Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > The Future of the Supreme Court

The Future of the Supreme Court (Page 12)
Thread Tools
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2021, 10:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Of course. Yet, our sense of morality (as it is now) critically influences how we interpret the Constitution. If I start with the (morally reprehensible) presumption that African Americans are not fully human and more like animals, I can construct a perfectly logical argument using the same letters of the law, including the Constitution, that slavery is constitutional and that interracial marriage should be forbidden. Ditto if I saw homosexuality as a psychological disorder, you can construct a logical argument against allowing same-sex marriage. That should also resolve any confusion as to why slavery wasn't abolished at the founding or same-sex marriage wasn't legalized in the 1800s.
We don’t have to respect the opinions of the people who wrote the Constitution with regards to slavery because we passed an amendment to the Constitution explicitly abolishing it.

We don’t have the luxury of an amendment drawing a bright line with marriage, only the vaguest of guidelines from the 14th, which is open to many interpretations.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2021, 10:42 PM
 
Something I want to make clear is I agree with the idea we can ascribe a quality of timelessness to moral plateaus like “interracial couples should be allowed to marry”.

Where it gets sticky is how that idea applies to law. My philosophy is in large part based in the idea whatever moral plateaus I’ve personally reached aren’t relevant.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2021, 10:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Something I want to make clear is I agree with the idea we can ascribe a quality of timelessness to moral plateaus like “interracial couples should be allowed to marry”.
It is only timeless, because our morality is substantially different from 70 years ago, i. e. it is not timeless at all. Which is precisely my point: the distinction between “timeless” principles and those that aren't is purely fictitious.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Where it gets sticky is how that idea applies to law.
If I understand your overarching point in our exchange (not just your last post), your concern is that the Supreme Court might overstep, overreach or act too quickly.

Earlier I asked you if this was a theoretical concern or whether you had actual examples. I still cannot see much in the way of practical examples that points to the Supreme Court overreaching. It could, sure. In some decisions we disagree with, we might even argue that it has. (Although I'd quibble that deciding something wrongly is not the same as overreach.) But I don't see a pattern that state laws are invalidated left-and-right based on vague Due Process grounds. It seems to me that you are very much concerned about a hypothetical that I don't see much evidence for.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My philosophy is in large part based in the idea whatever moral plateaus I’ve personally reached aren’t relevant.
That's so vague a statement that I don't see how it can serve as a foundation for a judicial philosophy. I don't think you can have a feasible judicial philosophy without morality even if you are the strictest textualist. That is because Constitutions are different from lower-level laws, which are very precise — they put down broad principles and ideas. Depending on our sense of morality, we interpret what this means differently.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 7, 2021, 11:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
It is only timeless, because our morality is substantially different from 70 years ago, i. e. it is not timeless at all. Which is precisely my point: the distinction between “timeless” principles and those that aren't is purely fictitious.
I’m writing a reply to the rest, but this part confuses me.

What I’m saying is interracial marriage should have been legal for the entire history of the country. That’s why I’m calling it “timeless”. Just because it wasn’t federally legal until the 60s, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been federally legal before the 60s.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2021, 01:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
If I understand your overarching point in our exchange (not just your last post), your concern is that the Supreme Court might overstep, overreach or act too quickly.
Remember when I mentioned those conclusions I come to and then work backwards from? One of those conclusions is to hate consolidating too much government power in one place. Like, really hate it.

So, I have a hair-trigger when it comes to the Supreme Court giving itself power. I couldn’t change that if I wanted to, and honestly, I don’t want to. Keeping the government from consolidating too much power in one place is a founding principle of our country, and as such, isn’t hard to find in the intent of the Constitution (hence me liking originalism).

Originalism also addresses the morality question. The stated goal of originalism is to base the decision on the intent of who wrote the law. It’s not my morality we’re concerned with, it’s that of the Legislature. Again, leaving their power with them, and my power with me (were I on the Supreme Court).

All this said. I’m not arguing my approach is a Panacea. It has plenty of shortcomings. I wouldn’t want my viewpoint to reign on the Court to the exclusion of all others, but I wouldn’t want my viewpoint excluded either.


Let me leave with the following Devil’s bargain. Same-sex couples get their rights ****ed with for a few more years, in exchange for Trump losing.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2021, 04:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m writing a reply to the rest, but this part confuses me.

What I’m saying is interracial marriage should have been legal for the entire history of the country. That’s why I’m calling it “timeless”. Just because it wasn’t federally legal until the 60s, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been federally legal before the 60s.
Okay, so gun ownership except by organised militia is completely illegal — this is a „timeless“ principle and a completely obvious consequence of the wording in the constitution, because this will be completely accepted norm a hundred years from now.

Just because it wasn’t federally illegal until the 2080‘s doesn’t mean it should have been legal before the 2080s.

Right?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2021, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m writing a reply to the rest, but this part confuses me.

What I’m saying is interracial marriage should have been legal for the entire history of the country. That’s why I’m calling it “timeless”. Just because it wasn’t federally legal until the 60s, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been federally legal before the 60s.
I perfectly understand your argument, I just disagree with the characterization that this is timeless. It isn’t (even though in my opinion it should have been).
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Remember when I mentioned those conclusions I come to and then work backwards from? One of those conclusions is to hate consolidating too much government power in one place. Like, really hate it.
This is the opposite of arguing from first principles. You are starting with the conclusion and then try to argue backwards. But this explains a lot: one recurring theme of yours is that speed of change is too fast, and you are concerned with backlash. You seem to be convinced that this logical proposition is true without testing it.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
So, I have a hair-trigger when it comes to the Supreme Court giving itself power. I couldn’t change that if I wanted to, and honestly, I don’t want to. Keeping the government from consolidating too much power in one place is a founding principle of our country, and as such, isn’t hard to find in the intent of the Constitution (hence me liking originalism).
The Supreme Court is working exactly as designed. It isn’t giving itself power, it isn’t consolidating power. Overriding state laws in certain circumstances is explicitly part of the Constitution. And as far as I can tell, everything is perfectly compatible with an originalist interpretation. I see no evidence that state laws are nixed left and right.

If you don’t like the 14th Amendment because, say, you think it upsets the balance of power or it is too vague or because it was written on a Tuesday, you should lobby for another amendment that either abolishes it or that makes the 14th Amendment more precise.

PS Why would you be opposed to changing your opinion, even if you wanted to?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Originalism also addresses the morality question. The stated goal of originalism is to base the decision on the intent of who wrote the law. It’s not my morality we’re concerned with, it’s that of the Legislature. Again, leaving their power with them, and my power with me (were I on the Supreme Court).
I understand that this is your claim, I’m just saying that this is an illusion. I gave several specific examples where you start from different moral principles and arrive at opposite conclusions on the basis of the exact same text. I don’t want to repeat them.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Let me leave with the following Devil’s bargain. Same-sex couples get their rights ****ed with for a few more years, in exchange for Trump losing.
African Americans can wait a little longer for freedom just so that we can postpone the Civil War.

Plus, it presumes that you could trade one for the other when it is not even clear that there is a causal relationship between the two. Let me give you an example: we recently had elections in a small German state. It lies in the former East and is a hotbed of right wing extremism. The right-wing extremist AfD garnered about 22 % of the vote. The AfD complains about immigrants, the speed of change, that people should return to proper German culture and lifestyle, etc. etc. Let me give you another fact, which I think is quite relevant: the state lost about 25 % in population since 1990, mostly young people whereas the German population grew by 5 %. Economic growth has been non-existent. What is the root cause? Foreigners? (Needless to say, few live there, not least because of the limited economic opportunities.) A change in German culture? Or that things seem hopeless, because the local economy is dying, young people are moving to other states, especially cities and all that is left are old people without jobs and with small pensions?
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Jun 8, 2021 at 09:01 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2021, 10:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
Okay, so gun ownership except by organised militia is completely illegal — this is a „timeless“ principle and a completely obvious consequence of the wording in the constitution, because this will be completely accepted norm a hundred years from now.

Just because it wasn’t federally illegal until the 2080‘s doesn’t mean it should have been legal before the 2080s.

Right?
Being sarcastic doesn’t usually help clarify things.

The correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that it’s about the militia. That’s still the correct interpretation, even though the Court said the opposite.

I’d call this “timeless” because the correct interpretation when it was written, now, in 2080, and all times in between is the same.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2021, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
If you don’t like the 14th Amendment because, say, you think it upsets the balance of power or it is too vague or because it was written on a Tuesday, you should lobby for another amendment that either abolishes it or that makes the 14th Amendment more precise.
What did you think was the meaning behind the following statement?

“I wouldn’t want my viewpoint to reign on the Court to the exclusion of all others…”

I don’t know how we got from here to “if it’s such a big problem for you, make an amendment”.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2021, 11:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m writing a reply to the rest, but this part confuses me.

What I’m saying is interracial marriage should have been legal for the entire history of the country. That’s why I’m calling it “timeless”. Just because it wasn’t federally legal until the 60s, doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have been federally legal before the 60s.
I'd be interested to hear about a norm right now that's NOT timeless, one that we can forgive our ancestors for holding.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2021, 11:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Being sarcastic doesn’t usually help clarify things.

The correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is that it’s about the militia. That’s still the correct interpretation, even though the Court said the opposite.

I’d call this “timeless” because the correct interpretation when it was written, now, in 2080, and all times in between is the same.
The funny thing is, I WASN'T being sarcastic. I took something that seems completely self-evident (to everyone outside the U.S.) and extrapolated into a future where it would be seen as "timeless" and "natural" as a ban on lynchings does today.

What YOU think about the 2nd Amendment today is as relevant to in 100 years as what Jefferson Davis thought about slavery is today. That seems as ridiculous and "sarcastic" to you as it would have to Davis back then.

The "correct" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not what YOU say — it's whatever the Supreme Court says, today as 70 or 150 years from now.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2021, 11:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
I'd be interested to hear about a norm right now that's NOT timeless, one that we can forgive our ancestors for holding.
I’d put certain attitudes towards women in that category.

There was a time when womens’ primary role in society had to be as baby factories. There wasn’t another option. Too much war, not enough medicine.
( Last edited by subego; Jun 8, 2021 at 12:06 PM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2021, 11:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
The funny thing is, I WASN'T being sarcastic. I took something that seems completely self-evident (to everyone outside the U.S.) and extrapolated into a future where it would be seen as "timeless" and "natural" as a ban on lynchings does today.

What YOU think about the 2nd Amendment today is as relevant to in 100 years as what Jefferson Davis thought about slavery is today. That seems as ridiculous and "sarcastic" to you as it would have to Davis back then.

The "correct" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not what YOU say — it's whatever the Supreme Court says, today as 70 or 150 years from now.
My apologies then. I’m still confused about the point.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, it was about the militia. I don’t see that quality as changeable.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2021, 12:42 PM
 
As it stands currently, that HAS changed, because current interpretation is to see it not applying to militia, but individual right to carry.

Your argument perfectly illustrates the point.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2021, 12:52 PM
 
I’d argue it hasn’t changed but instead that the Court was wrong.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2021, 07:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’d argue it hasn’t changed but instead that the Court was wrong.
All institutions are fallible, and there are constitutional mechanisms to correct for that.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
When the 2nd Amendment was written, it was about the militia. I don’t see that quality as changeable.
Right, and values have shifted. Militias are no longer an important part of American life, at least compared with the time of the founding. Importantly, not just our values have shifted, but technology has shifted as well. When the US was founded, weapons used by civilians were much closer to military weapons than they are today. At the beginning of the 20th century at the latest, the divergence between military weapons and civilian weapons became very noticeable, and there are lots of weapons we don’t want civilians to have (poison gas, grenades, rocket launchers, etc.). Moreover, people nowadays mostly want guns, because they like guns. Both factors have contributed as to why the shift occurred.

Now I agree with you that I see this change as incompatible with the Constitution. However, I just chalk it up to a wrongly decided Supreme Court case that should be remedied by a constitutional amendment. And I would still say that calling your interpretation “the correct” interpretation does not make much sense in the grand scheme of things.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2021, 08:06 PM
 
The decision by the Court isn’t a reflection of shifting values. The Court’s argument is its decision reflects the values of the people who wrote the Amendment,

At least, that’s the Wikipedia summary of Heller. I haven’t actually read the decision with this particular case.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 8, 2021, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The decision by the Court isn’t a reflection of shifting values.
I understand that this is your opinion, I just disagree with it.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The Court’s argument is its decision reflects the values of the people who wrote the Amendment,

At least, that’s the Wikipedia summary of Heller. I haven’t actually read the decision with this particular case.
Again, I accept that this is what the Supreme Court wrote, but I still think the fundamental change is due to a change in values and a change in technology. (The latter led to distinctions like “assault weapons” or weapons with a legitimate purpose.) The decision was carried by originalists who IMHO live in denial when it comes to this point.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2021, 03:35 AM
 
I take judicial opinions at face value, which is why your point kept bouncing off me.

If we’re not necessarily taking them at face value then… I guess I agree? I won’t argue it. Except maybe when the technological shift happened, which (at least with rifles) I’d put in the 60s.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2021, 04:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I take judicial opinions at face value, which is why your point kept bouncing off me.

If we’re not necessarily taking them at face value then… I guess I agree? I won’t argue it.
I don’t understand what you mean with taking judicial opinions at face value.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Except maybe when the technological shift happened, which (at least with rifles) I’d put in the 60s.
The technological shift happened earlier than that, I’d say it really picked up the pace during WW1 and the period right after that (e. g. portable, mass-produced automatic firearms), which prompted the first major firearms regulations in the form of the National Firearms Act and led to a major Supreme Court case in the mid-to-late 1930s (US vs. Miller).
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2021, 07:04 AM
 
If a judicial opinion says it aims to reflect the values of the people who wrote the law, I’m not going to accuse the judge of doing something else. I take at face value the judge is doing what they said they’re doing. If I find fault with the opinion, it will be for misunderstanding the values its trying to reflect, not that it was never meant to reflect those values in the first place.

I specified the technological shift with rifles happened in the 60s. Before then, standard American infantry rifles weren’t fully automatic.
     
Spheric Harlot
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: 888500128, C3, 2nd soft.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2021, 06:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If a judicial opinion says it aims to reflect the values of the people who wrote the law, I’m not going to accuse the judge of doing something else. I take at face value the judge is doing what they said they’re doing. If I find fault with the opinion, it will be for misunderstanding the values its trying to reflect, not that it was never meant to reflect those values in the first place.

I specified the technological shift with rifles happened in the 60s. Before then, standard American infantry rifles weren’t fully automatic.
The example of technological advancement alone makes a perfect case for why, regardless of what the SC may argue, they cannot objectively reflect the values of the people who wrote or amended the constitution.

They can only infer how those values may have worked in a future world unimaginable to those people.

They argue that the framers may have had in mind every individual's right to own arms and that this includes ownership for recreational purposes, but the current state of weapons and their everyday abuse may have been unimaginable to a world of muskets. And if this is covered, then NOT covering, say personal nuclear weapons or missile launchers still makes no sense in the allegedly validated world of amendment creator values.

We're merely seeing judges applying vaguely written laws that in NO WAY reflect the current world to a vastly changed landscape as politically expedient, and then justifying that interpretation as "the will of the founders", as if they had any clue. Fact is, THEY are interpreting and applying the constitution according to THEIR values. Which is actually pretty much what one would expect.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 9, 2021, 08:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If a judicial opinion says it aims to reflect the values of the people who wrote the law, I’m not going to accuse the judge of doing something else.
No, you misunderstand: I’m making a descriptive claim, whereas you seem to think I am making a prescriptive claim (is vs. ought). If is and ought differ, then this is not a sign that a descriptive claim is false. For example, judges might believe that their cultural environment has little or no bearing on how they interpret law. I just don’t think this is correct.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I specified the technological shift with rifles happened in the 60s. Before then, standard American infantry rifles weren’t fully automatic.
AFAIK the shift happened earlier. First gun legislation was aimed at things like suppressors, automatic weapons like the Tommy gun and sawed off shotguns. Those rose to prominence during Prohibition and e. g. the Tommy gun specifically was developed during the tail end of WW1. During WW1 you also had the further development of mass market semiautomatic rifles. You are right that rifles like the Sturmgewehr 44 are the template for modern automatic (and semiautomatic) rifles, which influenced post-WW2 development, and culminated in the adoption of modern rifles in the US army just in time for Vietnam.

Like Spheric said, the technological development raises new questions which did not exist at the time of the founding: these weapons simply did not exist. Modern militaries were not universally adopted, many countries raised armies when needed. And nowadays armed civilians could not hope to compete with a modern army, unless you go for guerrilla warfare. And the main weapons aren’t firearms anyway, but missiles, tanks, bombers, fighter jets, etc. The US also went from a EU-style confederacy of states to a nation, where most people see themselves as Americans first and e. g. Pennsylvanians second.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2021, 03:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, you misunderstand: I’m making a descriptive claim, whereas you seem to think I am making a prescriptive claim (is vs. ought). If is and ought differ, then this is not a sign that a descriptive claim is false. For example, judges might believe that their cultural environment has little or no bearing on how they interpret law. I just don’t think this is correct.
I explained this poorly. Let me use an analogy.

As far as I can tell, OJ Simpson murdered his wife.

If I’m speaking for the law, I have to pretend he didn’t, because the law found him innocent.

Something similar is happening here. If I’m speaking for the law, I have to pretend Scalia isn’t full of shit when he claims the Heller decision reflects the values of the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Does that make sense?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2021, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Tommy gun
The nomenclature I’m familiar with terms a Tommy gun as a “submachine gun”, because it uses pistol ammunition.

In terms of infantry rifles in use by the US during the 20th Century, with the exception of the little used Browning Automatic Rifle, none of them were fully automatic until the M14, which was almost immediately replaced by the M16.

There’s not a lot of difference between American, pre-M14 service rifles and hunting rifles. Note, the Army sells surplus Springfields and M1s to the public.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2021, 12:25 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I explained this poorly. Let me use an analogy.

As far as I can tell, OJ Simpson murdered his wife.

If I’m speaking for the law, I have to pretend he didn’t, because the law found him innocent.

Something similar is happening here. If I’m speaking for the law, I have to pretend Scalia isn’t full of shit when he claims the Heller decision reflects the values of the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment.

Does that make sense?
Not really, I see no logical connection to what you or I wrote earlier. Sorry.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The nomenclature I’m familiar with terms a Tommy gun as a “submachine gun”, because it uses pistol ammunition.

In terms of infantry rifles in use by the US during the 20th Century, with the exception of the little used Browning Automatic Rifle, none of them were fully automatic until the M14, which was almost immediately replaced by the M16.

There’s not a lot of difference between American, pre-M14 service rifles and hunting rifles. Note, the Army sells surplus Springfields and M1s to the public.
Careful: I wrote automatic weapons, not automatic rifles. In your posts you seem to focus on rifles whereas I am not. You are right that you can use caliber to delineate between submachine guns and automatic rifles. That isn’t my point. Guns like the Thompson automatic submachine gun, the important word being automatic, and their notoriety due to their use by the mob is what precipitated the first gun restrictions as we know it. That’s also why I think you still have to register suppressors with the ATF and pay $200 — in the 1930s that was a fortune and priced most people out of owning one. But because the legislation did not contain any regular price increase, inflation took care of it and now it is not nothing, but it isn’t much either.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2021, 12:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot View Post
The example of technological advancement alone makes a perfect case for why, regardless of what the SC may argue, they cannot objectively reflect the values of the people who wrote or amended the constitution.
The way I approach originalism, I’m only trying to figure out what the values were of the people who wrote it then. That sets the law, and it doesn’t change until there’s a new law.

I’d say the values of the people who wrote the 2nd Amendment were that the federal government shouldn’t infringe on a militiaman’s access to the same things an infantryman had access to (at the very least). They were fine with the states infringing on it.

I highly doubt the authors felt the federal government should have the right to bar the militia from adopting technological innovation.

So, that’s the law. The federal government can’t deny a militiaman anything an infantryman gets. In 21st century terms, at a bare minimum that’s suppressed, fully-automatic weapons, and 31 flavors of explosives. The federal government can’t infringe on a militiaman’s right to these, and by way of the 14th amendment, the states can’t either.

A competent attorney should be able to make a good argument that explosive mishaps are both more likely and pose a greater threat to public safety than firearms mishaps, and therefore there’s a compelling state interest in regulating them.
( Last edited by subego; Jun 12, 2021 at 12:54 PM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2021, 12:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
In your posts you seem to focus on rifles
The reason for this is because this is the claim you challenged:


Originally Posted by subego View Post
technological shift happened, which (at least with rifles) I’d put in the 60s.
Note the qualifier.



Edit: and if we want to get ultra-pedantic, caliber doesn’t really determine whether it’s a pistol round or a rifle round. The exact definition is a little fuzzy, but the important qualities as I understand them are the bullet’s ratio of length to width, and the ratio of gunpowder to the weight of the bullet. Rifle ammo has higher ratios. Also, though not always, rifle ammo is necked, so it can accommodate the high gunpowder to bullet weight ratio without making the overall length of the round excessive.
( Last edited by subego; Jun 12, 2021 at 12:54 PM. )
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 11, 2021, 01:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Not really, I see no logical connection to what you or I wrote earlier. Sorry.
No apologies necessary!

Allow me to attempt to connect it.

The question which sparked this tangent was whether the Heller decision reflected the values of the authors of the 2nd Amendment, or some other set of values.

In the real world, the answer to this question is “some other set”

In the law world, which often bears no resemblance to the real world, the answer is “the authors”, because the highest court in the land said that was the intent behind the decision. I’m not going to challenge that claim, just like I wouldn’t challenge the claim OJ is “100% not guilty”, even though the real world says differently.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 19, 2021, 03:48 PM
 
Court made an 8-1 decision with Thomas leading the majority opinion and Alito the only dissent. Not your normal split.

This is the first article Google gave me (I did not read it):

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57522186

Actual decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...9-416_i4dj.pdf
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2021, 10:46 AM
 
The US Supreme Court has ruled food giants Nestlé USA and Cargill can't be sued for child slavery on African farms from where they buy their cocoa.
Why does "from where they buy their cocoa" sound weird to me?
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2021, 12:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
Why does "from where they buy their cocoa" sound weird to me?
Dunno. It's standard english. There should probably be a comma between "farms" and "from", though.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2021, 12:44 PM
 
In other news, the court has ruled unanimously that the NCAA is violating anti-trust law when it restricts student-athlete compensations.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2021, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Dunno. It's standard english. There should probably be a comma between "farms" and "from", though.
Maybe it's like Churchill's "This is the type of arrant pedantry up with which I will not put." Correct but feels weird?
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2021, 01:39 PM
 
I’d nuke “their”. It’s so obviously implied, eliminating it doesn’t change the meaning of the sentence.

“[B]uy their” could also be “source”.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2021, 04:48 PM
 
source makes it sound like the cocoa just floats out of the ground and onto their trucks, like magic. I know many businesses use it, but for legal terms BUY is much more clear. They are buying a product, the farm that produces that product does questionable things to get it done.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 21, 2021, 05:29 PM
 
I hear “source” used a lot with coffee, and in that context I imagine Juan Valdez with donkeys and shit.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2021, 11:02 AM
 
My confirmation bias likes this case.

https://www.politico.com/amp/news/20...se-case-496717

6-3 decision. Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts siding with the libs.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2021, 12:00 PM
 
Interesting. Alito sounds like he was open to an excessive force ruling, and definitely wanted a crack at the matter.

If you read the ruling as against excessive police force, then it could be seen as a 7-2 ruling. Looks like SCOTUS isn't ready to rubber-stamp the police, even after Trump's appointments.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2021, 12:46 PM
 
I’m super busy, but I’m definitely want to read Alito’s dissent and see what he was thinking.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 29, 2021, 05:30 PM
 
very interesting read...
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2021, 02:59 PM
 
SCOTUS pretty much threw what was left of the Voting Rights Act into the grave today.
     
shifuimam
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The deep backwoods of Idaho
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2021, 03:29 PM
 
Good.

The Constitution is pretty clear on this one: the states have the authority to dictate how their elections are carried out. The federal legislature explicitly does not have that authority.
Sell or send me your vintage Mac things if you don't want them.
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2021, 04:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
The Constitution is pretty clear on this one: the states have the authority to dictate how their elections are carried out. The federal legislature explicitly does not have that authority.
Then how do you read the 15th amendment?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 1, 2021, 08:45 PM
 
There are at least four Amendments that can impact elections law:
14: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Election-impact portions: State laws may not abridge the privileges of citizens, nor deprive any person of liberty without due process of law, nor deny to any person the equal protection of the laws. The right to vote is a privilege or liberty for citizens. And equal protection of the law suggests it is equally available to all citizens.
15: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Election-related: the whole thing.
19: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Election-related: right to vote cannot be restricted for female citizens. Including minority or poor female citizens.
24: Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Election-related: taxes or equivalent may not be imposed on voting. At least not on elections that cover certain federal offices. Sounds like any restriction that requires extra money to get around, might be stuck down by this.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2021, 11:19 AM
 
Is the general consensus here that ballot harvesting should be legal, and banning it in Arizona is a 15th Amendment violation?
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2021, 12:13 PM
 
I assume you mean, having another person deliver ballots to post office or election officials? ie - for old folks or those without transportation.

The "other person" is not an official. I don't see a Constitution violation, though Congress could specify something by "appropriate legislation". Seems like a method of reducing ballots from low-income and minority voters. I think advocates challenged the restriction mostly on Equal Protection of the Law (14th) and perhaps a de-facto poll tax (24th).
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2021, 01:30 PM
 
Maybe I’m missing something, but this is a case about the Voting Rights Act.

The Arizona law wasn’t challenged on the basis of the 14th and the 24th Amendments, it was challenged on the basis of the VRA.

The 15th is relevant because (IIUC) the part of the VRA used in the challenge essentially mirrors the 15th.
( Last edited by subego; Jul 4, 2021 at 01:54 PM. )
     
Laminar
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2021, 01:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Is the general consensus here that ballot harvesting should be legal
If its real-world effect is increased voter participation with no measurable effect on fraud, then I'm fine with it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 4, 2021, 01:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
If its real-world effect is increased voter participation with no measurable effect on fraud, then I'm fine with it.
Let me rephrase the question.

Is it okay for a state to make ballot harvesting illegal?


Edit: what I meant by “should be legal” in my earlier post was “should be [forced to be] legal”.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:17 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,