Forum: Author Hangout

I don't think any of them got it quite right. :-)

Meaning not one of them drafted what would be the perfect constitution for you? Or not representative of the views of the conservative, progressive, libertarian groups as a whole? Or was it something else that was not quite right?

IHMO, the Libertarian group didn't go far enough with eliminating the 17th Amendment - they should have required Senators to be elected by the legislatures, to restore the balance of power between the state and federal governments, giving state legislatures an effective veto on national policy.

I haven't looked at the drafts just yet. But knowing the history of the selection of senators prior to the 17th Amendment. I think you may be asserting a position not supported by history.

I do like the idea of restoring an "advice and consent of the state legislature" contingency on who can run for the Senate. But given the history of how Senators were selected, I think the middle ground is the State Legislature nominates at least 2 candidates for the position, and the people decide who they want from there.

At least with that, it puts a hard check on US Senators doing something they know their state government does not approve of. If they do it anyway, they know they won't be running again.

If I understand Michael's position correctly, in his perfect Constitution, the people would no longer vote for their U.S. Senators. By having the state Legislature select the Senators, he's hoping the Senators would represent - not the people of the state - but the state government.

he's hoping the Senators would represent - not the people of the state - but the state government.

That seems to have been the intent of the original authors of the US Constitution. And it worked, until shortly before the US Civil War.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm

Given how politically divided the US is today, I rather doubt that going back to that would work.

I disagree with this proposition. Allowing state legislatures to determine candidates for US senatorial seats would be little different from the system prior to the 17th amendment. In states where one party is dominant in the legislature one candidate would be "preferred" and one would be a chosen loser. In essence the state legislature would be choosing the senator.

IHMO, the Libertarian group didn't go far enough with eliminating the 17th Amendment - they should have required Senators to be elected by the legislatures, to restore the balance of power between the state and federal governments, giving state legislatures an effective veto on national policy.

Exactly as designed. Senators represent the State, not the people. That's why the Founders set things up the way they did.

And it was changed, because the system started to fall apart a little over a decade before the Civil War, because too many states were too closely divided to be able to send any Senators to Washington. And it only got worse after the Civil war.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Direct_Election_Senators.htm

This process seemed to work well until the mid-1850s. At that time, growing hostilities in various states resulted in vacant Senate seats. In Indiana, for example, the conflict between Democrats in the southern half of the state and the emerging Republican Party in the northern half prevented the election of any candidate, thereby leaving the Senate seat vacant for two years. This marked the beginning of many contentious battles in state legislatures, as the struggle to elect senators reflected the increasing tensions over slavery and states' rights that led to the Civil War.

After the Civil War, problems in senatorial elections by the state legislatures multiplied. In one case in the late 1860s, the election of Senator John Stockton of New Jersey was contested on the grounds that he had been elected by a plurality rather than a majority in the state legislature. Stockton based his defense on the observation that not all states elected their senators in the same way and presented a report that illustrated the inconsistency in state elections of senators. In response, Congress passed a law in 1866 regulating how and when senators were elected in each state. This was the first change in the process of senatorial elections created by the Founders. The law helped but did not entirely solve the problem, and deadlocks in some legislatures continued to cause long vacancies in some Senate seats.

Intimidation and bribery marked some of the states' selection of senators. Nine bribery cases were brought before the Senate between 1866 and 1906. In addition, 45 deadlocks occurred in 20 states between 1891 and 1905, resulting in numerous delays in seating senators. In 1899 problems in electing a senator in Delaware were so acute that the state legislature did not send a senator to Washington for four years.

Some additional information on vacancies.

The 37th (1861-1863) Congress Senate had 7 vacancies out of 50 seats.

The 56th(1899–1901) 11 vacancies out of 90 seats.

In states where one party is dominant in the legislature one candidate would be "preferred" and one would be a chosen loser.

...and if enough parts of the state objected to who the state proposed (and not just the residents of, say, LA County) then state elections would be taken more seriously. But more likely, different factions of the dominant party would each have their own preferred candidate, typically a hardline extremist of the party versus a slightly more moderate choice.

IHMO, the Libertarian group didn't go far enough with eliminating the 17th Amendment

The "Introduction" to the "Libertarian Constitution" includes this line: "Libertarians generally agree that most Progressive Era changes were no good, so you'll find no equivalents to the Sixteenth (income tax), Seventeenth (direct election of senators) or Eighteenth (alcohol prohibition) Amendments here."

I don't think any of them got it quite right. :-)

I only checked the libertarian one, since that was likeliest to be right... But no rules for secession. That really should've been addressed. I did,tho, like the "And we mean it."

But no rules for secession. That really should've been addressed.

Presumes without evidence that they would want to allow secession.

Self-government very strongly implies the right to form a new association. Similarly, if 'consent of the governed', a state ought to be able to withdraw any consent, once given.

I don't disagree with that in principle, just that you have no basis to say "that group over there would want that"

Self-government very strongly implies the right to form a new association. Similarly, if 'consent of the governed', a state ought to be able to withdraw any consent, once given.

You have the right to withdraw. It's called emigration. (Presuming that you can find any country which agrees with you.)

Why you think the majority of a state has the right to take a minority with them requires more reasoning than, "It's obvious."

Why you think the majority of a state has the right to take a minority with them requires more reasoning than, "It's obvious."

And this is what happened to Virginia during the Civil War. Virginia seceded from the Union and a group of counties (now known as West Virginia) seceded from Virginia and rejoined the Union.

But the actual distribution of supporters of secession is never going to be that neat. Virginia dragged along a bunch of people who didn't want to leave the union and then some of them dragged more than a few supporters of Virginia's secession back into the Union.

If you take the self-governance argument all the way down to "the people" as individuals, you can't manage secession without forcibly relocating people.

Why you think the majority of a state has the right to take a minority with them requires more reasoning than, "It's obvious."

That minority is free to relocate to a part of the country they prefer.

Remember, the US has effectively endorsed every country that's chosen to secede from any country not called the US. (Yes, there's no 'official' recognition of Taiwan, but that's mainly a diplomatic cosmetic thing.)

That minority is free to relocate to a part of the country they prefer.

And the majority is free to relocate to another country.

Not really. Emigration is more tricky than you think... and while it's possible the majority could set up a country they'd prefer (most likely identical to the US with some small but important to that majority difference) there's no reason to believe that there'd be a nation like the one they'd prefer to form. Whereas since the US would still exist, and until secession was complete the residents of the state would still be citizens of the US and thus free to move within the US, it's much, much easier for those who prefer not to secede to simply relocate.

US and thus free to move within the US, it's much, much easier for those who prefer not to secede to simply relocate.

For most it wouldn't be financially feasible to move, so unless the seceding state provides relocation assistance, no.

You also run into the issue that you are forcing people to abandon childhood homes.

There is simply no clean and just way to do it. Somebody gets screwed.

There is simply no clean and just way to do it. Somebody gets screwed.

So your solution is 'screw the majority'?

Really, now it's pointless. But it would've been much better if the original constitution had provided a mechanism to secede so the North couldn't have just attacked a sovereign country on the basis that "they had no right to leave". (Just as North Korea, North Vietnam, and a couple African nations did to those that seceded from them. Yeah, Kim Il Sung was the logical equivalent of Abraham Lincoln.)

So your solution is 'screw the majority'?

So you think it's okay to screw the minority?

Of course if you're consistent about it, if the minority / majority are not evenly mixed, you have to allow areas where the state level minority has control to secede from the seceding state.

Then the whole thing breaks down into city-states.

It's not that I think the solution is to screw the majority. I don't think there is any solution that allows for peaceful secession.

If someone is bound to get screwed either way, minimize the damage. Hence the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Obviously, it'd be best if there was some explicit mechanism to minimize how badly the minority got screwed financially. If it's just emotional/sentimental they need to grow the fuck up and decide if they care more about sentimentality than whatever reason they're against secession.

Of course if you're consistent about it, if the minority / majority are not evenly mixed, you have to allow areas where the state level minority has control to secede from the seceding state.

Then the whole thing breaks down into city-states.

It's not that I think the solution is to screw the majority. I don't think there is any solution that allows for peaceful secession.

If someone is bound to get screwed either way, minimize the damage.

Also if the in state split on secession splits 49.5% against to 50.5% for, allowing secession is not in any real sense minimizing the damage.

If the 50.5% is almost entirely from outside of a single county, but there's one hugely populous city in the state that wants to remain part of the US (or the city is the part that wants to secede and the rest of the state wants to stay) then partitioning the state would make sense. That's where the mechanism to minimize damage would come in. It's unlikely that the split would be that even across multiple demographics.

That's where the mechanism to minimize damage would come in. It's unlikely that the split would be that even across multiple demographics.

But it's not impossible.

But it would've been much better if the original constitution had provided a mechanism to secede

Maybe, maybe not. However, I don't think you can conclude that not having one was just an oversight.

Whereas since the US would still exist, and until secession was complete the residents of the state would still be citizens of the US and thus free to move within the US

So, the state of Franklin secedes on Juvember 15th, what becomes of the residents of Franklin on Juvember 16th? Are they now aliens in the U.S? Who decides their status?

This is why addressing the issue in advance is important.
Do I believe I'd have the best ideas of how to work? Of course. But there's always a chance there's a better way I hadn't thought of, or some possible instance which I hadn't foreseen, and someone else would have useful ideas. And really, a negotiated arrangement would probably be best.

Not true. I need express permission from the United States to leave the country (passport).

Not true, at least for exit by land crossing.

Although getting the Canadians or Mexicans to let you enter their country may be a bit more challenging without a passport.

Although getting the Canadians or Mexicans to let you enter their country may be a bit more challenging without a passport.

I believe you can also leave by sea, at least on a private boat (in this case, not a commercial passenger liner), without a passport.

Given the minuscule chance of any country accepting me without a passport, my point stands.

Yes, of course, I could go 'illegal' but that defeats the purpose of emigrating.

You could request asylum as well. Assuming you're in a scenario where you're not a felon and the US is denying your ability to get a passport for whatever reason not involving an active court case.

In this case, legal entry into Canada is actually more difficult than obtaining the US Passport. Felons can get passports from the US government, but just because you have a passport doesn't Canada will let you in if you have a felony on your record. Knew a few people who were denied entry into Canada because of DUI convictions more than 20 years before their attempt to cross.

My personal opinion is that the most natural reading is that the tax would have to be uniform across all goods and services.

Sounds like, under the "Libertarian Constitution," if they were to raise more than zero dollars per year, the feds would have to tax religious services, groceries, medical services, gasoline, repairs, newspaper deliveries, purchase of new or used cars, purchase of homes, food at McDonald's.
The people with large incomes would make out great under this Libertarian Constitution. The people who have been paying Social Security taxes all their lives, and depend on it for income, would be left holding the bag, with no government services and higher taxes.
Starved for income (the Libertarian Constitution allows the government to spend no more than it takes in), we'd have to discharge everybody in the armed forces, we couldn't afford to pay people to serve in the military, no more county agents to help farmers, no more weather forecasters.

Sounds like, under the "Libertarian Constitution,"

1. That was from me, not Michael Loucks.

2. What's allowed is a tax on the sale of goods and services. Since religious services are free and not sold, there is no issue there.

3. Of the things you mentioned, all except groceries and religious services are already taxed at the state level in most states. Even with groceries in many states its not a blanket exclusion. While foods that have to be cooked at home are generally not taxed, "ready to eat" foods such as bags of potato chips are taxed.

4. I was just explaining their likely intent. I never said I support that approach. Personally I would prefer a flat income tax.

Starved for income (the Libertarian Constitution allows the government to spend no more than it takes in), we'd have to discharge...

Feature not a bug.

Libertarians support a minimalist view of government, and see the current Federal government as a vastly oversized monstrosity. Forcing a wholesale downsizing of the federal government is the point.

no more county agents to help farmers, no more weather forecasters.

The bar on taxes other than a "uniform tax on the sale of goods or services" applies only to Congress (in other words the federal government) there is no bar on State/local income taxes.

No income taxes on wages or salaries or allowances paid, and no deductions allowed for private individuals income.

I can't agree with that.

There are three attributes that would make for a fair income tax system.

All income is taxed.

All income is taxed only once.

All income is taxed at the same rate.

The current US Income Tax fails on all three counts.

The current US Income Tax fails on all three counts.

Almost every tax system fails on at least two out of three, most on all three, so the US 'agrees' with the rest of the world on such a 'fair' tax system :D
Here in the Netherlands they even manage to have a tax-over-tax: On certain goods (tobacco, gas) first an excise tax is set and over the total a VAT is calculated. So you even pay VAT over the excise tax.

So you even pay VAT over the excise tax.

Is the VAT tax a "direct" tax - which would be prohibited under this Libertarian Constitution.

VAT is Value Added Tax, also known as a goods and services tax... Exactly the primary tax preferred by libertarians.

Direct tax is a fixed amount payable by each citizen, IIRC.

Direct tax is a fixed amount payable by each citizen, IIRC.

No, it doesn't have to be a fixed amount. The income tax is a direct tax.

Nor does the payer have to be a citizen or an individual. Corporate taxes are direct taxes.

I posted an explanation of direct taxes somewhere up thread.

Ah. I presumed it was poll taxes and similar.

I believe Irving Fisher was right about taxes... A combination of a universal GST (so no exemptions - I would go as far as including donations as taxable, but paid by whoever collected them (so treating the tax as included in the price rather than added after)) and a wealth export tax as a way of taxing standard of living (he had a much more complex method but similar intent) which is better and fairer than any income tax. If somelne earns billions anx lives in a cardboard box, he shouldn't pay much tax. If someone wants to live the life of a trustfund playboy, expect lots of taxes out. If someone wants to live beyond his means, he'll be borrowing money to pay taxes.
Fact is, it's far easier to disincentivize effort and/or risk taking that would increase earning than it is to disincentivize consumption. Few would be willing to enjoy life less just to save on taxes, many would be willing to work less or make much safer investments in order to reduce taxes paid.

No income tax is good. Tax consumption, as a way to tax standard of living. You need a blanket GST with no exceptions. Maybe additional taxes like a tax on stupidity (aka lottery) or cigarette taxes, weed tax, or alcohol tax or gasoline tax. Although I'm not totally comfortable throwing extra taxes on particular goods unless there's clearly increased costs directly due to those goods. You also need a money export tax, to tax the transfer of money outside of the country. This prevents individuals from wiring money from the US to Holland to pay for a yacht to try to evade paying GST on the yacht purchase. Basically require the payment of GST on any money that is possibly being moved to pay for anything. Credit card purchases or debit card purchases while outside the country on vacation would have GST applied (again, the whole idea is to tax standard of living rather than to tax achievement, to motivate people to make more money). Purchase of travelers checks would have GST applied to the face value as well as any service charge. Same with money orders.

tax them on their profits.

They will probably arrange their accounting so the profits will be minimal, or perhaps not exist at all. Particularly Foreign parents of US companies (Volkswagen, for example) will set up so all the profits are earned in their home country. And even American companies can arrange to have a foreign intermediate owner of the operating companies.

Your #2&#3 is double taxation. Either dividends are tax deductable expenses fo business, or dividend income shouldn't be taxed.

Fine. Except for various legal reasons my business was incorporated. So while I could pay myself as a employee, issuing dividends is more reasonable.... Except you would double tax me.

The business has shares that are owned by one or more people. Paying out profits based on the share ownership is a dividend and would be taxed.

And that's the problem. Even if I'm the only shareholder, you taxed my business before the dividends were paid, and then you're taxing my dividend income.

Legitimately, the dividends are money leaving the business. Consider them the company's rental expense for capital. Thus, tax the company on after-dividend profit if you insist. Although really, profits and income shouldn't be taxed, as they're signs of productivity.

Go back up and look at the "tax standard of living" approach and you'll see where I'm coming from

My method gives direct ownership a tax benefit for direct ownership

and incentivizes nuisance suits. Because a fluke judgement would not only bankrupt the company, but ruin the owner if there was no incorporation. So... you like lawyers, I guess.

Your proposal taxes exactly the wrong things for economic prosperity of a country. You propose to tax investment and savings. Both of those would discourage business investments, especially small businesses. Where would the tax free employee get a job?

Of the things you mentioned, all except groceries and religious services are already taxed at the state level in most states.

So the federal taxes required under the Libertarian Constitution (if the feds are to have ANY revenue at all) would be federal taxes on top of the already existing state and local taxes.

So the federal taxes required under the Libertarian Constitution (if the feds are to have ANY revenue at all) would be federal taxes on top of the already existing state and local taxes.

And that is different from the current income tax system how?

And that is different from the current income tax system how?

The income tax does not impose an additional federal sales tax on top of state and local sales taxes. Because lower income people pay a larger share of their income to purchase essentials, the sales tax also shifts a higher percentage of taxes away from high-income individuals and onto lower-income people. That may be intentional, but it's worth pointing out.

The income tax does not impose an additional federal sales tax on top of state and local sales taxes.

No, it imposes an additional federal income tax on top of state and local income taxes.

Because lower income people pay a larger share of their income to purchase essentials, the sales tax also shifts a higher percentage of taxes away from high-income individuals and onto lower-income people. That may be intentional, but it's worth pointing out.

True, but that's true whether it's on top of state/local sales taxes or not.

As I said, I don't personally support this aspect of the libertarian constitution.

Dominions Son
12/18/2020, 2:29:29 PM

@PotomacBob

Because lower income people pay a larger share of their income to purchase essentials, the sales tax also shifts a higher percentage of taxes away from high-income individuals and onto lower-income people. That may be intentional, but it's worth pointing out.

True, but that's true whether it's on top of state/local sales taxes or not.

The federal income taxes, and at least some state income taxes, provide exemptions/deductions for lower amounts of income. For the sales tax, in my experience, you pay the tax on all purchases, no matter how small. Again, that shifts more of the tax burden to lower income people because they have to spend a higher percentage of their income on buying essentials.

Again, that shifts more of the tax burden to lower income people because they have to spend a higher percentage of their income on buying essentials.

Again, that is a valid objection to sales taxes in general, but it has squat to do with whether a federal sales tax on top of state/local sales taxes or not.

It does not become a stronger objection to a federal sales tax if the federal sales tax is stacked on top of state/local sales taxes.

It does not become a weaker objection to a federal sales tax if the federal sales tax supplants state/local sales taxes.

Libertarians support a minimalist view of government, and see the current Federal government as a vastly oversized monstrosity. Forcing a wholesale downsizing of the federal government is the point.

And mimimalist under this Libertarian Constitution appears to starve the beast to the extent that we couldn't even afford to have a military, would have to renege on paying Social Security benefits to those who've paid the taxes all their lives. "County agents," by the way, are not paid by counties - they're employees of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and assigned to counties to aid farmers.

there is no bar on State/local income taxes.

There should be.

The people with large incomes would make out great under this Libertarian Constitution.

That depends on the height of a new VAT. High incomes spend more thus pay more taxes by consuming more and more expensive goods. Generally it seems like a bad idea though. Basic need goods should alway be taxed lower.

I could not determine from my quick reading of the language whether the same justice could be re-appointed for another 18-year term.

I don't think the authors of the "Conservative Constitution" would object to that.

The two main things are eliminating lifetime tenure and restricting the number of justices any one president can appoint.

The last time either party controlled the White House for more than 3 consecutive Presidential terms (12 years) was FDR & Truman.

The "Conservative Constitution" sets the number of Supreme Court justices at a permanent nine (cannot be changed by Congress as it is now) and establishes staggered terms of 18 years for each justice, such that every two years there shall be a vacancy.

To my surprise, the "Progressive Constitution" also calls for 18-year terms for justices of the Supreme Court.

To my surprise, the "Progressive Constitution" also calls for 18-year terms for justices of the Supreme Court.

It's all about preventing the other team from getting a long term majority on the court.

To my surprise, the "Progressive Constitution" also calls for 18-year terms for justices of the Supreme Court.

And another surprise, the "Libertarian Constitution" leaves unchanged the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices.

And another surprise, the "Libertarian Constitution" leaves unchanged the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices.

That really shouldn't be a surprise.

If they ever get someone into the White House, they'll want however many justices he can appoint to be on the court for as long as possible.

and the introduction says it would specifically prohibit income, gift, estate, and direct taxes, and would require a three-fifths vote in each House to effect a tax increase. (My quick reading did not find those specific prohibitions in the document, but I assume the authors who wrote the introduction know what's there.)

Section 9 third paragraph:

Congress shall make no law laying or collecting taxes upon incomes, gifts, or estates, or direct or capitation tax, or tax upon aggregate consumption or expenditures; but Congress shall have power to levy a uniform tax on the sale of goods or services. Any imposition of or increase in a tax, duty, impost or excise shall require the approval of three fifths of the House of Representatives and three fifths of the Senate, and shall separately be presented to the president of the United States.

Gasoline taxes look like they might be a likely source for increases -

That would depend on how you interpret "uniform" in "uniform tax on the sale of goods and services". My personal opinion is that the most natural reading is that the tax would have to be uniform across all goods and services. With that reading, they can only have one tax rate for all goods and services, no special higher rate on gasoline or other fuels.

I'm also not sure what a "direct" tax is - unless it's something like a poll tax.

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/directtax.asp

A direct tax is a tax an individual or organization pays directly to the imposing entity. A taxpayer, for example, pays direct taxes to the government for different purposes, including real property tax, personal property tax, income tax, or taxes on assets.

With that reading, they can only have one tax rate for all goods and services, no special higher rate on gasoline or other fuels.

You missed the excise tax.
The point was, the 'uniform tax' meant (presumably) that there would be no exempt goods. Thus preventing the government from allowing citizens the option of paying no taxes.
But gasoline taxes are usually classed as a excise tax.

excise tax

Maybe there should be an exercise tax. There could be some contrived reason. If you exercise you exhale more carbon dioxide. Global warming, all that government control of "bad things".

What I don't know from any of these proposals is whether they are representative. Is the "Conservative Constitution" representative of the beliefs of people who label themselves conservatives? Progressives? Libertarians?

I would not read any of them as being representative of anyone other than the people on the respective committees.

border wall

Sounds unlikely to me. Texans would just shoot unwelcome visitors. Many visitors, the ones who plan to spend money in Texas, will be welcome.

Texans would just shoot unwelcome visitors.

I think perhaps he was thinking of on the US side of the US/Texas boarder post secession.

Texans would just shoot unwelcome visitors.

Are non-Texans allowed to shoot back?

Are non-Texans allowed to shoot back?

Not on the Texas side of the border.

Dominions Son
12/18/2020, 6:32:07 PM

@PotomacBob

Are non-Texans allowed to shoot back?

Not on the Texas side of the border.

I believe there was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said it was okay for U.S. border guards to shoot people on the Mexican side of the border.

I believe there was a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said it was okay for U.S. border guards to shoot people on the Mexican side of the border.

You missed the part where the US border guards were shooting from the US side of the border.

The situation posited is Texas seceding and then shooting unwelcome people AFTER they cross into Texas.

Technically, none of the early presidents were born citizens of the US.
Just sayin'...

But they were native born.

Technically, none of the early presidents were born citizens of the US.
Just sayin'...

But they were generally native born citizens of their respective states.

In any case, I'd have a problem with that. Maybe I'm old fashioned but I don't want a former immigrant running the whole shebang.

I assume the issue is divided loyalties? Why would they still be loyal to a nation they left, generally at great expense?

Then you have to deal with the issue of dual citizenship. The existence of dual citizenship is something that can not be prevented by US law.

The problem is that the foreign citizenship is a matter of the law of the foreign nation in question, not US law.

Let's start with something straight forward, the child of Two US citizen parents born abroad. The kind of territorial birthright citizenship established in the US by the 14th amendment is quite common around the world.

For example: A child born to two US citizen parents in Canada would be a US citizen by US law and a Canadian citizen by Canadian law. Do you see a problem with this person being president?

In regards to the immigrant, there is a saying in religious circles: "No one is as zealous or as righteous as a recent convert".

The native born citizen has paid nothing, given up nothing to obtain US citizenship.

On the other hand, the immigrant who applies for US citizenship has gone through a great deal of effort and expense to come to the US and become a US citizen.

Is it really rational to suppose that the native born citizen is necessarily more loyal than the immigrant?

I'd be more concerned with no loyalty to the U.S. Especially regards China. But, then, we might end up with that post January 20th, even with a native born President, so I might be able to concede your point.

I'd be more concerned with no loyalty to the U.S.

Again, on what basis would you suppose that someone who went to the effort to immigrate to the US and become a citizen would have no loyalty to the US?

I would suggest that there is no rational basis for this and that you are far more likely to find such disloyalty among the native born.

In regards to China specifically, they are unlikely to allow any agents they send to the US to become US citizens.

I personally know a few first generation Chinese immigrants. They have little love for the Chinese government.

Again, on what basis would you suppose that someone who went to the effort to immigrate to the US and become a citizen would have no loyalty to the US?

I think Jim was making a QAon point that Biden would be more loyal to China then the US.

But, then, we might end up with that post January 20th, even with a native born President, so I might be able to concede your point.

Unlike the out going one's loyalty to Russia.

I think Jim was making a QAon point that Biden would be more loyal to China then the US.

There must be a law similar to Godwin's Law regarding disagreement with a progressive and an accusation of conspiracy theory. Swear to God they are so predictable.

And maybe Biden will turn out to be a dishonest politician, i.e. he won't stay bought. Given his propensity for flip flopping on multiple issues, I do have hope.

Unlike the out going one's loyalty to Russia.

I think you're confusing his fondness for grabbing female crotches with an affinity for caviar. Though 'tis true that both smell similar.

Again, on what basis would you suppose that someone who went to the effort to immigrate to the US and become a citizen would have no loyalty to the US?

The U.S. has a bunch of laws, practices and beliefs that permit significant numbers of those harboring ill will and animosity to enter and live among the citizens with little or no consequences. To believe that all of them are dewy eyed immigrants only wanting to better themselves suggests a naivete that is all too common among certain segments of the population. I'm just not member of any of them.

After WWII, the country was diligent in seeking out and deporting individuals who participated in the Nazi regime's crimes in Germany. And rightly so. We've kind of gotten away from the practice in this country. That got us 9/11. To think that problem disappeared with the death of those terrorists and the emergence of hostile regimes in the far east and other regions of the world is, to me, beyond naivete.

You might want to peruse The Federalists Papers regarding election of the chief executive. From #68:

These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.

I couldn't agree more.

The U.S. has a bunch of laws, practices and beliefs that permit significant numbers of those harboring ill will and animosity to enter and live among the citizens with little or no consequences.

True, but how many of those seek to become citizens.

To believe that all of them are dewy eyed immigrants only wanting to better themselves suggests a naivete that is all too common among certain segments of the population. I'm just not member of any of them.

I'm not either. However, I differ from you in that I see those who seek not just to come here, but also seek US citizenship as distinguishable from those who come here without a desire to become US Citizens.

However, I differ from you in that I see those who seek not just to come here, but also seek US citizenship as distinguishable from those who come here without a desire to become US Citizens.

You're postulating honest intent of 100% of them as that's the only way to avoid the situation I described. It doesn't take more than one to end up with the situation that the native born requirement is designed to eliminate.

You're postulating honest intent of 100% of them as that's the only way to avoid the situation I described.

No I'm not. But I think that those who seek citizenship are far more likely than not to be honest.

I think it highly unlikely that a foreign agent would seek citizenship. So unlikely that it is orders of magnitude more likely that you would find a native born citizen who has no loyalty to the US.

And in any case, the natural born citizen clause is already almost a dead letter. The courts have refused to enforce it on the grounds that it is a political question for the voters to decide.

Your supposed foreign agent would not only have to get here and avoid detection. They would have to do so while running for the one public office the the highest public profile and convince people to vote for them.

No other office besides the President has the natural born citizen requirement. Immigrants can serve as Senators and Representatives or even cabinet secretaries with no particular time of residency requirement.

In fact at the time that was written, the President had very little real power. The administrative state with the vast delegations of Congressional power to the Executive was still more than a century and a half in the future.

And in any case, the natural born citizen clause is already almost a dead letter. The courts have refused to enforce it on the grounds that it is a political question for the voters to decide.

Since when? As far as I know, court cases have only clarified it. My recollection is McCain's campaign as he was born outside the country, Ted Cruz's run and even George Romney back in the 70s (or was it the 60s?). But there has been no case in the SCOTUS to the best of my knowledge.

So it's far from being a dead issue. However, it is high on the progressive's wish list to dump as part of their campaign to "fundamentally transform" the country.

My recollection is McCain's campaign as he was born outside the country, Ted Cruz's run and even George Romney back in the 70s (or was it the 60s?). But there has been no case in the SCOTUS to the best of my knowledge.

No but there were a couple that made it to the appellate courts that were rejected on the grounds I noted.

ETA: SCOTUS rarely takes cases just to reverse error in the lower courts, generally, there has to be a circuit split (some Circuits decided an issue one way while other circuits decided it a different way).

For challenging a presidential candidate on not meeting the requirements spelled out in the constitution, you have to do it state by state. A law suit against the state government/elections officials in the federal courts.

Knocking a presidential candidate off the ballot in one or two states isn't that much of a hindrance for a major party candidate. People have tried anyway.

IIRC 3 or 4 circuits have had this issue before them and all of them have gone the same way, it's not an issue for the courts to decide.

To even have a shot at getting a getting SCOTUS to consider the issue you'd have to find a circuit court willing to decide they have jurisdiction in the mater and then have them find for the plaintiff.

No other office besides the President has the natural born citizen requirement.

Vice President?

Vice President?

One could argue that Vice President isn't properly an office. Other than breaking ties in the Senate (which hasn't happened often) the VP has no official duties. He's a spare for the President.

the VP has no official duties.

The Vice President has only two constitutionally mandated duties. Article I Section 3 states that the Vice President "shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided", meaning the Vice President will break ties in the Senate. Some Vice Presidents are called to perform this tie-breaking duty often while others are never needed for this function. John C. Calhoun holds the record for breaking the most ties, 31. Most of the tie-breaking votes have been on legislative concerns, and some votes have been for the election of Senate officers or committee selection.

Article II, Section 1 of the constitution states the other duty of the Vice President, which concerns elections in that they receive from the individual states their electoral votes and open the certificates "in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives," to arrive at a total. Some Vice Presidents are lucky enough to announce their own election to the presidency. Many more find themselves announcing the election of their competitor.

Note that I'm not saying that this is what WILL happen. But the office of Vice President is a little more important than simply a spare tire, kept in the trunk and hopefully never used.

There is a whole lot of uncertainty as regards the conditions you present. One school holds as you do.

Another holds that the electors were appointed, but disputed. So 270 votes are still needed. Since they won't be achieved, a contingent election as specified in Amendment XII is held.

Another holds that the Congress debates in the separate chambers which set of electors to accept. That would be interesting as that's likely to result in a hung jury, i.e. the House and Senate will be controlled by different parties. And what to do when that occurs has not been anticipated in either the Constitution or the Electoral College Act.

In any case, it's likely to be a mess on Jan. 6. And it's why I maintain that it ain't over til the fat lady sings. And she is just getting warmed up.

I'll explain this when you can explain why some native born US citizens want to have the USA controlled by a foreign government like Russia or China.

Actually, I could call that supportive of the case that on average, natural born citizens are less loyal than citizen immigrants.

I don't agree that allowing citizen immigrants with some minimal time of residency in the US to serve as president caries a significant risk of that.

Again, Senator's and Representatives can already be citizen immigrants.

There isn't even an explicit constitutional requirement that cabinet secretaries be citizens at all.

The marginal risk of the US ending up under the control of a foreign power like Russia or China from the removal of the natural born citizen requirement for the presidency is negligible.

The sub-thread on being a natural born citizen to be President is also likely to affect who is entitled to take over should the line of succession come into play as whoever is next up to be president would also have to meet that citizenship rule.

It's questionable if things actually got that far whether the courts could/would enforce it.

Note you are talking about something taking out both the president and the vice president.

Would the courts even be operational?

It's interesting to note that Maxine Waters disputed electors for Bush in the 2000 vote and Vice President Gore (who was running against him), in his role as President of the Senate, flat shut her down. That elicited some cheers from even Democrats in the chamber.

Half of the country will forever believe the election was rigged.

That outcome was pretty much guaranteed all the way back in January, and it wouldn't have particularly mattered which candidate won.

If Trump had pulled out a narrow win, the Democrats would be screaming that Trump stole the election.

That outcome was pretty much guaranteed all the way back in January, and it wouldn't have particularly mattered which candidate won.

I believe that outcome was set by the end of 2017, but otherwise I agree.

I believe this result was set the night of Nov. 8, 2016 and the following early morning hours after Hillary sobered up enough to call Trump.

I believe this result was set the night of Nov. 8, 2016 and the following early morning hours after Hillary sobered up enough to call Trump.

Anyone want to argue for pushing this back to the 2000 election between Bush and Gore?

Florida got their stuff fixed, though.

We aren't talking about actual election mechanics and security though, but the perpetual cries of "he stole the election".

How long did it take Democrats to stop claiming that Bush stole the election from Gore?

Not sure I'd agree with that, but since the end results remain unchanged, it's pointless to debate it.