We're WEIRD. Get over it.

[David Horn]

Bob,

I live in an area awash in firearms. One of my neighbors has 100 GUNS as the license plates for his pickup truck. I suspect he's far from the recordholder here.

[pbrower2a]

(10-01-2020, 03:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-30-2020, 07:53 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 12:43 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-29-2020, 11:13 AM)David Horn Wrote: With Hang-'em-high Amy coming to the court, gun rights might become total.  Then the bloodshed will begin in earnest.

Is there part of 'shall not be infringed' that you don't get?  I don't know that anyone is arguing about felons and the insane.

I'd want Brad Parscale to lose his guns.

Do you have a due process way to prove him a felon or insane?  He's a Trump enabler.  There might be a way to do either.  But, still, if you don't have a way to establish either in court, he has rights which should not be removed.  Blue folks sometimes think their whims have force of law.  Red folks have ways to make their whims have force of law.  Neither is desirable.

Mind you, it is getting to the point where you might start a class action suit to declare all Trump supporters insane, but that isn't the American way either.

Trump enablers are not insane. Some may be in on the scam themselves, and some may be dependent upon him. Trump has modified the neoliberal, plutocratic  ideology first appearing under Reagan into  something fitting their ethnic and religious bigotry that was not originally part of neoliberalism. Some care little about economics and love to hear someone satisfy their racism, religious bigotry, Then there are the brainwashed, the people who believe in conspiracy theories tailor-made for their core beliefs. 

Some people have never learned to discern the difference between truth and their beliefs. All sorts of crazy ideas may race through my head, but I can do some fact checking on many of them and recognize them as nonsense. To be sure, right-wing shock-jocks such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, and Sean Hannity have primed many Americans for a right-wing demagogue. The problem with such is that one ends up with a Donald Trump who gets what he thinks is dictatorial power while being ill-prepared to use it because he is too greedy, shallow, and unlearned to use such power without it going bad.

The real danger will come if the Hard Right finds someone who desires to reshape America into some inhuman nightmare of repression, exploitation, inequality, and militarism. Such a figure will know enough to control the media and suppress the opposition before purging his side of 'backsliders' and 'compromisers' to establish some nightmarish "Christian and Corporate State". Do not delude yourself;  such people are learning what not to do from Trump that has nothing to do with his beliefs.  I remind you of my definition of fascism: Bolshevik tactics in the service of a reactionary ideology. So suppose that we have an economic meltdown like that of 1929-1932 with a liberal President and liberals in office. Some right-winger will promise work and food, and certainty instead of doubt. There will be plenty of work, to be sure, including much unpaid work in the service of the Master Class that can extract every moment of toil possible from an industrial serf. Certainty? Someone like Rachel Maddow will be dead, in prison, or in exile.  When only one view of the world is available people can have great certainty about the most basic "truths" as expounded by the leadership, but delivered with fear of anything else. Education will be reduced tor many as it was for blacks under Apartheid rule in South Africa to preparation for being raw labor or domestic servants., and if one has the dubious privilege of getting more than elementary schooling because one's toil is needed now for farm labor or industrial work, one will get brainwashing so that one could become complict in horrible deeds while thinking that nothing is wrong. .

[Bob Butler 54]

The Bill of Rights contains some pretty basic values.  Rights should not be added or subtracted from the bench.  The Founding Father had a mechanism for change, and it has been ignored.  Presidents have deliberately chosen Supreme Court justices who will follow political agendas rather than interpret the text or the intent of the authors.  The result is a very broken legal system.

Scalia and Ginsburg were apparently friends, even if pursuing different legal agendas.  Scalia would look at the original intent and meaning of the text.  Ginsburg would pursue every excuse to believe the Founding Fathers were not prejudiced against women having political power.  At least both trends were legal rather than political.  We have had too many decisions where the Court will vote according to the political agenda of the president that appointed the justice.  The president and senate are motivated to encourage selecting Supreme Court justices who will legislate from the bench.  Depending on the president, this may mean rights are invented which would have been considered foul at the time the Constitution was invented, which includes both the liberal rights for the people and the conservative rights for the corporation.

I will renounce both.  People who cheer their faction's contempt for the Constitution are reprehensible.

This does not mean we should't have a pretty busy 'never again' period coming up.

[David Horn]

(10-02-2020, 02:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The Bill of Rights contains some pretty basic values.  Rights should not be added or subtracted from the bench.  The Founding Father had a mechanism for change, and it has been ignored.  Presidents have deliberately chosen Supreme Court justices who will follow political agendas rather than interpret the text or the intent of the authors.  The result is a very broken legal system.

The Founders, living in a society that never changed rapidly in its 12,000 year history, built a change mechanism into the Constitution that makes change almost impossible.  Even more to the point, they were the elites of the time, and built the document with safeguards for people like them.  I have a hard time seeing that as even more restraining than it already is.

Bob Butler Wrote:Scalia and Ginsburg were apparently friends, even if pursuing different legal agendas.  Scalia would look at the original intent and meaning of the text. Ginsburg would pursue every excuse to believe the Founding Fathers were not prejudiced against women having political power.  At least both trends were legal rather than political.  We have had too many decisions where the Court will vote according to the political agenda of the president that appointed the justice.  The president and senate are motivated to encourage selecting Supreme Court justices who will legislate from the bench.  Depending on the president, this may mean rights are invented which would have been considered foul at the time the Constitution was invented, which includes both the liberal rights for the people and the conservative rights for the corporation.

To a farcical extent, this is like two combatants agreeing to settle issues of life and death with a pillow fight.  The law is already clumsy enough without overlaying it with a veneer of myth and pseudo religion.  Of course there will be legislating from the bench if there is no legislating from the body intended to legislate.  Worse, people and organizations with resources will always appeal to the bench, and do it continuously if the math looks good.  A 6-3 court will be inundated with appeals to do or undo in service to a dyspeptic conservative vision. 

Bob Butler Wrote:I will renounce both.  People who cheer their faction's contempt for the Constitution are reprehensible.

Congress needs to set some new rules. It has the power, and its the legislative branch after all.

Bob Butler Wrote:This does not mean we shouldn't have a pretty busy 'never again' period coming up.

The rending of garments will continue unabated.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-02-2020, 08:28 AM)David Horn Wrote: To a farcical extent, this is like two combatants agreeing to settle issues of life and death with a pillow fight.  The law is already clumsy enough without overlaying it with a veneer of myth and pseudo religion.  Of course there will be legislating from the bench if there is no legislating from the body intended to legislate.  Worse, people and organizations with resources will always appeal to the bench, and do it continuously if the math looks good.  A 6-3 court will be inundated with appeals to do or undo in service to a dyspeptic conservative vision.

Us software engineers sometimes catch something we call digitalitis.  Computers, digital devises, obey rules.  They do what they are supposed to do.  Cause leads to effect.  After years of handling devices that act like this, we kind of expect other things to act this way too.  Have you ever tried to argue with a computer, to assume it is the computer's fault not yours?  The dang things are obnoxiously always right.  It becomes a way of looking at the world.  Part of one’s worldview, so to speak.

So, I kind of look that way at the law.  There is a theory there, and it ought to be followed.  You ignore it for temporary expediency and you pay the price.

If you think this is a pseudo religion, obviously you don’t have digitalitis.  You can see the law as something you can bend to your whim, and you can hope some crisis will never come when you will need it.  A crisis, after all, is only a once in a lifetime thing.  Getting rid of law and free wheeling it could never be a problem?

[David Horn]

(10-02-2020, 11:12 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-02-2020, 08:28 AM)David Horn Wrote: To a farcical extent, this is like two combatants agreeing to settle issues of life and death with a pillow fight.  The law is already clumsy enough without overlaying it with a veneer of myth and pseudo religion.  Of course there will be legislating from the bench if there is no legislating from the body intended to legislate.  Worse, people and organizations with resources will always appeal to the bench, and do it continuously if the math looks good.  A 6-3 court will be inundated with appeals to do or undo in service to a dyspeptic conservative vision.

Us software engineers sometimes catch something we call digitalitis.  Computers, digital devises, obey rules.  They do what they are supposed to do.  Cause leads to effect.  After years of handling devices that act like this, we kind of expect other things to act this way too.  Have you ever tried to argue with a computer, to assume it is the computer's fault not yours?  The dang things are obnoxiously always right.  It becomes a way of looking at the world.  Part of one’s worldview, so to speak.

So, I kind of look that way at the law.  There is a theory there, and it ought to be followed.  You ignore it for temporary expediency and you pay the price.

If you think this is a pseudo religion, obviously you don’t have digitalitis.  You can see the law as something you can bend to your whim, and you can hope some crisis will never come when you will need it.  A crisis, after all, is only a once in a lifetime thing.  Getting rid of law and free wheeling it could never be a problem?

No, I'm unconcerned about consistency. It's a good thing overall.  I am concerned about arcane rules of engagement, for lack of a better term.  Digging around in dusty archives trying to ascertain the intent of this or that historical person as a guide to parsing language written decades or even hundreds of years ago makes no sense.  We don't live in that distant past.  We live today.  More to the point, the impact of laws, especially their unintended consequences, weighs more heavily with me than the original intent from ages past.

So I might be a bit more stochastic than determinant.

[pbrower2a]

(10-02-2020, 02:39 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: The Bill of Rights contains some pretty basic values.  Rights should not be added or subtracted from the bench.  The Founding Fathers had a mechanism for change, and it has been ignored.  Presidents have deliberately chosen Supreme Court justices who will follow political agendas rather than interpret the text or the intent of the authors.  The result is a very broken legal system.

The system breaks most severely when the political leaders have the attitude that sticking it to the other side is a good idea. That is a zero-sum game in which the harm to the loser is as severe as the benefit to the winner. Good reason existed for the filibuster, but the extreme partisanship so characteristic of our time ensures gridlock.  Should one side establish ideological tests for making judicial decisions and use the Supreme Court for deciding that government rightly represents economic power instead of the People (the apparent ethos behind neoliberalism) and giving undue edges to one Party in gerrymandering and in deciding elections, then we can get two decades of very bad decisions.  

Quote:Scalia and Ginsburg were apparently friends, even if pursuing different legal agendas.  Scalia would look at the original intent and meaning of the text.  Ginsburg would pursue every excuse to believe the Founding Fathers were not prejudiced against women having political power.  At least both trends were legal rather than political.  We have had too many decisions where the Court will vote according to the political agenda of the president that appointed the justice.  The president and senate are motivated to encourage selecting Supreme Court justices who will legislate from the bench.  Depending on the president, this may mean rights are invented which would have been considered foul at the time the Constitution was invented, which includes both the liberal rights for the people and the conservative rights for the corporation.

Sometimes the Justices become troublesome to the Party whose President appointed them. It might be a way to put a highly-qualified rival out of contention for the Presidency.  Think of Earl Warren. 

Although flagrant violations of the Constitution must be rejected, the Constitution is a living document  just to recognize the validity of Amendments following the Bill of Rights. I remember hearing someone describe himself as a "Tenth-Amendment citizen". I would guess that that means "white", because such ignores at the least the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.  

Quote:I will renounce both.  People who cheer their faction's contempt for the Constitution are reprehensible.

Constitutional restraints are often all that keeps the majority from dispossessing, enslaving, and murdering the minority. I think of what has happened in other countries... like the Nuremberg Laws that made pariahs out of you-know-who.  

Quote:This does not mean we shouldn't have a pretty busy 'never again' period coming up.

We need to undo the travesty that is Donald Trump. We need to undo the nexus between politics and corporate power. We need to close the seams within our Constitution (Karl Rove found those and drove an eighteen-wheeler through them on behalf of Dubya).

[David Horn]

(10-03-2020, 12:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Although flagrant violations of the Constitution must be rejected, the Constitution is a living document  just to recognize the validity of Amendments following the Bill of Rights. I remember hearing someone describe himself as a "Tenth-Amendment citizen". I would guess that that means "white", because such ignores at the least the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments.  

I think that's really a dog whistle, not to racists per se, but to people who reject the idea of government power at the Federal level. Of course this harkens back to the nullifiers -- certainly racists to the core, but it applies equally to the Live Free or Die crowd who believe they don't need any support from others, and reject giving it as well: think ClassicX.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-02-2020, 11:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: No, I'm unconcerned about consistency. It's a good thing overall.  I am concerned about arcane rules of engagement, for lack of a better term.  Digging around in dusty archives trying to ascertain the intent of this or that historical person as a guide to parsing language written decades or even hundreds of years ago makes no sense.  We don't live in that distant past.  We live today.  More to the point, the impact of laws, especially their unintended consequences, weighs more heavily with me than the original intent from ages past.

So I might be a bit more stochastic than determinant.

Following the law does make sense.  Putting your values ahead of the Constitution does not.  A ‘living constitution’ is an excuse for putting the values of part of the country ahead of the social contract that is keeping the country together.

The temptation is to embrace law that disregards the values of the nation as a whole.  The founding fathers believed in a right to self defense.  They could not conceive of weapons that should not be in the hands of all citizens.  The wrote the law accordingly.  A good fraction of the population still holds these values, enough that the lawful means of changing the laws to reflect modern values has not yet been met.

Some can still read the intent of the authors.  Some can still see the wisdom of it.  Now, there is a lot of experience that might change it, a lot of room to compromise.  Yet, it seems folks on both sides would rather legislate from the bench than work out a compromise.  You don’t need 100 guns to defend yourself, to deter tyranny from the government, to discourage lawlessness.  You do not need a full auto fire weapon with overkill power and an immense magazine.  You do not need to have a nuke in you car trunk with a remote control to set it off.  It is possible to come up with reasonable restrictions on military arms but still leave people a right to defend themselves, to own and carry civilian weapons.

But reasonable compromise is impossible as long as folks from both sides believe they can legislate from the bench.  They believe their side can achieve an illegal total victory if they shred the law.  As a result, we have this mess.

And you are part of the problem.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-03-2020, 12:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Constitutional restraints are often all that keeps the majority from dispossessing, enslaving, and murdering the minority. I think of what has happened in other countries... like the Nuremberg Laws that made pariahs out of you-know-who.  

Are you in favor or opposed to the Democratic Party significantly altering and packing the supreme court, eliminating the filibuster and the electoral college? Also, are you willing to accept the consequences of them doing so and whatever additional burdens may be inflicted/imposed on you personally as a result of giving them the right to do so these days?

[pbrower2a]

(10-03-2020, 02:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-03-2020, 12:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Constitutional restraints are often all that keeps the majority from dispossessing, enslaving, and murdering the minority. I think of what has happened in other countries... like the Nuremberg Laws that made pariahs out of you-know-who.  

Are you in favor or opposed to the Democratic Party significantly altering and packing the supreme court, eliminating the filibuster and the electoral college? Also, are you willing to accept the consequences of them doing so and whatever additional burdens may be inflicted/imposed on you personally as a result of giving them the right to do so these days?

If President Trump pushes a grossly-incompetent, corrupt, or extremist Justice upon us because he can , then packing the Supreme Court may be a necessity. Eleven justices would still give the GOP a 6-5 edge.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-03-2020, 04:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-03-2020, 02:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-03-2020, 12:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Constitutional restraints are often all that keeps the majority from dispossessing, enslaving, and murdering the minority. I think of what has happened in other countries... like the Nuremberg Laws that made pariahs out of you-know-who.  

Are you in favor or opposed to the Democratic Party significantly altering and packing the supreme court, eliminating the filibuster and the electoral college? Also, are you willing to accept the consequences of them doing so and whatever additional burdens may be inflicted/imposed on you personally as a result of giving them the right to do so these days?

If President Trump pushes a grossly-incompetent, corrupt, or extremist Justice upon us because he can , then packing the Supreme Court may be a necessity. Eleven justices would still give the GOP a 6-5 edge.

The Republicans essentially turned advise and consent into a form of veto.  I would expect the Democrats to reply without restraint.  The militias so far have not gone violent as long as the rules are being played by, though it is not clear that the Republicans are playing by the rules.

Getting rid of the filibuster is something the majority has a chance to do at the start of each session.  Going back to majority rule as originally intended should not be considered a radical thing.  For years, the Republicans have had the minority blocking the majority.  I am not sure this will work when the crisis comes around.

You threaten consequences too much.  I am starting to associate speaking loudly and doing nothing as part of the way of your Americans.

[pbrower2a]

(10-04-2020, 12:05 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-03-2020, 04:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-03-2020, 02:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-03-2020, 12:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Constitutional restraints are often all that keeps the majority from dispossessing, enslaving, and murdering the minority. I think of what has happened in other countries... like the Nuremberg Laws that made pariahs out of you-know-who.  

Are you in favor or opposed to the Democratic Party significantly altering and packing the supreme court, eliminating the filibuster and the electoral college? Also, are you willing to accept the consequences of them doing so and whatever additional burdens may be inflicted/imposed on you personally as a result of giving them the right to do so these days?

If President Trump pushes a grossly-incompetent, corrupt, or extremist Justice upon us because he can , then packing the Supreme Court may be a necessity. Eleven justices would still give the GOP a 6-5 edge.

The Republicans essentially turned advise and consent into a form of veto.  I would expect the Democrats to reply without restraint.  The militias so far have not gone violent as long as the rules are being played by, though it is not clear that the Republicans are playing by the rules.

Getting rid of the filibuster is something the majority has a chance to do at the start of each session.  Going back to majority rule as originally intended should not be considered a radical thing.  For years, the Republicans have had the minority blocking the majority.  I am not sure this will work when the crisis comes around.

You threaten consequences too much.  I am starting to associate speaking loudly and doing nothing as part of the way of your Americans.

The Senate originally was intended to judge legislation and foreign policy. The Senate is called the Upper House for good reason. Simply blocking legislation at the behest of special interests is incompatible with that purpose. This is behavior and not authority. The Senate is smaller than the House for good reason. The filibuster was a check on radical reforms that go to far, and on corrupt and foolish decisions of foreign policy. Of course the filibuster also worked to thwart civil-rights legislation. 

The most radical solution is a wiser electorate that better understands what good political practice is. T hat will take some radical reforms of our educational system. But that will take at least ten years to accomplish unless people simply learn from the disaster that is Donald Trump.

[Classic-Xer]

(10-03-2020, 04:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-03-2020, 02:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-03-2020, 12:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Constitutional restraints are often all that keeps the majority from dispossessing, enslaving, and murdering the minority. I think of what has happened in other countries... like the Nuremberg Laws that made pariahs out of you-know-who.  

Are you in favor or opposed to the Democratic Party significantly altering and packing the supreme court, eliminating the filibuster and the electoral college? Also, are you willing to accept the consequences of them doing so and whatever additional burdens may be inflicted/imposed on you personally as a result of giving them the right to do so these days?

If President Trump pushes a grossly-incompetent, corrupt, or extremist Justice upon us because he can , then packing the Supreme Court may be a necessity. Eleven justices would still give the GOP a 6-5 edge.

So, what's going to happen to you when the Democrats try to push their agenda down our throats? Are you going to be able to afford a loaf of bread? Are you going to be able to voice your opinion without fear of being persecuted or killed? Like I said, we are still being relatively nice and still content with leaving nature to determine the coarse. You don't seem to realize that you have chosen to be on the wrong side of history which is fine with me. Your senators are supposed to be wiser than they seem these days.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-04-2020, 11:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: So, what's going to happen to you when the Democrats try to push their agenda down our throats? Are you going to be able to afford a loaf of bread? Are you going to be able to voice your opinion without fear of being persecuted or killed? Like I said, we are still being relatively nice and still content with leaving nature to determine the coarse. You don't seem to realize that you have chosen to be on the wrong side of history which is fine with me. Your senators are supposed to be wiser than they seem these days.

The rural, racist, cavalier culture has generally been on the wrong side of history. Not that they have not contributed much, but the tribal bit has constantly been confronted and beat down some each time it rises. I expect some major changes to violent racist policing once the Republicans are less in the way, and more fracturing of class ceilings and an attack on the division of wealth. I don't expect this will be the last confrontation we have with privilege and prejudice. The cycles will continue, but I am hoping for a few good turnings.

I do agree that the militias and people of the middle have generally remained non violent save for a few like the Proud Boys. I strongly suspect not only that they will accept the change but that many are helping to drive it. COVID and racial violent policing are issues that have to be addressed. Those addicted to Trump don't want to see it. Selfishness remains strong against the need to unite for the sake of America as a whole, to confront the crisis problems. Trump catching the bug seems only to be making it clearer.

[David Horn]

(10-03-2020, 12:22 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-02-2020, 11:11 PM)David Horn Wrote: No, I'm unconcerned about consistency. It's a good thing overall.  I am concerned about arcane rules of engagement, for lack of a better term.  Digging around in dusty archives trying to ascertain the intent of this or that historical person as a guide to parsing language written decades or even hundreds of years ago makes no sense.  We don't live in that distant past.  We live today.  More to the point, the impact of laws, especially their unintended consequences, weighs more heavily with me than the original intent from ages past.

So I might be a bit more stochastic than determinant.

Following the law does make sense.  Putting your values ahead of the Constitution does not.  A ‘living constitution’ is an excuse for putting the values of part of the country ahead of the social contract that is keeping the country together.

The temptation is to embrace law that disregards the values of the nation as a whole.  The founding fathers believed in a right to self defense.  They could not conceive of weapons that should not be in the hands of all citizens.  The wrote the law accordingly.  A good fraction of the population still holds these values, enough that the lawful means of changing the laws to reflect modern values has not yet been met.

Some can still read the intent of the authors.  Some can still see the wisdom of it.  Now, there is a lot of experience that might change it, a lot of room to compromise.  Yet, it seems folks on both sides would rather legislate from the bench than work out a compromise.  You don’t need 100 guns to defend yourself, to deter tyranny from the government, to discourage lawlessness.  You do not need a full auto fire weapon with overkill power and an immense magazine.  You do not need to have a nuke in you car trunk with a remote control to set it off.  It is possible to come up with reasonable restrictions on military arms but still leave people a right to defend themselves, to own and carry civilian weapons.

But reasonable compromise is impossible as long as folks from both sides believe they can legislate from the bench.  They believe their side can achieve an illegal total victory if they shred the law.  As a result, we have this mess.

And you are part of the problem.

A lot of words here, but only one central idea: be true to your school.  I'm going to demur.  There is little if any reason to be faithful to an idea intended to hogtie average folks to preserve the American caste system.  Look at the reality, not the words:

1. the Constitution is purposely designed to be sclerotic.  How many real amendments have there been to the original document?  The first ten count as one.  The 11th and 12th merely settled arguments on terms acceptable to all. The next three were the ACW amendment, none of which had a chance in the USA that included the slave-South. 16 made funding the government possible again.  17 and 19 are consequential and unbound to any crisis -- unique, in my opinion.  18 and 21 are a joke made and a joke repealed -- hardly consequential on any level.  20 is mere process change.  22 is punishment for FDR, and the others since then are more process change.  Not much of great note for the ensuing 231 years of the Constitutional Republic. 
   
2. Rural areas are favored, and especially now.  in just a two or three decades, 70% of the Senate will be elected by 30% of the people.  That's not "preventing a tyranny of the majority", it's actively guaranteeing a tyranny of the minority.  More important, there is no way to change this.  Once power devolves to a group otherwise powerless, they are not going to give it up willingly.
   
3. Our choice of a legislature and President system, rather than a Parliament, made it more likely than not that power will be split and even more sclerosis will ensue.  The courts are then the only option to do anything, and not much of one at that.  
   

No, I'm not in favor of rule by a small cluster of unelected jurists, but show me an alternative at this juncture.

[Eric the Green]

It's true, the amendment process offers little hope for needed changes. The 13-15th could happen because the opposition was being reconstructed. Since we don't live in a world of horses, buggies, muskets, and pitchforks, and since iphones and tablets have replaced letter writing, and partial democracy has come into being instead of the aristocratic and slave-holding society run by a few male property owners that we were. "Original intent and strict construction" have little meaning except as excuses for the Court to block the needed changes passed and legislated by the people. That's what it looks like we will have now under these right-wing justices. Sclerotic is too polite a term for these despicable neer-do-wells.

The right balance is indeed needed. The Constitution says that the justices determine what the law means. It has to be modified to apply to today's world, and it has to be in the original spirit of the seeds that were planted in the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble. Rights for corporations is not in that spirit. Only rights for people, which make up the corporations and every other aspect of our society. The constitution provides a template from which the law can be shaped by those chosen to provide it. The Constitution is no guarantee of liberty and justice. Only the people willing to create and preserve it can bring them into being every generation.

Science, religion and law alike are not absolutes, and do not guarantee truth and knowledge. They are only useful parameters. The Constitution is a valuable reference point But there are no real rational numbers, and no scientific certainty. No one Bible has all the answers. The laws need adjusting to make them more fair, or they can be abused to serve today's version of aristocracy. We can only approximate and improvise the law as we go along, making improvements along the way, and relying on the deeper sources of truth within us and within reality itself. It would be nice if there were absolute laws, methods and standards that could be articulated and written down, but the real Absolute cannot be written or spoken, but only lived and experienced. We can only bring it into the world as best we can, and adapt our changing world to that greater reality. All words are generalities, and all rules are rules of thumb. Principles, laws, codes, methods, bibles, dictionaries are there to help us, but there are no fundamentalist dogmas that we can rely on forever.

Is there no steady anchor in this stormy sea of life? Yes there is, but to cling to it and clutch it only guarantees that you sink.

[Eric the Green]

(10-04-2020, 11:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-03-2020, 04:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-03-2020, 02:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-03-2020, 12:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Constitutional restraints are often all that keeps the majority from dispossessing, enslaving, and murdering the minority. I think of what has happened in other countries... like the Nuremberg Laws that made pariahs out of you-know-who.  

Are you in favor or opposed to the Democratic Party significantly altering and packing the supreme court, eliminating the filibuster and the electoral college? Also, are you willing to accept the consequences of them doing so and whatever additional burdens may be inflicted/imposed on you personally as a result of giving them the right to do so these days?

If President Trump pushes a grossly-incompetent, corrupt, or extremist Justice upon us because he can , then packing the Supreme Court may be a necessity. Eleven justices would still give the GOP a 6-5 edge.

So, what's going to happen to you when the Democrats try to push their agenda down our throats? Are you going to be able to afford a loaf of bread? Are you going to be able to voice your opinion without fear of being persecuted or killed? Like I said, we are still being relatively nice and still content with leaving nature to determine the coarse. You don't seem to realize that you have chosen to be on the wrong side of history which is fine with me. Your senators are supposed to be wiser than they seem these days.

Did you look in the mirror when writing these words? Believers and synchophants are blind to the emperor having no clothes. Some people love a dictator and cannot see him for what he is. Such is the case with you and all other Trump followers, as The Donald carries out his plan to "get rid of the ballots," shut down debates, stuff our Courts with justices that deny our rights, shove aside the press as the enemy of the people, refuse to follow the law if it doesn't suit him, threaten to use violence and send goons to arrest and gas peaceful protesters, use government for his own private enrichment, and other projects worthy only of tyrants and their deceived, sheepish believers.

[pbrower2a]

(10-04-2020, 11:12 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-03-2020, 04:52 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(10-03-2020, 02:26 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(10-03-2020, 12:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: Constitutional restraints are often all that keeps the majority from dispossessing, enslaving, and murdering the minority. I think of what has happened in other countries... like the Nuremberg Laws that made pariahs out of you-know-who.  

Are you in favor or opposed to the Democratic Party significantly altering and packing the supreme court, eliminating the filibuster and the electoral college? Also, are you willing to accept the consequences of them doing so and whatever additional burdens may be inflicted/imposed on you personally as a result of giving them the right to do so these days?

If President Trump pushes a grossly-incompetent, corrupt, or extremist Justice upon us because he can , then packing the Supreme Court may be a necessity. Eleven justices would still give the GOP a 6-5 edge.

So, what's going to happen to you when the Democrats try to push their agenda down our throats?

Throats like yours are not the only throats. If Democrats get huge, honest majorities then they can push change that many people dislike. But note well: I trust the resilience of people like you. Business owners can adjust. Just look at the opposition by Big Business to welfare. Food stamps turned potential shoplifters into customers. I would guess that Wal*Mart, hardly a model of corporate liberalism, can get people on food aid to buy profitable chips, sodas, candy, and deli items. Medical practitioners who once railed against 'socialized medicine' found themselves with plenty of Medicare customers because people on Medicare don't have to choose between food and medical treatment.

Quote:Are you going to be able to afford a loaf of bread?

Foodstuffs remain cheap in real terms. More people have trouble with rent, which reflects that landlords in some areas are able to compel tenants to participate in a bidding war to live in places with vibrant economies. Where rents are cheap, so is the cost of living -- but the opportunities are typically fewer, and in general life is awful. 

The World According to Briggs has some tongue-in-cheek  videos about bad cities in which to live. This involves the ten worst cities in Pennsylvania from 2016, but you get the general pattern. Unemployment is high, average income for a family is low, crime is high, drugs are readily available, and schools are crappy. These are not places that you even want to visit. (I have been in Pennsylvania, but I have never been in any of these places and I have no desire to ever be in them). Some of them used to be good places in which to live when having a steady job in manufacturing  with a solid job was possible for someone with a high-school diploma. That is over. You don't want to live in any of these places; there is no reason to visit them unless to see family; looking for a job in such places is futile; there's not much to do in most of them (although Chester is within range of the cultural attractions of Philadelphia, it is one of the most polluted cities in America); you certainly don't want to raise a family in these places. Inflicting such places upon a child would be child abuse.



 

Briggs has other similar videos.

Quote:Are you going to be able to voice your opinion without fear of being persecuted or killed?

You have more cause to fear the mirror-image Marxism of a second term of Donald Trump or Mike Pence than you have to fear of a Party that at its most liberal extreme stands for a high-tax, high-service social-market economy that has a vibrant private sector. Donald Trump favors a more purely plutocratic vision than Mike Pence, who offers more of a pie-in-the-sky approach to life; their difference is that Trump offers amoral glitter that elites enjoy in opulent excess and Pence offers salvation in return for economic hardship on behalf of economic elites. What Trump and Pence offer are raw deals unless you accept Pascal's wager that offers misery in This World for delight in the Next. Trump promises nothing but economic gain to the Right People. 

You are a businessman. If people in your area prosper more, then you will be able to sell and service more air conditioners in a place (southern Minnesota) where such are now for middle-class and high-prole (skilled labor)  households. 

Do you see many privileged people accepting Pascal's wager, enduring miserable lives in subordination of all happiness on behalf of the elites that they leave? The elites obviously did nothing to create the alleged delights in the Afterlife instead of the sybaritic excess of America's economic elites. The people who offer such a wager are more likely to offer it on the basis of 'take-it-or-get-nothing', and only rarely (medical missionaries and Catholic priests are possible exceptions) themselves. 

As a general rule, the rawer the deal that the System has for the common man (in view of the resources), the nastier is the political system. The worst political orders compel people to accept the dreadful as the sole alternative to the horrific and be show enthusiastic praise for what tiny blessings they get in an exploitative and repressive order, as in North Korea.         

Quote:Like I said, we are still being relatively nice and still content with leaving nature to determine the course. You don't seem to realize that you have chosen to be on the wrong side of history which is fine with me. Your senators are supposed to be wiser than they seem these days.

You and people like you do not have the right to treat others badly for disagreeing with you. (Neither do we, aside from our hypocrites who simply want to replace one elite with themselves). We the People have the right to thwart your designs before you come close to organizing shooting pits and concentration camps or compelling forced labor. The people who applaud Donald Trump much like people under dictatorial and despotic orders laud their "Great and Infallible Leaders" have the intellectual shallowness, the spinelessness, the emptiness of spirit, and moral blindness to support a Mao, a Castro, a Qaddafi, a Milosevic, or a Saddam Hussein who needs ebullient crowds to demonstrate their undying faith in their Leader. Donald Trump has exposed that America has such people. That should scare you. Start to show doubt, and you may have a knock on your door at 2 AM by some official who takes you away from your dreary flat to a jail, after which you face a show trial and get hauled off... well, just read Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago.* Whether the system is the Castro's Cuba or Pinochet's Chile it is much the same. Someone will denounce you just to get your job, maybe a little cash or a vacation, or get to rent your apartment that is slightly better than that of your slanderer. I don't trust people like you with my civil liberties, such little prosperity as I have, and whatever dreams may still be mine.

I prefer a system that expects people to be nice to each other and that tells those who envy others to  work harder or longer, think beyond instant gratification, improve their skills, start a business instead of being a glorified clerk, defer more to customers, and give up costly but pointless indulgences to save and invest more.

*Stalinists and Maoists are in practice as cruel, repressive, and exploitative of the masses as are fascists.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-05-2020, 11:38 AM)David Horn Wrote: No, I'm not in favor of rule by a small cluster of unelected jurists, but show me an alternative at this juncture.

Start with a set of reasonable compromises. Assume the other guy takes his values as seriously as you take yours. Give what the other guy really wants to have, stick to your basic position, and hope there is some intercept.

To start, assume an individual right to own and carry civilian weapons. Define civilian weapons in terms of power, size of weapon and one shot per trigger pull. If you feel it necessary, include the felon and insane exceptions.

But above all quit the idea that you are above the law, that your own values trump everybody else's.