in GD. Groups on DU generally don't get as many participants in discussions as threads in GD do. This topic seems like one that can benefit from plenty of participation in threads.

Just my opinion.

connection to Constitutional Law. It's a lot of opinion and links to support positions, but there's not a neat, organized place to find what you're looking for.

I can't believe the missed opportunity. The Republicans have a glaring gap in their political reasoning that no one seems to take advantage of.

and elsewhere. The problem is that most people don't actually know the Constitution well as a document, and even fewer have information on the many, many SCOTUS decisions that have interpreted it.

That means that most discussions about the Constitution are marked by lots of uninformed opinions. I try to avoid Constitutional discussions on DU for that reason.

Sadly, for a founding document that is really quite simple in its composition, it has required constant interpretation by the SCOTUS, and people still don't agree on what it means in many cases. Add to that the dismal lack of knowledge about what is actually written in our Constitution and such discussions usually deteriorate into blather.

It's too bad, too.

While the Democrats were still in their civil stupor stage the Republicans were trying to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment. We can all agree that is one of their glaring weaknesses.

I've never seen a specific group that discusses Constitutional law here on DU. Perhaps I missed it.

I for one would subscribe to a group like this. I could be a source of great information.

If the right think they're going to start a Constitutional Revival, the best thing we can do is bone up on the Constitution and be prepared for them.

I'll host

Instead of pay, can I become a dictator and ban whomever i want like some hosts do?

Or would that be unconstitutional?

Heh.

YES to a Constitution group. And if you have to have hosts, first have a clear SoP - Statement of Purpose, and hosts that rotate out of their dictatorial roles.

Doubt any hosts would be needed. And only if there were a 'Host' constitution that limited what hosts may do to their underlings.

I'm new at this so I don't know the exact procedure.

I suspect, however, that the group will be a magnet for Libertarians and right-wing Constitutional trolls.

it would be 'a magnet for Libertarians and right-wing Constitutional trolls.'

As thus I believe hosts would be needed. If people are concerned about power issues, (as te poster above mentioned) the SoP could possibly require a rotating host situation. I don't think that would be against the structure of DU3. (not a DU constitutional lawyer, btw)

Is there any rule against that set up n the hosting rules of DU?

Just curious: what is wrong with having hosts?

My answer: nothing -- especially if it keeps things from becoming libertarian land.

If they are DUers who have gone through the wringer but are still able to hide their true evil, they will become exposed when presented with constitutional arguments. Usually they can do their hit and run acts in GD and escape scrutiny.

Bring 'em on!

Pin this question to the top:
Is the constitution of the United States of America the Beautiful, established to control the People?

Or is the constitution meant to control the government?