AMA: Calthrina950

[morgankingsley]

If Trump wins in 2020 over someone you didn't vote for, what will you do in response to those who get angry at you for not voting against Trump? Especially those on Atlas.

I will not do anything, except as to explain my decision and continue to engage in debate. And I don't know anyone personally who would be angry with me over not voting for Trump.

Do you know someone who would be angry if you did vote for trump theoretically

[Yellowhammer]

Will you vote for Cory Gardner next year?

[MarkD]

Here's a question I've asked a few other Atlas users under their "AMA."

I have drafted a proposal for a constitutional amendment and would like your reaction: Would you support or oppose this? Below is a summary of the proposal, not the full draft.

My proposal has a Preamble and four sections. The Preamble begins with a two-paragraph-long quotation from Justice James Iredell in the 1798 case of Calder v. Bull, then the Preamble concludes:
"The purpose of this article of the US Constitution is to give three previous amendments greater clarity and precision. The United States government and the respective states should have clear and precise guidelines about their legislative powers. This article will clarify two amendments that are binding on the United States, and it replaces a part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is binding on the states."
Section 1: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment shall henceforth be understood to only mean procedural due process, not substantive due process. In other words, government must not punish anyone without affording that person fair procedures, but the courts are not to second-guess the merits of the laws being enforced. But the federal government does have to treat everyone equally, the same way the states have to according to Section 3(b) of my proposal.
Section 2: The Ninth Amendment is only binding on the federal government, not on the states.
Section 3: The second sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and that sentence will be replaced with a new set of rules designed to be narrower and clearer.
3(a) The states have to obey enumerated rights in the first eight amendments, but the only un-enumerated right that states have to obey is the right to interstate travel. The Supreme Court has twice said "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, ..." but my proposal tells the Court, and the rest of the country, that statement was completely incorrect. The federal judiciary has neither an obligation nor a prerogative to define liberty. The judiciary's obligation is to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution, not to expand them. The federal judiciary is instructed to stop declaring that states have to obey "fundamental rights" and "basic civil rights" that are not in the Constitution (again, with the one exception being the right to interstate travel). Therefore the Court's decisions about abortion, using contraceptives, sodomy, and any other libertarian ideas not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, no matter how controversial or uncontroversial, will all be overturned.
3(b) The states are not allowed to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or disability status (and because of Section 1 above, the same will go for the federal government). Other than those five kinds of discrimination, all other kinds of discrimination are allowed. The rulings made by federal courts in 2013-2015 about same-sex marriage will be preserved. There will be no such thing as a "fundamental right to marry," but bans on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage will still be unconstitutional.
3(c) The states still have to respect voting rights as established in nearly all precedents the Supreme Court has laid down on that subject so far. In order to avoid gerrymandering of congressional or state legislative districts, redistricting must be done by independent redistricting commissions.
Section 4: Bush v. Gore was the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever rendered, and nothing like it must ever occur again.

Here is a way I have thought of explaining the potential political appeal of my proposal; I have shared this before on Forum Community and asked whether others would consider supporting it.

I carefully designed my proposal to be a compromise between liberal and conservative points of view. Some specific elements will be appealing to conservatives but very much unappealing to liberals, while other elements will be appealing to liberals but very much unappealing to conservatives. 
Appealing to conservatives but repulsive to liberals.
 – Keep the McDonald v. Chicago precedent
 – Overturn Roe v. Wade
 – Overturn Plyler v. Doe
 – Allow states to discriminate based on a person’s status as a non-citizen   

Appealing to liberals but repulsive to conservatives.
 – Disallow states to discriminate based on sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation
 – Keep the Obergefell v. Hodges precedent (the decision, but not the Court's opinion)
 – Keep the Saenz v. Roe precedent
 – Condemn the Bush v. Gore decision and insist that it never be repeated   

Agreeable to both conservatives and liberals.
 – Continue imposing the Bill of Rights on the states
 – Continue protecting the equal right of all citizens to vote
 – Continue prohibiting state discrimination based on race and national origin
 – Start prohibiting state discrimination based on disability status
 – Require redistricting to be done by independent commissions

So, are you interested?

[Calthrina950]

If Trump wins in 2020 over someone you didn't vote for, what will you do in response to those who get angry at you for not voting against Trump? Especially those on Atlas.

I will not do anything, except as to explain my decision and continue to engage in debate. And I don't know anyone personally who would be angry with me over not voting for Trump.

Do you know someone who would be angry if you did vote for trump theoretically

Not that I could think of.

[Calthrina950]

Will you vote for Cory Gardner next year?

No. I'm almost certainly going to vote Hickenlooper.

[Calthrina950]

Here's a question I've asked a few other Atlas users under their "AMA."

I have drafted a proposal for a constitutional amendment and would like your reaction: Would you support or oppose this? Below is a summary of the proposal, not the full draft.

My proposal has a Preamble and four sections. The Preamble begins with a two-paragraph-long quotation from Justice James Iredell in the 1798 case of Calder v. Bull, then the Preamble concludes:
"The purpose of this article of the US Constitution is to give three previous amendments greater clarity and precision. The United States government and the respective states should have clear and precise guidelines about their legislative powers. This article will clarify two amendments that are binding on the United States, and it replaces a part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is binding on the states."
Section 1: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment shall henceforth be understood to only mean procedural due process, not substantive due process. In other words, government must not punish anyone without affording that person fair procedures, but the courts are not to second-guess the merits of the laws being enforced. But the federal government does have to treat everyone equally, the same way the states have to according to Section 3(b) of my proposal.
Section 2: The Ninth Amendment is only binding on the federal government, not on the states.
Section 3: The second sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and that sentence will be replaced with a new set of rules designed to be narrower and clearer.
3(a) The states have to obey enumerated rights in the first eight amendments, but the only un-enumerated right that states have to obey is the right to interstate travel. The Supreme Court has twice said "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, ..." but my proposal tells the Court, and the rest of the country, that statement was completely incorrect. The federal judiciary has neither an obligation nor a prerogative to define liberty. The judiciary's obligation is to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution, not to expand them. The federal judiciary is instructed to stop declaring that states have to obey "fundamental rights" and "basic civil rights" that are not in the Constitution (again, with the one exception being the right to interstate travel). Therefore the Court's decisions about abortion, using contraceptives, sodomy, and any other libertarian ideas not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, no matter how controversial or uncontroversial, will all be overturned.
3(b) The states are not allowed to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or disability status (and because of Section 1 above, the same will go for the federal government). Other than those five kinds of discrimination, all other kinds of discrimination are allowed. The rulings made by federal courts in 2013-2015 about same-sex marriage will be preserved. There will be no such thing as a "fundamental right to marry," but bans on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage will still be unconstitutional.
3(c) The states still have to respect voting rights as established in nearly all precedents the Supreme Court has laid down on that subject so far. In order to avoid gerrymandering of congressional or state legislative districts, redistricting must be done by independent redistricting commissions.
Section 4: Bush v. Gore was the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever rendered, and nothing like it must ever occur again.

Here is a way I have thought of explaining the potential political appeal of my proposal; I have shared this before on Forum Community and asked whether others would consider supporting it.

I carefully designed my proposal to be a compromise between liberal and conservative points of view. Some specific elements will be appealing to conservatives but very much unappealing to liberals, while other elements will be appealing to liberals but very much unappealing to conservatives. 
Appealing to conservatives but repulsive to liberals.
 – Keep the McDonald v. Chicago precedent
 – Overturn Roe v. Wade
 – Overturn Plyler v. Doe
 – Allow states to discriminate based on a person’s status as a non-citizen   

Appealing to liberals but repulsive to conservatives.
 – Disallow states to discriminate based on sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation
 – Keep the Obergefell v. Hodges precedent (the decision, but not the Court's opinion)
 – Keep the Saenz v. Roe precedent
 – Condemn the Bush v. Gore decision and insist that it never be repeated   

Agreeable to both conservatives and liberals.
 – Continue imposing the Bill of Rights on the states
 – Continue protecting the equal right of all citizens to vote
 – Continue prohibiting state discrimination based on race and national origin
 – Start prohibiting state discrimination based on disability status
 – Require redistricting to be done by independent commissions

So, are you interested?

I apologize for the delay in responding to this, but in sum, yes, this is something that I would agree with. The Supreme Court has overstepped in many instances over the years, and its incorporation of the Bill of Rights into state constitutions was pursued in a haphazard, inefficient manner. A solution such as this one would represent a workable compromise, and would hopefully improve the situation surrounding civil rights and civil liberties.

I would be interested in responding to more questions.