment), when looking at the first amendment, instead of freedom of speech, we might word it as freedom of expression, so that all forms are protected, not just speech and press. Art would never be challenged as not being covered since it wasn't speech (which has happened). We would probably make an allowance for future forms of information exchange not yet thought of, because we realize more than the Founders did, that innovation can bring about new things. When it can to the second amendment, because we have militaries and WMD and such, we would be more clear as to what is meant by arms, and their use.

 

I'm just not sure why only TODAY'S thinking would be that it's possible for people to remain in Congress for one thousand years without term limits.

Actually, I thought that expression was already deemed to be included.

What case?

Why, have some problems arose from different forms of information exchange?

Well as far as I'm aware, you American's don't actually have the right to bear WMD's. So there's obviously a definition somewhere in law which limits the type of arm. I've read that it is a weapon which can be carried on the shoulder and nothing more, or something along those lines - although, certain explosive projectile weapons can be carried on the shoulder and I don't think they're included!

 

"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...." has been interpreted (read deemed) by SCOTUS to include "expression." Just like the IV amendment's "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" has been interpreted to include the right to privacy. IMO both interpretations are correct in that the framers would certainly concur.

Scalia once personally (not in court) commented that a case might be made to limit individual arms to those which can be borne, but there has never been an actual ruling along those lines. There have been rulings that OK certain limits on granting licenses and uses for certain arms, machine guns (automatic weapons) and tanks for example, but none that completely eliminate their ownership. Under the 2nd amendment people would have the right to "bear" WMDs. However, they could be confiscated and the person arrested under other laws, along the lines that people have a right to own and carry guns but not to use them in robbery or assault. I don't know if nuclear WMD is included.

 

IIRC, small surface to air missiles like Stingers, and small anti vehicle weapons like RPGs, and LAWs (light anti tank weapons) are all carried and fired from the shoulder.

 

While you may not understand why, the fact remains that there were are whole lot of things that people of that day that people thought differently on than we do today. That can be said of any era. Look at the kind of media that existed in the 70's compared to today. A lot of what we would say, "why would you even do that?" they did, because they had a different mind set.

Because of cases like below. And even today there are still restrictions that should not be there. Broadcast television should not have any sort of censorship, yet there are "the 7 words you don't say on broadcast media". That even applies to radio. Now I do think that it is the government's job to regulate the airwaves so that stations don't try to overrun each other with strong signals, but all content should be allowed.

At this moment I do not have case names, because the ones I am remembering are from pre internet days or in the early day, so my Google Fu weakens greatly. But one that stood out in my mind that was challenged as being not covered by the 1st was a sculpture of Jesus made of fecces. As RodD noted, such expression was deemed covered, but prior to that, lower levels of government were able to censor by claiming that if it wasn't actualy speech or the press, it wasn't covered by the 1st.

Like the sculpture, some people don't want to accept anything outside of speech and print as part of the 1st. Even today I still come across people who try to argue that since it wasn't speech it's not covered by the 1st.

Correct, and even so there are many who are arguing that these are arms and as such they have a 2nd amendment right to own them. The 2nd is extremely vague, and part of it was them not being able to envision anything beyond a cannon for arms. Plus there are other violations of the 2nd. By almost every definition, edged weaponry are arms. Yet there are many laws which make carrying edged weaponry illegal, despite the right to bear them. Now keep in mind that I do argue that the right to bear arms, does NOT automatically give the right to carry concealed. Those are separate argument.

 

Part of what I am trying to get across to him, is that the founders thought some things so obvious, that they didn't including them in the constitution or the Amendments, much to our trouble nowadays, and I'm sure in the future. But the word of the law is more important than the intent. And that can cause problems if one isn't careful.

 

And you Americans aren't allowed to posess any of that are you?

 

Of course not. And while I believe in the 2nd Amendment I would never advocate those types of weapons being allowed for private ownership.

 

Yes - it makes me think what the past mass shootings could have been instead if they WERE allowed. Although, I imagine that those sort of systems would cost a fair bit even if they were allowed.

 

I would assume that they were not able to envision anything beyond a single shot muscat, let alone a cannon, given that cannon's are difficult to 'bear.'

Including in states where guns can be carried?