IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th December 2021, 10:24 AM   #1
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,622
An unused Constitutional guarantee...

Writers contend that Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government, prohibiting numerous voter suppression tactics, and Congress should start using it.
Quote:
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government."
https://www.salon.com/2021/12/05/the...can-democracy/
https://www.salon.com/2021/12/27/wil...ublic_partner/
https://constitution.congress.gov/br...rantee'%5D
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2021, 10:30 AM   #2
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,640
Again that only mattered back before "We can do anything until someone stops us" became the de-facto motto of the Republican Party.

As stated many, many times there is no "One Weird Trick" that's gonna work.

We aren't going to "There's nothing in the rule book that says a dog can't play football" our way out of this. It's going to take changing public opinion and mentality.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2021, 10:38 AM   #3
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,442
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Again that only mattered back before "We can do anything until someone stops us" became the de-facto motto of the Republican Party.

As stated many, many times there is no "One Weird Trick" that's gonna work.

We aren't going to "There's nothing in the rule book that says a dog can't play football" our way out of this. It's going to take changing public opinion and mentality.
As a firm believer that this is how government should operate, normally I agree with you on this. But I think you are wrong this time.

After serious consideration and examination of what constitutes a republic, an obvious conclusion is Republican governments have a broad discretion to commit perfidy and remain a republic.

By the constitution itself, it asserts it qualifies as a republic. it trashes many principles of democracy by design.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2021, 10:48 AM   #4
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 60,209
My default interpretational position is that the original colonies were much more interested in state's rights than the post-Civil War union appears to be. Therefore I think they probably saw this clause as a guarantee that the federal government itself would remain republican in form. Not a guarantee that the federal government would enforce or establish a republican form of government in each state.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2021, 10:54 AM   #5
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 40,640
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My default interpretational position is that the original colonies were much more interested in state's rights than the post-Civil War union appears to be.
Yeah I can't imagine why that would be.
__________________
"If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2021, 12:31 PM   #6
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,622
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My default interpretational position is that the original colonies were much more interested in state's rights than the post-Civil War union appears to be. Therefore I think they probably saw this clause as a guarantee that the federal government itself would remain republican in form. Not a guarantee that the federal government would enforce or establish a republican form of government in each state.

That's not what Article IV says, and the history of the debate makes clear that it was intended to prevent the states from installing a monarch or dictator who could threaten neighboring states.
Quote:
At which point several men rose to point out they were debating the power of the federal government to "guarantee a Republican Form of Government" to all the states but what if power-hungry people in a particular state were to rise up in rebellion and seize control of that state's government, thus ending statewide republicanism and creating a minor dictatorship or cult?

And then, what if that state then threatened other states' ability to have a government reflecting the will of the people?

Or tried to take them over either by corrupting them from within or invasion? (This was not an idle fear: Both happened just 74 years later, in 1861.)
https://www.salon.com/2021/12/27/wil...ublic_partner/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2021, 01:12 PM   #7
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Out back preparing the bunker for the next Civil War
Posts: 49,405
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Writers contend that Article IV of the Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government, prohibiting numerous voter suppression tactics, and Congress should start using it.

https://www.salon.com/2021/12/05/the...can-democracy/
https://www.salon.com/2021/12/27/wil...ublic_partner/
https://constitution.congress.gov/br...rantee'%5D
And that means Republicans should be in charge of every state government!
__________________
Counting the days to Civil War II.
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2021, 01:15 PM   #8
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 5,911
Republican...Hah!
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2021, 01:36 PM   #9
Bob001
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: US of A
Posts: 15,622
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
And that means Republicans should be in charge of every state government!

Ah, no.
Quote:
There were some core features of republicanism, and one of them was representative democracy, with some level of representation by whoever they consider to be the people. Of course, we think of "the people" today as much broader than they did at the time. But that came out of this desire to promote virtue and prevent anarchy, and try to prevent corruption among leaders that there was always a danger of self-interest getting in the way. So you wanted to promote virtue among the leaders, among the people who were making decisions on behalf of the people. And one way to do that was to make those leaders answerable to the people.
https://www.salon.com/2021/12/05/the...can-democracy/
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2021, 01:44 PM   #10
Venom
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 5,911
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
And that means Republicans should be in charge of every state government!
I don't have much faith that one of the crazier Republicans would be taken to task for publicly saying this. He just needs say it with a straight face.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2021, 02:50 PM   #11
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 30,797
I like that reasoning.

Unfortunately republican doesn't mean democratic. Originally Senators weren't necessarily elected by public vote. And neither were Presidential electors.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2021, 03:02 PM   #12
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,113
This was undoubtedly raised in the gerrymandering cases that the Supreme Court ruled on. The high court is now even more stacked against democracy, so the remedy" for such "political questions" remains the same: If you don't like it, then change the rules by somehow prevailing in unfair elections.

At best it's a rallying cry to motivate voters to one's cause: "The Constitution SAYS..." Could try to go through the initiative process, but, shockingly, a lot of states do not allow for direct democracy.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2021, 04:05 PM   #13
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 63,479
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
My default interpretational position is that the original colonies were much more interested in state's rights than the post-Civil War union appears to be.
You're forgetting the Articles of Confederation. The current Constitution is America 2.0 because the sainted founding fathers decided they'd erred too far on the side of states' rights the first time.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2021, 04:16 PM   #14
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 15,113
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You're forgetting the Articles of Confederation. The current Constitution is America 2.0 because the sainted founding fathers decided they'd erred too far on the side of states' rights the first time.
There was another revolution after the Civil War, the promises of which were not delivered until the mid-20th century. Federalism is under continuous revision.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2021, 08:39 PM   #15
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 22,442
It is just such a high bar. For example, a bunch of religious representatives that are horny for God, but not classed as holy intermediaries, is likely still a republic and not a theocracy.
BobTheCoward is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th December 2021, 09:55 PM   #16
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 3157'S 11557'E
Posts: 19,279
Originally Posted by shemp View Post
And that means Republicans should be in charge of every state government!
There's the rub. The SC could interpret "Republican Form of Government" away so that even if Congress tried to outlaw some of the more outrageous state electoral laws, it could be ruled that the attempt doesn't meet the definition of "Republican Form of Government" so it is unconstitutional.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th December 2021, 06:57 AM   #17
SuburbanTurkey
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Null
Posts: 15,479
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Again that only mattered back before "We can do anything until someone stops us" became the de-facto motto of the Republican Party.

As stated many, many times there is no "One Weird Trick" that's gonna work.

We aren't going to "There's nothing in the rule book that says a dog can't play football" our way out of this. It's going to take changing public opinion and mentality.
Indeed. The problems of the right wing SCOTUS are only tangentially related to the law. It's not like there isn't already a well-established legal record concerning voting rights. It's just that the right wing is hostile to this and finally has the power, after decades of careful gamesmanship, to exert their political will.

A novel legal approach to the idea that citizens have a right to vote is not helpful and betrays a naivety about the root of the actual problem.
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.