111–120 of 198 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The U.S. history with slavery and Jim Crow laws tell me that it's not always perfectly viable, and is sometimes very difficult.
Except we have no problem with such diverse policy in other federations like the eu.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's how Common Law has always worked, no? Judges make law. I would guess the rate of Amendments is inversely proportional to the stability of the country (static borders, no more domestic wars, increasing body of case law/precedent). Textualists and originalists seem to be Civil Code fans in Common Law clothing.
Judges fill out the details of law that aren't in the statutes, but they're not meant to create substitute statutes from whole cloth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EU is less than 30 and has already lost a member. If you accept membership flexibility then extreme diversity is much easier to accommodate.
The civil war was all about membership flexibility. Is it any surprise that the losers wanted their 'divetsity' to be accommodated. Frankly we're heading down the path of membership flexibility if the next few years don't bring about significant change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>States one by one recognizing gay marriage and proving that it wasn't going to cause the collapse of society is the only reason it was recognized on a national level. You're leaving out the massive fights from states that did not want to recognize gay marriage, which could have easily gone the other way. The same process will repeat with marijuana prohibition and the states fighting it may succeed this time. What wo…
>> we need the federal government to do things instead of leaving it up to the states. Unless it concerns powers specifically given to the federal government by the US constitution that would be unconstitutional: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." (10th Amendment). If you do not like the la…
The constitution is a broad documented to be interpreted
It's not a step by step manual or grocery list
> If you do not like the laws in other states, discuss and persuade the voters of those states to change their laws. Or better yet and occasionally easier get the federal government to change the law for the whole country, benefiting everyone
Catch-22: After he got the amendment ratified, there's a strong argument that the paper probably should have been given a higher grade. But had he been given that higher grade in the first place, he probably wouldn't have gone through the effort to ratify the amendment. You could argue that the paper did deserve the initial C grade, because that's what it took to get him angry enough to go and get the amendment ratif…
> Don't worry about people stealing an idea. If it's original, you will have to ram it down their throats.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> so the supreme court essentially has no choice but to make stuff up. Or the constitution can be amended.
This was Scalia's position basically.. he always held that there is a process for changing the Constitution.
during the time Scalia was on the US Supreme Court (1986-2016), there was 1 amendment to the US constitution (27th) that was took 202 years for approvals. since I don't think he could be considered naive, it is almost certain he was disingenuous.
There have been only two amendments to the U.S. Constitution over the past 50+ years (one of which is the subject of this story). Why? Partly because the Supreme Court has been very willing to discover hidden rights within the existing amendments, decreasing the need for states to go through the very arduous process of getting a new amendment over the finish line. That might seem like a fine way to handle things ...…
> There have been only two amendments to the U.S. Constitution over the past 50+ years Did you know the US Constitution and Bill of Rights was massively altered in 2008 without a two-thirds majority of Congress nor any majority of the States legislatures?[1] In fact, this is so, and it was done pretty much by one man ironically abandoning his own career-long ideology of strict constitutional interpretations with an a…
Only gun nutters believe in the right to self defense?
Who has the right to keep and bear arms? Does the constitution say that the "right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?" If you bear arms are you no longer entitled to self defense?
Do you know who the militia is in the United States? Are you aware every able bodied male citizen between 17 and 45 are considered militia [1]?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Letting the states make their own decisions on issues not addressed by the constitution is a perfectly viable solution. Not sure why that would be particularly difficult.
The U.S. history with slavery and Jim Crow laws tell me that it's not always perfectly viable, and is sometimes very difficult.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The EU is less than 30 and has already lost a member. If you accept membership flexibility then extreme diversity is much easier to accommodate.
The civil war was all about membership flexibility. Is it any surprise that the losers wanted their 'divetsity' to be accommodated. Frankly we're heading down the path of membership flexibility if the next few years don't bring about significant change.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except we have no problem with such diverse policy in other federations like the eu.
But we're not like the EU We are a single nation