Wednesday, February 8, 2023
Home Tags Constitution

Tag: constitution

Hayes: We Should Run The Presidential Election The Way We Run EVERY Other Election. | All In | MSNBC

Hayes: We Should Run The Presidential Election The Way We Run EVERY Other Election....

Chris Hayes explains why the weirdest thing about the Electoral College is that if it wasn't specifically in the Constitution, it would be unconstitutional. » Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well…
Hayes: Why Mueller's Tenor Differed Between Morning And Afternoon Sessions | MSNBC

Hayes: Why Mueller’s Tenor Differed Between Morning And Afternoon Sessions | MSNBC

Chris Hayes comments on the different tenors in the first and second parts of the Wednesday Mueller testimony. "It has to do with how Mueller perceives the constitutional bounds of his work." » Subscribe to MSNBC: http://on.msnbc.com/SubscribeTomsnbc MSNBC delivers breaking…
'This Is Why He Can't Have A Second Term' | Morning Joe | MSNBC

‘This Is Why He Can’t Have A Second Term’ | Morning Joe | MSNBC

While railing against the Mueller probe this week, the president told audience members at the Turning Point USA Teen Student Action Summit that Article II of the Constitution gives him the right to do 'whatever I want as president.' The…
Maxine Waters: We’re Going To Have To Impeach | Hardball | MSNBC

Maxine Waters: We’re Going To Have To Impeach | Hardball | MSNBC

Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently tweeted an endorsement of impeachment proceedings, saying “Mueller kicked the impeachment ball to the Congress. The Constitution gives the responsibility to Congress to impeach an unfit president - "high crimes and misdemeanors." What more do we…

Brexit has nearly broken British politics. Here’s how to fix it

Decisive rejection of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement in the House of Commons for a third time, following hot on the heels of the House’s rejection of eight alternative approaches, raises uncomfortable questions about the quality of the UK’s decision-making process. But why is this system so apparently helpless, and can anything be done to resolve the UK’s ambitions for a new relationship with the EU? The constitution First, reliance on an “unwritten” constitution is an impressive achievement – if it can be pulled off. It could spell out the currently ambiguous relationship between government and parliament. The opposition “opposes”, biding its time until the mercurial electoral system brings it back to power. But it can be corrosive when (as in Northern Ireland from 1921 to 1972) there is no such alternation, or when (as in the case of Brexit) the stakes are very high. Geopolitical perspectives Third, the criticism that many leading Brexiteers are insufficiently familiar with EU structures and procedures carries weight, but it may be that they also misperceive Britain’s place in the contemporary world. Put differently, when negotiators on behalf of the EU27 face their British counterparts, they speak for a bloc that is six to seven times more substantial than the UK in these areas. Recognising that there is nothing sacrosanct about a consultative referendum, that government and opposition need not be deadly enemies and that the UK is by far the weaker player in the Brexit negotiations may be a big cultural challenge. Might it not also facilitate a more productive outcome to the UK’s negotiations with the EU?

Supreme Court Set to Again Weigh Voting Maps Warped by Politics

J. Scott Applewhite/Associated Press WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court returns to the subject of partisan gerrymandering on Tuesday, considering for a second time in two years whether drawing election maps to help the party in power can ever violate the Constitution. Last year’s cases, from Wisconsin and Maryland, raised the possibility that the court might decide, for the first time, that some election maps were so warped by politics that they crossed a constitutional line. On Tuesday, almost exactly a year after they last considered the Maryland case, the court will again hear arguments from Republican voters there who said their rights had been violated by a congressional district they said had been drawn to diminish their voting power. The court will also hear arguments in a second challenge, this one from North Carolina Democrats who said the state’s congressional map yielded a 10-to-3 Republican majority despite very close statewide vote counts. But Justice Kennedy’s replacement by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh makes such an outcome less likely, election law experts said. But it has never struck down a voting map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Last year, after the Supreme Court returned the case to the United States District Court in Maryland, a three-judge panel of that court ruled for the challengers, barred state officials from conducting further congressional elections using the 2011 maps and ordered them to draw new ones. “Partisan gerrymandering is noxious, a cancer on our democracy,” he wrote. The ruling found that Republican legislators there had violated the Constitution by drawing the districts to hurt the electoral chances of Democratic candidates. In 2016, the court said, Republican congressional candidates won 53 percent of the statewide vote.

Will: The court should steer away from the politics of gerrymandering

If an adjective creates a redundancy, does preceding it with two other adjectives give the Supreme Court a reason to venture where it has never gone before? The justices should, like Ulysses, listen to this siren song but bind themselves from obeying it. Tuesday’s issue is whether the court should attempt something for which it has neither an aptitude nor any constitutional warrant — concocting criteria for deciding when (adjective two) excessive partisan gerrymandering becomes (adjective three) unconstitutional. Gerrymandering is generally as surreptitious as a brass band and is, always and everywhere, as political as lemonade is lemony. Until 1962, the court stayed away from the inherently political process of the drawing of district lines by legislatures organized along partisan lines because the Constitution is unambiguous: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” There are enough open-textured terms in the Constitution (“establishment” of religion, “unreasonable” searches, “cruel” punishments, etc.) So, the Constitution is explicit: Congress, not the judiciary, is the federal remedy for alleged defects in the drawing of congressional districts. The political branches of the state and federal governments are assigned to deal with the inherently value-laden politics of drawing district lines. These include criteria for measuring unconstitutional excesses in the common practices of “cracking” (dispersing one party’s voters across districts dominated by the other party) and “packing” (one party concentrating the other party’s voters into supermajorities in a few districts). And the political science professoriate stands ready to eagerly tutor the court about “wasted votes” resulting from “efficiency gaps.” Today, people who are unhappy about North Carolina’s gerrymandering argue (as a lower court did) that “the Constitution does not authorize state redistricting bodies to engage in … partisan gerrymandering.” (Emphasis added.) The Constitution is silent regarding limits on state legislatures’ partisan redistricting practices and is explicit regarding Congress’ exclusive power to modify these practices.

SCOTUS Should Steer Clear of the Politics of Gerrymandering

The Constitution makes clear that legislative redistricting is a matter for the states and Congress, not the courts, to sort out. If an adjective creates a redundancy, does preceding it with two other adjectives give the Supreme Court a reason to venture where it has never gone before? The practice the court will consider is (adjective one) “partisan gerrymandering.” This modifier, however, does not modify; there is no other kind of gerrymandering. Tuesday’s issue is whether the court should attempt something for which it has neither an aptitude nor any constitutional warrant — concocting criteria for deciding when (adjective two) excessive partisan gerrymandering becomes (adjective three) unconstitutional. Until 1962, the court stayed away from the inherently political process of the drawing of district lines by legislatures organized along partisan lines because the Constitution is unambiguous: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” There are enough open-textured terms in the Constitution (“establishment” of religion, “unreasonable” searches, “cruel” punishments, etc.) Furthermore, the political realists who framed the Constitution, and who understood the pervasiveness of partisanship, added the following to the elections clause quoted above: Congress may “at any time by law make or alter such regulations” as the states might write regarding congressional elections. So, the Constitution is explicit: Congress, not the judiciary, is the federal remedy for alleged defects in the drawing of congressional districts. The political branches of the state and federal governments are assigned to deal with the inherently value-laden politics of drawing district lines. And the political-science professoriate stands ready to eagerly tutor the court about “wasted votes” resulting from “efficiency gaps.” Today, people who are unhappy about North Carolina’s gerrymandering argue (as a lower court did) that “the Constitution does not authorize state redistricting bodies to engage in . The Constitution is silent regarding limits on state legislatures’ partisan redistricting practices and is explicit regarding Congress’s exclusive power to modify these practices.

George Will column: The court should steer away from the politics of gerrymandering

If an adjective creates a redundancy, does preceding it with two other adjectives give the Supreme Court a reason to venture where it has never gone before? The justices should, like Ulysses, listen to this siren song but bind themselves from obeying it. Tuesday’s issue is whether the court should attempt something for which it has neither an aptitude nor any constitutional warrant — concocting criteria for deciding when (adjective two) excessive partisan gerrymandering becomes (adjective three) unconstitutional. Gerrymandering is generally as surreptitious as a brass band and is, always and everywhere, as political as lemonade is lemony. Until 1962, the court stayed away from the inherently political process of the drawing of district lines by legislatures organized along partisan lines because the Constitution is unambiguous: “The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof.” There are enough open-textured terms in the Constitution (“establishment” of religion, “unreasonable” searches, “cruel” punishments, etc.) So, the Constitution is explicit: Congress, not the judiciary, is the federal remedy for alleged defects in the drawing of congressional districts. The political branches of the state and federal governments are assigned to deal with the inherently value-laden politics of drawing district lines. These include criteria for measuring unconstitutional excesses in the common practices of “cracking” (dispersing one party’s voters across districts dominated by the other party) and “packing” (one party concentrating the other party’s voters into supermajorities in a few districts). And the political science professoriate stands ready to eagerly tutor the court about “wasted votes” resulting from “efficiency gaps.” Today, people who are unhappy about North Carolina’s gerrymandering argue (as a lower court did) that “the Constitution does not authorize state redistricting bodies to engage in ... partisan gerrymandering.” (Emphasis added.) The Constitution is silent regarding limits on state legislatures’ partisan redistricting practices and is explicit regarding Congress’ exclusive power to modify these practices.

Federal judge in Texas rules Obama health-care law unconstitutional

In a 55-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor ruled that last year's tax cut bill knocked the constitutional foundation from under "Obamacare" by eliminating a penalty for not having coverage. The plaintiffs argue that the entire ACA is invalid. They trace their argument to the Supreme Court's 2012 ruling in which Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority that the penalty the law created for Americans who do not carry health insurance is constitutional because Congress "does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance." "Today's ruling enjoining Obamacare halts an unconstitutional exertion of federal power over the American health care system while our multistate coalition lawsuit works its way through the courts," Paxton said in a written statement. Today's misguided ruling will not deter us: our coalition will continue to fight in court for the health and wellbeing of all Americans." Becerra called Friday's ruling "an assault on 133 million Americans with preexisting conditions, on the 20 million Americans who rely on the ACA's consumer protections for healthcare, on America's faithful progress toward affordable healthcare for all Americans. Justice officials contended that, once the insurance mandate's penalty is gone next month, that will invalidate the ACA's consumer protections, such as its ban on charging more or refusing to cover people with preexisting medical conditions. In the letter to Congress, then-attorney general Jeff Sessions said that Justice was taking this position ""with the approval of the president of the United States." President Trump has vowed since his campaign to dismantle the law, a main domestic achievement of his predecessor, and the administration has been taking steps on its own to foster alternative insurance that tends to be less expensive because it skirts ACA requirements. The lawsuit has been opposed by a coalition of 17 Democratic attorneys general, led by Becerra, a former congressman.