Is this a constitutional crisis for Missouri? (Page 2 of 2)
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: I'm just messing with you . . .  But since you asked. I think 80 percent is too high of a threshold. That said, I also think it's bullshit when the legislature undoes the will of the people. Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: I'm just messing with you . . . But since you asked. I think 80 percent is too high of a threshold. That said, I also think it's bullshit when the legislature undoes the will of the people. The "will" of the misled, emotional people voting on a constitutional amendment written by a business and not the lawmakers. You pump millions out-of-state money into advertising that can raise the least bit of suspicion or tug on people's heart strings, and they will get the vote they want. Years ago look where they spent all the money on the farm bill......STL and KC. They put puppy mills and other stuff that had very little to do with the actual bill and passed it to the dismay of the farmers. The next year, a DEMOCRAT governor and REPUBLICAN house and senate worked to repeal it because it was so F'd up. Originally Posted By Gunsgalore83: You would think MO is 90 percent democrap based on the Facebook and Twitter comments on the news articles and posts. Also, The two organizers of these amendments have ties to the MO communist party. Do voters even know this? What really gets me is why don't the conservatives put ads against these amendments and fight them. The liberals are doing all kinds of ads. Why are the conservatives not putting up any resistance to these? They could be doing ads against amendment 6 and the organizers ties to the communist party. Where are the conservatives. Hey, these libtards protesting you could have gotten a couple hundred counter protesters to open carry. The conservatives don't have the money and resources that these out-of-state backers like Soros do. Libs have the money, media, messenging, with ZERO morals. They can flood the TV, radio, and social media channels with lies and get away with every time. We would have to outspend them 10:1 to get the same reach. Don't believe it? Go onto page 2-3 and see how many people in the MOHTF members voted against Amendment 4, siding with Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and dozens of other uber-liberal groups. Hopefully the Catholic church steps in an spends some serious money on Amendment 3, and 6 to further protect it. |
Joined:
Sep 2026
Posts:
23
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
]income tax repeal groups spent a lot on amendment 5 but I haven't seen it anywhere. Must have been a crappy firm they hired. What about the likes of Rex Sinquefield? He's donated 1.5 million to the GOP this year, why didn't he throw any money against these amendments? Kock family are RINOs, forget them, but you have Rex who holds sway and what about Elon? It seems Elon Musk is too busy trying to save the texas senate seat right now. The national GOP and state GOP could afford a few ads. Hell, what about 2016? Missouri Firearm's Coalition did TV and social media ads against Bloomberg and for the veto override. The reps and senators got their phone lines clogged demanding they override Jay Nixon. Do you think the libs will try and get gun control on the ballots again as long as Denny is the SOS? They tried in 2024 but pulled it because they got a ton of negative feedback and polling that the amendment would miserably fail. Paul Berry the Third also filed suit as well. Those two commie organizers would be very wise not to try and mess with people's guns. Imagine if that passed you'd have a civil war within the state. Oh and FYI I still kick myself today. I went to college a few years later than most students. I went to Webster University when One Term Bob got hired there back in 2011-12. He used to always walk past me in the afternoon on the way to class. I should have confronted him and asked him why the hell did he veto ccw when democrats pleaded with him to not veto the law. That was back when you still had some pro gun democrats at the state level. I think 16 in the house voted to override, and 3 dems in the senate voted to override. By 2016 you just two. Ben Harris stuck with his veto override and so did Keith English. It's career suicide being anti gun in Jefferson County. Jefferson county is a republican success story. That's a pretty red county for being large county by Missouri standards. |
Joined:
Sep 2026
Posts:
24
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
I noticed the democraps also are running many candidates in seats that really have no chance of winning. These rural ones are they the pro gun type of the early 2000s, or flat out socialist democrats? there is one in St. Charles county her name is Cat Clayton and she actually uses a cat in her campaign logo lol. Endorsed by the communist NEA and she has the literal look of a cat woman in her eyes. I will admit though she is pretty hot looking at least. |
|
Originally Posted By Gunsgalore83: ]. It's career suicide being anti gun in Jefferson County. Jefferson county is a republican success story. That's a pretty red county for being large county by Missouri standards. I think JeffCo is the perfect example of the Democrats moving the middle so far left, they lost their long time voters to the other side. Of course are the conservatives fleeing STL county for tax relief and better representation helped too, but I think a majority didn't change their views, they just got absorbed into the Republican party. You can see this in 2016 when JeffCo voted overwhelmingly for Greitens who ran on passing right to work immediately, then voted overwhelmingly to repeal right to work via IP shortly thereafter. They are set in their ways. |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: The part that suggests the role of the SOS is as a political operative. James Kirkpatrick would roll over in his grave if he saw how the office is being run now. Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Originally Posted By Bye_Felicia: Which part? That the Secretary of State is a powerful position? Or that an elected official should do everything possible (legal)to promote the values of the party and people they represent? The part that suggests the role of the SOS is as a political operative. James Kirkpatrick would roll over in his grave if he saw how the office is being run now. Kirkpatrick was a career politician who served for 20years as SoS. He understood his job, as he helped the Democrats maintain Democratic party majority in the legislature during his entire 20 years in the office. |
|
Originally Posted By Gunsgalore83: The eastern District of MO stepped in and blocked the old map! What is it with libtards outnumbering Republicans on Facebook at about 9 to 1 in the comments section? You'd think the state is 90 percent democrat based on the comments. Is it because liberals tend to be social media queens more than conservatives or some organized social media effort they're doing? Conservatives have lives to live and jobs to work.... don't have time be on social media |
|
Originally Posted By Bye_Felicia: Kirkpatrick was a career politician who served for 20years as SoS. He understood his job, as he helped the Democrats maintain Democratic party majority in the legislature during his entire 20 years in the office. Not sure what you mean by "helped the Democrats maintain a majority." What are you suggesting? Can you provide examples? I recall Kirkpatrick being a proud Democrat, but I'm not aware of times when he put his finger on the scale in the performance of his duties. |
Joined:
Sep 2026
Posts:
25
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By Deuskid: Conservatives have lives to live and jobs to work.... don't have time be on social media Is that why when you see protests for liberal issues it's always old hag hippies, old men, beta males, purple hair septum, and fat feminist types because well, they don't have real jobs. |
|
Originally Posted By Deuskid: Conservatives have lives to live and jobs to work.... don't have time be on social media Originally Posted By Deuskid: Originally Posted By Gunsgalore83: The eastern District of MO stepped in and blocked the old map! What is it with libtards outnumbering Republicans on Facebook at about 9 to 1 in the comments section? You'd think the state is 90 percent democrat based on the comments. Is it because liberals tend to be social media queens more than conservatives or some organized social media effort they're doing? Conservatives have lives to live and jobs to work.... don't have time be on social media  ARFCOM and the slew of other social media that caters to conservatives says otherwise. |
|
Originally Posted By Gunsgalore83: Is that why when you see protests for liberal issues it's always old hag hippies, old men, beta males, purple hair septum, and fat feminist types because well, they don't have real jobs. Originally Posted By Gunsgalore83: Originally Posted By Deuskid: Conservatives have lives to live and jobs to work.... don't have time be on social media Is that why when you see protests for liberal issues it's always old hag hippies, old men, beta males, purple hair septum, and fat feminist types because well, they don't have real jobs. You need to get out more if you really believe that. |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Not sure what you mean by "helped the Democrats maintain a majority." What are you suggesting? Can you provide examples? I recall Kirkpatrick being a proud Democrat, but I'm not aware of times when he put his finger on the scale in the performance of his duties. Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Originally Posted By Bye_Felicia: Kirkpatrick was a career politician who served for 20years as SoS. He understood his job, as he helped the Democrats maintain Democratic party majority in the legislature during his entire 20 years in the office. Not sure what you mean by "helped the Democrats maintain a majority." What are you suggesting? Can you provide examples? I recall Kirkpatrick being a proud Democrat, but I'm not aware of times when he put his finger on the scale in the performance of his duties. There will be no agreement between us on the subject, as we approach politics from opposing viewpoints of its nature and goals. |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Missouri Supreme Court orders Denny Hoskins to answer on contempt charge Hoskins is going to screw this up. He gambled hard on the Supreme Court not being willing to change maps after the primary and judged wrong. Guess we'll see what November brings. |
|
Originally Posted By Bye_Felicia: Hoskins is going to screw this up. He gambled hard on the Supreme Court not being willing to change maps after the primary and judged wrong. Guess we'll see what November brings. Maybe he was wrong on the thought that either Supreme Court was going to come through, but the previous comment about him (specifically) "slow walking" seems to be untrue. He didn't receive the certification of the signatures from the local election boards until late July, then only had until the first week of August to certify them himself--which he did. Now whether or not you want to argue that he could have pressured all the counties to send in those signatures sooner ok, but the ones that were holding out until the last day were probably those affected. It seems like he has a pretty good defense though......per the US Constitution, if a State and Federal court case contradict, the Federal one takes precedence. And since this is a State Supreme court order he allegedly violated, if he is found guilty, one would assume that the Governor would immediately (or even preemptively) pardon him. Sounds like a it's nothing more than the MO Supreme Court being ticked off they got superseded by the feds. Guess we will find out tomorrow. |
Joined:
Sep 2026
Posts:
26
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By Bye_Felicia: You need to get out more if you really believe that. OK, many work in the academic field, and other fields that high heavily on feminism. Many are literally dumb as a box of rocks and that's why they get easy degrees that require little in the way of smarts. Gender studies, music degrees, etc. These are called career college students and I've seen them in college. |
|
Originally Posted By delorean: Maybe he was wrong on the thought that either Supreme Court was going to come through, but the previous comment about him (specifically) "slow walking" seems to be untrue. He didn't receive the certification of the signatures from the local election boards until late July, then only had until the first week of August to certify them himself--which he did. Now whether or not you want to argue that he could have pressured all the counties to send in those signatures sooner ok, but the ones that were holding out until the last day were probably those affected.. . . Have you read the Missouri Supreme Court decision? |
|
Originally Posted By Bye_Felicia: There will be no agreement between us on the subject, as we approach politics from opposing viewpoints of its nature and goals. OK. I just assumed that when you said Kirkpatrick helped the Democrats maintain a majority you had some specific examples you could cite. I’d be curious to learn what those are. |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: OK. I just assumed that when you said Kirkpatrick helped the Democrats maintain a majority you had some specific examples you could cite. I’d be curious to learn what those are. Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Originally Posted By Bye_Felicia: There will be no agreement between us on the subject, as we approach politics from opposing viewpoints of its nature and goals. OK. I just assumed that when you said Kirkpatrick helped the Democrats maintain a majority you had some specific examples you could cite. I’d be curious to learn what those are. I begin from the assumption that someone doesn't spend 20 years in the office of Secretary of State because they are apolitical. You clearly do not. Hence we will not have a useful conversation. But to appease you, I can point to no specific actions of Kirkpatrick to support my thesis. |
|
Originally Posted By Bye_Felicia: I begin from the assumption that someone doesn't spend 20 years in the office of Secretary of State because they are apolitical. You clearly do not. Hence we will not have a useful conversation. But to appease you, I can point to no specific actions of Kirkpatrick to support my thesis. Perhaps that's because the politicians of 30-40 years ago didn't do the kinds of things that passes for politics today. There is a level of toxicity today that those old pols would not recognize or tolerate. If the only politics a person has known is the politics of the modern talk radio/social media/internet era, then I could understand why somebody would think all of this stuff is normal. It is not. |
Joined:
Sep 2026
Posts:
27
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
Joined:
Sep 2026
Posts:
28
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By Gunsgalore83: If the democraps ever get a narrow majority would they try to repeal permit less carry, or would that be political suicide for them? AZ at times has been just about evenly split and they haven't tried repealing it. My guess is that they might push for cities to be allowed their own exemptions. St. Louis in particular. |
|
Whew! I'm getting dizzy . . . The U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay on the lower federal district court order that said Hoskins had to use the 2025 map. At least for now, the 2022 map is the one that will be used. That could change: US Supreme Court again blocks use of Missouri’s gerrymandered congressional map In other developments: The federal judge who ruled that Hoskins/Brattin et al had a valid argument and that Hoskins could ONLY use the 2025 map has declined Hoskins et al's request to block the State Supreme Court ruling and subsequent contempt of court threat. Basically, his answer was "they don't tell me what to do and I don't tell them what to do. Sucks to be you Denny." At this hour, Denny Hoskins is scheduled to appear before the Missouri Supreme Court and explain why he shouldn't be held in contempt. My guess is that he will back down. 
|
Joined:
Sep 2026
Posts:
29
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By Gunsgalore83: That would be violating the current Missouri constitution, and you'd also have federal court cases as we've seen. There are multiple ways to "push." ETA: Your question presumed a Democratic majority in at least one legislative chamber. For that to happen there would need to have been a significant shift in voter sentiment. That could easily coincide with a successful initiative petition to tweak the constitution. |
|
The AP posted a fairly thorough recap of events so far . . . US Supreme Court again rejects push to use Trump-backed congressional map in Missouri |
Joined:
Sep 2026
Posts:
30
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: There are multiple ways to "push." ETA: Your question presumed a Democratic majority in at least one legislative chamber. For that to happen there would need to have been a significant shift in voter sentiment. That could easily coincide with a successful initiative petition to tweak the constitution. You can thank Cindy O Laughlin and Elizabeth Coleman for ruining IP reform a few years ago. Here in Florida more voters support abortion and legalized weed than Missouri, but the 60 percent law helped narrowly defeat those while MO is only 50 percent. If voters allow trash like that on the ballots regarding firearms, they deserve all of it coming then. I looked into the organizers of these two petitions and the guy is a communist. He associates with the communist party in MO. Why didn't anyone point this out? he'd be dead in the water organizing stuff. |
|
Hoskins caved so he doesn't have to turn in his red jacket for an orange jumpsuit. Missouri Supreme Court finds Denny Hoskins “was in contempt” over congressional maps |
Joined:
Sep 2026
Posts:
31
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
next week is the appeals court hearing. If they allow the new maps, there is still plenty of time to print new ballots. Here in FL we could have had this problem in the primary as well. If the judge ruled James Fishback wasn't eligible for ballots due to residency, they would have had to make new ones, and some were already sent out. |
Joined:
Sep 2026
Posts:
32
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: I'm just messing with you . . . But since you asked. I think 80 percent is too high of a threshold. That said, I also think it's bullshit when the legislature undoes the will of the people. Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Originally Posted By Gunsgalore83: So you want it to pass and require 80 percent of lawmakers in order to overturn a ballot initiative??? I'm just messing with you . . . But since you asked. I think 80 percent is too high of a threshold. That said, I also think it's bullshit when the legislature undoes the will of the people. "The people" do not get their say on every topic. That is a move toward direct democracy that we should resist. The only thing worse for the state than the legislature we have in charge is for the "the people" to be in charge without constraint. These people cannot wipe their own asses much less run the state. |
Joined:
Sep 2026
Posts:
33
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By GrumpyinStL: "The people" do not get their say on every topic. That is a move toward direct democracy that we should resist. The only thing worse for the state than the legislature we have in charge is for the "the people" to be in charge without constraint. These people cannot wipe their own asses much less run the state. The groups heading this crap is ran by a guy who has ties to the communist party in MO. He's "organized" in others states too. He's jacked up Commiefornia too before. Basically a communist rabble rouser who uses the liberal IP process. The issue also is you have what Rush Limbaugh calls "low information" voters on both sides. That's how they fall far stuff when this communist group did ads and no one bothered to counter their ads on social media. Where the hell was Rex Squinfield and his money to counter him? This organizer is a communist and I've tried outing him on social media in the slanted posts but they're filled with liberals. Don Jr. pointed him out before last year. Look at the protest pics. The people in the photos are derelicts Nasal septum freaks, hoosiers, and looked like old hippies. |
|
Originally Posted By GrumpyinStL: "The people" do not get their say on every topic. That is a move toward direct democracy that we should resist. The only thing worse for the state than the legislature we have in charge is for the "the people" to be in charge without constraint. These people cannot wipe their own asses much less run the state. Missouri's constitution says otherwise: Section 1. Source of political power — origin, basis and aim of government. — That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. Section 3. Powers of the people over internal affairs, constitution and form of government. — That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. Section 49. Reservation of power to enact and reject laws. — The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly, and also reserve power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided. |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Missouri's constitution says otherwise: Section 1. Source of political power — origin, basis and aim of government. — That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. Section 3. Powers of the people over internal affairs, constitution and form of government. — That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. Section 49. Reservation of power to enact and reject laws. — The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly, and also reserve power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided. Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Originally Posted By GrumpyinStL: "The people" do not get their say on every topic. That is a move toward direct democracy that we should resist. The only thing worse for the state than the legislature we have in charge is for the "the people" to be in charge without constraint. These people cannot wipe their own asses much less run the state. Missouri's constitution says otherwise: Section 1. Source of political power — origin, basis and aim of government. — That all political power is vested in and derived from the people; that all government of right originates from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted solely for the good of the whole. Section 3. Powers of the people over internal affairs, constitution and form of government. — That the people of this state have the inherent, sole and exclusive right to regulate the internal government and police thereof, and to alter and abolish their constitution and form of government whenever they may deem it necessary to their safety and happiness, provided such change be not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States. Section 49. Reservation of power to enact and reject laws. — The people reserve power to propose and enact or reject laws and amendments to the constitution by the initiative, independent of the general assembly, and also reserve power to approve or reject by referendum any act of the general assembly, except as hereinafter provided. Ya, doesn't mean people have to agree with it or make it the responsible way to run the state. |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: This has been fun, but it sure looks like it's over. Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Originally Posted By Gunsgalore83: next week is the appeals court hearing. If they allow the new maps, there is still plenty of time to print new ballots . . . This has been fun, but it sure looks like it's over. Hoskins bet wrong for sure. It'll be interesting to see what November brings. Hell of a way for Rick Brattin's political career to end. |
|
Originally Posted By Bye_Felicia: Ya, doesn't mean people have to agree with it or make it the responsible way to run the state. Hmm, that strikes me a lot like somebody moving to a new area and telling all the locals how it's done so much better back home. |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Hmm, that strikes me a lot like somebody moving to a new area and telling all the locals how it's done so much better back home. Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Originally Posted By Bye_Felicia: Ya, doesn't mean people have to agree with it or make it the responsible way to run the state. Hmm, that strikes me a lot like somebody moving to a new area and telling all the locals how it's done so much better back home.  Oh the irony. My opinions on direct democracy mirror Hamilton and Madison. I have no problem standing with them on that issue. See Federalist 10, 63 and 71. And yes I know that they are paraphrasing other portions of Federalist papers or the DoI in the sections of the MO Constitution you quoted.. But the real discussion is Missouri's love affair with direct democracy. We've had the discussion before. I firmly believe a Constitution should be limited to very specific things and be more difficult to amend then a simple 51% vote. I am fine with the current process to add statutes at 51%, assuming we don't restrict the State legislature from doing their job and being able to amend those laws as needed. I do believe that the IP reform the State legislature proposed (and was defeated) was the worst approach they could have taken. Mirroring the US Constitutional amendment process would have been a smarter and better choice for IP reform. |
|
Originally Posted By Bye_Felicia: Hoskins bet wrong for sure. It'll be interesting to see what November brings. Hell of a way for Rick Brattin's political career to end. Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By Bye_Felicia: Oh the irony. My opinions on direct democracy mirror Hamilton and Madison. I have no problem standing with them on that issue. See Federalist 10, 63 and 71. And yes I know that they are paraphrasing other portions of Federalist papers or the DoI in the sections of the MO Constitution you quoted.. But the real discussion is Missouri's love affair with direct democracy. We've had the discussion before. I firmly believe a Constitution should be limited to very specific things and be more difficult to amend then a simple 51% vote. I am fine with the current process to add statutes at 51%, assuming we don't restrict the State legislature from doing their job and being able to amend those laws as needed. I do believe that the IP reform the State legislature proposed (and was defeated) was the worst approach they could have taken. Mirroring the US Constitutional amendment process would have been a smarter and better choice for IP reform. Well, get busy. Draft that petition. Gather signatures. Get you vision on the ballot. |
|
Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Well, get busy. Draft that petition. Gather signatures. Get you vision on the ballot. Originally Posted By Bladeswitcher: Originally Posted By Bye_Felicia: Oh the irony. My opinions on direct democracy mirror Hamilton and Madison. I have no problem standing with them on that issue. See Federalist 10, 63 and 71. And yes I know that they are paraphrasing other portions of Federalist papers or the DoI in the sections of the MO Constitution you quoted.. But the real discussion is Missouri's love affair with direct democracy. We've had the discussion before. I firmly believe a Constitution should be limited to very specific things and be more difficult to amend then a simple 51% vote. I am fine with the current process to add statutes at 51%, assuming we don't restrict the State legislature from doing their job and being able to amend those laws as needed. I do believe that the IP reform the State legislature proposed (and was defeated) was the worst approach they could have taken. Mirroring the US Constitutional amendment process would have been a smarter and better choice for IP reform. Well, get busy. Draft that petition. Gather signatures. Get you vision on the ballot. Maybe. |
|
There are 163 house districts in MO. What if we mirrored what the founding fathers created and have a 2/3 of the 163 districts requirement to change the constitution? I'm not informed enough to know how that would play out conservative v. progressive districts. |
Joined:
Sep 2026
Posts:
34
EE: 0% (0)
FL, USA
|
Today on my FB feed a video from "Abortion Action" some radical group with someone speaking and about a dozen people behind them. Again, mostly old ladies, an old Hippie beta male and some lady in her 50s. Why is it these liberal events have a lot of old people at them? Many times the old hags way outnumber young people at these events. |
|
Well, shit the bed Fred, this thing ain't nearly as over as it seemed: Appeals court backs Missouri’s gerrymandered map, but decision is put on hold Appeals court revives GOP gerrymander in Missouri that Supreme Court killed off twice Appeals court favors Trump-backed Missouri congressional map, but Supreme Court will have final say |