Home « Forum « Story Discussion and Feedback

Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

Don't Read if You Are Anti-1st Amendment by Crunchy

Vlad_Inhaler
Updated:

According to Wikipedia, the 1st Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Replies:   zellus
zellus

@Vlad_Inhaler

???????

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@zellus

???????


The story by Crunchy titled "Don't Read if You Are Anti-1st Amendment" is a rant about gun rights. In other words, it's about the 2nd amendment, not the 1st.

robberhands

@Dominions Son

In other words, it's about the 2nd amendment, not the 1st.

I guess he mentioned the first amendment to connect the freedom of speech with his lament.

Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

has someone who read it told him he can't count.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Vlad_Inhaler

@Dominions Son

I got the impression he would have failed a sobriety test when he wrote that rant.
It invoked Nazis (or fascists, I can't remember) and otherwise defenceless women, he just forgot to mention innocent children. Then again, "think about the children" would have been counterproductive at the moment.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Jim S
Dominions Son

@Vlad_Inhaler

I got the impression he would have failed a sobriety test when he wrote that rant.


I honestly can't disagree with that assessment.

Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

has someone who read it told him he can't count.


He explicitly mentions the 2nd amendment as such in the text of the non-story, so innumeracy isn't the issue.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Dominions Son


He explicitly mentions the 2nd amendment as such in the text of the non-story, so innumeracy isn't the issue.


Seems he was probably making a common, and highly common mistake regarding the first amendment. Congress shall make no law so far as proscriptions go, even with subsequent amendments(and court rulings) changing the reading to essentially be "No governing organization, be they federal, state or local shall..." does nothing to restrict the power of private parties to place constraints on activities in venues controlled by those private parties. (Although there are other legal precedents that do that now as well, it just isn't the 1st Amendment doing so)

This also ignores SOL not being in the United States. So the 1st Amendment in not applicable.

The 1st Amendment does not, and never did, provide an unrestricted right to speak your mind in any venue of your choosing.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl

@Not_a_ID

Congress shall make no law so far as proscriptions go, even with subsequent amendments(and court rulings) changing the reading to essentially be "No governing organization, be they federal, state or local shall..." does nothing to restrict the power of private parties to place constraints on activities in venues controlled by those private parties.


The whole point behind the Bill of Rights is pretty simple, and something that is easy to miss. It's not designed to be the written codicil of laws that gives We the People rights - it's entirely the opposite of that. We the People are assumed to have the right to do anything and everything. But in a civilized society, there have to be restrictions upon both individuals and groups. Thus, the Bill of Rights (which is what the first Ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution are called, for those who don't live here or haven't studied them) is actually a restriction upon the Federal Government, prohibiting them from taking these rights away from the citizens of the U.S..

It may seem to be a fine point, but that distinction is what sets all of them apart. Thus, the First Amendment, freedom of speech, freedom OF religion (not freedom FROM religion), and freedom to assemble for the purpose of seeking peaceful redress to wrongs. Then the Second Amendment, to make sure that the public has the means to make sure the First Amendment is honored. After all, an armed populace is something every tyrant fears. The Third is to prevent the government from doing what they did at the writing, simply placing armed soldiers in the homes of those who argue against the government as a means of suppressing that argument.

The Fourth means that the government CANNOT, without due process of law, simply search your or your property. The Fifth is what prohibits the government from trying you twice (or more) for the same offense. Note that due to the wording of the Fifth, the death penalty IS acceptable to the Federal government. If there has been due process of law, then they CAN deprive you of life.

Sixth means the government has to give you a speedy trial if imprisoned, Seventh means you have the right to a trial by jury, Eighth means no cruel or unusual punishments, the Ninth means that if a right isn't mentioned in the Constitution, that it still is against the law for the government to violate that right, and the Tenth is the one that gives the States and the People the ultimate power.

I suspect where he's coming from is someplace simple. Those of us who raised our hands and swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, have never been relieved of our oaths.

Replies:   PotomacBob  PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@StarFleet Carl

freedom OF religion (not freedom FROM religion


There is some dispute about that assertion. Not all constitutional experts agree.

Replies:   Jim S  Crumbly Writer
PotomacBob

@StarFleet Carl

Then the Second Amendment, to make sure that the public has the means to make sure the First Amendment is honored.

The U.S. Supreme Court has extended no such broad reasoning to the individual right to own firearms. It approved the right to bear arms for purposes of "self-defense." We have no recognized constitutional right to use a weapon to enforce the right to free speech, religion, or of the press. The opinion, written by Justice Scalia, said the government could restrict the use of "weapons of war," without defining what that meant.

Replies:   Capt. Zapp  Jim S
Capt. Zapp

@PotomacBob

It approved the right to bear arms for purposes of "self-defense."


The main thing we need to defend ourselves from is a tyrannical government.

The opinion, written by Justice Scalia, said the government could restrict the use of "weapons of war," without defining what that meant.


The oldest 'weapon of war' is a rock, so by his "opinion", a 'weapon of war' could be anything.

Replies:   Switch Blayde  Zom
Switch Blayde

@Capt. Zapp

The main thing we need to defend ourselves from is a tyrannical government.


Which is what the Second Amendment is all about. It gives people the right to bear arms to form state militias to protect those states from an abusive federal government. What's always quoted is simply "the right to bear arms" but the full wording is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Replies:   Capt. Zapp  PotomacBob
Jim S

@PotomacBob

There is some dispute about that assertion. Not all constitutional experts agree.


Then I would suggest that said "experts" read the plain and specific words of the Amendment and forget about penumbras and emanations and all other such equivocations in their attempt to twist the intent into something they want to do.

Capt. Zapp

@Switch Blayde

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,...

I don't see anything there about the arms having to be used for hunting or sport shooting.

This is the part that the tyrants don't like and keep trying to get around.

... shall not be infringed.

Jim S
Updated:

@PotomacBob


The U.S. Supreme Court has extended no such broad reasoning to the individual right to own firearms. It approved the right to bear arms for purposes of "self-defense."


SCOTUS approves? Well, thank you SCOTUS for giving us these rights. /sarc

I'm making a basic point here that seems to fly over a lot of people's heads. All 3 branches -- Legislative, Executive and Judicial -- are subordinate to the Constitution. Given some of their actions, especially in the past 60 years or so, the Judicial branch as apparently forgotten that.

Government doesn't give any rights as if they did then they could take them away. These rights are natural. The Bill of Rights just reiterates that the government can't infringe on them. And note how all of them are personal, i.e. individual, rights. Not group rights.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Capt. Zapp


This is the part that the tyrants don't like and keep trying to get around.

... shall not be infringed.




Actually, the part that the gun control advocates who keep denying that 2A provides an individual right have a problem with is

...the right of the people...

StarFleet Carl

@Jim S

Then I would suggest that said "experts" read the plain and specific words of the Amendment and forget about penumbras and emanations and all other such equivocations in their attempt to twist the intent into something they want to do.


Exactly. And it's also the reason we're the United States of America, not the United State of America. That one letter makes the difference and is the reason behind the Tenth Amendment - other than the common defense and in their dealings with other states (trade across state lines, for example), the states were to be sovereign entities within their own borders.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@StarFleet Carl

That one letter makes the difference and is the reason behind the Tenth Amendment - other than the common defense and in their dealings with other states (trade across state lines, for example), the states were to be sovereign entities within their own borders.


True. My reading of the US Constitution and its first few Amendments is they were meant to establish some areas where the federal government had authority over the state governments, and everything else then became the right of the state government to manage and control as they wish. However, in the years since the US Constitution was written (especially in the 1870 to 1900 and the 1950 to now) a number of politicians at the federal and state levels have worked very hard to change those basic rules.

It may help you to know that the federalists in Australia who worked on the Australian Constitution looked very closely at the US Constitution and what caused the US Civil War and what followed it before they put pen to paper to attempt to write an improved version of the US Constitution. In some ways they did improve on it, and in some ways they failed to make the grade. However, the section of the Australian Constitution was extremely clear on setting out exactly what the Australian Commonwealth government could have control of and then left everything else up to the state governments. That was the intent of the US Constitution, but it wasn't set out as clearly.

Replies:   PotomacBob
Jim S
Updated:

@Vlad_Inhaler


Then again, "think about the children" would have been counterproductive at the moment.


Would it? Those 17 teenagers at Parkland relied on the "Cowards of Broward" to protect them but those Sheriff Deputies decided to stand down, hiding outside while a maniac used them for target practice. While in the Army, I was taught that it was my duty to go to the gunfire, not away from it. It was a duty that went with the job. But I guess that must not be in the Broward County Sheriff Deputies union contract.

ETA: One teacher/administrator with a Glock 21 and the knowledge, ability and will to use it would have made a huge difference. As it has in every other school shooting where there were defensive weapons present. There have been several. Dig and you can find them.

Dominions Son

@Jim S

While in the Army, I was taught that it was my duty to go to the gunfire, not away from it. It was a duty that went with the job. But I guess that must not be in the Broward County Sheriff Deputies union contract.


According to the FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) the first duty of a police officer, above all others, is to make it home alive at the end of their shift.

Of course, the FOP also thinks that a police office only has a 50/50 chance of getting out of any one traffic stop alive.

Ernest Bywater

@Jim S

But I guess that must not be in the Broward County Sheriff Deputies union contract.


I think they listened to too many anti-gun debate claims. I like how almost nothing is said about the gunman being nuttier than a grove of walnut trees at harvest time. I've yet to find a gun that jumps up and shoots people without some person first having to do something to make it do that. Even a computer controlled gun system requires a person to set it up, load it, and turn it on.

Replies:   PotomacBob
docholladay

They forget that its not the gun that is the problem. Hell almost anything can and probably has been turned into a weapon at some time and some where. Its the person that is deadly first. There is no way to outlaw all potential weapons since the first and most basic weapon is the mind.

Replies:   Jim S  Crumbly Writer
PotomacBob

@Switch Blayde

It gives people the right to bear arms to form state militias to protect those states from an abusive federal government

The U.S. Supreme Court has never once interpreted the second amendment to mean that the right to bear arms is there "to protect those states from an abusive federal government."
It has ruled that the right to bear arms is an individual right, and that the right is there for individuals for self-defense. The ruling said that the government cannot (as the city of Washington DC had done) ban all weapons - but it can regulate it.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
Jim S

@docholladay

Hell almost anything can and probably has been turned into a weapon at some time and some where.

I'm mindful of a quote attributed to Albert Einstein. When asked what weapons would be used in the next war, Einstein is supposed to have said that he wasn't sure, but that the 4th World War would be fought with stones. Probably like the tribal wars were fought 40,000-50,000 years ago.

PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

then left everything else up to the state governments. That was the intent of the US Constitution,


I beg to differ. Many of the rights established in the Bill of Rights are rights of individuals and not leaving "everything else up to the state governments." The right of free speech, for example, is not a right of state governments, but of individuals. The right of a free press covers anybody who owns one, not just state governments. The right to assemble peacably is not for state governments, but for individuals. The right to bear arms (2nd amendment), the Supreme Court ruled, is an individual right, but subject to regulation.

Geek of Ages

@Jim S

Government doesn't give any right


How do you classify the right to a trial by jury, then?

Replies:   Jim S  Crumbly Writer
Geek of Ages

@Jim S

the plain and specific words


How does this square with the plain and obvious fact that words change meaning over time?

Replies:   Jim S
PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

almost nothing is said about the gunman being nuttier than a grove of walnut trees at harvest time.


Not true. Plenty is said about nut jobs. In every instance of mass gun violence of which I'm aware, one side of the argument always blames guns, the other side always blames the mental health of the shooter. It is not that "nothing is said," it's just that other voices with a different perspective were also heard. The most extreme on one side want to ban all guns. The most extreme on the other side resists any regulation at all.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Jim S

@Geek of Ages

How does this square with the plain and obvious fact that words change meaning over time?


Irrelevant. You go with original intent.

Replies:   PotomacBob  Geek of Ages
PotomacBob

@Jim S

Irrelevant. You go with original intent.


"Original intent" is one theory of how the Constitution may be interpreted. Others believe the meaning changes as times and the meaning of words and conditions change.
Some of those who have written about their own support of the "original intent" theory say they figure out what the "original intent" was by referring ONLY to the words written in the Constitution itself. Yet even most of those theorists believe the U.S. Supreme Court is the arbiter of the meaning of what the Constitution says. If the language of the Constitution (or laws, for that matter) was perfectly clear to everybody, it wouldn't need to be interpreted. Yet Constitutional experts of all types in good faith simply disagree. That's true on the Supreme Court as well, where many of its most far-reaching decisions come down in 5-to-4 or 6-to-3 votes.

Replies:   Capt. Zapp  Jim S
Zom

@Capt. Zapp

The main thing we need to defend ourselves from is a tyrannical government.

I hate to rain on your parade, but if you bring guns to a drone/missile/tank/aircraft fight, you won't win.

Capt. Zapp

@PotomacBob

If the language of the Constitution (or laws, for that matter) was perfectly clear to everybody, it wouldn't need to be interpreted.


The language of the Constitution is perfectly clear - except to those who do not want it to apply to them.

robberhands

@Zom

... if you bring guns to a drone/missile/tank/aircraft fight, you won't win.

That would be grossly unfair. I think even a tyrant would hesitate to use such weapons against his own country's citizens. At least during his first term or he'd never get reelected.

Capt. Zapp

@Zom

I hate to rain on your parade, but if you bring guns to a drone/missile/tank/aircraft fight, you won't win.


If the nation is so far gone that the government would use such weapons and tactics against its own citizens, it is too late anyway. I would hope to die quickly.

Switch Blayde

@Capt. Zapp

I don't see anything there about the arms having to be used for hunting or sport shooting.


That's because the rifles used back then were necessary to live. To hunt for food, for example. Not having a rifle back then was like not having a phone today. it was assumed everyone had a rifle.

So the amendment doesn't address the right to have a rifle to hunt. It's all about the State's right to form a militia.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Jim S

@PotomacBob


"Original intent" is one theory of how the Constitution may be interpreted. Others believe the meaning changes as times and the meaning of words and conditions change.

Ever since 1803 and Marbury vs Madison, the SCOTUS has assumed the power of Constitutional interpretation. Now it seems to be assumed that it has sole power in that regard. Sorry, but I don't believe that was intended when Article III was drafted then approved. Penumbras, emanations and equivocations came about early, it seems, while the Judiciary sought to make itself more powerful at the expense of both of the other branches. I'll never forgive Jefferson for letting them get away with it. Jackson understood correctly the Judiciary's appropriate place when he said of one ruling words to the effect that "well, now that the Supreme Court has ruled, let the enforce it." And he didn't. Enforce the ruling, that is.

What are the three most important things to keep in mind when examining the Constitution. Original intent. Original intent. Original intent. Doing otherwise takes us out of the realm of rule of law and puts us squarely into the realm of rule of man. Which works fine until one branch finds they can saw pretty much say/do whatever they want regardless of what the law says and everyone is suppose to accept that as "Constitutional". That is the road to tyranny. Or fascism. Or communism. Or any other ..ism that results in rule of man. Those have always ended up despotic.

One other thing. The other two branches are Constitutional constructs also, like the Judiciary. So why can't they rule on what is Constitutional and what isn't? The Judiciary has no more power in that regard.

Which ties right into why the 2nd Amendment exists. Our (USA) Founders were prescient.

Replies:   Geek of Ages  Not_a_ID
Ernest Bywater

@PotomacBob

I beg to differ. Many of the rights established in the Bill of Rights are rights of individuals


Which is part of the Constitution, and thus not part of what the feds controlled and not part of what's left to the states.

Mind you, the US Supreme Court has been working hard to rewrite various aspects of the US Constitution for 150 years, and they manage to do some of it by nibbling at the edges.

Ernest Bywater

@PotomacBob

It is not that "nothing is said,


Well expand it to read 'nothing's said by the media at large.' After every shooting there's millions of dollars of media reportage of the anti-gun lobby rhetoric, but nothing you see in the media about the mental health issues of the shooter.

The main people who want to ban all guns are those who want a disarmed population so they can take over control of them.

Replies:   PotomacBob
Ernest Bywater

@Zom

I hate to rain on your parade, but if you bring guns to a drone/missile/tank/aircraft fight, you won't win.


Except the main aim of military force, in most cases, is not to totally eliminate everyone who opposes you, but to eliminate enough the rest will do what you tell them to. If Stalin had managed to kill off everyone in Russia he would have had no one to order about. That's why he only killed off a small percentage in a terrifying way to make the others do as he wants.

Switch Blayde

Interesting OpEd from a former Supreme Court Justice. He believes the Second Amendment should be repealed. Of course he leans to the Left.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

Replies:   Jim S  Dominions Son
Jim S

@Switch Blayde

Interesting OpEd from a former Supreme Court Justice. He believes the Second Amendment should be repealed. Of course he leans to the Left.

The Progressive Left has always known you can't have a malleable, docile populace if they're armed. Thats why their first move has always been to disarm the populace. As I said in a previous post in this thread, our (USA) Founders were very, very prescient.

Geek of Ages

@Jim S

You go with original intent


That contradicts the thing I was responding to.

How do you divine "original intent"? Does that mean we ignore the letter of the law in favor of the spirit of the law? How do we manage "intent" when it comes to inventions that postdate the Founders? How do you reconcile "intent" when the very people who ratified the document immediately turned around and began arguing over what it meant?

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S
Updated:

@Geek of Ages


How do you divine "original intent"? Does that mean we ignore the letter of the law in favor of the spirit of the law? How do we manage "intent" when it comes to inventions that postdate the Founders? How do you reconcile "intent" when the very people who ratified the document immediately turned around and began arguing over what it meant?


I think a good start would be to get the Federal government's nose out of every area not authorized in the Constitution. Honor the intent of the 10th Amendment. Then go from there.

Geek of Ages

@Jim S

The Judiciary has no more power in that regard


If a person is charged with breaking a law, they are brought to court. But if there is another law (particularly, at a higher level of authority, such as the Constitution) that contradicts the broken law (or even says that such kinds of laws can not be made), then why wouldn't it be the Judiciary's job to resolve the conflict?

A concrete example: let us say that Congress passes a law making it illegal to say the word "fiddlesticks". John Doe is accused of saying "fiddlesticks" and is arrested. The case eventually makes its way to the Supreme Court, who notes that the anti-fiddlesticks law contradicts the First Amendment. The court has to make a ruling; it can't wait for Congress to undo its legislation. What would you have the court do?

Because these cases go to the judiciary—the entire point of which is determining these cases—then of course it's the Judiciary that has this kind of power. Congress has the power to undo its own legislation (but then why did it pass it in the first place? Are you counting on Congress to be the check on its own power?), but that's not a ruling of Constitutionality. The Executive branch also could refuse to enforce the law, though that more often than not draws accusations of the executive overstepping their bounds, also, which they probably are.

I don't think the Founders had a good answer (the Constitution's a mess in this regard), and I've yet to hear anything better from people opposed to judicial review.

Geek of Ages

@Jim S

get the Federal government's nose out of every area not authorized in the Constitution


Awesome. Let's get rid of the Air Force and repeal the Flag Code.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Jim S

@Geek of Ages

How do you classify the right to a trial by jury, then?


Methinks I'd classify it as mandated by the 6th Amendment.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Geek of Ages

@Jim S

But it's explicitly a right granted and enforced by a government.

Replies:   Jim S  PotomacBob
Jim S

@Geek of Ages

But it's explicitly a right granted and enforced by a government.

I view it as affirming the right not to be judged by an overseer but rather by peers. As such, it reaffirms an individual right just as the others in the BofR.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Geek of Ages

@Jim S

That...doesn't actually respond to my point? (And neither did your original statement, for that matter)

PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

Well expand it to read 'nothing's said by the media at large.' After every shooting there's millions of dollars of media reportage of the anti-gun lobby rhetoric, but nothing you see in the media about the mental health issues of the shooter.

Maybe what you read has nothing said by the media. In what I read, both sides are well represented.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
PotomacBob

@Jim S

I think a good start would be to get the Federal government's nose out of every area not authorized in the Constitution. Honor the intent of the 10th Amendment. Then go from there.


Who, under your view of the Constitution, would interpret what the words mean when there is a dispute over what they mean?

Replies:   Jim S
PotomacBob

@Geek of Ages

@Jim S

But it's explicitly a right granted and enforced by a government.

It's a right reserved by "We the people" for ourselves in the Constitution and supposed to be enforced by the people we have chosen to govern us.
There are multitudes of laws on the books in the U.S., and the President, as head of the Executive Branch is required to faithfully make sure they are enforced. But there are so many laws, no President, with the resources available to the government, could possibly enforce them all. It is interesting to see which laws which presidents choose to enforce and which ones they choose to let drift.

Jim S
Updated:

@PotomacBob


Who, under your view of the Constitution, would interpret what the words mean when there is a dispute over what they mean?


Sure. Honorable men (and woman. Don't want to be labelled as sexist dontchaknow) can differ. But I don't think the distinction between original intent and living constitution is not readily apparent.

And, as I said in another post in this thread, all three entities defined in the Constitution have equal standing. And it can even be argued that the Judiciary has inferior standing, as its makeup and even its ability to rule in certain matters is determined by the Legislative branch. So, frankly, I don't have an answer other than to point back to the Constitution. And original intent.

ETA: I erred through partial truth. Judiciary's reach is restricted by both Legislative and Executive branches as the Executive branch must sign the legislation.

Replies:   PotomacBob  Geek of Ages
PotomacBob

@Jim S

If there is no judicial review of legislation, then every law that the Legislative Branch passes, becomes enforceable, even if it violates your right to speech, or your right to assemble or your right to own a gun. Unless our rights are enforceable, they have no effect. Was that the "original intent" of our founders.

JohnBobMead

There is no such thing as a "right" in regard to human interaction, if by that you mean something that exists whether or not it is specifically recognized in the governing documents of a society.

There are only priviledges granted by those in power.

Ultimately, all of these "rights" were granted to limit civil unrest to a level such that successful armed rebellion would not occur.

This includes many of those enshrined in our Constitution; they had just gone through a successful rebellion, and didn't want the government they established to become such that another successful rebellion came to pass for the same reasons. Thus, the phrase "to insure domestic tranquility" within the preamble to the Constitution. That is very likely the reason they included a process for amending the Constitution, to prevent things from getting grim enough that another successful rebellion occured.

There is a reason there are so few amendments to the Constitution; getting the populace at large sufficiently riled up about a topic that Congress, either already facing major civil unrest, or fearing same, drafts an amendment, sends it out to the States for ratification, and a sufficient number of States ratify it within the prescribed period of time doesn't happen all that often.

Each generation reinterprets these "rights"; the rebellion of the Baronage of England against King John was such a case, where he attempted to hold them to their traditional feudal obligation of military service upon demand for a set number of days per year, and they claimed it no longer applied to military expeditions to France, something their predecessors provided without question. In the resulting conflict, the Barons emerged in a superior bargaining position and wrung the list of priviledges now known as Magna Carta from King John.

Thus, "rights" are not static, they are constantly being reinterpreted in light of current circumstances. One need merely look at how many sections of the Constitution have been amended over the course of years to realize that this is the case.

Original Intent is all well and good, but time passes, societies and technologies change, and interpretation necessarily must reflect a semblance of modern concensus or it will not be successfully enforced.

Geek of Ages

@Jim S

And original intent


My recollection is that the original intent was to throw together a government that wouldn't slide into anarchy and destruction like the government they _had_ set up was rapidly doing; and to do so with great haste. And with a constantly revolving cadre of men.

Actually, the original original intent was to try to fix the Articles, but realizing that was a fool's game, they hastily cobbled something together without really all agreeing on the particulars, but it was better than the alternative.

Ernest Bywater

@PotomacBob

Maybe what you read has nothing said by the media. In what I read, both sides are well represented.


Well, I don't get the US newspapers here, and I don't bother with the local newspapers, and have to go by what I see on the TV news broadcasts on the Internet, and the ones from the US media organisations don't cover the mental health side at all.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

It's not a desert on all TV news broadcasts. Fox News certainly covers the mental health side of the controversy in the U.S. I do not know, of course, what Fox News (or any other) might or might not have done where you are. That you don't see it doesn't mean that the media isn't covering it.

Dominions Son

@Zom

I hate to rain on your parade, but if you bring guns to a drone/missile/tank/aircraft fight, you won't win.


That all depends on how big the guns are.

Tanks are basically self propelled armored platforms for big guns, so are most military aircraft. A navel vessel has even bigger guns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_rifle

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

And here's a response explaining why Stevens is wrong.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/03/27/justice-john-paul-stevens-wrong-second-a

Dominions Son

@Jim S

Honor the intent of the 10th Amendment.


And the 9th, which courts routinely ignore.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Dominions Son

@Geek of Ages

Awesome. Let's get rid of the Air Force and repeal the Flag Code.


The Constitution authorizes a military. It does not detail how the military must be organized.

Sorry, the Air Force Stays.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Geek of Ages

@Dominions Son

The Constitution authorizes a military


No. It authorizes Congress to make Armies, Navies, and Militias. Not a military; if they had wanted it to be a military, they would have said so. If they had wanted an Air Force, they would have said so.

Their original intent, also, did not include an Air Force, full stop. Nowhere in any of the documents discussing the Constitution of the time (e.g. the Federalist Papers) does it even remotely indicate that Congress should have the power to make an Air Force as even a possibility. The intent, very clearly, was not there. Land and water only.

(To be fair, I don't actually think we should abolish the Air Force; but I also don't hold to ludicrously indefensible positions like "original intent" or intellectually dishonest positions like "plain and simple meaning")

PotomacBob

@Geek of Ages

Some legislators in Alabama were so unhappy with the Supreme Court ruling that it is unconstitutional for states to prohibit the marriage of people of the same gender, that there was a proposal there to have the state stop issuing marriage licenses. (The theory was that if the state couldn't regulate marriages the way it wanted to then it should just shuck the whole idea.) To get married (under the proposal, as I remember it), a couple would be required to file an affidavit that they had met all the legal requirements, and then the marriage would be registered. I have not heard the fate of that proposal. But what if Alabama (or some other state) went even further and simply said that nobody could get married at all? Would that be constitutional? Do we have a constitutional right to get married if we want to? The Constitution doesn't say so.

PrincelyGuy

:) So we just make it the Army Air Corps like it originally was. There problem solved with the military. Then if we ever get around to visiting other planets, we can have the Naval Space Corps.

As for guns, well, I have no solution. We gots haters and we gots lovers. There is getting to be little common ground. The haters seem to be wanting to get rid of all of them. The lovers are loath to give anything away as the haters keep taking more. When I was younger, there were rifles in the back window of almost every pickup in our high school parking lot. Most everyone also carried pocket knives.

Funny, I cannot recall an occurrence of anyone pulling a knife during the numerous fights over girls and other dumb shite.

As a red in California, all I can say is that my vote and opinion counts for less than the dog poop someones mutt left in my yard. Anyone for building an electric fence to keep mutts out of yards and flowerbeds?

Ernest Bywater

@Geek of Ages

No. It authorizes Congress to make Armies, Navies, and Militias. Not a military; if they had wanted it to be a military, they would have said so. If they had wanted an Air Force, they would have said so.


cute, since they did have planes then. However, the USAF grew out of the US Army Air Force, and was simply designated as a service of its own after some years. Thus it qualifies under the US Constitution.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Ernest Bywater

@PotomacBob

Some legislators in Alabama were so unhappy with the Supreme Court ruling that it is unconstitutional for states to prohibit the marriage of people of the same gender, that there was a proposal there to have the state stop issuing marriage licenses.


For many millennia marriage was simply a civil contract between the parties involved. Then the church got involve as a way to help them to control the people in power, and then the governments got involved as a revenue raiser. There is absolutely no need for the government to be involved in marriage services at all. However, today many government rules have things different for people married by the government to those that aren't.

Geek of Ages

@PotomacBob

The Constitution doesn't say so.


There are a _lot_ of things the Constitution is mute on, which is part and parcel of why those sorts of arguments and legal discussions keep coming up. It's pretty clear it was quickly thrown together with the intention of at least doing _something_ and then arguing the particulars after the fact. It's an extremely flawed document.

Ernest Bywater

@PrincelyGuy

Anyone for building an electric fence to keep mutts out of yards and flowerbeds?


Get a good cat to keep the dogs out of your yard, I recommend a good bobcat will do the job nicely.

Replies:   PrincelyGuy
Geek of Ages

@Ernest Bywater

Thus it qualifies under the US Constitution.


Again, from a strict "original intent" or "plain meaning" hermeneutic, no it does not. You're reading in your own desired interpretation—one might even say in the penumbra of the words.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
PrincelyGuy

@Ernest Bywater

Never thought about a bobcat. Are they allowed under the US Constitution or would I need to go through a lot of red or blue tape to get a special license?

Oh well. I will ask the wife for suggestions. She will give me another earful of them.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob
Updated:

@PrincelyGuy


As a red in California, all I can say is that my vote and opinion counts for less than the dog poop someones mutt left in my yard.


That practice is simply wrong. Every vote should count. One thing that interferes with that is the Electoral College, where the Constitution grants lopsided influence to states with smaller populations), and it is further aggravated by "winner take all" rules adopted by every state (2 states grant "winner takes all" by congressional district, instead of statewide, but that still denies those with contrary votes from having any effect on the outcome of the election). Red voters in California or blue voters in Texas get no voice.

Dominions Son

@Geek of Ages

To be fair, I don't actually think we should abolish the Air Force


Worse case, that would just force them to fold the Air Force back into the Army, where it was originally spun off from.

There are good tactical reasons for the Air Force to have it's own command structure, however, I don't see any reason for it not to be considered part of the Army for constitutional purposes as is.

Or are you suggesting that the lack of mention in the constitution of an air force (because aircraft didn't exist) prohibits the Army from owning warplanes?

Replies:   Geek of Ages
PrincelyGuy

@PotomacBob

Ergo the US is a Republic and not a Democracy. A collection of states with each state having a share. If it was a straight up vote, little states would be ignored in the election. As it is now, they at least pay lip service to all states. Though Republican presidential candidates do not spend a lot of time in solid blue states while Democrats do the same for solid red states.

Either way, someone will be left holding the bag wondering why no one pays them attention. Would we be better off with no primaries and just a general election? Or maybe have the ten candidates with the most votes in a single nationwide primary race move on to the general election?

Replies:   PotomacBob
Crumbly Writer

@PotomacBob

There is some dispute about that assertion. Not all constitutional experts agree.

But it's clear the restrictions are on the Federal government, meaning they cannot impose any law, either supporting or denying any single religion or non-religion. Thus, presumably, anyone is free to practice their own religion however they want, as long as that practice doesn't violate any other laws.

What most 'religious rights' advocates charge is that, by NOT giving the Christian faiths the full support OF the government, is discrimination against the majority faith of the nation. That's always been a specious argument, at best.

Replies:   Jim S
Geek of Ages
Updated:

@Dominions Son


Or are you suggesting that the lack of mention in the constitution of an air force (because aircraft didn't exist) prohibits the Army from owning warplanes?


That's the question, isn't it? If it's not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, can the government do it? I keep hearing the argument "that's not in the Constitution", and, well, there are a _lot_ of things that aren't in the Constitution. But people seem to arbitrarily pick and choose which things not in the Constitution they complain about.

More salient to that question: can the government even have a web site?

Or: can the government establish embassies?

Crumbly Writer

@Capt. Zapp

I don't see anything there about the arms having to be used for hunting or sport shooting.

No, and according to the wording of the Constitution, the right to hunt with a gun is NOT protected, though that's always been the first defense every time the subject is raised, even if someone is arguing against the widespread availability of AR-57s.

This is the part that the tyrants don't like and keep trying to get around.

Which tyrants are you referring to? The U.S. is the ONLY country in the entire world with this single restriction, and it's also the ONE country with the highest gun-related death statistics. Clearly there's a link between the two, which has no relation to 'tyrants' taking over the U.S.

Replies:   Capt. Zapp  Zom
Crumbly Writer

@Jim S

ETA: One teacher/administrator with a Glock 21 and the knowledge, ability and will to use it would have made a huge difference. As it has in every other school shooting where there were defensive weapons present. There have been several. Dig and you can find them.

By my recounting, there has only been ONE, the others have all been cases where a cop was ON the premises and had a gun. There have been NO cases where a civilian stopped a school shooting by shooting a gunman.

If I missed the news item, please refresh my memory, but the evidence behind your statement is sparse, at best, and completely fallacious at worst.

Replies:   Jim S
Crumbly Writer

@docholladay

They forget that its not the gun that is the problem. Hell almost anything can and probably has been turned into a weapon at some time and some where. Its the person that is deadly first. There is no way to outlaw all potential weapons since the first and most basic weapon is the mind.

While a knife can certainly be deadly, I've never heard of anyone killing dozens or hundreds of people at a time with a knife. It's only the 'weapons of war' automatic rifles that create those situations. The fact that anyone can purchase one at any time, with few restrictions (as long as it's done privately, or at a gun show) makes it especially problematic.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
PotomacBob

@PrincelyGuy

Those who endorse "original intent" usually argue that state governments (but not federal) can do anything not prohibited by the Constitution. If that argument were to prevail, then state governments could pass a law prohibiting you from keeping a bobcat (for all I know, some might already do that). The Constitution is silent on whether you have a constitutional right to keep a bobcat.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Crumbly Writer

@PotomacBob

I beg to differ. Many of the rights established in the Bill of Rights are rights of individuals and not leaving "everything else up to the state governments."

You didn't read the original statement thoroughly. He stated that the Bill of Rights lays out the rights of the Individual, and then lays out, as it's final declaration, that all other laws are to be handled by the States, rather than the Federal Government.

That last clause has been argued for a long time (i.e. whether the Federal Government actually has the right to take control from the States with Federal Laws, though the Supreme Court has consistently sided with the Federal Government in each test case, whether during Democratic, Republican or Whig parties.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Crumbly Writer

@Geek of Ages

How do you classify the right to a trial by jury, then?

That's the right of the Individual to have his case decided by a "jury of his peers", rather than one established by the Government (i.e. the rights of the individual and individuals, rather than anyone associated with the government (either State or Federal).

Replies:   Geek of Ages
PotomacBob

@PrincelyGuy

Are you arguing that winner-take-all rules in states is what defines a Republic?

Switch Blayde

@Crumbly Writer

While a knife can certainly be deadly, I've never heard of anyone killing dozens or hundreds of people at a time with a knife.


How about a car?

How about fertilizer and such to make a bomb (i.e., Oklahoma City)?

How about a plane (9/11)?

How about poison?

The problem is that our society has gone mad. It must be the shoot-em-up video games.

Switch Blayde

@PotomacBob

Are you arguing that winner-take-all rules in states is what defines a Republic?


If I remember right (and my memory is usually in question), people chose representatives to vote for their state. It was never a popular vote. Hell, back then it would take forever to get and count everyone's vote and talk about ballot stuffing…

Since the large population areas are typically Democrat, a popular vote would most likely elect the Democrat. When I lived in NYC, the Upstate New Yorkers always complained they weren't represented (in state issues) and wanted to become a separate state.

Dominions Son

@Geek of Ages

That's the question, isn't it? If it's not mentioned explicitly in the Constitution, can the government do it?


You are confusing means with subject matter limits on the federal governments powers.

The federal government is only allowed to act in given subject matter areas specifically enumerated in the constitution. However, other than things that would violated the rights of the people as defined in the bill of rights amendments, and the states (10th specifically), there are few if any limits in the constitution on how the federal government can act within those enumerated subject matter areas.

The big problem currently is that the Supreme Court has allowed the government to stretch the meaning of the commerce clause (one of the enumerated subject matter areas, interstate commerce) to the point where it covers anything and everything anyone can imagine.

PrincelyGuy

@PotomacBob

Are you arguing that winner-take-all rules in states is what defines a Republic?

No, that would be a Democracy. Republics, if memory serves correctly, are where you have individual territories that have equal status between them. In the US, we have 50 states and each one has equal status. At least in the Senate. The House is more a democracy, as it is based on population.

Within each state, you could base a republic idea based on counties or townships or whatever the state calls their areas. Each one would be equal in their representation.

Would it work? Probably not. But what we have now for presidential elections does not work. That is why I mentioned the top 10 vote-getters in a national election all held on the same day would progress to the final election. Might we end up with 10 from the same party? Possibly. Still, it would be better than this asinine years long debacle we call a presidential election.

Would the reds and blues vote for it? Nope. So I rant about the waste untold millions if not billions of dollars spent on the elections.

At times I wish we actually had viable third and fourth parties to vote for. Even this last election I do not believe that third party candidates achieved even 5 percent of the total vote. BTW, I voted third party. Both sides were idiots that I did not trust.

Replies:   geekofages
PrincelyGuy

Heck, just to make things interesting. The number 2 vote-getter should be the Vice-President. Might have to bring back the Presidential food tasters if that happens.

Dominions Son

@PrincelyGuy

Heck, just to make things interesting. The number 2 vote-getter should be the Vice-President. Might have to bring back the Presidential food tasters if that happens.


No, not unless/until we have more than two viable (competitive) parties.

Since that would guarantee a Rep pres has a Dem vice president and vice versa, it would actually increase the incentives for nut jobs from the opposing party to try and assassinate the president.

Replies:   PrincelyGuy
PrincelyGuy

@Dominions Son

Please note, Secret Service agents, I AM talking tongue in cheek here with some sarcasm and I am wearing my protective aluminum foil hat.

So, would the decimation be bad? It would definitely eliminate the most hateful of all parties from running and also bring out the more moderate. I think.

Geek of Ages

@Crumbly Writer

The right doesn't exist outside of having a government specifically enforce it. Unlike, e.g. speech, it explicitly puts mandates on other individuals to act, at times contrary to their individual wishes.

Geek of Ages

@PrincelyGuy

The number 2 vote-getter should be the Vice-President.


🤔

Geek of Ages
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


The problem is that our society has gone mad.


Curious. I seem to recall reading almost the exact same thing...

...in books written a hundred years ago...

...in books written two hundred years ago...

...in books written over a thousand years ago...

🤔🤔🤔

Replies:   Zom
geekofages

@PrincelyGuy

that would be a Democracy


(A republic is a form of democracy)

Replies:   PrincelyGuy  Zom
PrincelyGuy

Okay. Got a question on formatting. When I want to copy someone's comment and put it into my reply, it comes in as regular text. From what I see, others have it in a box. What am I doing wrong?

Replies:   Geek of Ages  Capt. Zapp
Geek of Ages

@PrincelyGuy

You need it in a quote tag. If you highlight text before hitting reply (on the particular post), it should do it for you

Replies:   PrincelyGuy
PrincelyGuy

@geekofages

Quoted: (A republic is a form of democracy)

Thank you. I looked it up to be sure and now I can say that I looked it up using Google and now I can truly say I am confused. Some sites say they are variations of the same thing. Others say what you quote.

Suffice it to say, that I am probably, most likely, wrong. However, I will also admit that I am more confused now than I was before.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
PrincelyGuy

@Geek of Ages

You need it in a quote tag. If you highlight text before hitting reply (on the particular post), it should do it for you


Cool. Thank you.

richardshagrin

The right to wear short sleeve shirts: The right to bare arms. The right to give weapons to bears: The right to arm bears. There may be a rite to bear arms, maybe the NRA knows the words.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Not_a_ID

@Switch Blayde

So the amendment doesn't address the right to have a rifle to hunt. It's all about the State's right to form a militia.


I'll go out on a limb and insert two things into the mix:

Hunting was a predominate cultural norm for people in the Nascent United States. The success of their snipers in particular was attributed to their extensive experience hunting in the back woods. (Side note: Military training now generally finds "prior experience" to often be a negative--They don't learn it right, and develop "bad habits" which then have to be "trained out of them." Almost making it preferential to have a total novice instead. That said, many of the present day snipers were hunters prior to enlisting all the same...)

As such, the right to keep arms, for the purpose of hunting, and "self-defense" is implied "between the lines" of what was written, given the context of the era.

But more importantly, the 2nd Amendment also talks about "a well regulated militia" which is where things get messy. "Original intent" would trend strongly towards state-run militia. Also bear in mind that the constitution's regular body actively restricts Congress from funding a standing Federal army for a period of longer than 2 years. (Good thing for the US Army they're get new funding resolutions every year--or more depending on how dysfunctional things are)

Original intent was clearly for "common defense" to be standing "States Militia" which would then be called up in time of war and federalized as warranted. This is the template that stood until well into the Civil War, although there was a smaller Union Army contingent that likewise existed in the interim years. (The Navy is expressly allowed to be funded in excess of 2 years at a time)

But what is the "original intent" significance of those State Militia? Well, that is so the State Governments have a military force they can use to face off against a tyrannical federal government, much as the Continental Congress did in 1776.

Except what became the Confederate States of America screwed that one sideways and several other ways in 1860.

The National Guard fulfills that role for the most part today(as they were formed from the various standing militias that did exist at the time--And they do report to the Governor of their state, although DoD also exists in their chain of command and cuts most of the checks). With the additional caveat regarding the national draft, as the Selective Service(if it had been devolved to the states) would be the penultimate form of "the militia" in the modern era.

In some cases, it could be argued that even the County Sheriff in many locations can also fall into the purview of the 2nd Amendment today (militia via "reserve Deputies") although that gets into para-military and other legalistic complications given para-military forces didn't really exist "as a thing" in 1790.

Long story short: The facility to rebel against the Federal Government is not an individual right, it is a County/State level right. One which was thoroughly trashed in the Civil War.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
PrincelyGuy

The right of hugging other people must be in there too. I hear a lot about the freedom of the press.

StarFleet Carl

@Geek of Ages

can the government establish embassies?


I've used the ... in the section below to skip some of the words in between, simply because of the way the document is worded. (It's sort of like we'd make a bullet point list today.) No change in the context is lost.

Article II, Section 2 - The President shall have the power ... by and with the Advise and Consent of the Senate, to appoint Ambassadors, other Public Ministers, and Consuls ...

Article I, Section 8 - The Congress shall have the power .. . to regulate commerce with foreign nations ...

So, yeah, they can establish embassies.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Not_a_ID

@Jim S

Ever since 1803 and Marbury vs Madison, the SCOTUS has assumed the power of Constitutional interpretation. Now it seems to be assumed that it has sole power in that regard. Sorry, but I don't believe that was intended when Article III was drafted then approved. Penumbras, emanations and equivocations came about early, it seems, while the Judiciary sought to make itself more powerful at the expense of both of the other branches. I'll never forgive Jefferson for letting them get away with it. Jackson understood correctly the Judiciary's appropriate place when he said of one ruling words to the effect that "well, now that the Supreme Court has ruled, let the enforce it." And he didn't. Enforce the ruling, that is.


Not that the Trail of Tears is a particularly good precedent. But in general, I have to somewhat agree, it was intended for the 3 branches to work against one another in order to keep things balanced. The "tradition" that has developed around SCotUS being "the final authority" is a problematic one, but at the same time, a "simple enough" one to get around in general. If CONGRESS and the President really think SCotUS is out of line, they can push through an amendment to resolve the matter by way of the states.

Or the Presidency and Congress can simply ignore SCotUS and go about doing whatever they please. Generally, SCotUS seems to have been mindful, post-Jackson, of not issuing rulings which will not be obeyed outright. They will issue rulings(and have done so) where the amendment process is easily pointed to as the path to resolution if they want to pursue it further.

But as congress has been largely dysfunctional on that front since the 1970's, we'll see when that bridge is crossed once more.

Replies:   Jim S
Ernest Bywater

@Geek of Ages

Again, from a strict "original intent" or "plain meaning" hermeneutic, no it does not.


There's nothing in the US Constitution defining what is or isn't in an Army, so it can include anything it wants, and it can split off any of it's branches if it wants to.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Ernest Bywater

@PotomacBob

One thing that interferes with that is the Electoral College, where the Constitution grants lopsided influence to states with smaller populations),


That was a deliberate action to make the electoral process fairer in an effort to stop the more populous states from overruling the less populous states.

You're right to say every vote should count, but it should be limited to only the votes of citizens. However, the way things are in some states there is no effort to ensure voting is limited to citizens.

StarFleet Carl

@PotomacBob

The U.S. Supreme Court has never once interpreted the second amendment to mean that the right to bear arms is there "to protect those states from an abusive federal government."


U.S. v Miller, "Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense." - in regards to whether a sawed-off shotgun was against the National Firearms Act of 1934.

Keep one thing in mind in all the discussions here. In the United States, right now, if you follow the laws, jump through all the hoops, and meet all the requirements, as a private citizen you CAN legally purchase a fully automatic machine gun.

It's a complete pain in the butt to do so, and it can't have been made after 1968, but it IS legal.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Not_a_ID

@PotomacBob

If that argument were to prevail, then state governments could pass a law prohibiting you from keeping a bobcat (for all I know, some might already do that). The Constitution is silent on whether you have a constitutional right to keep a bobcat.


Depends on the bobcat in question. Are we talking about the power unit or the furry critter?

The furry critter requires some special licensing in many places IIRC. Many/most city government would also tend to have harsh restrictions on anybody keeping "wild animals" as pets, in particular the predatory kind.

StarFleet Carl

@Ernest Bywater

However, the way things are in some states there is no effort to ensure voting is limited to citizens.


Talk about foreign intervention in American elections ... :)

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Not_a_ID

@Crumbly Writer

That last clause has been argued for a long time (i.e. whether the Federal Government actually has the right to take control from the States with Federal Laws, though the Supreme Court has consistently sided with the Federal Government in each test case, whether during Democratic, Republican or Whig parties.


Prior to the Civil War, SCotUS siding with states wasn't uncommon. The Reconstruction Era Amendments were written in such a way that they wildly changed the interpretation of many previous constitutional amendments for the courts. The 14th Amendment, IIRC, in particular is a very common "gateway" to establishing many new federal powers and individual rights alike, at the expense of the state.

Capt. Zapp
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


The U.S. is the ONLY country in the entire world with this single restriction, and it's also the ONE country with the highest gun-related death statistics.


The highest rates of firearm related deaths occur in

Honduras (67.18) - 78.6% of homicides are by gun

Venezuela (59.13) - the government banned gun ownership in 2012. Over 90% of homicides are by gun, 57% of police deaths

Swaziland (37.16) - In order to acquire a gun, people must pass a background check and obtain a license, reapplying every year.

Guatemala (34.1) - The country's Constitution protects the right to own a firearm. However, individuals must have a license.

Jamaica (30.72) - The right to own a firearm is not guaranteed by the law and any person interested in purchasing a gun must apply for a license. Part of the application process includes: proving a true need for the firearm, a mental and criminal background check, and a third party character reference.

(numbers given are per 100,000 people)

The United States is not even in the top 10, coming in at #11 with 10.54

ETA additional data.

Ernest Bywater

@Switch Blayde

It must be the shoot-em-up video games


Nah, poison a city of thousands and you get little media air time, shoot up a dozen or more people in a free-fire no-gun zone and you get days of media air time to become famous.

Geek of Ages

@StarFleet Carl

I see no mention of establishing embassies. I see mention of ambassadors—who can operate without an embassy—and of regulating commerce—which is a matter of trade deals, not embassies—but not actually the authority to establish embassies. If you see that, then you are looking in the penumbras of the words, not it what the words clearly and plainly say.

Ernest Bywater

@StarFleet Carl

Talk about foreign intervention in American elections ... :)


If you mean allowing non-citizens living in a tent within the state to vote in an election, yes, it's foreign intervention - but not the intervention of a foreign government. It would be the intervention of foreign nationals to get a free ride and to keep the beer and circuses going until the whole place collapses.

Most countries require voters to provide evidence of citizenship at some point in the voting cycle, but they don't in the USA, and efforts to put any in place are very strongly fought against by certain people - you have to wonder why.

Here in Australia people are on the electoral rolls and part of being listed for the first time is to prove your citizenship, you then simply register your change of address when you move. However, we do not register a political allegiance when we register for the electoral roll. It would be very simple for those in the US to do the same thing.

Replies:   PotomacBob
Capt. Zapp

@PrincelyGuy

What am I doing wrong?


As Geek of Ages said, you need it in a quote tag. Two other ways to do it are:

1) highlight the text you copy/pasted and click the 'Quote' button at the top of the reply window. This automatically adds both the open and end_quote tags.

2) Click the 'Quote' button to insert the start_quote tag, paste the text, then click the 'Quote' button again to add the end_quote tag

Geek of Ages' method is the easiest.

Note: you can use the above methods to add additional quoted material to your reply.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


The problem is that our society has gone mad. It must be the shoot-em-up video games.


The problem is "industrial scale availability" and the information age. Certain other factors likewise come into play, like automatic weapons.

But the biggest factor is access to various things is a lot more freely available c/o industrial production of goods. This when paired with information also being widely available on how to use otherwise innocuous products for nefarious purposes provides ample means for people to go about causing mayhem.

Which isn't to mention the whole "numbers matter" type thing.

Jesse James, for example died in 1882. The 1880 census indicated that there were just over 50 million people living in the United States at the time. He wasn't particularly unique, but he was (im)famous all the same, to the point of being known of 135 years later.

There are 330 Million people alive today. Claiming he was a 1 in 50 million type event/person, "by the numbers" there should be 5 or 6 of "his type" running around today in the United States. This also ignores the less infamous varieties from his era.

Now also imagine the mayhem he'd be potentially be able to achieve with the things we have today vs what he had to work with back then. (Of course, flip-side is law-enforcement has a lot more at their disposal as well)

Geek of Ages

@Ernest Bywater

There's nothing in the US Constitution defining what is or isn't in an Army


That's a fascinating observation. And is part of what I'm pointing out: you cannot simply read the "plain" meaning of anything. And my questions about handling "original intent" regarding technology change still stand.

(I also find it fascinating that everyone seems to be implicitly fine with not actually having a national flag or national anthem or any rules about what to do regarding them)

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Zom
Geek of Ages

@Ernest Bywater

there is no effort to ensure voting is limited to citizens


I call complete and utter bullshit.

Geek of Ages

@Not_a_ID

and "self-defense" is implied "between the lines" of what was written


There was a statute passed a couple of years after the ratification of the Constitution in which they mandated that every (white) man own a gun. I don't recall what the reason stated in the statute was; it's been a while. Do you remember?

Dominions Son

@richardshagrin

The right to wear short sleeve shirts: The right to bare arms.


A man who lost both his arms had the forelegs of a grizzly bear grafted in their place. The right to bear arms.

Replies:   PotomacBob
Not_a_ID

@PrincelyGuy

Quoted: (A republic is a form of democracy)

Thank you. I looked it up to be sure and now I can say that I looked it up using Google and now I can truly say I am confused. Some sites say they are variations of the same thing. Others say what you quote.

Suffice it to say, that I am probably, most likely, wrong. However, I will also admit that I am more confused now than I was before.


A Republic is a Representative form of Government.

Who they represent may or may not be particularly democratic.

That said, within the confines of whom they are representing, democratic processes are normally adhered to.

IE the Roman Senate, strictly speaking, at least prior to Ceasar, was a (roughly) Democratic institution for the Aristocracy of Rome. If you weren't part of the aristocracy, too bad so sad.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Geek of Ages

(I also find it fascinating that everyone seems to be implicitly fine with not actually having a national flag or national anthem or any rules about what to do regarding them)


The National Anthem didn't even exist(as "The National Anthem") until sometime circa 1920's-1930's. Everybody else was doing it, in particular for the Olympics, so we got in line with the cool kids and settled on the Star Spangled Banner.

Prior to that, it was a poem often sung to by drunken bar/tavern patrons. Which is part of what baffles me when people get all upset about people giving downright strange interpretations of that song. Compared to what would have been considered "perfectly acceptable" in either 1820 or 1890 for that same poem, I'm not finding a whole lot of /care about it.

Edit to add: That said, the events it chronicles is perhaps one of the least understood events in national history. And perhaps right up there with some of the more insane things that have happened. That event certainly deserves the title of "awful" or "full of awe."

At least if the accounts I recall from grade-school are accurate, and its damned hard finding anything on the subject. IIRC, the Brit's actually targeted--and hit, the flag multiple times. ("Striking the flag" was a sign of surrender) Only for the people in the fort (mostly medical patients) to go out there and pick the thing back up again to hold it aloft.

PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

Most countries require voters to provide evidence of citizenship at some point in the voting cycle, but they don't in the USA


I cannot speak for every state, but every one of the four states I've lived in require proof of citizenship to vote.

Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

IIRC, the Brit's actually targeted--and hit, the flag multiple times.


IIRC, they were targeting and hit the flag pole, not the flag.

Shooting the flag itself, would have either not knocked it down, or not left much to hold aloft.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Geek of Ages

@Not_a_ID

it was a poem often sung to by drunken bar/tavern patrons


Not quite. The melody is from To Anacreon in Heaven, which was the official song of the Anacreon Society, which was a bunch of musicians (read: drinking buddies)

The poem itself is the Defense of Fort McHenry, by Francis Scott Key, written during the War of 1812. I have it memorized and reciting it in full is one of my party tricks (a lot of people aren't even aware it has four verses).

Somewhere along the line, they realized the poem had the same meter as the melody, and stuck the two together, and created the Star-Spangled Banner.

I enjoy pointing out places where self-promoting "patriots" have, in fact, violated the Flag Code. Frequent violations are the wrong orientation when hung vertically, letting it touch the ground, and not lighting it at night. Defacement is also a really common one, along with wearing flag clothing. It's a very commonly broken set of laws, as near as I can tell.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Ernest Bywater

@Geek of Ages

I call complete and utter bullshit.


If you disagree with my comment please provide the legislation and procedures in place to ensure only citizens are voting. Whenever there have been calls for US citizens to show valid ID of citizenship to vote gets howled down by the left, yet solid proof of ID is required for a driver's licence.

Replies:   PotomacBob  Geek of Ages
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Dominions Son


IIRC, they were targeting and hit the flag pole, not the flag.

Shooting the flag itself, would have either not knocked it down, or not left much to hold aloft.


And hitting a flag pole, from a ship(or barge) from a mile or more away would be quite the feat. Some more Google work tonight turns up one site calling that claim "voodoo history" as they've found no indication that actually happened. The National Park Service and Smithsonian versions don't mention it, and provide a context where it would have been unlikely.

The Fort was manned by able-bodied men and well armed. The British Naval force had to retreat from the onslaught Fort McHenry's guns brought to bear on them when they closed in to use their own primary weaponry. So they bombarded at range with mostly ineffective weaponry for the better part of 25 hours, then wrote it off as a bad job and left the field.

Edit: Also there were two flags flown over the fort. One was the "Storm Flag" which flew for most of the batlle, as there was Heavy Rain during much of it. And then there was the Garrison Flag which was 30 feet tall(2 feet per each of the 15 stripes. Yes, 15 stripes.) and 40+ feet long. Which is the flag Francis Scott Key witnessed flying that morning as the British Navy began its retreat.

Replies:   Dominions Son
PrincelyGuy

@PotomacBob

I cannot speak for every state, but every one of the four states I've lived in require proof of citizenship to vote.


In California it is easy to bypass the rules. Here are the particulars...
https://www.dmv.org/ca-california/voter-registration.php

In order to be eligible to vote in the state of California, you must be:
•A citizen of the United States.
•A California resident.
...

When you complete your application, mail it to the address provided on the application. You will need to provide your California driver's license or identification card number or the last 4 digits of your social security number. If you do not have any of these numbers leave the field blank and the election officials will assign you a voter identification number.

So just leave the drivers license field blank and away it goes with an official voter ID number.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@PotomacBob

I cannot speak for every state, but every one of the four states I've lived in require proof of citizenship to vote.


My state kind of requires that now? 20 years ago you could register to vote by presenting a utility bill showing your name and address and stating you were eligible to vote. If you wanted to go above and beyound, you could, but that was the requirement. State Issued ID required proof of legal residence, so that was acceptable then and now too.

But going back to California, and others as well(such as New York), State Issued ID is acceptable proof of eligability to vote. But as they give State Issued ID to "undocumented residents" with few to no questions asked....

PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

In the four states in which I've voted, it requires proof of citizenship in order to register to vote, which is done a month or more prior to election day. On election day itself, the voter must show identification to prove that he/she is the person who is registered to vote, but no proof of citizenship is required on that day - the registration itself is adequate proof.
In my current state, we do not register by party. When it comes time to vote in primaries, the rules are left up to the party. The law allows voters to vote in either the Democratic or the Republican Party - but not both. I never vote in the Republican Party primary because the party in my current state requires me to sign an affidavit promising that, regardless of who wins the primary, I will support that candidate in the general election. I'm unwilling to make that promise without knowing who the candidate will be. The Democratic Party requires no such pledge. I have voted for both parties (not in the same election) in the general elections.
Based on my own personal experience in four different states, your assertion is wrong.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Zom  Ernest Bywater
rustyken

@PotomacBob

IMHO marriage is simply a unique type of contract that set forth certain obligations on the two involved and also gives the new entity certain privileges. Historically speaking marriage license or contracts is relatively recent.

Cheers

Switch Blayde

@StarFleet Carl

CAN legally purchase a fully automatic machine gun.


I thought machine guns were illegal for private use. I thought that's why the bump stock came about.

Switch Blayde

@Geek of Ages

there is no effort to ensure voting is limited to citizens

I call complete and utter bullshit.


They're trying to add a question to the census counting: Are you a citizen. Trump is being sued over it by California because their illegal immigrants wouldn't be counted so they'd lose seats in Congress.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Geek of Ages
Zom

@Crumbly Writer

Clearly there's a link between the two

Careful CW, you are getting into religious territory here.

Control of gun ownership in the US is a faith based arguement, and both extremes are fanatical and closed to contrary views. They KNOW they are right.

Sound familiar?

Zom

@Geek of Ages

Curious. I seem to recall reading almost the exact same thing...

And how nany of those societies failed?

Switch Blayde

@Geek of Ages

The poem itself is the Defense of Fort McHenry, by Francis Scott Key, written during the War of 1812.


And all this time I thought it was about a short Mexican boy on his father's shoulders at a baseball game. I thought all the people in the stands were polite. They stood up and said as one: Jose, can you see?

Zom

@geekofages

A republic is a form of democracy

Nope. E.g.:

"A republic is quite different from a democracy, in which every citizen is expected to play an active role in governing the state." http://www.ushistory.org/civ/6a.asp

"The Roman Republic was never intended to be a democracy. Instead, as acknowledged by Polybius, it was an experiment that sought to fuse democracy, aristocracy and monarchy into the perfect socio-political system" http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1492/how-democratic-was-the-roman-republic-the-theory-and-practice-of-an-archetypal-democracy

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Not_a_ID

@PotomacBob

In my current state, we do not register by party. When it comes time to vote in primaries, the rules are left up to the party. The law allows voters to vote in either the Democratic or the Republican Party - but not both. I never vote in the Republican Party primary because the party in my current state requires me to sign an affidavit promising that, regardless of who wins the primary, I will support that candidate in the general election.


This is generally my state, less the affidavit. However, state laws do exist regarding primaries. But the extent of involvement consists of being "required" (insofar as they're going to have a hard time proving it short of confession) to vote in the general election for whomever you vote for in the primary. (So if "your guy" loses the primary, state law says you're in the clear)

No party registration required for the general.

The Democrats caucus for the Presidential Primary(started in '08), which I believe requires registering Democrat to attend, but the rest of the primary ballot is "open" I think.

The Republican Primary "closed" during the Obama Administration, only registered members of the Republican Party may vote in their primary race. So you would need to 1) Be registered to vote. Then 2) Register as a Republican if you want to vote in their primary race now. (You can do both at the same time if you want)

But the primaries are not the general election. Although with as solidly Republican as some areas are(such as my own) the Primary race is the only truly "competitive" race that happens. Making the general election more of a pro-forma event.

Zom

@Geek of Ages

There's nothing in the US Constitution defining what is or isn't in an Army.
That's a fascinating observation

I would be glad of it. How useful would the Constitution be if it had to define every word used within it.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Switch Blayde

They're trying to add a question to the census counting: Are you a citizen. Trump is being sued over it by California because their illegal immigrants wouldn't be counted so they'd lose seats in Congress.


So much for 1 person, 1 vote.

And they're complaining about the outsize influence Rhode Island still has 225 years later? (On wait, RI is Democratic, it's Wyoming that is "The Problem"),

Don't mind me and my 3 legislative districts with 700k people in them, 300k of which in each district cannot legally Vote because of their Immigration Status...

Zom

@PotomacBob

In my current state, we do not register by party

What is with that? I have never understood the idea of registering to vote and having to state a party. Where is voting secrecy in that?

Not_a_ID

@Zom

What is with that? I have never understood the idea of registering to vote and having to state a party. Where is voting secrecy in that?

In most states, even as a registered member of a given party, you're under no obligation to vote party-line down the entire ticket.

I can understand it for the primary, as vexing as that may be in my case. The states which want a party affiliation for general election baffle me. But then, also remember the "secret ballot" tradition/process isn't as old in the US as some would like to believe.

Replies:   Zom
Ernest Bywater

@PotomacBob

I cannot speak for every state, but every one of the four states I've lived in require proof of citizenship to vote.


In the last election there was a lot said in some media channels about the process at the voting booth where the officials only required people to show some evidence of being resident in the state, often it was simply a utilities bill for a local address, or a rent receipt. None were being asked to prove they were citizens - this happened in a couple of states, with California being the one most often cited.

I'm not sure of the validity of the video clip, but I did see one post election video clip where an unidentified person (seen from behind in the camera) spoke of being an illegal migrant and being able to go into a booth and vote simply by showing his power bill. He mentioned all his family and friends also voting despite them not being citizens. How much, if any, effect this had on the election isn't knowable, but it could have.

Ernest Bywater

@PotomacBob

From what i can make out via Internet searches and the media reports there is no requirement to register to be able to vote in any state or federal election. You can turn up at the booth on voting day, prove you live in the area, say you're a citizen without showing any proof, and you're allowed to vote. I've seen reports where people registering to vote to be able to vote in the primaries have to prove citizenship, and in some states you have to prove citizenship to register to vote at all. However, they don't require you to be registered to vote on the day of the election. Thus anyone not on the register can also vote.

Calls to have voters provide ID which requires a proof of citizenship are heavily howled down by the Democrats on any spurious claim they can get away with. One has to wonder why they don't want to have the voters prove they're citizens before voting!

awnlee jawking

@Zom

The British legal system has the 'man on the Clapham omnibus' test to clarify what is a reasonable interpretation of the law.

I've often wondered whether Constitution and Legal System authors wouldn't do better to specify intent, rather than nail down every specific using language and circumstances which will inevitably become archaic and questionable. That's starting to become common practice in the tax system, where eg the onus is on practitioners to prove the legitimacy of a tax-avoidance system rather than vice versa.

AJ

Replies:   Zom
Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

So they bombarded at range with mostly ineffective weaponry for the better part of 25 hours, then wrote it off as a bad job and left the field.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_McHenry

According to the wikipedia entry on Fort McHenry, the British didn't simply give up because they weren't getting anywhere, they had exhausted their ammunition supply for the larger guns that could hit the fort at that range.

Zom

@awnlee jawking


I've often wondered whether Constitution and Legal System authors wouldn't do better to specify intent, rather than nail down every specific using language and circumstances which will inevitably become archaic and questionable.

Seems reasonable. There would be just as much work for lawyers interpreting intent :-)

Zom
Updated:

@Not_a_ID


remember the "secret ballot" tradition/process isn't as old in the US as some would like to believe


The US voting systems seem chaotic to those of us used to more ordered and reliable systems. In Oz, voting is compulsory, and you can't vote unless you are included on the electoral roll some period before the ballot. Getting included is where entitlement checks are done. But I suppose all that ordered certainty is a violation of some right or other in the US.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Not_a_ID
Geek of Ages

@Ernest Bywater

If you disagree with my comment please provide the legislation and procedures


The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your accusations have any basis in fact; and I have no desire to do the research for you to show that every single state and territory requires proof of citizenship to register to vote.

Geek of Ages

@PrincelyGuy

So just leave the drivers license field blank and away it goes with an official voter ID number.


Only if your prove your citizenship through some other means. There are people who for religious reasons don't have any of those three numbers; but they still (as citizens) have the right to vote.

Geek of Ages

@Switch Blayde

their illegal immigrants wouldn't be counted so they'd lose seats in Congress.


That's a completely separate issue? That's discussing the matter of _representation_, not of "who gets to vote". In much the same way that say, children are counted, but themselves do not vote.

Or again: representation and apportionment is based on the number of _people_ who live somewhere, not the number of _voting-eligible citizens_. It's a crucial difference. It's also why the Constitution specifically called out some people as being worth fractional people; if representation/apportionment was meant to be based on voters, why even have the clause?

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Geek of Ages

@Zom

Those sources are wrong. A democracy is, by definition:

a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections


(Courtesy M-W)

A republic is a representative democracy. We are a democracy, period full stop.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Geek of Ages

@Zom

Where is voting secrecy in that?


Voting secrecy is a modern invention, and post-dates the Constitution by something like a hundred years

Replies:   Zom
Geek of Ages

@Ernest Bywater

You can turn up at the booth on voting day, prove you live in the area, say you're a citizen without showing any proof, and you're allowed to vote.


Not quite. You can file a _provisional ballot_, which pragmatically are usually ignored. You can then go through the rigamarole to get registered formally (which includes proving citizenship) to get your ballot actually counted.

Every time I've changed my voting address, I've had to display proof of citizenship to be registered. Your Internet searching does not reflect reality.

Ernest Bywater

@Geek of Ages

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that your accusations have any basis in fact; and I have no desire to do the research for you to show that every single state and territory requires proof of citizenship to register to vote.


There's plenty of media coverage about the Democrats opposing the requirement for people to provide citizenship to vote in an election, and you say they have to. Despite how much I don't believe most of the media, they all seem to agree no proof of citizenship is required to vote, and that's why so many object to having an official ID to vote.

I've seen where some states require proof of citizenship to get on the voter rolls to be part of the primary elections, but they also show you can vote in the general election without being on the roll and no proof of citizenship is required for that. Take the one for California:

www.dmv.org/ca-california/voter-registration.php

states the law says people have to be citizens, but there is nothing in there about proving they're citizens and it's done by mail or on-line. Great way to demonstrate real proof.

Replies:   PotomacBob  Geek of Ages
PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

I suspect you may be confusing American citizenship with residency in the voting district. Americans tend to move from place to place. In the four states where I've voted, registering to vote is a one-time thing in the district. That is, if you register in, say, the year 2000, that registration is valid as long as you continue to vote regularly in the same district, and you don't have to prove American citizenship again. You may be asked, at the voting booth, to prove residency - evidence that you still actually live in the district in which you are voting. Much of the argument about evidence of residency is what documentation the state requires to prove residency. If the state will accept only a driver's license as proof of residency, those who don't have a driver's license aren't allowed to vote. In my state, if you can show a gun permit, that's good enough to prove residency. But a student identification at one of the state's colleges is not accepted as proof of residency. The result is, of course, gun owners are allowed to vote and many students who otherwise meet all the legal requirements are not allowed to vote. Even a passport, which, as far as I know, is proof of citizenship everywhere, will not establish residency if the passport is more than a couple of years old.
In Florida a few years ago, there were accusations (i do not know whether they were true) that the state was purging registration rolls, particularly in minority communities. The accusations were that a private company funded by one of the political parties provided lists of people, by name, who were no longer eligible to vote. The state struck those names from their voter registration lists. To become eligible again, would-be voters again had to prove citizenship and residency.

Geek of Ages

@Ernest Bywater

You prove citizenship to register; once at the poll, you only have to prove that you are the person on the registration roll. These are two different things, and you really should stop conflating them. (Also also stop jumping to ludicrous conclusions based on what's on a non-government website)

The thing about Voter ID laws is what sorts of documents you can present to prove that you are the registered voter. And, what seems to keep happening is that they specifically only allow documents that aren't as common among black people (especially in cases where courthouses of documents were intentionally burned down by white people in order to destroy documents proving black people as citizens)—coupled with a strange coincidence of also shutting down the government offices in majority-Black counties where you can get those documents after a great deal of bureaucratic wrangling.

I've yet to run into anyone—even people staunchly opposed to Voter ID laws—who think that no documentation ever should be presented. The question is always over what documents should be allowed, and the implications those choices have in terms of voter suppression.

Replies:   JohnBobMead
JohnBobMead

@Ernest Bywater

You can turn up at the booth on voting day, prove you live in the area, say you're a citizen without showing any proof, and you're allowed to vote.


Not in Oregon. You are required to be registered a certain number of days prior to the election in order to vote in that election.

You are allowed to register to vote prior to your 18th birthday if you will be 18 on or before the election day.

I know this because my sister turned 18 on Election Day, November 2, 1976, and was required to register to vote prior to that date; I don't remember how many days prior, but you could not vote without having registered in advance.

And in every state I've lived, you have been required to register in advance. Oregon, Arizona, Illinois, and now Washington.

JohnBobMead

@Geek of Ages

The question is always over what documents should be allowed, and the implications those choices have in terms of voter suppression.


If we had a national citizenship ID card, that would take care of it. But we don't. The closest to that is a passport, and a great many citizens have never obtained one, as they have never travelled outside the US since the increased scrutiny at border crossings post 9/11.

Replies:   Geek of Ages  PotomacBob
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Geek of Ages


I have no desire to do the research for you to show that every single state and territory requires proof of citizenship to register to vote.


Wisconsin does not require proof of citizenship to register to vote.

http://elections.wi.gov/sites/default/files/publication/154/voter_registration_guide_pdf_21165.pdf

The last time I moved, all I had to do to register at the new location was sign an affidavit that I lived in the district and was eligible to vote.

awnlee jawking

@Geek of Ages

We are a democracy, period full stop.


No, you got it right the first time, it's a representative democracy: Only the representatives get meaningful votes. In a pure democracy, the important issues would be decided by referenda.

The UK is even worse because, besides MPs usually only getting meaningful votes, there's the totally unelected House of Frauds.

AJ

Zom

@Geek of Ages

Voting secrecy is a modern invention

And a good one. Which is why most Western democracies now employ it.

Is this one of those modern things that isn't in the US Constitution, and therefore can never be used?

awnlee jawking

@Zom

Which is why most Western democracies now employ it.


The UK doesn't :(

The UK is a parliamentary democracy and the votes of MPs are public, so there's no secrecy for the democracy part.

AJ

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Dominions Son

@Zom

What is with that? I have never understood the idea of registering to vote and having to state a party. Where is voting secrecy in that?


You can state a party preference on your voter registration in all 50 states.

However, it's only mandatory in the 14 states that still have closed primaries. In a state with closed primaries you can only vote in the primary for the party listed on your voter registration.

The states with closed primaries are: Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Wyoming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_elections_in_the_United_States

Geek of Ages

@JohnBobMead

If we had a national citizenship ID card, that would take care of it.


Indeed. But, if one were to be proposed, it would probably be criticized as government overreach and all sorts of other things—and all the rapture bunnies would also throw a fit, I'm sure.

Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

From what i can make out via Internet searches and the media reports there is no requirement to register to be able to vote in any state or federal election. You can turn up at the booth on voting day, prove you live in the area, say you're a citizen without showing any proof, and you're allowed to vote.


As far as I know, only Wisconsin (I am a Wisconsin resident) has ever allowed full registration at the polling location on election day.

There are some states that allow a provisional registration at the polling station, but those ballots are held back and not counted until the person's registration information has been confirmed.

Geek of Ages

@Zom

Is this one of those modern things that isn't in the US Constitution, and therefore can never be used?


The Constitution is thoroughly silent on how voting should happen; it only talks about how representatives (by various names) are apportioned. It (by omission) leaves up to each state how to actually conduct the elections to choose those representatives to the federal level. There are, strictly speaking, no federal elections: only state elections for federal representatives (electors are essentially this).

Replies:   Dominions Son  Not_a_ID
Geek of Ages

@awnlee jawking

The UK is a parliamentary democracy and the votes of MPs are public, so there's no secrecy for the democracy part.


The secrecy I was referring to was the secret ballot for selecting officials. In the past, you announced in public to the vote-taker who you were voting for, which meant things like intimidation were a thing; the secret ballot avoided that, with other costs regarding logistics.

Votes of representatives serving the public always have been public, as I understand it.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Geek of Ages


It (by omission) leaves up to each state how to actually conduct the elections to choose those representatives to the federal level. There are, strictly speaking, no federal elections: only state elections for federal representatives (electors are essentially this).


Actually, under the original constitution states were not required to select Senators or electors by election at all, and in fact most states originally had the Senators appointed by the state legislators.

This was changed for Senators by the 17th amendment and technically still stands for electors, most states adopted some form of the indirect election of electors very early on.


Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clause_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors

A state currently using indirect election to choose electors may face issues with challenges under the 15th, 19th and 24th amendments if they attempt to switch to a non-election based method of selecting electors.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
awnlee jawking

@Geek of Ages

In the UK, some argue that MPs votes should be secret so that they can vote with their consciences rather than follow party diktat.

That surprised people, including me, who thought that MPs were devoid of any moral or ethical scruples.

AJ

Replies:   Zom
Geek of Ages

@Dominions Son

Actually, under the original constitution states were not required to select Senators or electors by election at all


I knew that for senators (and glossed over it); I'd forgotten that for electors, too.

My point still stands: the Constitution doesn't particularly dictate how the states handle voting.

PotomacBob

@Dominions Son

You can state a party preference on your voter registration in all 50 states.


Not true, not in all 50 states.

BlinkReader

Somebody put a lot of petrol in this mix :D

If you live in state where government wrote that is dangerous to have even slingshot, you would not spend too much time on this topic.

You'll be very quiet, and dig heaven and hell to put your hand on anything that could help you to survive another day...

PotomacBob

@JohnBobMead

If we had a national citizenship ID card, that would take care of it.


A national citizenship ID card might be evidence you are a citizen, but it is not likely to be accepted everywhere as proof that you are a current resident in the voting district.

Replies:   JohnBobMead
Switch Blayde

@Dominions Son

The states with closed primaries are: Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Wyoming


I'm in Arizona and it must be a closed primary. My wife and I vote via mail. We had a primary recently for a Congressional seat that became available in my district. She, as a Democrat, got to vote in the Democrat primary. My ballot was the Republican one with different people.

Replies:   Dominions Son
PrincelyGuy

Same here in California. The parties can decide whether or not to allow other parties to vote on their ballots. I believe that they can allow certain parties while blocking others. Those who decline to select a party when registering, get very few candidates during the primary election.

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

I'm in Arizona and it must be a closed primary.


Arizona uses what is considered a semi-closed primary system.

From the link I posted above on primary types:

Semi-closed. As in closed primaries, registered party members can vote only in their own party's primary. Semi-closed systems, however, allow unaffiliated voters to participate as well. Depending on the state, independents either make their choice of party primary privately, inside the voting booth, or publicly, by registering with any party on Election Day. Twelve states — Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Utah, and West Virginia — have semi-closed primaries that allow voters to register or change party preference on election day.[5][6]


My state, Wisconsin uses an open primary. Everyone can privately decide which primary to vote in inside the voting booth. All the parties are listed on one ballot, but if you try to vote in more than one primary, you spoil your ballot and it won't be counted.

Not_a_ID

@Zom

Getting included is where entitlement checks are done. But I suppose all that ordered certainty is a violation of some right or other in the US.


The "issue" in the United States goes directly to the Jim Crow Laws and methods used in "the south" to deprive Blacks of their right to vote. Poll Taxes, Literacy Tests, and numerous other means were employed in order to keep them from even casting a ballot. It also is why the Southern States have to contend with Justive Department oversight of their voter registration systems.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Not_a_ID

@Geek of Ages

It's also why the Constitution specifically called out some people as being worth fractional people; if representation/apportionment was meant to be based on voters, why even have the clause?


Wrong, the 3/5ths of a person thing was an initiative from the abolitionists to discourage the South from "stacking the deck" population wise by either importing more slaves, or by forcing them(slaves) to have more children.

Although now it's commonly used to portray the founders as viewing slaves as being sub-human and thus literally only equal to 3/5ths of a white person.

PotomacBob

@Dominions Son

In some states (Virginia is one), when you go to the voting place on primary election day, you check in with the registrar, show your ID (to prove you are the person who is registered), then you request either a Republican or Democratic ballot - one or the other. If you request a Republican ballot, before you get your Republican ballot you also have to sign a pledge promising to support in the November general election all the Republican candidates who win their Republican primary elections.
I heard a resident of Pennsylvania on the radio the other day saying that in that state, when the November general election rolls around, voters may choose a single lever that selects all the candidates for either the Republican or Democratic candidates from top to bottom, or you can select individual levers to mix up your vote among the candidates of the parties.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Not_a_ID

@Geek of Ages

It (by omission) leaves up to each state how to actually conduct the elections to choose those representatives to the federal level. There are, strictly speaking, no federal elections: only state elections for federal representatives (electors are essentially this).


Well, until Reconstruction, when an amendment gave blacks the right to vote. Then about 50 years later another amendment gave women the right as well. Another 50-ish years later yet another amendment came along requiring all states to allow 18 year olds to vote.

It should be noted, it isn't worded in such a manner as to prohibit a state from letting persons under 18 vote. Just that they must let an 18YO vote.

And those eligibility differences also point back to the wisdom of the Electoral College. It limits the impact of whatever wonky things a state may get up to which could impact the vote totals re: The Popular Vote in Presidential Elections.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Switch Blayde

@Dominions Son

open primary. Everyone can privately decide which primary to vote in inside the voting booth.


I once read that one of the parties encouraged their members to vote in the other primary for the person they thought had the least chance to win in the general election.

But then someone said: "But what if he wins?"

PrincelyGuy

@Switch Blayde

But then someone said: "But what if he wins?"


Then we all win. :)

Switch Blayde

@Not_a_ID

the founders as viewing slaves as being sub-human and thus literally only equal to 3/5ths of a white person.


Talk about the literal meaning of the Constitution or the intent. In the second paragraph, the Constitution says: "All men are created equal."

To the founders, that didn't include slaves. Were women equal? They couldn't vote.

Replies:   Geek of Ages  Not_a_ID
Geek of Ages

@Switch Blayde

In the second paragraph, the Constitution says: "All men are created equal."


No it doesn't:

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.


You might be thinking of the Declaration of Independence—a document with no legal standing.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
Geek of Ages

@Not_a_ID

Wrong, the 3/5ths of a person thing was an initiative from the abolitionists to discourage the South from "stacking the deck" population wise by either importing more slaves, or by forcing them(slaves) to have more children.


Did you actually read what I wrote? Because you say it's wrong then don't actually respond to it.

Again, I said that representatives are apportioned by _population_, not by _voting-eligible citizens_. That the three-fifths clause exists as a way of counting _population_ is an example. I'm well aware that the fear was the South would have lots of slaves, increasing their _population_, and thereby giving them outsized political power relative to the other states. _That's the entire point of what I'm saying!_

It feels like you saw "three-fifths clause" and immediately decided I was wrong and wrote your soap box about it. Don't do that; if you're going to call me wrong, _then actually respond to what I say_.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Geek of Ages

@Not_a_ID

Well, until Reconstruction, when an amendment gave blacks the right to vote.


I'm referring more particularly to the _manner_ and _logistics_ in which voting is conducted, not particularly to the criteria by which eligible voters are chosen. That's why I used the word "conduct". And also, the the Constitution as it was pre-1800 or so.

Also, the amendments did not give people the right to vote. They had the right to vote, naturally (there being, as people on here keep saying, no rights that governments grant)—the amendments merely prevent states from infringing on that right to vote.

Geek of Ages

@Not_a_ID

It also is why the Southern States have to contend with Justive Department oversight of their voter registration systems.


I seem to recall that the Supreme Court struck that down about a decade or so ago, which is why there's suddenly a rush to implement laws that coincidentally just so happen on accident to have a disproportionate impact on black people in terms of taking away people's right to vote.

Dominions Son

@PotomacBob

I heard a resident of Pennsylvania on the radio the other day saying that in that state, when the November general election rolls around, voters may choose a single lever that selects all the candidates for either the Republican or Democratic candidates from top to bottom, or you can select individual levers to mix up your vote among the candidates of the parties.


Wisconsin has basically the same thing. We phased out lever machines years ago in favor of a scan-tron type optical scan paper ballot system, but there is a spot on the general election ballot to mark a straight party line ballot in one mark.

Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

I once read that one of the parties encouraged their members to vote in the other primary for the person they thought had the least chance to win in the general election.

But then someone said: "But what if he wins?"


And then Trump won.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Switch Blayde


Were women equal? They couldn't vote.


Actually... They could, but they had to be "head of household" to vote in most states circa 1790. But then, in 1790, many MEN, even the white ones, couldn't vote in the 1790's either. As being a landowner was a common requirement.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

But then, in 1790, many MEN, even the white ones, couldn't vote in the 1790's either. As being a landowner was a common requirement.


Yep, back then, voter turn out as a percentage of eligible voters was much higher than it is no at around 80%, but turn out as a percentage of the full population was only around 10%

Zom

@awnlee jawking

MPs votes should be secret so that they can vote with their consciences rather than follow party diktat.

That surprised people, including me

I think, mayhaps, you are confusing the publicly stated reason with the actual reason.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
StarFleet Carl

@Dominions Son

And then Trump won.


Which has not really been a bad thing. Sure has shaken up the status quo in Washington.

Oh, and back on the original topic of this whole thread - in late February, 174 Democrats in the house signed on to a piece of legislation that, if passed, would ban private purchase of any semi-automatic weapons in this country. Not just rifles, but pistols as well.

They even had a list of things you COULD own, which included bolt action and lever action rifles. AND just for good measure, while you could still own a semi-automatic weapon if you already did, it would give the government the authority to confiscate - not just ban further sale of, but outright take away - any magazine they deemed 'high capacity'. Which would include the normal 15 round magazines my Glock pistol uses...

(a) In General.—Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by inserting after subsection (u) the following:

"(v) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a semiautomatic assault weapon.

(w) (1) It shall be unlawful for a person to import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, a large capacity ammunition feeding device.

d) Seizure And Forfeiture
Of Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Devices.—Subsection (d) of section 924 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

It's HR 5087, if you care to do your own research.

My military oath was to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have not been relieved of that oath. If you think I consider this House Bill to be a threat to the Constitution, you're probably right.

Replies:   PrincelyGuy  Jim S
Not_a_ID

@Zom

I think, mayhaps, you are confusing the publicly stated reason with the actual reason.


A politician who doesn't want to be held accountable for things they instigate or otherwise supported? Inconceivable! Never happens. They're paragons of accountability after all.

💩

PrincelyGuy
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5087/text

They really seem to be hung up on grenade and rocket launchers. Those are banned from both semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. I am pretty sure those are already banned unless you have a special license.

They are also banning the Ruger mini-14.

Wow, just like California, they are banning those evil pistol grips on rifles. Those must be banned cause they are so scary looking.

If you have a semiauto rifle with a forward grip it will also be banned. If taken to extreme, that would ban any of those rifle where the stock extends past the trigger guard. Say goodbye to your hunting rifles unless they are bolt action.

ETA: Oops, the actual text on the grip states:
"(42) The term 'forward grip' means a grip located forward of the trigger that functions as a pistol grip

Replies:   PrincelyGuy
PrincelyGuy

@PrincelyGuy

Just noticed a list of exclusions. That list includes:

"Ruger Mini-14 (w/o folding or telescoping stock or pistol grip)

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
Switch Blayde

@Geek of Ages

You might be thinking of the Declaration of Independence


Oops. Yep.

Replies:   Dominions Son
StarFleet Carl

@PrincelyGuy

"Ruger Mini-14 (w/o folding or telescoping stock or pistol grip)


Yep. It doesn't matter than a Ruger Mini-14 is functionally EXACTLY the same as my Sig AR, it's all a complete and total politics thing now and trying to increase their power, and realistically has nothing to do with protecting the kids or anyone else (other than themselves).

It's really pretty obvious, too - if they'd wanted something done, they would have done it during the Obama first term. That they didn't act when they had the power to do so is a telling point. (The only thing they DID do was change the definition of a mass shooting, lowering the number of people shot for it to be considered one.)

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Dominions Son

@Switch Blayde

"All men are created equal."


In regards to the "All men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence.

There is little reason to believe that the authors of the Declaration of Independence were deliberately excluding women.

It should be noted that in Old English, man/men was gender neutral and there was a male prefix, along with the female prefix "wo".

Even though the male prefix got dropped from the language, the gender neutral use of man/men persisted into modern English and was not at all uncommon in the 18th century.

In fact, the gender neutral use of man/men didn't fall completely out of official favor until the modern feminist movement started actively opposing it in the 1960s.

Jim S
Updated:

@Geek of Ages

Removed by author

awnlee jawking
Updated:

@Dominions Son

It should be noted that in Old English, man/men was gender neutral and there was a male prefix, along with the female prefix "wo".


IIRC the male prefix was 'were', as in werewolf. The female prefix was 'wif'.

AJ

Jim S
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


What most 'religious rights' advocates charge is that, by NOT giving the Christian faiths the full support OF the government, is discrimination against the majority faith of the nation. That's always been a specious argument, at best.


One of the more curious aspects of Article I's prohibition against the Feds supporting or establishing a state religion is that it doesn't prohibit states from doing so. In fact, Massachusetts (I believe) had supported a specific religion when the Constitution was adopted. Under that interpretation, Federal law belongs nowheres near the controversy surrounding local support of creches. Or local schools requiring teaching of intelligent design for that matter. Or even a Department of Education in the cabinet.
Now the SCOTUS has apparently made that "unconstitutional". But, given original intent, is it?

Where is the 10th Amendment when you need it?

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Jim S
Updated:

@Crumbly Writer


By my recounting, there has only been ONE, the others have all been cases where a cop was ON the premises and had a gun. There have been NO cases where a civilian stopped a school shooting by shooting a gunman.


http://rense.com/general19/schd.htm

There are others, pretty easy to find on the net. This one came from entering "school shooting stopped by student" in Bing's browser, as I couldn't remember the school's name.

The school is in Virginia, if I remember correctly. Compare that story to the one at Virginia Tech to get some idea of the difference arming the right people on campus can make.

Geek of Ages

@StarFleet Carl

if they'd wanted something done, they would have done it during the Obama first term


Post-Sandy Hook, there was legislation put forward in the Senate. It was filibustered to death by the Republicans, as I recall.

Having a majority doesn't mean you can just push through legislation (unless you change the rules to make sure it does, as the current Republican Congress keeps threatening to do)

Geek of Ages

@Dominions Son

There is little reason to believe that the authors of the Declaration of Independence were deliberately excluding women


So then why did the Declaration of Sentiments say "all men and women" instead of just "all men"?

Replies:   Dominions Son
Jim S

@Not_a_ID

If CONGRESS and the President really think SCotUS is out of line, they can push through an amendment to resolve the matter by way of the states.


Not needed. Congress can remove legislation from Judicial review through a simple act, signed by the President. Article 3, Section 2, 2nd paragraph. I wonder why it isn't used more often.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@Jim S

I wonder why it isn't used more often.


My guess is that it's because of the fear of unintended consequences. Suppose Congress passed, and the President signed, a law removing all federal laws from judicial review. Then Congress passed a law outlawing all guns. Without judicial review, what's to stop that from happening. Or the opposite, Congress passed a law requiring all residents to own machine guns. Legislative bodies have been known to pass some pretty extreme laws.

Replies:   Jim S
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Geek of Ages


So then why did the Declaration of Sentiments say "all men and women" instead of just "all men"?


1. It was written 72 years after the Declaration of Independence by a completely different group of authors.

2. The gender neutral use of man was common in that era, but it was by no means universal.

3. Absolutely nothing about the phrasing choices of the authors of the Declaration of Sentiments can be imputed to the authors of the Declaration of Independence.

ETA:
4. There are many ways in which, even in the founding era, the government of the United States failed to live up to the grandiose principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence.

Jim S
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl


My military oath was to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have not been relieved of that oath. If you think I consider this House Bill to be a threat to the Constitution, you're probably right.

Rep


Well, and accurately, stated. Each sentence.

Jim S

@PotomacBob

My guess is that it's because of the fear of unintended consequences. Suppose Congress passed, and the President signed, a law removing all federal laws from judicial review. Then Congress passed a law outlawing all guns. Without judicial review, what's to stop that from happening. Or the opposite, Congress passed a law requiring all residents to own machine guns. Legislative bodies have been known to pass some pretty extreme laws.


Visualize this scenario. Congress passes a law denying judicial review of its last immigration law. Either the idiot in Hawaii or the one in Washington state rules it unconstitutional. It eventually ends up at the SCOTUS. They uphold the unconstitutional finding.

Talk about a constitutional crises, huh?

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Geek of Ages

@Jim S

Talk about a constitutional crises, huh?


No worse than the basic question I asked earlier with a similar scenario. You either grant the Supreme Court the ability to declare laws unconstitutional, or you grant Congress the ability to ignore the Constitution. Which do you pick?

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S
Updated:

@Geek of Ages


No worse than the basic question I asked earlier with a similar scenario. You either grant the Supreme Court the ability to declare laws unconstitutional, or you grant Congress the ability to ignore the Constitution. Which do you pick?


I choose the Constitution. If what you suggest ever actually happened, then StarFleetCarl's solution would probably be implemented.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Geek of Ages

@Jim S

I choose the Constitution


That's not an option. In the event of a congressional law contradicting the Constitution, either the judiciary can ignore the law in favor of the Constitution (judicial review), or the judiciary can ignore the Constitution in favor of the law (meaning Congress can thereby ignore the Constitution at their will). There's no middle ground, and no tricky third way out. You. Must. Pick. One.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Geek of Ages

You. Must. Pick. One.

I reiterate -- I choose the Constitution. As to my position re: judicial review, see previous posts of mine in this thread.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Geek of Ages
Updated:

@Jim S

"I choose the Constitution" _does not answer the question_. You must decide if John Doe is either guilty or not! Which do you choose?

This is a property inherent in all systems like this: where you have multiple precedences of legislation and another body who determines violation/nonviolation of that legislation.

If there is a lesser-precedence law that contradicts a higher-precedence law, then you have two _and only two_ options: either you give the arbiter the ability to nullify the lesser-precedence law; or you let the lesser-precedence-law-makers ignore the higher-precedence laws. You _cannot_ escape this fundamental reality.

For all the supposed prescience the Founders had, they did not see this inherent property. (Though, Hamilton apparently touched on this in Federalist 78) Or, at least, address it in any way.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S
Updated:

@Geek of Ages

Maybe you would benefit from a close reading of Article III so as to fully appreciate what judicial power means. I think you'll find each of your points are addressed, I believe.

I don't want to turn into a lecturer of Constitutional law. Heaven knows we have enough of those already, and most of those have less a knowledge of the Constitution than I do. And I say in all honesty that I don't have all that much. But I do know that I can read a plain text.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Geek of Ages
Updated:

@Jim S

You continue to evade the issue. Yes, I have read Article III. The particular point I have raised is not particularly addressed. It's a fundamental property of the system.

I've already, on multiple occasions, elaborated on why "plain text" isn't.

But I'll ask again, in plain and simple language: is, under the scenario I've detailed above, John Doe in violation of the law or not? That is, is he innocent or guilty?

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Geek of Ages

I've already, on multiple occasions, elaborated on why "plain text" isn't.

Okay. You're wrong.

But I'll ask again, in plain and simple language: is, under the scenario I've detailed above, John Doe in violation of the law or not? That is, is he innocent or guilty?

This question is entirely different than the points I've tried to make. Guilt or innocence of any one particular person is a well recognized, and accepted, function of the judicial system and authorized in the Constitution. Plain text, Geek.

And as to your John Doe, it depends. If he is found innocent in the original trial, it ends there. If he is found guilty, it depends on where the case was filed. Kalifornia or anywhere else on the Left Coast and his guilt would have been wiped out at the District level upon appeal and never make it to the Appellate Court as they wouldn't accept it. Probably most other jurisdictions as well. So your question, IMHO, is moot. But, for the sake of answering your argument, SCOTUS would never accept it as the question was already answered in previous pleadings before the Court, i.e. laws passed that violate Constitutional rights can't be enforced. So it would, at best, be returned to the lower court for another look-see. Which means reversal.

And if something like this actually did occur? Like I said earlier, if such an environment actually existed, StarFleet Carl's solution would likely be implemented. Because what you describe is no longer the US.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Geek of Ages

@Jim S

This question is entirely different than the points I've tried to make.


No, it is not, and your attempted analysis of the scenario demonstrates that you don't understand the underlying point or implications of the decision.

I also find it interesting that you would claim a lower court could find Mr. Doe innocent. The entire point of the scenario is that Mr. Doe is in clear and obvious violation of the anti-fiddlesticks law. That fact is not in doubt. But, the anti-fiddlesticks law contradicts the Constitution law. If he is found innocent, that means the judiciary is nullifying the lower-precedence law in favor of the higher-precedence one. Which is...

(Wait for it)

Judicial review.

(Also, you keep referring to StarFleet Carl's solution, and I don't know what you are referring to. I've read up and down the thread to figure it out, but I am at a loss. Care to elaborate?)

Replies:   Dominions Son  Jim S  Jim S
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Geek of Ages


If he is found innocent, that means the judiciary is nullifying the lower-precedence law


No, it would not be the judiciary doing anything unless John Doe had explicitly waived his right to trial by jury and requested a bench trial.

An act of the jury is not an act of the judiciary. It is well settled law that a jury has the right to convict the law rather than the defendant and a jury verdict of not guilty, even if clearly in contravention of the law can not be overturned. In a not insignificant bit of legal hypocrisy, the defense is legally barred from mentioning this to the jury.

Not even SCOTUS has the authority to overturn a jury verdict of not guilty.

At the trial level, the judge decides questions of law, but unless jury trial is waived, the jury is the finder of fact.

Replies:   Geek of Ages  Jim S
Jim S

@Geek of Ages

(Wait for it)

Judicial review.


Where in all of the posts in this thread do you come up with the idea that I'm opposed to judicial review (as this implies)? My whole beef has been living Constitution vs original intent. Judicial review is written into Article III. Thats why I suggested you read it closely.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Geek of Ages

@Dominions Son

An act of the jury is not an act of the judiciary


I never said anything about a jury. Quite intentionally. This is about the power of the judiciary.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Geek of Ages

@Jim S

Where in all of the posts in this thread do you come up with the idea that I'm opposed to judicial review (as this implies)?


Then I'm probably mistaking you for someone else who was decrying how Marbury v. Madison—the case that established the power of judicial review—was an overextension of the judiciary's power by giving them the ability to determine if laws are unconstitutional. Which is also known as judicial review.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S
Updated:

@Dominions Son


An act of the jury is not an act of the judiciary. It is well settled law that a jury has the right to convict the law rather than the defendant and a jury verdict of not guilty, even if clearly in contravention of the law can not be overturned. In a not insignificant bit of legal hypocrisy, the defense is legally barred from mentioning this to the jury.


You make a good point and one that I've already decided to follow if I'm ever called to jury duty again.

One big area of prosecution that bugs me is statutory rape. Take a case where a teacher is accused of statutory rape for having consensual sex with an 18 year old high school senior from one of his classes (an actual crime in my home state). Say the teacher successfully shows the "Duck Defense" --if it walks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck. In this case, if it walks like a slut, talks like a slut, dresses like a slut and acts like a slut, then she is likely a slut. In which case, I wouldn't give two craps as to what the law is. My finding is not guilty as long as his defense is adequately demonstrated, i.e. proven.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Dominions Son

@Geek of Ages

I never said anything about a jury. Quite intentionally. This is about the power of the judiciary.


Actually, yes you did.

If he is found innocent, that means the judiciary is nullifying the lower-precedence law


A verdict of innocent or guilty is a finding of fact, not a legal decision. This is the jury's decision not the judges decision.

Even if trial by jury is waived and a bench trial is held, the judge acts as both judge and jury and is presumed to be capable of separating those roles.

Even in a bench trial, the findings of fact (verdict) would not be considered judicial acts.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Jim S

@Geek of Ages

Which is also known as judicial review.


That was Marshall's interpretation which sought to establish judicial review and occurred in Marbury v. Madison. Its not in the Constitution.

Dominions Son

@Jim S

That was Marshall's interpretation which sought to establish judicial review and occurred in Marbury v. Madison.


Which was one of the earliest Supreme Court decisions. And while many have criticized that decision, despite more than 200 years of trying, no has put forward a convincing counter argument.

Jim S
Updated:

@Geek of Ages


(Also, you keep referring to StarFleet Carl's solution, and I don't know what you are referring to. I've read up and down the thread to figure it out, but I am at a loss. Care to elaborate?)


Jim S 3/30/2018, 10:34:35 AM
Updated: 3/30/2018, 10:44:44 AM

@StarFleet Carl

My military oath was to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have not been relieved of that oath. If you think I consider this House Bill to be a threat to the Constitution, you're probably right.

Rep

Well, and accurately, stated. Each sentence.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Not_a_ID

@Jim S

In fact, Massachusetts (I believe) had supported a specific religion when the Constitution was adopted.


Maryland was one of those states as well, they seized a number of Catholic properties during that timeframe(1790's)

Replies:   Dominions Son
Geek of Ages
Updated:

@Dominions Son


A verdict of innocent or guilty is a finding of fact, not a legal decision.


Then I'm accidentally using the wrong words about a simplified theoretical case, because I'm trying to get at a fundamental underlying point. Adjust the particulars appropriately.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Geek of Ages

@Jim S

Its not in the Constitution.


At this point, you are thoroughly confusing me. You _just asked_ where I got the idea that you were opposed to judicial review, because it's in the Constitution; and right here, you're saying it's not in the Constitution.

So, which is it?

Replies:   Jim S
Dominions Son
Updated:

@Not_a_ID


Maryland was one of those states as well, they seized a number of Catholic properties during that timeframe(1790's)


All 13 of the original US states had state supported churches at the time the US constitution was ratified(1787).

Only 3 of them (Pennsylvania 1790, Delaware 1792, and Georgia 1798) ended the state support before 1800.

The last two to go were New Hampshire (1877) and North Carolina (1875)

Note: The 14th amendment which SCOTUS has used to apply most of the bill of rights amendments to the states was ratified in 1868

https://undergod.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000069

Geek of Ages
Updated:

@Jim S

That's not a solution? Like, I don't even know what you're referring to in there as a "solution". It doesn't actually propose any actions at all.

I'm even more confused now.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Geek of Ages

Adjust the particulars appropriately.


It's your job to make sure the particulars are appropriate, since you are the one trying to use a hypothetical case to make a point.

Jim S

@Geek of Ages

So, which is it?


I'm guilty of using the same term to refer to two different things, judicial review as defined by Marshall and appellate review as defined in Article III. My bad. From here on in the thread, when I used it, it will refer to Marshall's interpretation. Hope that clears it up.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Dominions Son

@Geek of Ages

t doesn't actually propose any actions at all.


It kind of implies one, armed insurrection.

Replies:   Geek of Ages  Not_a_ID
Geek of Ages

I didn't happen to use the words "innocent" and "guilty" in the original formulation. Is that more appropriate for you?

let us say that Congress passes a law making it illegal to say the word "fiddlesticks". John Doe is accused of saying "fiddlesticks" and is arrested. The case eventually makes its way to the Supreme Court, who notes that the anti-fiddlesticks law contradicts the First Amendment. The court has to make a ruling; it can't wait for Congress to undo its legislation. What would you have the court do?


I've also attempted to restate the same question multiple different ways because there's been a consistent refusal to _actually provide an answer_. I would have thought across all of those, it would have been clear. I guess not.

Geek of Ages

@Jim S

Hope that clears it up.


Uh, cool.

Then, uh, my point stands.

Let me rephrase the question, which hopefully meets all of the random requirements of detail.

Congress passes a law that makes it illegal to say the word "fiddlesticks". Through various reasonable legal mechanisms, the law is now at the center of a case in front of the Supreme Court, with notes in arguments that it flagrantly violates the 1st Amendment. No question.

In your opinion, is the correct option:
1) that the Supreme Court can strike the anti-fiddlesticks law down as being unconstitutional (that is, judicial review)
or
2) that the Supreme Court cannot strike laws down, therefore the law stands (that is, Congress can ignore the Constitution)

?

JohnBobMead

@PotomacBob

A national citizenship ID card might be evidence you are a citizen, but it is not likely to be accepted everywhere as proof that you are a current resident in the voting district.


If it had the same requirements and regulations as a State ID card, it would.

Because you would have a limited number of days after changing your address to inform them of the new address, and you would then be either issued a new card, or an update to affix to your existing card.

Your presumption seems to have been that it wouldn't require a current address as part of the information included on the card.

My presumption is that, for it to be any good as a national ID, it would need to contain the same information as the current State IDs, and have the same requirements of keeping your address current in the issuing agency's database.

There would, of course, be the exact same problem as currently exists for those who are homeless or otherwise without a fixed abode. I'm not sure how the respective States deal with that currently.

Replies:   PotomacBob
Geek of Ages
Updated:

@Dominions Son


It kind of implies one, armed insurrection.


Which is fucking terrible and sickening that someone would even suggest such a thing. Especially people who keep talking about the "rule of law".

And even if you did commit treason and murder a bunch of people to set up some new "better" system, it would (as I pointed out above) fall victim to the exact same dilemma: either you have third-party nullification, or lower-precedence-law makers can ignore higher-precedence laws. You'll just keep having a cycle of blood and death, because you're unwilling to accept reality.

Sickening.

That's not a solution; that's sin.

Dominions Son
Updated:

@Geek of Ages

Which is fucking terrible and sickening that someone would even suggest such a thing. Especially people who keep talking about the "rule of law".


What do you think happened in 1776?

I won't pretend that it wouldn't be bloody and painful and awful, but if the status quo ante is bad enough, it can be justified.

And even if you did commit treason and murder...


Treason never prospers, for if it does, none dare call it treason.

it would (as I pointed out above) fall victim to the exact same dilemma: either you have third-party nullification, or lower-precedence-law makers can ignore higher-precedence laws.


That's not a solution.


I'll agree with you that it's not really a general solution to enforcing the constitution.

That said, the threat of insurrection from an armed populace can act as a restraint on the excesses of the government.

And if the government actually decides to abandon the constitution, it is there as a last resort, because full on abandonment of the constitution is not something the courts can stop, because at that point the executive isn't going to obey the courts.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
StarFleet Carl

@Geek of Ages

Which is fucking terrible and sickening that someone would even suggest such a thing. Especially people who keep talking about the "rule of law".


As DS pointed out, it's already happened once in this land. That's how we became a country in the first place.

And that's also the reason we HAVE the Second Amendment. Which brings us back full circle, I think. Second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, I believe. (emphasis added)

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Replies:   Geek of Ages  PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@JohnBobMead

I am not familiar with "current State IDs." Can you enlighten me?

Replies:   JohnBobMead
Geek of Ages

@Dominions Son

if the status quo ante is bad enough, it can be justified


🙄🙄🙄

That's a much bigger "if" than has been even been vaguely alluded to in this thread. Calling for the murder of government officials because you don't like legislation they've drafted—or of legislation they've passed—that you happen to disagree with is evil. To casually recommend treason?

Utterly vile.

The fantasy of yet another armed revolution to create a "better" America is a toxic illusion; it comes from the whispers of serpents, sowing evil and chaos while dressing it up as righteousness.

But make no mistake: it is the path to Hell.

Dominions Son

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Geek of Ages

@StarFleet Carl

🙄🙄🙄

Y'all love your penumbras when they agree with you.

Geek of Ages

@Dominions Son

Those are risible words coming from a man who never actually fought in a war even ostensibly for noble aims.

Jefferson was also a vile man.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@StarFleet Carl

Let's suppose that, in an armed insurrection, you succeed in overthrowing the U.S. government and then succeed in establishing a new strongman rule of your own without any constitutional curbs to restrain you. Do you have an army strong enough to defeat the U.S. military? Or do you think the U.S. military will support you? Might there be an Army general who decides he'd be a better leader than you? Do you dream of actually surviving such an effort?

Replies:   Dominions Son
PotomacBob

@Geek of Ages


Jefferson was also a vile man.


Why?

Replies:   Geek of Ages
PotomacBob

@Dominions Son

Only if you take the bear to militia meetings, and if he militia is well regulated

Dominions Son

@PotomacBob

Or do you think the U.S. military will support you?


US military personnel swear and oath to defend the constitution, not the president and not congress, from all threats foreign and domestic.

Yes, he's likely expecting that if it came to that his side would have the support of at least a significant chunk of the US military.

Replies:   Jim S
PotomacBob

@Zom

The process of electing a U.S. President is not by secret ballot everywhere. In some states where they use caucuses, rather than primaries, to select delegates (who eventually choose electors), people gather in neighborhood houses (or schoolhouses) and to show support for a particular candidate must group themselves publicly with that candidate's other supporters. Then somebody counts the number of people in each group. Somehow they winnow it all down - very publicly.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Jim S
Updated:

@Dominions Son


US military personnel swear and oath to defend the constitution, not the president and not congress, from all threats foreign and domestic.


I don't think that non military really understand that oath. And I don't think they fully appreciate what "domestic" actually refers to.

@PB, dwell on it a moment as to what it truly means to swear to ".....defend the Constitution from all threats, foreign and domestic." Does pledging your life, your fortune, your sacred honor ring a bell? These words have meaning.

Let me give a few more that have meaning (emphasis added) .....


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.


I don't think I need tell you where thats from. I think what you're having a problem wrapping your head around is that a significant portion of the country are truly afraid that what in that quote above is what is happening. So what are they to do? Sit back and take it. Sorry, but that isn't in America's DNA.

We're not at that point yet. Hopefully, we'll never get there. But if history is any guide, I wouldn't bet on it.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@PotomacBob

The process of electing a U.S. President is not by secret ballot everywhere. In some states where they use caucuses, rather than primaries, to select delegates (who eventually choose electors)


No, caucuses are only used in the nominating process to select delegates to the party convention (in the few states that still use them), not to select electors for the general election.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  PotomacBob
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Dominions Son

It kind of implies one, armed insurrection.


And one of the stranger legal points.

1) Government (and Military) Officials take oaths to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

2) Their oath further specifies their need to only obey lawful orders.

3) C/O the Nuremberg Trials at the end of WW2, "I was just following orders." Entered American (and other National Jurisprudence traditions) legal traditions as an invalid defense against carrying out illegal orders.

4) As of right now, there currently is no legal precedent that exists as to how someone is to respond to an "illegal order" scenario that places others in danger of immediate harm. Be that through deliberate actions of inactions.

Although going back to Nuremberg, simply being a guard at a concentration camp, rather than any of the more nefarious actors, was grounds for War Crime charges. So it is unclear how someone would fare in an after-the-fact review from going "conscientious objector" and refusing to carry out the illegal act, but failing to act to stop others from doing so while in a position to do so.

Replies:   Zom
Dominions Son

@Jim S

We're not at that point yet. Hopefully, we'll never get there. But if history is any guide, I wouldn't bet on it.


I agree, were not there yet.

Personally, I do think we are heading in that direction and that it is inevitable that we will get there eventually.

I just hope we don't get there in my lifetime.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

No, caucuses are only used in the nominating process to select delegates to the party convention (in the few states that still use them), not to select electors for the general election.


Not so few any more. The system fell out of favor for a while, almost disappearing even. But it has since had a revival and seems to be becoming increasingly popular for both parties to implement in their primary proceedings.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

Personally, I do think we are heading in that direction and that it is inevitable that we will get there eventually.


We seem to be heading to a crossroads, and certain parts of the country seem to be heading in diametrically opposed directions. They're going to need to either reconcile, or agree to part ways (somewhat) amicably. Otherwise, it will become a bloody mess once one side managed to lock the other out of most of the process.

Right now, the Electoral College is the only thing keeping it at a stalemate, but it too could quickly become part of the problem of it keeps deciding things on a regular basis.

PotomacBob

@Dominions Son

Caucuses, where they are held, are an integral part of "the process of electing a U.S. President," which is what the note said. If I had wanted to specify the general election, I would have done so. Congratulations, you've knocked down a straw man.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Zom

@Not_a_ID

carrying out illegal order

Illegal according to whom? According to the authority that eventually tries you if you lose the conflict? Isn't that a retrospective form of justice?

Not defending WW2 actions; just asking the question. The "orders" came from the top executive authority in the state. What laws were broken there?

Replies:   Jim S  Not_a_ID
Jim S

@Zom

Illegal according to whom? According to the authority that eventually tries you if you lose the conflict? Isn't that a retrospective form of justice?

Not defending WW2 actions; just asking the question. The "orders" came from the top executive authority in the state. What laws were broken there?


I always considered the Nuremberg Trials to be nothing more than fancy window dressing for executing the leaders of the country just defeated. In the true spirit of Genghis Khan. Nothing more. Nothing less.

The human race hasn't advanced beyond its roots yet.

Not_a_ID

@Zom

Illegal according to whom? According to the authority that eventually tries you if you lose the conflict? Isn't that a retrospective form of justice?


That's the "fun" quandary of a civil war scenario. Whichever side you decide to back, the other one will call you a traitor. And ultimately, it will be the victor who will be the one determining that.

Which becomes the real stickler on "all enemies, foreign AND domestic" as that same path means neutrality may not fly either. Although I think some clever commanders could make a case for keeping their units neutral in the interest of defense against "foreign interventions."

And at least as of my time on Active Duty, if they had to choose on backing a conservative or liberal "cause" the military would skew significantly in favor of the conservatives. Although enough liberal types are in the ranks that there would be plenty of chaos within the forces all the same. Net effect, they'd probably be mostly combat ineffective.

But then, I guess we'd also need to discuss what constitutes a "conservative" for some people. As going by some SOL stories over the years, some people seem to have really screwed up perspectives on that. Most conservatives have zero interest in visiting a Christian equivalent to Sharia Law. The Westborough Baptist Church might be, but they're extremists even by conservative standards.

Geek of Ages

@PotomacBob

Why?


I find it difficult to come up with any nicer adjective to describe a hypocrite who claims all men are equal while supporting and engaging in a system that systemically tortured and brutalized people, bolstered by a theology that they were sub-human; and consistently espoused a vision of America that included that horrific, evil system; and repeated raped a slave girl, keeping her in captivity and fathering multiple children with her; after he lied to her claiming he wouldn't actually enslave her. Among other things.

I do not think we should tolerate assholes just because they're smart. And Jefferson was pretty high up there in the ranks of insufferable assholes.

Switch Blayde

@Geek of Ages

I find it difficult to come up with any nicer adjective to describe a hypocrite who claims all men are equal while supporting and engaging in a system that systemically tortured and brutalized people, bolstered by a theology that they were sub-human.


You'll have to include George Washington in that group of people.

and repeated raped a slave girl, keeping her in captivity and fathering multiple children with her; after he lied to her claiming he wouldn't actually enslave her.


Raped? She had her own living quarters and supposably he loved her. He freed her (their?) children. It would have been unheard of for him to free her. If I remember right, he inherited her. Or maybe his wife inherited her.

Replies:   Geek of Ages
Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

Not so few any more. The system fell out of favor for a while, almost disappearing even. But it has since had a revival and seems to be becoming increasingly popular for both parties to implement in their primary proceedings.


A caucus is not a primary process.

But you are correct, more states are using caucuses than I thought. 12 states and 3 territories used caucuses in 2016.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/138406-how-many-states-have-caucuses-instead-of-primaries-heres-exactly-what-to-expect-from-each-one

Dominions Son

@PotomacBob

If I had wanted to specify the general election, I would have done so.


You did do so.

who eventually choose electors


Electors, the people who vote in the electoral college, are strictly part of the general election process.

The party convention delegates have nothing to do with selecting them.

The slates of electors chosen in a states general election are chosen directly by the candidate well after the party conventions are over.

Geek of Ages

@Switch Blayde

You'll have to include George Washington in that group of people


I do. He was not as vile as Jefferson, though he was a terrible general more concerned with him image and legacy than actually doing his job. He did fairly well at that bit, though; and we certainly could have done much worse for a first president. But he also had dentures made of slaves' teeth, and ruthlessly hunted down the slaves who ran away from his household. It's hard for me to have a particularly high opinion of him.

Raped?


Yes. She was his slave; he was her master. Slaves do not have the power to give full, enthusiastic consent because of the power differential. That is rape. The age gap only made the power differential more problematic.

And then, as I recall, he kept his own children as slaves.

But he, too, was obsessed with his legacy, like all of the Founders we learn about. And has gotten lucky in the hagiographies that have been written about him since.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Friar Dave
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Geek of Ages


Yes. She was his slave; he was her master. Slaves do not have the power to give full, enthusiastic consent because of the power differential. That is rape. The age gap only made the power differential more problematic.


At face value, I would tend to agree. However, reality is rarely that simple and straight forward. While it is entirely possible, and even highly probable that most relationships of that nature were one sided and exploitive/abusive in nature.

There still remains the possibility that the relationship was reciprocal in nature and that she did have a significant degree of choice in the matter outside of the "is his slave" aspect. From my understanding of Jefferson and his views on slavery, I find it far more likely the relationship was far more reciprocal in nature than exploitive.

Now discussions on if the relationship would have existed outside the master/slave context are relevant, but still exist as potential edge-case criteria for "was it rape?" Because if you start passing criteria through that kind of filter for preliminary consideration, a lot of other situations suddenly become "rape by circumstances" even if both parties willingly consented.

And doing THAT to the definition of rape would be a travesty of justice for those who were truly raped in a violent or otherwise far more overtly non-consensual context.

All you achieve by going down that path is furthering the process of defining ANY form of Sexual Congress as being "a form of rape."

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Geek of Ages
Not_a_ID

@Not_a_ID

doing THAT to the definition of rape would be a travesty of justice for those who were truly raped in a violent or otherwise far more overtly non-consensual context.

All you achieve by going down that path is furthering the process of defining ANY form of Sexual Congress as being "a form of rape."


Going to augment this with an additional post. For me "rape" has a few important criteria to meet:
1) Results in either (medium/long-term) physical or (any duration) psychological trauma, if not both.

("short term physical trauma" is ommited in this case because Sex itself "is Messy" and even the fully consensual stuff can sometimes take days to recover from.)

2) Requires the active (deliberate) exercise of a power differential in order to deprive the other party the ability to choose.

For example, using your authority as the boss/manager/supervisor to induce the subordinate into having sex with you is highly likely to be rape.

However, a subordinate deciding to have sex with you(as their superior authority figure) absent any overt actions on your part is not rape. Exploitive? Probably, but as to who is exploiting whom, that may be another matter.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@Not_a_ID

Going to augment this with an additional post. For me "rape" has a few important criteria to meet:
1) Results in either (medium/long-term) physical or (any duration) psychological trauma, if not both.

("short term physical trauma" is ommited in this case because Sex itself "is Messy" and even the fully consensual stuff can sometimes take days to recover from.)

So the existence of a crime will depend on the resilience of the victim?

That has to be another misguided attempt to make a joke, at least I hope it is.

Replies:   JohnBobMead  Not_a_ID
Friar Dave

@Geek of Ages

I do not think we should tolerate assholes just because they're smart. And Jefferson was pretty high up there in the ranks of insufferable assholes.


It's short sighted, hypocritical or totally ignorant (take your pick), to view historical figures in current social norms.

At the time, slavery has always been an existing human condition. It existed for thousands of years, ever since humans existed. You can't blame somebody for simply existing in the world they were born in. Jefferson treated that slave girl way better than what was the norm then, for that he should be commended.

White people didn't start slavery. White people are the ones who ended it. People seem to forget that somehow. Or simply choose to ignore that little nugget of info.

People who trade on white guilt about slavery in the US irk me to no end. They seem to forget that thousands upon thousands of white people lost their lives fighting to end a practice that existed since humanity's dawn.

Black people in the US should be grateful that they were freed at all. Black people should thank white people for sacrificing their lives to end something that white people didn't start. There are countless places on earth right now where slavery is still practiced. Read up about what's happening in Libya. Currently in Africa, some black people have black slaves. Rich Arabs have black, Indian and even white slaves. Nobody seems concerned with those and it's more than 150 years since white people brought the beginning of the end of wide spread slavery. We can't talk about that or document it lest we take away from the white guilt narrative being used in the US.

People who blame white people for slavery in the US now are nothing more than charlatans that are using white people's superior sense of morality to make them feel guilty so that they can extract resources and advantage from them. You don't blame people for something they didn't consciously make a decision to do. Even killing somebody can be deemed accidental and the person who cause it is set free. So how can some blame current white people who have never practiced slavery for something that their ancestors ended? And you definitely can't view people in the far past through a current moral lens.

Friar Dave

@Geek of Ages

Yes. She was his slave; he was her master. Slaves do not have the power to give full, enthusiastic consent because of the power differential. That is rape. The age gap only made the power differential more problematic.


Ah, so we have a feminist, post-modernist among us. Are you a communist too?

Replies:   Geek of Ages
robberhands

@Friar Dave

Black people in the US should be grateful that they were freed at all. Black people should thank white people for sacrificing their lives to end something that white people didn't start.

Seriously? I think the irony in this thread became too subtle for me to notice.

Jim S

@Friar Dave

People who blame white people for slavery in the US now are nothing more than charlatans that are using white people's superior sense of morality to make them feel guilty so that they can extract resources and advantage from them. You don't blame people for something they didn't consciously make a decision to do. Even killing somebody can be deemed accidental and the person who cause it is set free. So how can some blame current white people who have never practiced slavery for something that their ancestors ended? And you definitely can't view people in the far past through a current moral lens.


Your whole post is an eloquent indictment of the "politically correct" canard of white privilege. But the paragraph I highlighted deserves special attention.

Dominions Son

@Friar Dave

At the time, slavery has always been an existing human condition.


It still is in certain parts of the world.

Geek of Ages

@Not_a_ID

🙄

An abusive husband can love his wife and still be abusive. It doesn't erase the evil.

And spare me the misogyny dressed in the language of protection.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Geek of Ages

@Friar Dave

It's short sighted, hypocritical or totally ignorant (take your pick), to view historical figures in current social norms.


The morality of an act is independent of the time period in which it occurs. At least, if you believe in absolute morality, which I do.

Also: 🙄🙄🙄 spare me the ahistorical "white savior" trope.

Geek of Ages

@Friar Dave

Ah, so we have a feminist, post-modernist among us. Are you a communist too?


🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

I am none of those things. But it's good to know the person ranting about how awesome white people are also stoops to calling names as though that sealed the deal.

Replies:   Friar Dave
Dominions Son

@robberhands

Seriously? I think the irony in this thread became too subtle for me to notice.


Yeah, that part went too far.

Friar Dave

@robberhands

Seriously?


Absolutely. Put some serious thought into it, without prejudice, and you'll come to the same conclusion.

Did white people start slavery, as in the whole concept of slavery? Or was it a common practice everywhere from before 15000BC -> 1500s? Maintaining the status quo is the easiest. Why did white people feel the moral need to free the slaves? Why did the whites of 1850s-1860s feel the need for the huge human sacrifice that it took to end slavery? There were some economical benefits, sure, but they weren't worth the human price.

Look, I'm not white, I've already stated in previous threads where I'm from, so truly, no skin in this fight. I'm just being as fair as I could.

Friar Dave

@Geek of Ages

I am none of those things.


Quacks like a duck...

Replies:   Geek of Ages
robberhands

@Friar Dave

Put some serious thought into it, without prejudice, and you'll come to the same conclusion.

No, I don't come to that conclusion. I regard the premises you stated as either irrelevant or wrong.

Did white people start slavery, as in the whole concept of slavery? Or was it a common practice everywhere from before 15000BC -> 1500s?

That's irrelevant.

Why did the whites of 1850s-1860s feel the need for the huge human sacrifice that it took to end slavery?

Even if some may have felt such a need, the US Civil War wasn't fought to free slaves.

... white people's superior sense of morality...

There is no such thing as a superior morality of white people. No Idea where you got that delusion.

Dominions Son

@robberhands

the US Civil War wasn't fought to free slaves.


Granted, the goal of the US government going into the war wasn't ending slavery.

However, you should try reading the writings of Jefferson Davis and the other Confederate leaders.

By their own words, the only state's rights issue that drove them to try to secede and to fight to maintain that secession was maintaining slavery at at time when at a national level the abolitionists were gaining the upper hand politically and the abolition of slavery in the US was looking to be inevitable.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@Dominions Son

By their own words, the only state's rights issue that drove them to try to secede and to fight to maintain that secession was maintaining slavery at at time when at a national level the abolitionists were gaining the upper hand politically and the abolition of slavery in the US was looking to be inevitable.

So the Confederates fought the war to maintain slavery and no one fought to end it.

Replies:   Jim S  Dominions Son
Switch Blayde

@Friar Dave

Or was it a common practice everywhere from before 15000BC -> 1500s?


Ironically, it's Passover. Moses told Pharaoh to "set my people free!" Of course God's plagues convinced Pharaoh to do the right thing.

Jim S

@robberhands

So the Confederates fought the war to maintain slavery and no one fought to end it.


I think that statement totally ignores the political strength of the Abolitionist as well as the reason for the founding of the Republican Party circa 1856. You need to explore, in depth would help but even a cursory exam would do, the history of the US from Jackson to Lincoln for a more informed view of the issue.

Replies:   Dominions Son
JohnBobMead

@PotomacBob

I am not familiar with "current State IDs." Can you enlighten me?


In every State that I've dealt with, a State ID card is identical to a State isssued Driver's License, except that it doesn't grant you driving priviledges. It is issued by the same department, and requires exactly the same documentation. You just don't have to pass the driving test.

They will issue it to individuals who are too young to obtain a Driver's License, which is a decided advantage, as well as issuing it to individuals old enough to obtain a Driver's Licence who do not drive, or have had their driving priviledges revoked.

Once you have been issued either a Driver's License or a State ID card, within that State you will retain the same ID number regardless of which card you currently have, and that ID number will remain with you within that State even after moving out of State and then back.

As with a Driver's License, you must have a fixed physical abode, and when you move, you are required to inform the issueing agency within a set number of days what your new address is.

The one thing a State ID card doesn't do, which a national ID card would need to do to be of use for expediting voter's registration, is indicate your citizenship status. The only condition placed upon the issuing of a State Driver's License or ID card is that you are required to be within the State legally; Green Card status will do just fine for their purposes, but they don't indicate that status on the card itself. For use with Voter's eligability verification, that status would need to be recorded and made verifiable during the registration process.

Replies:   PotomacBob
Dominions Son

@robberhands

So the Confederates fought the war to maintain slavery and no one fought to end it.


I'm sure that there were many abolitionists who volunteered for the Union army because they wanted to end slavery.

Lincoln's administration was more concerned with holding the Union together than ending slavery. At that level, ending slavery wasn't even a secondary concern.

Dominions Son
Updated:

@Jim S


You need to explore, in depth would help but even a cursory exam would do, the history of the US from Jackson to Lincoln for a more informed view of the issue.


Lincoln's opinion is quite well known. He was a fence sitter on slavery. He would gladly have kept slavery in exchange for keeping the Union together without bloodshed. But at the point that the Confederate states seceded, the abolitionists had the upper hand in Congress.

JohnBobMead

@robberhands

Hello?

He's saying that if someone takes harm from the act, other than that which occurs no matter how consensual it is, that it's a crime.

Nothing about the resilience of the victim. Other than someone argueing that it would be possible to not consent and not suffer emotional/mental trauma!

By making the caveat concerning short term physical trauma he's recognizing that sometimes, even when consensual, people don't take the steps required to properly lubricate, that if everything works out properly it _will_ be messy afterwards, etc. But since he's saying physical trauma isn't required for it to be a crime, that mental/emotional trauma suffices, non consensual which does little physical trauma still counts!

Replies:   robberhands  Not_a_ID
PotomacBob

@JohnBobMead

Under your scenario, what other use could be made of a national ID card? Would it be necessary in order to get a job? Get a driver's license? Get married? Own a business? I seem to recall that a national ID car may have been used in the past for purposes with which most of us would disagree today.

Friar Dave

@robberhands

No, I don't come to that conclusion.


Then you're not without prejudice.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@JohnBobMead

The criteria he stated demand either severe physical injury and/or psychological trauma and neither is a prerequisite for rape. He added these prerequisites for reasons I don't want to speculate about. Rape is a crime commited against sexual self-determination, physical or psychological injuries are not neccessary. I don't see any reason to restrict the prosecution of rape, especially whith regards to the use of date rape drugs.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
robberhands

@Friar Dave

Then you're not without prejudice.

Of course not, as long as I don't share your opinion I'm obviously prejudiced.

Geek of Ages

@Friar Dave

Quacks like a duck...


🙄

You—nor anyone else here—has actually heard me quack.

But, it's also clear that you have no intention of discussing issues in good faith, which is (to be fair) on par with the level of discourse here. So whatever. I can't stop you from listening to serpents, and won't bother.

I'll spend my time preparing for the Prince of Peace to rise.

Replies:   Friar Dave
Not_a_ID

@robberhands

So the existence of a crime will depend on the resilience of the victim?

That has to be another misguided attempt to make a joke, at least I hope it is.


Even a "resilient victim" would be traumatized by a traumatic event. They just won't demonstrate symptoms as readily.

The reason the criteria was set forth as such is because there are concerted efforts to define "rape" as being things it clearly was not. I'd events where the purported "victim" is anything but, in a vein not dissimilar to "You cannot rape the willing."

An example of this is many (mostly feminist) groups trying to make it so "simple intoxication" renders a person(almost exclusively female) "incapable of giving consent." Without regard to the circumstances of how, or why they were intoxicated.

Yes, there are plenty of examples of date rape drugs, and frat boys getting girls drunk(without her knowledge of consent) for the purpose of having sex. Those are clearly examples of a rape attempt.

But a married or otherwise committed couple going for a night on the town with "sex on the agenda" who get intoxicated as "part of the foreplay" for the night? By the dictates of some groups, that is now rape because she is drunk/intoxicated before the sex actually starts.

But it was a premeditated outcome on her part prior to "losing her ability to consent." And thus highly unlikely to be "a traumatic event" crossing the threshold into rape in my book.

Unless you, or somebody else, wants to claim there was a rape victim all the same, even if nobody involved thinks there was. Talk about taking "victimless crimes" to the inverse extreme.

Not_a_ID

@Geek of Ages

An abusive husband can love his wife and still be abusive. It doesn't erase the evil.


Not going to disagree, but you're making accusations on very sparse evidence. That the claims may be true in many, or even most cases that have similar criteria in common still doesn't mean the outcome is universal in all cases.

Not_a_ID

@JohnBobMead

He's saying that if someone takes harm from the act, other than that which occurs no matter how consensual it is, that it's a crime.

Nothing about the resilience of the victim. Other than someone argueing that it would be possible to not consent and not suffer emotional/mental trauma!

By making the caveat concerning short term physical trauma he's recognizing that sometimes, even when consensual, people don't take the steps required to properly lubricate, that if everything works out properly it _will_ be messy afterwards, etc. But since he's saying physical trauma isn't required for it to be a crime, that mental/emotional trauma suffices, non consensual which does little physical trauma still counts!


In terms of physical trauma of a short-term duration, I was thinking on the order of broken hymems, sore, bruised, or chaffed body parts. Ie "walking funny" for sometime after a sexual encounter has happened due to the extent of the activities engaged in.

To a lesser degree, BDSM elements also factor in. Someone into being spanked with a tender bottom a day later isn't necessarily a rape victim for exampke.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@robberhands


The criteria he stated demand either severe physical injury and/or psychological trauma and neither is a prerequisite for rape.


I did? I said any psychological trauma qualified. I disqualified "minor physical trauma" for reasons just covered above. As without that carveout, any sex at all, up to and including self-masturbation in some cases, would qualify as rape.

Unless you think legions of teenage girls raped themselves when they broke their own hymem?

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@Not_a_ID

The deciding factor to qualify sexual intercourse as a crime isn't physical injury or any psychological trauma, it's the victims missing consent.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Friar Dave
Updated:

@Geek of Ages


You—nor anyone else here—has actually heard me quack.


No insult intended, are you on the autism spectrum? Unless you've never heard the 'Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck' saying, you can't take my comment in its literal sense.


But, it's also clear that you have no intention of discussing issues in good faith, which is (to be fair) on par with the level of discourse here.


I'm discussing this issue in as serious of a manner as I can muster and as good faith as any.

You don't really expect me to not bring up postmodernism/feminism/marxism when you try to apply modern consent standards to a slave in pre-1860 US, while using the postmodernist/feminist lingo and perfected terminology, do you? Let's see "enthusiastic consent", "power differential" and "problematic", that's almost the definition of modern feminist/post-modernist/marxist language, you missed 'lived experience'.

Also, your constant use of rolling-eyes emoji makes you sound like a petulant child.

You're asserting that she couldn't have possibly given him her consent. Maybe she gave it, maybe she didn't. You don't know that. You weren't there. Applying modern day ideology to a situation in the 1800s without witness accounts is useless at best.

Given what we know: That she had her own house, had multiple children with him. I would say that she was consenting very much. Why would any man keep a woman who resisted him and didn't make him feel good and treat her so well? You are denying her own agency.

Put yourself (I don't know if you could) in her position. She's a slave. If she misbehaves, she risks severe punishment. She has no realistic hope of freedom. At the time, the best a slave girl hopes for is to not get a beating and to be allowed to procreate with somebody and be allowed to stay around her own children. Many slave women were forced to breed with selected slaves like cattle in order to produce more slaves for their owners.

How do you know that she didn't actually seduce him? How do you know that she didn't do her best to ensure a good position in the eyes of the man who holds ultimate power over her? How do you know that she didn't really like him and wanted to bear his children? We know that women are attracted to power and privilege and what's better for a woman that being the one who is taken care of by the boss? Women also seek the best genes for their children and the best possible future. What's a better future for a woman's children than being the children of a rich/powerful man?

The modern feminist view of women is very paradoxical to me. Women are always cast as victims of men, and yet they are supposedly smarter, more emotionally mature and more tough than men and that they can do anything a man can and they can do it better. Yet, somehow those same people hold the belief that if a woman drinks a single beer, then she's unable to consent to sex. The mere mention of 'enthusiastic consent' especially with its accompanying sidekick 'continuous' casts women as so weak that a man needs to continuously ask if the woman isn't terrified of her presence with him that's she's rendered speechless and unable to express non-consent.

Crumbly Writer

@Geek of Ages

It feels like you saw "three-fifths clause" and immediately decided I was wrong and wrote your soap box about it. Don't do that; if you're going to call me wrong, _then actually respond to what I say_.

Ah! I was wondering what set off Geek_of_Ages diatribe (in the Author's forum), and now I've finally found the discussion that triggered it. It's nice to know that, for once, I'm not personally responsible for someone going off the deep end. 'D

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
Not_a_ID

@robberhands

The deciding factor to qualify sexual intercourse as a crime isn't physical injury or any psychological trauma, it's the victims missing consent.


And engaging in sexual relations with someone without freely given consent is non-traumatic for whom exactly? (Doubly so for women!)

One thing is implicit in the other, while the other way is not so clear.

If it was traumatic, the odds of being non-consensual are high(but still not quite 100% a "falsified" outcome can still happen--ie "inept partner")

The push from some corners re: explicit consent, with limitations and legions of footnotes regarding what does or does not qualify, or invalidates their ability to grant it is silly and obtuse.

Yes, "No means no" (unless you're into BDSM games and have safewords in use) and intoxicating people without their knowledge or consent in pursuit of sex is rape.

Arbitrarily declaring that a woman being intoxicated absolves her of any responsibility without regard to circumstances is NOT acceptable. And potentially sexist as well, if women are not to accountable when drunk by their own choice, why are the same people pushing to punish men for things done while drunk?

I'm all for equality, but replacing the Good Ole Boys Club with The Mean Girls Club isn't progress. It is simply the same old shit, just peddled by new management.

Replies:   robberhands
richardshagrin

Rape by a statue is statutory rape. Or is that rape of a statue?

StarFleet Carl

@Crumbly Writer

It's nice to know that, for once, I'm not personally responsible for someone going off the deep end. 'D


Based upon a comment made by GoA further up in the thread, you are, though. He said,

The morality of an act is independent of the time period in which it occurs. At least, if you believe in absolute morality, which I do.


That means if you ever argued with him at any point over the years, then his leaving is your fault.

Which is pretty much what I got out of his rant on the other forum - it's okay for him to have a strong opinion about something, but when someone else with a strong opinion (and facts to support their opinion, don't forget those) disagrees with him, then he'll run away.

it feels like a group of old white men with too much time on their hands ranting and raving about minor details that don't matter, or things they don't even know anything about


Personally, it appears to be the Facebook equivalent of 'unfriending' everyone here because in the grand scheme of arguments, there were several close items in a row where people called him on his assertions without having actual facts in support and in an attempt to save face, he's saying that we drove him away.

Instead, he's acting

like a petulant child.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl


Personally, it appears to be the Facebook equivalent of 'unfriending' everyone here because in the grand scheme of arguments, there were several close items in a row where people called him on his assertions without having actual facts in support and in an attempt to save face, he's saying that we drove him away.


Oh, I would agree that at least a couple of people in this discussion came across "like an 'old' white guy" in what they said and did, and ventured into racist territory as well(which isn't to say they are, I know better than that. But it is valid "privilege" example, they're blind to what they're actually saying).

Personal experience is confronting them on it is pointless, so I ignore them until/unless they're actually directing it at someone physically present. Something he clearly hasn't learned.

Of course, he probably considers me to be one of "those old white guys" which I am not. (Not even 40 yet)

Of course, it was also odd being condemned for not immediately assuming the worst of "certain types" of people, historical or otherwise. But that is a problem with a lot of present day rhetoric and tendencies.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  StarFleet Carl
Not_a_ID

@Zom

The US voting systems seem chaotic to those of us used to more ordered and reliable systems.


I guess we missed this one earlier. Part of "Why the U.S. system seems chaotic" is that there is no federal system strictly speaking. Each state or territory maintains its own system independent of anything happening elsewhere. As there are no elections which happen across state lines.

Remember, the Presidential race is actually a series of state elections used to determine who the state will use to represent them in the Electoral College.

Thus things can get confusing when you get descriptions of California's process mixed in with stuff from Texas while somebody else adds in information from New Jersey.
:)

Replies:   Dominions Son  Zom
Not_a_ID

@Not_a_ID

Personal experience is confronting them on it is pointless, so I ignore them until/unless they're actually directing it at someone physically present. Something he clearly hasn't learned.


I should append this one: The actual and/or "marginal" racist isn't the only one with whom engagement is "mostly pointless" the "SJW'S" and company also generally qualify.

But they're a special case for me, as I generally agree with the intentions and goals many of them have. What I disagree with is the methods, and what I fear is "the swing of the pendulum." Which is something they ignore at their peril.

They may be ascendant at this time, but "a downstroke" is inevitable.

Many of them seem to be of two camps on that. Either they can not conceive of a regression, or they're hoping to have moved things so far in their favor that when the backslide happens, they'll still have progressed forward. In a "Three Steps Forward, Two Steps Back" kind of way.

The problem is the methods now often being employed are more likely to turn it into "Three Steps forward, Four Steps back." Which is the option that horrifies me. So of course I am going to call out efforts that seem to be ratcheting that pendulum up to an even greater proverbial height.

Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

As there are no elections which happen across state lines.


Personally I think the voting of the electoral college would qualify for this.

The only election in the world where the voters are elected. :)

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Dominions Son

The only election in the world where the voters are elected. :)


What about those Prime Minister guys?

Personally I think the voting of the electoral college would qualify for this.


As the Electoral College voting process doesn't directly involved the general public, I don't consider that particular Vote to be a "normal" balloting process someone will participate in.

Replies:   Zom  Dominions Son
Zom
Updated:

@Not_a_ID


Remember, the Presidential race is actually a series of state elections used to determine who the state will use to represent them in the Electoral College.


Like I said, chaotic :-)

I get the reasons for it all. The (near fanatical) devolution of power and responsibilities in the US has also brought about many differences in the way precisely the same things are done, all the way down to how the city dog catcher is empowered. It almost seems that the same devolution has resulted in a 'we will do it our way, and make sure it is different from everybody else, just so we can say it is ours alone' arrangement.

Countries that aren't paranoid about State or County or City process independence, and prefer to have ordered common processes (without shedding responsibility) are, IMHO, easier to live in.

In Oz, ALL significant elections are managed the same way by the same independent body, so it's all familiar and easy to execute, regardless of where in Australia one lives.

Oz too is Federated, but as a Commonwealth, not a Republic. It is technically a federal parliamentary constitutional monarchy. The Federal Government in Australia exists, technically, at the pleasure of the States.

We have a constitution. I haven't read it. There has been one constitutional crisis in my lifetime, a real one, and I still didn't read it.

We don't seem to need to rely on our constitution for 'rights'. We don't have a Bill of Rights. Never needed one. Just goes to show how backwards we are I guess.

Replies:   PotomacBob
Zom

@Not_a_ID


What about those Prime Minister guys?

Beat me to it.

Prime Ministers are the senior executives of Westminster style Parliamentary Democracies. They are not voted for by the public.

The party or parties coalition that wins the election to form a government elect their leader, who becomes the Prime Minister.

So the elected representatives in the government elect the Prime Minister.

Just to confuse y'all, the Government is not the same as the Parliament. Is is a subset of it.

Replies:   Switch Blayde
robberhands
Updated:

@Not_a_ID

'Arbitrarily declaring that a woman being intoxicated' cannot legally give consent is indeed absurd, no matter who claims so.

However, demanding a victim's physical or psychological injury as elements of the crime is not better, it's worse. Currently, for a rape verdict, the prosecution has to prove the victims missing consent. The result of your demand of an injury would be that even in cases where the missing consent can be proven, an injury still would need to be proven as well. If an injury for whatever reason cannot be proven the prosecution would fail. The plea "the victim said 'no' but I didn't hurt her" would become a legal defense, and that is truly unacceptable.

Replies:   awnlee jawking  Not_a_ID
awnlee jawking

@robberhands

'Arbitrarily declaring that a woman being intoxicated' cannot legally give consent is indeed absurd, no matter who claims so.


I believe the opposite, but then I've never had to get a woman drunk to have sex ;)

AJ

Replies:   robberhands
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@robberhands


However, demanding a victim's physical or psychological injury as elements of the crime is not better, it's worse. Currently, for a rape verdict, the prosecution has to prove the victims missing consent. The result of your demand of an injury would be that even in cases where the missing consent can be proven, an injury still would need to be proven as well. If an injury for whatever reason cannot be proven the prosecution would fail. The plea "the victim said 'no' but I didn't hurt her" would become a legal defense, and that is truly unacceptable.


I think we're actually arguing tomatoe vs tomato on this. The "legal standard" essentially boils down to consent. Or have you missed my repeated comments about traumatic events regarding lack of consent? Or how ANY psychological trauma qualified for that purpose? (Even with the remaining risk of "falsification") It isn't like I'm supporting a standard of evidence where say, a lack of a visible bruise means no physical contact happened.

The key difference is in the way I view it, it takes the victim declaring "this was rape because I did not give my consent freely at any point(relevant to that timeframe) for that kind of outcome."

Rather than some third party declaring "This was rape because Suzy drank 3 beers at 2200 hours and didn't have sex with the defendant until 2335 that evening." Even though Suzy decided to have sex with the defendant that night well before she drank any beer.

Not that there have been any prosecutions yet with that as the threshold, but there have been "victim advocacy groups" who have used that specific line to decide women are victims of rape for them.

Let the victim determine and establish context before going off on any crusades.

The biggest difference here is I actively make provisions for consent and/or intent (as asserted by the "victim") to exist in scenarios that current rhetoric asserts it cannot exist.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@awnlee jawking


I believe the opposite, but then I've never had to get a woman drunk to have sex ;)

The same principle applies to drunken men, so you hardly have a reason to gloat.

robberhands

@Not_a_ID

The biggest difference here is I actively make provisions for consent and/or intent (as asserted by the "victim") to exist in scenarios that current rhetoric asserts it cannot exist.

No, you're blurring the lines between rules of evidence and the definition of a crime.

Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

What about those Prime Minister guys?


Since the MP who elect the prime minister aren't elected solely to elect the prime minister it's not the same thing.

Replies:   Zom
Zom
Updated:

@Dominions Son


it's not the same thing


Not exactly, but it is an 'election ... where the voters are elected', so 'only ... in the world' doesn't hold.

StarFleet Carl

@Not_a_ID

Of course, it was also odd being condemned for not immediately assuming the worst of "certain types" of people, historical or otherwise. But that is a problem with a lot of present day rhetoric and tendencies.


That's realistically where my problem comes from as well. It's all well and good to say that, from the "enlightened morality" that GoA claims, that a historical figure acted immorally. But the context of the times has to be considered as well.

This also comes into play when examining not just individual decisions and actions, but those by governments and their agents, the military. Dropping atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is seen by modern moralists as wrong. Would they have preferred the alternative, with Olympic, Coronet, and Downfall?

On the U.S. side, the number of casualties expected was so high that we're STILL using the stock of Purple Heart medals that were manufactured to be handed out just for that invasion. (Right at half a million.) On the Japanese side, the estimates are there would have been 5 - 10 MILLION dead.

Now, the modern moralist also likes to say that it was our fault for the war happening in the first place, because of the way we acted previously in dealing with Japan. In sports, this is called armchair quarterbacking. In reality, this is called stupidity and blindness to facts.

Where this will bite the 'modern moralist' in the butt is simple. Not everyone in the world today IS a modern moralist. There's still quite a few cultures - not just individuals, but entire cultures - where pretty much the epitome of their standards is still stuck on what it was several centuries ago. Doesn't make them bad people, just means that they have no modern morals to appeal to.

Sometimes they can individually have an epiphany. One of my Criminology professors moved to Indiana from the east coast with modern morals and liberal attitudes regarding the death penalty and started doing research at the local Federal Penitentiary with inmates there to prove her point about how bad and evil and against the morals of modern society the death penalty really is. By the end of six months, she had become an advocate for the death penalty.

I know, I'm on a soapbox roll this morning. I don't have a problem with someone having an opinion, or with voicing that opinion. It's just that I loathe the person who uses his own views of moral superiority to attempt to suppress MY opinion. (Quit arguing with me, I'm right and I know it! And I'm taking my ball and going home because you're continuing to argue with me!)

This is an internet forum ... on an adult oriented website. Presumably we're all adults here, men and women. We can have heated words back and forth, but in the end, what's there to fear? That perhaps you might actually change your mind about something, because the other person actually has a convincing argument? How modern day moral is that?

Replies:   REP
REP
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl


what's there to fear? That perhaps you might actually change your mind about something,


My opinion is that your statement identifies the problem.

In a forum like this, someone will take a stance, and then others challenge that stance. If the opinions of others and the facts they present to support their opinion results in the original person realizing their stance was not totally accurate, then they have a choice. They can ignore what the others have shown them is more correct and continue to profess their original stance or they can change their stance.

The problem with acknowledging an improper stance to yourself and changing it is, you start to examine your other beliefs when they are challenged. Some people are too insecure to do an honest evaluation of what they believe and modify those beliefs when their beliefs are challenged by others.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
PotomacBob
Updated:

@Zom


but as a Commonwealth, not a Republic


How do they differ? There are some "states" in the U.S. that call themselves commonwealths, but as far as I know they operate the same way as other states do.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  StarFleet Carl
Not_a_ID

@PotomacBob

How do they differ?

Not by much, particularly in modern context, where the difference is comparable to that of a Democracy vs a Republic.

Switch Blayde

@Zom

The party or parties coalition that wins the election to form a government elect their leader, who becomes the Prime Minister.


That always confused me. So that's how it's done.

I think it's wrong in the U.S. to vote party line, like all the Republicans on the ballot. I believe you should vote for the best candidate regardless of their party.

But it seems that's what you do in a parliamentary government. To make an analogy with the U.S., you'd vote for the Republican party and then they'd choose who is president. That is very strange to me.

Replies:   PotomacBob  Zom
PotomacBob

@Switch Blayde

So if he U.S. had the British system, the party who won the most seats in the House would elect the President - presumably the same person they've been choosing for Speaker of the House?

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@PotomacBob

So if he U.S. had the British system, the party who won the most seats in the House would elect the President


That can happen, though it's exceedingly unlikely, with our existing system.

If none of the candidates gets a majority in the electoral College, the House selects the president and the Senate selects the vice President.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

That can happen, though it's exceedingly unlikely, with our existing system.

If none of the candidates gets a majority in the electoral College, the House selects the president and the Senate selects the vice President.


I forget if it is a "rule" or constitutional (amendment) restricting them, but in such an instance, the House can only vote on persons nominated by an Elector in the initial ballot round.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

It's in the original constitution. They are limited to selecting from candidates who got votes in the electoral college and in fact if there were a large number of candidates voted for by the electoral college, they are limited to choosing from the top five.

StarFleet Carl

@PotomacBob

There are some "states" in the U.S. that call themselves commonwealths, but as far as I know they operate the same way as other states do.


They are functionally now, and always have been the same. Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia, and Massachusetts designated themselves as commonwealths when they were originally formed, to show that they were formed for the common consent of the people.

StarFleet Carl

@REP

My opinion is that your statement identifies the problem.


I know it does. As you further said:

The problem with acknowledging an improper stance to yourself and changing it is, you start to examine your other beliefs when they are challenged. Some people are too insecure to do an honest evaluation of what they believe and modify those beliefs when their beliefs are challenged by others.


I think that hits the nail on the head. I read this article today online.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/30/red-blue-america-clinton-trump-country-217760

I think back 10 years ago and we weren't split this badly. It almost makes me think everything that happened during the Obama presidency was intended to destroy the country. But then again, 10 years ago I also read this book as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Centurion

Replies:   Zom
Zom

@Switch Blayde

So that's how it's done.

Technically, yes. But most often the leader is elected before the ballot, and just confirmed post ballot. That way the public understands who will be Prime Minister before they vote.

But it doesn't always hold. In Oz, there have been many instances where the 'party' forming Government has tossed out one leader and voted in another. The new leader then becomes Prime Minister. In those instances the public gets absolutely no say in who is Prime Minister.

Zom

@StarFleet Carl

everything that happened during the Obama presidency was intended to destroy the country

To an outside observer, the rot was really started by one person. Newt Gingrich broke all precedents and normal behaviors when he introduced the attack dog methodology against Clinton. Regardless of any view anyone holds about Clinton, the methods Gingrich employed were not justified by the outcomes. I remember thinking at the time, that it was the beginning of the end for bi-bipartisan politics in the US. I didn't foresee that it would eventually lead to a Trump outcome, although I probably should have. I still had hope for the prevalence of the precedence of good governance, I suppose. I wonder where it will go next …

Replies:   Not_a_ID  StarFleet Carl
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Zom


Newt Gingrich broke all precedents and normal behaviors when he introduced the attack dog methodology against Clinton.


Actually have to somewhat agree with this, but in a different way. It still is Newt's fault, but the specific change at fault is more the changes in how the Republicans did the campaign funding in 1994, at Newt's behest, IIRC.

They Nationalized and centralized a lot of it in ways that had never been done before. Which allowed Republican candidates to outspend incumbent Democratic candidates in races where it had never happened before.

It can probably(but this is supposition on my part, haven't checked the paper trails) also account for the funding mechanisms the RNC used in defeating the Tea Party in several primary races in 2014. Which certainly did prime a lot of Republican voters to go "Fuck You" towards the RNC in 2016, and thus giving us Donald Trump.

Basically the 1994 campaign waged by Gingrich's team, while pushing for smaller, more localized governmental approaches, actually created a nationalized political campaign mechanism they essentially destroyed "local variation" between party districts. As politicians are often beholden to their next campaign fund... And as they moved that to a national rather than local level in a very big way, it both homogenized things and made it far more partisan as a result.

StarFleet Carl

@Zom

Regardless of any view anyone holds about Clinton, the methods Gingrich employed were not justified by the outcomes.


I agree with you regarding the methods and outcomes. But I also consider Slick Willy to be somewhat viler than Ted Kennedy, and I also think the rot goes a lot further back than just Newt. It's just it wasn't splashed across the public pages then, so while my parents didn't have to explain to me why Marilyn Monroe singing Happy Birthday to Jack Kennedy was so bad, I had to explain to my kids why sometimes a cigar is not just a smoke.

Friar Dave

@Friar Dave

Rich Arabs have black, Indian and even white slaves.


Not really trying to resurrect this thread, but this came up today. It illustrates how, many of the muslims who make up a good chunk of the world population these days, think about slavery in the year 2018:

https://twitter.com/akhbar/status/982852529674440704/video/1

forward to 3:40 and listen to his words. It's one minute.

He gives one reason why they resent the west.

Dominions Son

@Friar Dave

He gives one reason why they resent the west.


Yes, the abolition of slavery. I found it interesting that he singled out America on this, when in reality, the United States was one of the last western nations to abolish slavery.

Replies:   Friar Dave  REP
Friar Dave

@Dominions Son

I found it interesting that he singled out America on this, when in reality, the United States was one of the last western nations to abolish slavery.


That's simple to understand.

The US is the only country in the world where the descendants of slaves are still asking, persistently and belligerently, for restitution over something that none of them nor their grandparents have experienced, 150 years after it was abolished, from people who never practiced it and whose ancestors ended.

Well, to be honest, if there is another place where something similar is still going, I haven't heard about it.

Ernest Bywater

@Friar Dave

Twitter won't play it for me unless I become a twit by joining them. So I'll have to miss out on it.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl

@Ernest Bywater

Don't want you to miss this - it's the relevant section. Note that the person being interviewed was in Kurdish jail for taking hostages, waterboarding prisoners, and carrying out mock executions.

Transcript:
Interviewer: So what are the things you didn't agree to?
Subject: One of the things I didn't agree to ... traffic tickets. Such things that have no basis in the law of Allah.
I: Did you agree to the enslavement of UCD women?
S: I never met a UCD woman, so ...
I: No, but the practice, did you agree with that practice. Do you denounce it now on camera?
S:Do I denounce, what, slavery?
I: Uh-huh.
S: I don't denounce slavery, no. You have to understand that just because America decided to abolish something ... I don't know what year it was, anyways ... that every person has to run behind America and say that this is now an abominable act, that nobody can do. The reality is that slavery is something that has been around as long as humans have been around. Islamic texts have spoken about slavery and the rights of a slave and there's a whole jurisprudence about slavery and the rights of slaves and the rights of slave owners

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
REP

@Dominions Son

the United States was one of the last western nations to abolish slavery.


Slavery may have been made illegal, but it is still a common practice is many parts of the world and those governments are aware of what is happening within their borders and ignore it. The US Government comes down on slave rings here in the US. It just takes the FBI a long time to gather the evidence necessary to support the charge and prosecute all of the perpetrators.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@REP

Slavery may have been made illegal, but it is still a common practice is many parts of the world and those governments are aware of what is happening within their borders and ignore it.


True, but I don't see the relevance.

The US Government comes down on slave rings here in the US. It just takes the FBI a long time to gather the evidence necessary to support the charge and prosecute all of the perpetrators.


Again true, but that does nothing to show that the US is the major, or even a major, force pushing for the abolition of slavery in the Mid-East, where it's still legal in several countries.

Replies:   REP  REP
REP

@Dominions Son

True, but I don't see the relevance.


Just pointing out that abolish is often taken to mean "to end", and unfortunately, making something illegal does not end it.

REP

@Dominions Son

show that the US is the major, or even a major, force pushing for the abolition of slavery in the Mid-East, where it's still legal in several countries.


Yeah and the problem is there is no force making a significant effort to end slavery in countries where it is practiced.

Actually, at the urging of the UN, every country in the world passed a law making slavery in their country illegal. But some of those governments just ignored the law and continued the practice.

Replies:   tippertop
Ernest Bywater

@StarFleet Carl

Don't want you to miss this - it's the relevant section.


Thanks for the transcript in English.

Replies:   Dominions Son
tippertop
Updated:

@REP


Yeah and the problem is there is no force making a significant effort to end slavery in countries where it is practiced.


Those evil, racist English did that in the 18th and 19th century, at great expense of resources and manpower, yet the moment they went away Africa and the Middle East went right back to practicing their vibrant and progressive culture. It's not the white man's burden to uplift these people to something resembling civilization, nor is it possible to do so through force of arms. They'll either figure out human rights on their own or they won't, but don't bet on it happening.

One might also note there is no religious or moral reason for them to give up on the practice. Islam condones slavery and Africans were enslaving and selling each other off since the dawn of time. From their point of view they're doing nothing wrong, and the only reason they even bother making a pretense of enforcing the laws is to keep Western bleeding hearts from pressuring their governments to come over and "liberate" them.


But some of those governments just ignored the law and continued the practice.


Because the UN is a joke. They put Saudi Arabia at the head of their human rights commission. The only useful part of that tumor of an organization is the Security Council, everything else is just clowns sniffing each other's farts and covering up the rapes and violence of the "peacekeepers".

Replies:   awnlee jawking
Dominions Son

@Ernest Bywater

Thanks for the transcript in English.


The actual interview video is in English with Arabic subtitles.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
awnlee jawking

@tippertop

The only useful part of that tumor of an organization is the Security Council


Yes, that's done a fine job of liberating Tibet, halting Russian incursions into Ukraine, stopping Assad using chemical weapons, halting North Korea's nuclear aggression.

You got it right the first time, the UN is a joke: bad science and corrupt politics.

AJ

Replies:   StarFleet Carl  Not_a_ID
StarFleet Carl

@Dominions Son

The actual interview video is in English with Arabic subtitles.


I still had to listen to and type the thing, since Ernest couldn't watch it. I suppose I could have translated what was said into Spanish or Russian - or Klingon.

StarFleet Carl
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


You got it right the first time, the UN is a joke: bad science and corrupt politics.


But it has good intentions from when it was founded. After all, having good intentions is all that matters, not the actual results of what it actually does. (At least, that's what I see modern liberals thinking.)

And back to the topic of rights ... did anyone else see this little gem from the Mayor of Londonistan?


No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.


"An epidemic of stabbings and acid attacks in London has gotten so bad that London mayor Sadiq Khan is announcing broad new "knife control" policies designed to keep these weapons of war out of the hands of Londoners looking to cause others harm."

https://www.dailywire.com/news/29179/londons-mayor-declares-intense-new-knife-control-emily-zanotti

Next he'll want to ban tube socks, because you can take a roll of quarters and put them in tube socks and make a quite effective little mace with them.

awnlee jawking

@StarFleet Carl

But it has good intentions from when it was founded.


The UK now has more levels of government than at any time in history, and all of them demand payment for their 'services'.

I constructed a table of effectiveness, democratic accountability and cost before deciding that the EU was top of the list for the UK to jettison. Despite the UN failing virtually every test, except for being relatively cheap, I reckoned it was worth keeping just for the principle: the planet needs an overarching authority to mediate national disputes, and in its absence, the UN is the only alternative.

AJ

Replies:   sejintenej
sejintenej

@awnlee jawking

the UN is the only alternative.

Yes - lets get the UN to force Port Lauderdale to allow running on its east-west streets

(OK it might be some other stupid Florida joint but the principle is the same - make everyone comply with MY views, not yours). Now, if I were a Saudi with a couple of nubile blonde ....... :-)

Dominions Son

@StarFleet Carl

Next he'll want to ban tube socks, because you can take a roll of quarters and put them in tube socks and make a quite effective little mace with them.


Where are you going to get a roll of US Quarters in London, England?

Not_a_ID

@awnlee jawking

Yes, that's done a fine job of liberating Tibet, halting Russian incursions into Ukraine, stopping Assad using chemical weapons, halting North Korea's nuclear aggression.

You got it right the first time, the UN is a joke: bad science and corrupt politics.


To be fair, it was never intended to address those issues. Its purpose is to prevent World War 3. So far, so good.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

To be fair, it was never intended to address those issues. Its purpose is to prevent World War 3. So far, so good.


I have a can of tiger repellent I can sell you. How do I know it works? There are no Tigers in my yard in Pleasant Prairie, Wisconsin, USA.

tippertop

@StarFleet Carl

having good intentions is all that matters, not the actual results of what it actually does


They said the same exact shit about the League of Nations, only for it to prove just as ineffective. Also, I sincerely doubt anyone involved in the creation of the UN had good intentions in mind when the abomination was put in place.

No excuses: there is never a reason to carry a knife. Anyone who does will be caught, and they will feel the full force of the law.


Meanwhile, he, like all his predecessors, ignores the elephant in the room. The third world has come to London, and everyone can look forward to more Trucks of Peace ramming into civilians to help spread love and tolerance. But yeah, let's confiscate whatever butter knives are still laying around, I'm sure that will stop the Muslims and Africans from raping, rioting, murdering and burning the place to the ground.

Hell, the police in London puts more effort in arresting people that post mean tweets on the internet rather than tracking down rapists and murderers. I guess thoughtcrimes are a bigger threat to the establishment than Abdul and his merry band of Pakis raping a bunch of little girls and pouring gasoline on them. After all, the Muslims always vote how their imam tells them to.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl
Updated:

@tippertop


They said the same exact shit about the League of Nations, only for it to prove just as ineffective. Also, I sincerely doubt anyone involved in the creation of the UN had good intentions in mind when the abomination was put in place.


Keep in mind I never said the UN was worth anything, merely what I figure the people who founded that waste of space and land must've had when they founded it. At this point in history, I'm pretty much in favor of simply declaring a Pax Americana on the world and if they don't like it, they can do without any support from us in the best case, and in certain cases, they can learn to enjoy living in the radioactive lands that used to be known as their homes.

Oh, look, Assad gave up all his chemical weapons, and Putin verified that he did. Except now there's been another chemical weapon use in Syria against people who don't like Assad. Gee, how could that have happened?

I don't think that isolationism is truly an answer, and as much as it'll irritate the rest of the western world, I also don't think that just sitting by passively for much longer is an option, either.

that will stop the Muslims and Africans from raping, rioting, murdering and burning the place to the ground


No, it won't. But dropping a few nukes on them will. Take out their homelands, and put the rest of them up against a wall, will. It's sort of like the comment about why there were Russians on the Starship Enterprise, but there were no Muslims there. Because it's the future ...

Think about that one.

Oh, and I'm tired and I've also had quite a bit of adult beverage. So while I can still type quite well, my 'I don't give a flying fuck what you think' brain cells have been activated.

Dominions Son

@StarFleet Carl

No, it won't. But dropping a few nukes on them will. Take out their homelands, and put the rest of them up against a wall, will. It's sort of like the comment about why there were Russians on the Starship Enterprise, but there were no Muslims there. Because it's the future ...


That sounds more Aliens than Star Trek.

Nuke the whole site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.

BlinkReader

@StarFleet Carl

Oh, look, Assad gave up all his chemical weapons, and Putin verified that he did. Except now there's been another chemical weapon use in Syria against people who don't like Assad. Gee, how could that have happened?


It's the same ad Saddam Hussein from Iraq according to CIA had atomic weapons and was head figure for talibans in Afghanistan, etc...

I simply couldn't believe what bullshit you all are eating to be so blind...

And as I live much closer to them than all of you and can smell them - believe me that for Arab world it's much better to have even crazy dictator than something you are calling democracy. As crazy as they were they were keeping some stability there. Now it's all gone, and their shit is now all around us.

Be welcome - they are soon going to be very near you too :(

Replies:   Zom
Zom
Updated:

@BlinkReader


Now it's all gone, and their shit is now all around us.

Probably right, but I don't think you are ever ever going to get that accepted by the good ol' boys.

The Star Trek joke in its time would likely have been replied to with "what's a Muslim?" Before we opened the Middle Eastern Pandora's Box with copious ordinance, they just weren't on our radar.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  StarFleet Carl
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Zom


Before we opened the Middle Eastern Pandora's Box with copious ordinance, they just weren't on our radar.


No, the Middle Eastern Pandora's Box was broken open with an Oil Rig, and because of said Oil Rigs, the shit just keeps gushing out.

That is probably the only truly compelling argument in my book for pushing to "decarbonize" the modern economies of the world. The sooner we can pull the plug on that, the better, IMO.

StarFleet Carl

@Zom

Before we opened the Middle Eastern Pandora's Box with copious ordinance, they just weren't on our radar.


Actually, it goes back longer than that, depending upon which use of copious ordinance you're talking about. If you're referencing shortly after WWII, then you're right.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending upon how you view things, that area was being used by the U.S. and Soviet Union as an additional proxy war since early on in the cold war. As for being on the radar of civilization, though, keep in mind that even Kipling wrote of the British fighting on the plains of Afghanistan in 1890.

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier of the Queen!"

It really does boil down to a numbers game. There are maybe 1/2 of 1% of all Muslims in the world that really, really believe in wiping out western civilization because of what the really wacko (at least to us) religious leaders believe. So 99.5% of them don't believe that, it's just they're not willing to do anything to stop the 0.5% that do believe it. And with 1.6 BILLION Muslims in the world, that means there's only 8,000,000 of them who want to destroy us and are willing to die to do so.

Thus we have a choice. Do we treat terrorism as a police problem, or do we treat it as a military problem? Since we're the good guys - hey, it says so on the box - we treat it as a police problem. Because if we treated it as a military problem ... well, we all know (or should know) about Dresden and Tokyo if you're willing to accept civilian casualties.

Because they damned sure are.

Replies:   tippertop
tippertop

@StarFleet Carl

There are maybe 1/2 of 1% of all Muslims in the world that really, really believe in wiping out western civilization because of what the really wacko (at least to us) religious leaders believe


You severely underestimate just how resentful Arabs truly are about Western "dominance", or how deluded they are about their supposed golden age. This goes for blacks as well. Add on top of that leftists feeding them both a steady propaganda that the West is to blame for all their ills and its easy to see where things are going. You end up with these ignorant savages thinking that if whitey hadn't come along they'd be cruising through space in flying pyramids.

And, yes, many of them aren't dumb enough to martyr themselves, but they are perfectly willing to help along those that want to go and kill a bunch of infidels with a Truck of Peace. The problem are the Muslim communities in general, not some random "lone wolves" whose motivations are "unknown".

How do you think Middle Easterners and Africans will treat European natives when they start to outnumber them in various countries in Europe by 2050 or 2060?

Do we treat terrorism as a police problem, or do we treat it as a military problem?


Treat it as a demographic problem. Kick them out and magically the threat of Islamic terrorism goes away, along with acid attacks, rape, grooming gangs, heightened murder and assault numbers, riots, and all the other bullshit that comes along when you import the Third World into civilization.

They can roll in their own shit all they like afterwards, any sane people would just leave them to their own devices and pray they kill each other off.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl  Not_a_ID
StarFleet Carl

@tippertop

How do you think Middle Easterners and Africans will treat European natives when they start to outnumber them in various countries in Europe by 2050 or 2060?


You're really not going to get any disagreement from me on this one. I was simply trying to be optimistic, while at the same time pointing out the volume of people that are the problem.

any sane people


Which does tend to leave out progressives and liberals, at least on this topic.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@tippertop


How do you think Middle Easterners and Africans will treat European natives when they start to outnumber them in various countries in Europe by 2050 or 2060?


I remember claims of a very comparable thing happening in the U.S. regarding blacks back around the 1950 when projecting out into our now recent past. It didn't happen, Planned Parenthood "happened" to them instead, with 20th century demographic shifts impacting them as well as whites alike.

"Hispanics" (a uniquely American term that it us) were also another grouping where such concerns were(and in some places, still are) voiced about recently regarding them becoming the majority in the United States. Doesn't seem to be "on track" for happening, as their birth rates are also starting to fall, both in the U.S. and back in their home countries.

Basically, the trend line does exist at present, but that doesn't mean it will remain that way. Although I do expect at least a few European nations are going to "Flip" back to being Islamic controlled as though replaying history from nearly 1,000 years ago. It will certainly be "interesting" to watch play out and see how "Secular Europe" responds to the problems that will be likely to follow suit.

I doubt they're all going to flip, or come close to brink of such a tipping point. Once ONE nation goes from secular/Christian to "Islamic State" the brakes are going to come on hard, and all those horrible boogeyman that Western Europeans believe we've progressed beyond will come out to play.

And it's going to become a very bloody mess in Europe. America may or may not follow suit with regards to its own Islamic population. But until they demonstrate why they shouldn't "be let out of the sand box" on a truly massive scale, it will be treated as a demographic migration and not as an "low intensity (Islamic, religious) invasion."

In the interim, on an individual basis I don't think Muslims are much different from the rest of us. However, there is a growing indication that large groupings of them is another matter.

Basically the "Men in Black" scenario. An individual person can be handled, they tend to reasonably smart on the whole. People, on the other hand, are another matter and "the herd" is an entirely different ball game.

This is one instance where I would be more than happy to be proven wrong, but it's going to be at least a couple decades before we really "know" much beyond Europe in particular is making one hell of a risk in finding out.

PotomacBob

@Not_a_ID

We've had a history of some WASPs also following a "herd" mentality in the U.S.A., complete with violence. I've heard stories about lynchings, the KKK (not exclusive to the South), and other vigilante organizations who used violence and threats of violence to enforce their own visions of what our communities should be.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@PotomacBob

I've heard stories about lynchings, the KKK (not exclusive to the South), and other vigilante organizations who used violence and threats of violence to enforce their own visions of what our communities should be.


The KKK wasn't exclusive to the south, in its heyday, "it was everywhere." Even the White House during the Wilson Administration.

That said, even the Klan knew their methods were extreme and inexcusable by the standards of Society at Large. Otherwise they wouldn't have bothered with those bed sheets, among other things.

The problem as regards to Islam is their Holy Book itself almost reads like a manual from the KKK in places. Not to say the Bible is all sunshine and flowers by comparison, but it does seem more tolerant all things considered. That difference in particular creates concerns that are unique to Muslims alone.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

The KKK wasn't exclusive to the south, in its heyday, "it was everywhere." Even the White House during the Wilson Administration.


The Wilson Administration, wasn't the heyday of the Klan, at least not the original Klan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan

The Ku Klux Klan (/ˈkuː ˈklʌks ˈklæn, ˈkjuː/),[a] commonly called the KKK or simply the Klan, refers to three distinct secret movements at different points in time in the history of the United States.


The first Klan flourished in the Southern United States in the late 1860s, then died out by the early 1870s. It sought to overthrow the Republican state governments in the South during the Reconstruction Era, especially by using violence against African-American leaders. With numerous autonomous chapters across the South, it was suppressed around 1871, through federal law enforcement.


The second group was founded in the South in 1915 and it flourished nationwide in the early and mid-1920s, including urban areas of the Midwest and West. Taking inspiration from D. W. Griffith's 1915 silent film The Birth of a Nation, which mythologized the founding of the first Klan, it employed marketing techniques and a popular fraternal organization structure. Rooted in local Protestant communities, it sought to maintain white supremacy, often took a pro-prohibition stance, and it opposed Catholics and Jews, while also stressing its opposition to the Catholic Church at a time of high immigration from the mostly Catholic nations of Central Europe and Southern Europe.[6]


The third and current manifestation of the KKK emerged after 1950, in the form of localized and isolated groups that use the KKK name. They have focused on opposition to the civil rights movement, often using violence and murder to suppress activists.

tippertop
Updated:

@Not_a_ID


Doesn't seem to be "on track" for happening, as their birth rates are also starting to fall, both in the U.S. and back in their home countries.


Before they introduced the 1965 Immigration Act the US was more than 95% white, now it's anywhere between 50% and 65%, and that's not a good thing. One only has to look at what Hispanics have done to their own countries to see what will happen to the US once they tip over into being the majority.

And if it's not Hispanics, nor blacks (who are already a plague despite their low population numbers), it will be someone else. The powers that be are intent on balkanizing the US because a population of minorities that hate each other is far easier to control. Africa and the Middle East can "supply" both the US and Europe with millions of future engineers, surgeons and rocket scientists for decades to come.


It will certainly be "interesting" to watch play out and see how "Secular Europe" responds to the problems that will be likely to follow suit.


They'll respond the same way they've been responding to it for the past 50 years. They'll pretend the problem doesn't exist, repeat the mantra that Islam is a Religion of Peace and call anyone that dares go against the narrative a racist. Their liberal mental framework, built around individualism and secular values, simply isn't capable of processing the threat a population of religious zealots can pose to a society, nor how to effectively deal with them.


Once ONE nation goes from secular/Christian to "Islamic State" the brakes are going to come on hard


Sweden. It will be Sweden. They have the low population numbers (under ten million) and import upward of 250,000 immigrants a year. Also, I sincerely doubt the brakes will come on at all. If you've read Camp of Saints, which has been eerily prophetic about most things, so I see no reason why it wouldn't be about this as well, it's far more likely the governments of other Western European nations will crack down hard on their own populations and suppress any worrying news from Sweden, and even unleash violence against them, rather than gut the sacred cow of Islam. We've seen it already in Rotherham, Labour was perfectly willing to let children get raped and brutalized than confront the futility of their insane worldview.


and all those horrible boogeyman that Western Europeans believe we've progressed beyond will come out to play


Isn't that always the case? Ivory towers are only good when the unwashed third world hordes aren't busy battering down the door.


America may or may not follow suit with regards to its own Islamic population


The US has less to worry about Muslims than it has with Hispanics. Their birthrates might be going down, but there's still enough of them willing to immigrate to tip the balance.


But until they demonstrate why they shouldn't "be let out of the sand box" on a truly massive scale


Their behavior in their own countries should be proof enough. I remember reading a news story about Japan letting in some 20 "refugees" and not a month afterwards two of them got caught raping a woman. One needs to watch one video of a stoning, to witness the sheer group savagery of the act to realize these people will never be able to function in a Western society.

In the end the most humane thing to do is to leave them to their own devices and not meddle in their affairs. I am as much against them coming here as I am Western powers going over there and trying to assert Western values on people that want nothing to do with them.

It's telling that Iraq, Libya and Syria were better places to live when Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad were in firm control than when Westerners tried to play nation builders and introduce the concept of democracy to a people that routinely descend into sectarian violence every other decade. The direct result of that is ISIS, that behave more savagely than anything any of the brutal dictators that were in power before them.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl

@tippertop

The US has less to worry about Muslims than it has with Hispanics.


I think it's the other way. I live in a southern state that has a large ethnic Hispanic population. Keep in mind that we see the same situation with them as far as migration is concerned that also happened with blacks after the civil war, it's just that transportation is a little easier.

By that, I mean that by going north, they were looking for a better life than what they had. After the First American Civil War, those blacks who were satisfied with something a little better than what they had stopped early. Those who wanted more continued traveling north or west. That's why the culture difference in the 1960's between blacks in, say, upstate New York or upper Michigan, versus those who still lived in Atlanta.

At the same time, since most Hispanics (at least in this area) do still profess to be Catholic, they also don't get too much into the whole abortion and Planned Parenthood eugenics control, either. So while we have a percentage that are the simply leeches upon society, it's no different than the percentage of whites. Again, at least around here.

Whereas Islam is, realistically, dedicated to returning the world to an approximate 14th Century status by any means possible.

Replies:   Jim S  mcguy101
Jim S
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl


Whereas Islam is, realistically, dedicated to returning the world to an approximate 14th Century status by any means possible.


More like 7th Century when it was founded.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl  Not_a_ID
StarFleet Carl

@Jim S

More like 7th Century when it was founded.


Sounds reasonable.

Either way, it's still anathema to modern society.

Not_a_ID

@Jim S

More like 7th Century when it was founded.


Which was still more advanced in many ways than much of 14th century Europe. Socially in some respects they probably were on par with Europe at least through the 18th century(primarily Byzantium).

Once you hit the 19th Century however, things change and they start to socially regress due to European Colonization efforts, while the Europeans continue progressing socially.

Really, SJW's, Liberals, and neo-Cons should really try to take some lessons from history when it comes to trying to force new/different social mores down the throats of other groups. Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them, after all.

Replies:   Jim S  paliden
Not_a_ID

@Jim S

One big area of prosecution that bugs me is statutory rape. Take a case where a teacher is accused of statutory rape for having consensual sex with an 18 year old high school senior from one of his classes (an actual crime in my home state). Say the teacher successfully shows the "Duck Defense" --if it walks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is probably a duck. In this case, if it walks like a slut, talks like a slut, dresses like a slut and acts like a slut, then she is likely a slut. In which case, I wouldn't give two craps as to what the law is. My finding is not guilty as long as his defense is adequately demonstrated, i.e. proven.


I would part ways a bit on this. At that point, I am going to be more interested in the student's testimony than anything else on making my decision. The issue present here is we have youth/inexperience going up against authority (teacher) and entering into sexual relations. At the least, there is potentially an abuse of authority on the teachers part. It is why many statutory rape laws make exceptions to include them in situations where they otherwise would not be. In other words, laws where age of consent is 16 unless "an authority figure" is involved, at which point it becomes 18.

But I remember being a high school student, and I remember how those students talked and acted. I can easily imagine a smaller number of them being fully aware of those laws and attempting to use them for blackmail purposes re: better grades.

I also knew plenty of guys that would have jumped at the chance "for more" with certain teachers, and ditto for the girls, without need for ulterior motives. But I also know a lot of that goes back to "youthful inexperience" and also other factors that recently led to a Senate Candidate being run over the coals.

There is a "public trust" issue present there, although classification under rape does seem a bit extreme outside other factors. (Like evidence of coercion by the teacher) As all to often the teacher is on the receiving end of a never-ending stream of adolescent seduction attempts. So I can give a little benefit of the doubt regarding "but he/she asked for it!" Even while "You were in a position of 'public trust' and failed to uphold it," comes into play.

Of course, we could go for a synthesis response, and address that issue plus the (potential) "Islamic problem" by going for a full on NiS type social setting. Public nudity is allowed, and encouraged at the school level, with students likewise being allowed and encouraged to "explore their sexuality" within the confines of their schools(certain restrictions still apply). Where the teachers are available to provide guidance and assistance(and allowed to participate) as well.

Just make normal society so offensive to them on religious grounds that they have "no choice" but to withdraw from it, much as the Amish and others have done.

Jim S
Updated:

@Not_a_ID


Once you hit the 19th Century however, things change and they start to socially regress due to European Colonization efforts ....


The 19th, and 18th, Century saw something else of far more importance, i.e. the founding of the U.S. This is the first country that based its government in large part on the rights of the people. See the Bill of Rights if in doubt, all reaffirmations of individual rights that the Founders considered God given. Europe lagged in that regard and never really caught up. Now they're returning to the government-directed roots, e.g. the EU and their quashing of individual rights in spite of making a big noises about upholding them.

My fear is the the U.S. is emulating them, or trying to. Individual rights started eroding with the Progressive movement beginning circa 1910 and if Progressive's children, the SJW, have their way, will be completely destroyed. To them the individual is to be sublimated to, and be defined by, the group.

Islam goes far beyond what Europe is doing however. It was founded on the view that it would be imposed by the sword, regardless of the will of the conquered. The individual isn't important to them. Or is only as it supports their God. Its hard to accept that Islam is a religion and not a political philosophy given its tenets. Christianity, Judaism and their offshoots, the other great belief systems of the time, having never contained that tenet, remain religions and not a map of world domination. The only thing coming out of the West in that regard, at least recently, is Communism. Throw in the East with China also.

The reason both Europe and Islam hate the U.S. (also throw in those children of Communism - Russia and China) is that we dared empower the individual and celebrate free will. All of those entities either hate, or at best are uncomfortable with, that concept.

Replies:   JohnBobMead  PotomacBob
sejintenej

@Not_a_ID

In the interim, on an individual basis I don't think Muslims are much different from the rest of us. However, there is a growing indication that large groupings of them is another matter.

The problem is those who teach; whilst most are OK there is a nucleus of those who learned at a particular school located in Saudi Arabia who appear to be the extremists. Indeed most if not all the mullahs in one West European country were taught in that school (it is illegal to teach any church leaders / priests / rabbis etc in that country)and that is acknowledged as a problem such that the entry of any such ex-student is banned and those under work visas will not have them renewed.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@sejintenej

The problem is those who teach; whilst most are OK there is a nucleus of those who learned at a particular school located in Saudi Arabia who appear to be the extremists


The actions of the House of Saud are the single most significant contributors to the militant Islam seen today. However, they are not the only ones. You need look no further than Ayr'an (Iran) for demonstrations of that. As it is safe to say that the Shiites are going to have little patience for the prattlings of a bunch of Sunni Mullahs.

The problem is their only book in general. Thomas Jefferson's response upon reading it is perhaps apt in this instance. But then, the SJW's of the world have no patience for the guy who the Declaration of independence, or more particularly the earlier version where he reportedly condemned the King for providing legal support for the institution of slavery.

Replies:   sejintenej
sejintenej

@Not_a_ID

I would not argue with you on this point. However it seems to be the mullahs from Saudi who have LEGALLY and openly got into influential places in western Europe

paliden

@Not_a_ID


Really, SJW's, Liberals, and neo-Cons


What is a SJW?

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@paliden

What is a SJW?


Social Justice Warrior.

Replies:   paliden
JohnBobMead
Updated:

@Jim S

Forceable conversion is completely against what Christianity is supposed to be all about.

That, however, didn't stop Charlemagne from giving the conquered Saxons the choice of conversion or the sword. Nor did it stop the various Crusades throughout Europe and Western Asia and the Middle East during the Middle Ages from presenting that same option to the vanquished. Then, of course, the various wars of the Reformation/Counter-Reformation, Henry VIII's split with Rome resulting in the founding of the Church of England, the religious aspects involved with the English Civil War, the religious aspects of the conflicts between Tudor/Stuart colonists with the Irish already settled in Ireland, the policies in the various countries conquered by European powers in Africa, Asia, and the Americas, well, history decidedly shows that when governments embrace/ally with a specific flavor of Christianity, religious freedoms go out the window. Which had something to do with the Founding Fathers specifically declaring that there would be no State Religion in the USA.

The ironic thing is that at that time, Christians and Jews living in Muslim countries were actiually treated better than Jews and Muslims and heterodox Christians living in Christian countries. They were assessed a special tax as a result of being non-Muslim, and it didn't help their prospects for advancement in government positions, but other than that toleration was the rule of the day. The Muslim civil leadership at that time was fairly pragmatic; don't rock the boat, we'll leave you alone, and by taxing non-Muslims at a different rate economics can be brought to bear to encourage conversion amongst those who aren't rabid in their faith.

Now, we're facing fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims who want to establish secular laws based upon their interpretations of the laws contained within their holy books, and any who would dispute with them are clearly Enemies of God and active Agents of Satan. If you have read any of Frank E. Peretti's fiction you know what I'm talking about concerning how they view the world; I have friends who believe that his books reflect what is really going on in the world, which scares the bleep out of me given that otherwise they seem well educated and rational.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Jim S
paliden

@Dominions Son

Thank you.

Dominions Son

@JohnBobMead

Which had something to do with the Founding Fathers specifically declaring that there would be no State Religion in the USA.


The US Founding Fathers declared that there would be no national religion.

All 13 original US states had official state religions at the time that the US constitution was ratified. Only a couple of states ended official state government support for the state religion before 1800, and the last two did not loose official status until after the ratification of the 14th amendment in the aftermath of the Civil War.

Jim S
Updated:

@JohnBobMead


That, however, didn't stop Charlemagne from giving the conquered Saxons the choice of conversion or the sword. Nor did it stop the various Crusades throughout Europe and Western Asia and the Middle East during the Middle Ages from presenting that same option to the vanquished. Then, of course, the various wars of the Reformation/Counter-Reformation, Henry VIII's split with Rome resulting in the founding of the Church of England, the religious aspects involved with the English Civil War, the religious aspects of the conflicts between Tudor/Stuart colonists with the Irish already settled in Ireland, the policies in the various countries conquered by European powers in Africa, Asia, and the Americas, well, history decidedly shows that when governments embrace/ally with a specific flavor of Christianity, religious freedoms go out the window. Which had something to do with the Founding Fathers specifically declaring that there would be no State Religion in the USA.


True, early Christians were less than accommodating to pagans and even Jews. But today? Contrast Western treatment of other religions to Muslim treatment of other religions. In Christian nations, Islam is protected. In Muslim nations, Christianity/Judaism is attacked. Or at best considered less than Muslims, i.e. 2nd, or even 3rd, class citizens. Remember, there is only Allah. Not God. Not Yahweh. And recall that even today Christianity is being violently attacked in Muslim countries. Even those not currently embroiled in war, e.g. Egypt. Syrian Christians, a significant minority, are being slowly purged in ISIS areas. Or were.

The Founders in the U.S. included Amendment I in the Constitution to prohibit a national religion as Dominion Son points out in another post; specifically as the Church of England left a bad taste in many of the colonist's mouths, many having left England to escape tyranny brought about by that type of setup. It wasn't a sweeping condemnation of Western Europe at the time, just England.

The ironic thing is that at that time, Christians and Jews living in Muslim countries were actiually treated better than Jews and Muslims and heterodox Christians living in Christian countries. They were assessed a special tax as a result of being non-Muslim, and it didn't help their prospects for advancement in government positions, but other than that toleration was the rule of the day.


Lets see. They were taxed where Muslims weren't. They were barred from all government jobs (military too? Look up Janisarries (Christians drafted into the military and forced to convert)). And they lived under sharia law, i.e. "religious" if you consider Islam a religion instead of a political system, which I don't. Yep. Sounds fair to me. I'd love to live under such a system. /sarc So Jews and Muslims fared worse that that in Christian countries? I must be reading the wrong histories.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
PotomacBob

@Jim S

The reason both Europe and Islam hate the U.S.


How do you know what Europe and Islam think?

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@PotomacBob

How do you know what Europe and Islam think?


Observation.

Replies:   BlinkReader  PotomacBob
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Jim S


And they lived under sharia law, i.e. "religious" if you consider Islam a religion instead of a political system, which I don't. Yep. Sounds fair to me. I'd love to live under such a system. /sarc So Jews and Muslims fared worse that that in Christian countries? I must be reading the wrong histories.


It varied wildly based on the location, and many areas were horrific all the same. But the more urban areas, such as Constantinople were highly diverse and "reasonably hands off" for the most part. For those eras, if you were going to be a heathen in the view of the local government, the Muslim-run cities were often your best choice out of a very bad set of options.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Not_a_ID

Lets agree to disagree. But since you mention Constantinople, do check out the history of the Janissaries. Thats where they originated.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Jim S

Lets agree to disagree. But since you mention Constantinople, do check out the history of the Janissaries. Thats where they originated.


"Best of a bad lot" says enough I think. They were exceptionally "tolerant" for their era. That doesn't mean they would be considered particularly so by 19th Century standards after the United States entered the scene with the 1st Amendment.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl

@Not_a_ID

the 1st Amendment.


I see what you did there, trying to make this circle back to the original point of this thread.

BlinkReader
Updated:

@Jim S


Observation.


I don't know what guys with turbans are thinking so I can't speak for them, but for rest of us "evil foreigners" - we are just plain scared to death of American stupidity.

And If you are observing us - please try to see to get new glasses at least - then maybe you are going to be able to see something ...

Replies:   Zom
Zom

@BlinkReader

American stupidity

I used to think that too, but I have come to realise it is actually carelessness, in the strict sense. No care given.

Replies:   richardshagrin  Not_a_ID
PotomacBob

@Jim S

How do you know what Europe and Islam think?

Observation.

Wow! I've never previously met someone who could tell what peoples were thinking just by observation.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@PotomacBob

Wow! I've never previously met someone who could tell what peoples were thinking just by observation.


....along with the ability to reason. Sharply developed with a classical education.

richardshagrin

@Zom

No care given.

It is amazing that any other country will ally with the United States of America. The system of government guarantees the President and the rest of the top members of the executive branch will change, usually to another political party, every four or eight years and the the legislative branch has virtually no memory after several two year terms. The people who agreed to do something aren't there any more, and often decisions are made by political opponents of the people that agreed to be your ally. Particularly if money needs to be appropriated there may be other uses for revenue than to support the alliance.

Not_a_ID

@Zom

I used to think that too, but I have come to realise it is actually carelessness, in the strict sense. No care given.


A foreign policy attention-span that runs from 2 to 8 years on most initiatives doesn't help. That alone accounts for the vast majority of American screwups in the past 70 years.

We're "steady enough" on certain things, but that list is small. Otherwise we're about as reliable as the town drunk. Who somehow also happens to be the singly most powerful and influential person in town. Luckily it is very unusual for us to be deliberately malicious(well, on the meta-level), but we certainly can screw things up pretty good without even trying.

But we also do a lot of good things as well, and most of closest alternatives aren't likely to be improvements, even if they're more reliable in general.

Replies:   richardshagrin  Zom
richardshagrin

@Not_a_ID

more reliable in general

Our Generals are more reliable than our politicians. However the Generals take orders from the politicians.

Replies:   PotomacBob  Zom
PotomacBob

@richardshagrin

Our Generals are more reliable than our politicians


What country does this refer to?

PotomacBob

@Jim S

But I guess that must not be in the Broward County Sheriff Deputies union contract.


The Broward County Sheriff's union contract is online. It pretty much let's the management do whatever it wants to do via a "management rights" clause that's very broad. There's nothing that I found in the contract that would prohibit the management from issuing such instructions if it chose to do so. Of course, it was a quick read so I could've missed it.

Replies:   Jim S
mcguy101

@StarFleet Carl

After the First American Civil War, those blacks who were satisfied with something a little better than what they had stopped early.


Was there a 2nd American Civil War I missed somewhere, lol? There was a Civil Rights Movement that coincided JFK and then LBJ's Great Society.

After the (one and only) Civil War, Andrew Johnson and a vengeful Congress made reconstruction punitive to many in the South and the rampant corruption and cronyism with "carpetbaggers" led to racists groups like the KKK to gain prominence. The lasting legacy of the Lincoln assassination was how reconstruction was handled. Racial tensions may always be with us, but I can't help but feel that this country would have been a better place today had Lincoln not been assasinated.

PotomacBob

@mcguy101

Andrew Johnson and a vengeful Congress made reconstruction punitive


the way I remember being taught (Contrary to popular belief, I was not alive at the time Andrew Johnson was president) was that the Republican Congress was vengeful, but Andrew Johnson was less so, which led to Congress impeaching Johnson (the Senate failed to convict).

Replies:   Dominions Son  mcguy101
Dominions Son

@PotomacBob

the way I remember being taught (Contrary to popular belief, I was not alive at the time Andrew Johnson was president) was that the Republican Congress was vengeful, but Andrew Johnson was less so, which led to Congress impeaching Johnson (the Senate failed to convict).


Sort of, but not directly.

Officially, Johnson was impeached for firing the Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, in violation of the Tenure of Office Act.

The Tenure of Office Act was passed the year before Johnson was impeached, over a veto by Johnson, largely to protect Stanton. Stanton was a holdover from the Lincoln administration and Stanton opposed the lenient policies of Johnson towards the former Confederate States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Andrew_Johnson

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Stanton

mcguy101
Updated:

@PotomacBob

the way I remember being taught (Contrary to popular belief, I was not alive at the time Andrew Johnson was president) was that the Republican Congress was vengeful, but Andrew Johnson was less so, which led to Congress impeaching Johnson (the Senate failed to convict).


Yep, but the point is that Johnson did not have Lincoln's, political savvy, gravitas nor his leadership to rein in the Republican Congress and control his own cabinet.

@Dominions Son


Sort of, but not directly.

Officially, Johnson was impeached for firing the Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton, in violation of the Tenure of Office Act.


Absolutely. Stanton, being Secretary of War during the Civil War was a sacred cow to Republicans in Congress. That law hamstrung Johnson.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@mcguy101

Absolutely. Stanton, being Secretary of War during the Civil War was a sacred cow to Republicans in Congress. That law hamstrung Johnson.


It should be noted that the Tenure of Office Act was likely unconstitutional (especially as originally passed during the Johnson administration).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenure_of_Office_Act_(1867)

The act was amended on April 5, 1869, one month and one day after Republican Ulysses S. Grant assumed the presidency. The revisions grew out of an attempt to completely repeal the 1867 act. The measure to repeal passed the House of Representatives with only 16 negative votes but failed in the Senate. The new provisions were significantly less onerous, allowing the President to suspend office holders "in his discretion" and designate replacements while the Senate was in recess, subject only to confirmation of the replacements at the next session. The President no longer had to report his reasons for suspension to the Senate, and the Senate could no longer force reinstatement of suspended office holders.[4]


In 1926, a similar law (though not dealing with Cabinet secretaries) was ruled unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court in the case of Myers v. United States, which affirmed the ability of the President to remove a Postmaster without Congressional approval. In reaching that decision, the Supreme Court stated in its majority opinion (though in dicta), "that the Tenure of Office Act of 1867, insofar as it attempted to prevent the President from removing executive officers who had been appointed by him by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, was invalid".[5]

StarFleet Carl

@mcguy101

Was there a 2nd American Civil War I missed somewhere, lol?


Was there? No. At least, not yet.

But do we have to have a Second one, just to call it the First one? If so, then give us a bit longer. I'm quite certain that if we continue on our polarizing path that we'll end up there pretty quickly.

I think ACW2 will be pretty short, though, considering it's going to be those who want to take guns away from those who have guns. Somehow I don't think that's going to work out very well for them.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  PotomacBob
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl


I think ACW2 will be pretty short, though, considering it's going to be those who want to take guns away from those who have guns. Somehow I don't think that's going to work out very well for them.


More particularly, it would be the ones in control of most of the actual food production (and transportation) vs the ones who think it comes from a store. Forget armed vs unarmed, most "Liberal Enclaves" would be out of food within the first few days.

Replies:   richardshagrin  mcguy101
richardshagrin

@Not_a_ID

Liberal Enclaves

Where are they going to get an army? Our Army swears to the Constitution and is trained, at least at the junior officer level, not to obey illegal orders.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Zom

@Not_a_ID

Otherwise we're about as reliable as the town drunk. Who somehow also happens to be the singly most powerful and influential person in town.

Hancock as a close allegory?

Zom

@richardshagrin

Generals are more reliable than our politicians

All generals are politicians :-) Except, perhaps, Patton.

mcguy101
Updated:

@Not_a_ID

"Liberal Enclaves"


As opposed to what? A "Conservative Compound"? Hey, there are nuts on both sides of this argument, lol.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@mcguy101

As opposed to what? A "Conservative Compound"? Hey, there are nuts on both sides of this argument, lol.


Not quite. More like liberal cities/sprawls vs rural "fly-over"/drive-thru country. Compared to the sheer amount of land covered by "rural america" the Cities are enclaves by comparison. Even if the Cities have most of the population.

Reality is, if a Civil War 2 happens in the U.S. it's nature is more likely to end up being rural vs urban more than conservative vs liberal. Of course, that "rural types" generally align with Conservatives while urban areas favor Liberals means it will be cast in that light instead.

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@richardshagrin


Where are they going to get an army?


Well, the state militia, and maybe some of the national guard would be a good sources. Mind you, there shouldn't be too many armed citizenry in a liberal enclave since they work so hard to disarm the citizens.

Replies:   Zom
Zom

@Ernest Bywater

Well, the state militia, and maybe some of the national guard would be a food sources.

Cannibalism?

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Zom

Cannibalism?


nah, typos - again

PotomacBob

@StarFleet Carl

Somehow I don't think that's going to work out very well for them.

I cannot imagine it working out very well for either side in a new Civil War. In the end, one side or the other will prevail, but there will be plenty of anguish to go around. If it's to be shoot-outs, then wherever those battles take place will be damaged. The big question, IMO, will be which side the U.S. military supports. My personal guess is that the military command structure will see it's duty is to defend the existing U.S. government (regardless of party in power) against those who attempt to overthrow it.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  StarFleet Carl
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@PotomacBob


The big question, IMO, will be which side the U.S. military supports. My personal guess is that the military command structure will see it's duty is to defend the existing U.S. government (regardless of party in power) against those who attempt to overthrow it.


I think it is more likely much of the Military would be rendered combat ineffective. Some portions may remain effective with clever leadership that places emphasis on the need to still defend the nation against foreign enemies. (Effectively neutral)

The "problem" is most of "the grunts" who comprise the bulk of Frontline Combat troops, you know, the trades that don't have direct application in a civilian workforce, are overwhelmingly white, and conservative.

And officers are also taught to avoid issuing orders they know will be disobeyed.

As to support troops and other more technical specialties? YMMV on how specific specialties would split in such a scenario, but on the whole it is likely to at least slightly favor a "conservative" cause.

But then you need to remember what "conservative" means outside the traditional right vs left political paradigm.

Basically Civil War 2.0 starts off with a "boots on the ground" problem likely to present at the onset for "the liberal cause."

Which creates "a problem" when say the Liberals might have clear control of an Air Wing. But the Conservative faction has clear control of Base Security at that particular Air Base.

Replies:   mcguy101  PotomacBob
mcguy101

@Not_a_ID

Americans are Americans. We've proven that at times of national crisis and I doubt that any liberal or conservative faction could turn enough Americans into traitors to successfully wage a civil war.

Yes, there will always be ideologues, but most Americans are decent people and don't buy into radical extremes.

PotomacBob

@Not_a_ID

I'm not sure I understand all, or even most, of what you wrote. It sounds as though, all things considered, you're saying anybody who supports the U.S. government is a liberal and anybody who wants to overthrow it is conservative. Is that what you meant?

Replies:   Not_a_ID
StarFleet Carl

@PotomacBob

The big question, IMO, will be which side the U.S. military supports. My personal guess is that the military command structure will see it's duty is to defend the existing U.S. government (regardless of party in power) against those who attempt to overthrow it.


Well, we all did take the oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic.

But I think I tend to agree with Not_a_ID. You're not going to see the 1st Armored roll out of Fort Bliss or the 3rd Corps leave Fort Hood and head for Dallas. You'd be much more likely to see them roll out and head south to completely secure the border, with the 552nd taking off from Tinker to make sure our sovereign air space is secure.

Thing is ... it's not the white, conservative, law abiding majority in this country that's pushing things now. And I don't really think it ever has been. But what they feel to realize is that pushing the boundaries like they are isn't a sign of weakness, it's a sign that we're willing to tolerate a LOT of stuff because we DID study history, we DO know what the results of conflict are, and that when we're pushed hard enough, we WILL fight back.

That's why those videos of the Antifa 'heroes' who push a guy just a little too far and he then proceeds to beat the living shit out of a couple of them and then they scream, run in fear, and cry out that he's in trouble now. Like the ones who tried to burn the American flag disrepectfully in front of a military vet, then wonder why the man who fought for that flag, who probably had friends die for that flag, and who when he himself dies, will be carried to the grave with that flag on his casket, would fight them to take it away from them.

Which, again, is probably why we don't see much of this stuff here in Oklahoma.

Not_a_ID

@PotomacBob

I'm not sure I understand all, or even most, of what you wrote. It sounds as though, all things considered, you're saying anybody who supports the U.S. government is a liberal and anybody who wants to overthrow it is conservative. Is that what you meant?


The real meaning of "Conservative" absent a right/left political paradigm is basically someone who favors "status quo" over making changes. In large part, you could call them "moderates" but I would say that's questionable.

Present day Political Liberals want changes, often sweeping and significant ones. (Which often result in outcomes that are not particularly "Liberal" with regards to those impacted)

Present day Political Conservatives want changes, often sweeping a significant ones(which by definition makes them NOT conservative), where they allege "conservative" credentials by citing historical precedents. (Which are often cherry picked)

The military generally favors status quo with minor changes being made over time.

Most military types are either there to
1) "Serve God and Country" which puts them more closely to the political Conservatives over the political Liberals, because at least the Republicans pay lip service to the Constitution and the history behind it. These are the guys and gals who "joined to serve" often taking on specialties that do not translate well to work in the Civilian sector.

And then
2) Learn a trade - This is the group that is much more mixed, and often sides heavily towards minorities as it provides "a clear path out" to breaking the cycle of poverty. But as minorities also skew towards being Liberal Democrats...

There is a third and fourth group as well, but they're a smaller portion of the force, and usually described why they stay, not why they joined.
3) The benefits/retirement package keeps them around.
4) They love their job.

And the U.S. Government isn't necessarily Conservative or Liberal, but its leadership certainly is. A lot of the factors involving the potential outcome of another Civil War revolves entirely around who is Commander and Chief at the time it happens and what triggers it.

The military is going to WANT to back the Presidency(as that represents status quo), so for them to rebell against the President and/or Congress as well, something particularly heinous would need to be afoot.

I'm inclined to think that holds true for most self-identified Conservatives as well. Which is not to be confused with "Right-Wingers" who go well above and beyond. (Such as the alt-right)

Now as to Liberals in general, I think most also favor status quo. However, their AntiFa and SJW extensions are far FAR more active and virulent that anything the Alt -Right might get up to, as the Alt Right knows few people have much sympathy for their specific cause. (The "broad strokes" are another matter)

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@Not_a_ID

their AntiFa and SJW extensions


Is there an organized group or groups who claim to be AntiFa or SJW? Or is that a label hung on them by others?

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@PotomacBob

Is there an organized group or groups who claim to be AntiFa or SJW?


Yes, there are groups that self identify as AntiFa. How organized they are is open to question.

The Antifa (English: /ænˈtiːfə/ or /ˈæntiˌfɑː/)[1] movement is a conglomeration of autonomous, self-styled anti-fascist militant[2] groups in the United States.[3][4][5] The principal feature of antifa groups is their opposition to fascism through the use of direct action.[6] They engage in militant protest tactics, which has included property damage and physical violence.[3][7][8][9] They tend to be anti-capitalist[10] and they are predominantly far-left and militant left,[11][6] which includes anarchists, communists and socialists.[12][13][14][15] Their stated focus is on fighting far-right and white supremacist ideologies directly, rather than politically.[6]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

Social Justice Warrior is a different matter.

The term "Social Justice" originates on the left.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges.

Social justice is also a concept that is used to describe the movement towards a socially just world, e.g., the Global Justice Movement. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality, and can be defined as "the way in which human rights are manifested in the everyday lives of people at every level of society".[65]


There are many groups that self identify as social justice groups
http://www.startguide.org/orgs/orgs06.html

However, the social justice movement in the US is heavily tied up in identity group politics (race, ethnicity, sexual orientation). Because of this, many conservatives and libertarians see the entire social justice movement as antithetical to individual liberty/freedom.

Social Justice Warrior is a pejorative that gets applied to social justice activists by those opposed to their causes.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  Not_a_ID
Ernest Bywater

@Dominions Son

Social Justice Warrior is a different matter.


Dominions Son has it right for the most part. However, the majority of the people who call themselves Social Justice Warriors are the extremist activists who go out of their way to annoy people and cause trouble to push their agenda onto people who aren't interested in it.

The real oddity is the people in the USA who call themselves antifa today are actually using facists actions to push a neo-facist agenda. The problem is they don't understand what facism is. These mindless vicious loudmouthed morons demand free speech but won't allow anyone who does not agree with them 100% the right to speak.

Both groups are pushing extreme socialist agendas, and often you'll see the same people in the news for rallies supporting both groups. While they're sets of members overlap, neither is a sub-set of the other.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Dominions Son


Social Justice Warrior is a pejorative that gets applied to social justice activists by those opposed to their causes.


It is now. It quickly "turned toxic" but the term actually did originate within the "Social Justice" movement at large, people identified as being such, Conservative and Right-Wing groups picked it up immediately, and ran with it.

The self-described SJW's in turn realized that probably wasn't the best thing to identify as, and most of them have since stopped doing so(but some remain, as Ernest points out). Thus, most present day usage is it being used as a pejorative term by people "to the right" of those groups.

JohnBobMead

If you are familier with Tom Lehrer's song, "Folk Song Army," the SJWs are, to an extent, their spiritual successors.

They don't have much of a sense of humor, and don't try very hard, if at all, to understand the reasoning behind anyone who disagrees with them; after all, their cause is so self-evidently Right and Just, that there can be no valid reason behind anyone being in opposition with their methods of bringing about the changes they feel are necessary.

I have a great many friends who fall within the bounds of "The Left", but not many who would self-identify as Social Justice Warriors; I'm too willing to try to talk with those of differing viewpoints and attempt to find some areas of common cause for them.

I'm also far too willing to attempt to convince those in the top economic brackets that it's a matter of self-interest to see that no one in this country is in sufficiently poor economic condition that they buy into the arguments for overthrowing the current regime.

I don't think the results of such an attempt, if succesful, would be what those arguing for it think it would be.

Let alone what the socio-political structure would end up being, I don't think our physical infrastructure would survive intact. Bridges are such a basic target, and take quite a bit of effort to replace, as would freeways and railraods, that transportation of basic necessities would grind to a halt. That would be all she wrote for a significant portion of the populace.

Those who would push for an insurection don't seem to realize what the consequences would be, and those who are doing their damndest to drive people to the point where an insurrection looks acceptable don't seem to understand that they could defuse the situation with relatively minor sacrifices.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@JohnBobMead

Those who would push for an insurection don't seem to realize what the consequences would be, and those who are doing their damndest to drive people to the point where an insurrection looks acceptable don't seem to understand that they could defuse the situation with relatively minor sacrifices.


Well, the only agitators for such actions are far alt-right racial supremacy groups(who are maybe 0.1% of the population, if that; but with 330 Million people, that's still 330,000-ish people--the KKK mailing list, at last report was only about 100,000 people) Now "sympathizers" are another matter, but that's going to run a very broad range and cover a slew of various issues, but is still only likely to net a "handful" of percentage points. But at 3.3 Million people per point, that's kind of scary.

Then we get the left-wing version. Which is an entirely different ball game. There are both well funded, and well established groups who have been agitating for the overthrow of the United States government for decades, some of those groups are nearly a century old at this point. (They also often happen to have been started by communists, sometimes at the behest of the Soviet Union back in the day, not that they'll be upfront about that part)

Replies:   JohnBobMead
Jim S

@PotomacBob

Of course, it was a quick read so I could've missed it.

Probably. Just as you missed (intentionally?) the sarcasm.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@Jim S

It is true that if you did not mean what you said, I missed that. It sounded to me as though you were somehow blaming the Broward County Sheriff's Office deputies simply because they are covered by a union contract. Did you not mean that?

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@PotomacBob

Did you not mean that?

Bob, normally I don't feed trolls as, like wayward cats, once you feed them, you can't get rid of them. But I made an exception and look what it got me. Time for me to stop feeding.

JohnBobMead

@Not_a_ID

The Left hasn't learned from the lessons of the Soviet Union and The Peoples Republic of China, etc., that when the Revolution came, it got taken over by people seeking personal power, with the result of becoming totalitarian states. That's what I forsee as the result of any actual revolution.

What seems to be forgotten these days is that the Radical Left lost a lot of it's followers when FDR hi-jacked the most relevant segments of their agenda with The New Deal, finding a way to meld it with Capitalism in such a manner as to defuse the situation.

Which leads me to the idiots on the Right who are doing their damndest to undo everything that the New Deal, etc., accomplished, and somehow not realizing that a return to classic unregulated Capitalism returns us to the system that Marx and Engels so thoroughly analyzed in regard to it's ultimate impact upon society; the two of them hit it on the nose in regard to the impact of Capitalism on society, they just were completely wrong in regard to what they thought would work as a replacement.

It is possible to blend aspects of Socialism and Capitalism and Democracy. It is possible to have a stratified economic system which doesn't treat the working class as interchangable, disposable, commodities.

It does require those in charge of the various companies to acknowledge that without their workers they would have neither product nor market.

It does require the working class to acknowledge that not everyone has the skills, personality, or drive/ambition to found or manage a company, and that those skills are necessary for their livelyhood, and are deserving of reward.

It also requires those in charge of companies to have an interest in the longterm prosperity of that company; they have to recognize that investing in your infrastructure, including your workers, is required for longevity.

And, it requires everyone to recognize that hiring someone who is only interested in what they can get out of a firm within three to five years as management is a really stupid thing to do! Golden parachutes, bonuses to management as they oversee the dismantling of the company, should be recognized as the betrayal to the company that they are.

The most problematic thing it requires, unfortunately, is for the workers and management to understand that each has to police their own; the workers have to give no support to those who aren't doing the job they were hired to do, other than checking to see if there is a position available which they could fill competently, and management has to do the same within it's ranks, and they all have to acknowledge that they aren't enemies, that they should be working together to produce the best product at the best price, which includes everyone getting a fair and equitable percentage of the proceeds.

Yes, there is a difference between skilled, semi-skilled, and unskilled labor, and it's reasonable for pay to reflect that.

It's also reasonable to expect that those who are shirking, who aren't doing their best to provide quality labor for their pay, be fired if they don't shape up after being repremanded. Regardless of their postion within the company.

You can tell why no one in a position of upper level authority within a union or management has been all that happy to have me as an employee. At the same time, those I immediately supervised were very happy with me, and on the whole, those who were my immediate supervisors were happy with me.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@JohnBobMead

You can tell why no one in a position of upper level authority within a union or management has been all that happy to have me as an employee. At the same time, those I immediately supervised were very happy with me, and on the whole, those who were my immediate supervisors were happy with me.


And yet you speak truth.

And coming from a Mormon background, "we"(meaning Mormons) have "the law of consecration" to keep in mind. Which in short form is probably the true utopian ideal. Although I think most would prefer someone other than the LDS Church in Salt Lake City play arbiter for disbursement of those funds. 👼

Back to Top