A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017) • Hacker News Board

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#141

Post by R0b0t1 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 5:25 AM UTC

jfrunyon wrote: post #108

resoluteteeth wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If interpreted strictly, the constitution is really not suitable for operating a modern government (e.g. if you interpret the list of powers given to the federal government narrowly) so the supreme court essentially has no choice but to make stuff up. Obviously once they start doing that there's no real way to control what they are able to modify, but the only real way to fix it would be to completely scrap the curre…

> If interpreted strictly, the constitution is really not suitable for operating a modern government Let's take that as true, 'cause I agree > so the supreme court essentially has no choice but to make stuff up. No. The supreme court should have continued to observe the constitution and told Congress that they needed to propose some amendments. If there was a need for them, they'd happen, just like they have in the p…

I agree. We are where we are because there is a trend of appointing federal judges that grant the federal government more power. A lot of rulings at the federal level are morally bankrupt, easiest to see in the ones regarding the interstate commerce clause.

An inability for states to rule themselves is, I think, the driving force behind identity politics today.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#142

Post by youeseh » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 6:25 AM UTC

newsyyswen wrote: post #140

hvdijk wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor grades are supposed to be for poor work. What you're talking about is intentionally giving good students bad grades for good work just to piss them off, hoping that something good comes out of pissing them off. That's not what grades are for.

Couldn't you make a case that grades should reflect how people will actually be evaluated in their adult lives? I.e. capriciously, arbitrarily, and often based on a random person's mood at some random time?

Yeah, no reason to instill a sense of fairness in students, eh? :P

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#143

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 6:33 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #118

webnrrd2k wrote: post #66

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.

By the same token, the fact that Fugitive Slave Acts were passed back in the day would indicate that centralization isn't any more viable.

[deleted]

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#144

Post by teorema » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 6:43 AM UTC

What's really depressing to me is the struggles of the student and lecturer involved, intimated at but never really a focus in their own right:

https://www.statesman.com/news/20170314/herman-35-years-late...

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#145

Post by bobsil1 » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 6:46 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #136

bobsil1 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The slaver bits (including electoral college, disproportionate Senate) need a total rewrite. Amending against bad faith pol exploits should be as frequent as Patch Tuesday. While we’re at it, promote the non-slaver founders symbolically and strike the slavers from the currency. Rebrand as Free States of America.

The Senate was there for the small states, which were evenly split between free states and slave states (whether or not you count enslaved people). Big states likewise includes free states (MA) and slave states (VA). Don’t mix up the parts of the constitution compromising with slavery with the parts liberals just don’t like for unrelated reasons.

GOP created a bunch of low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming) in 1889-90 to stack the Senate; and granting 2 senators per artificial perimeter is the same one-person-one-vote problem. National popular vote is the only democratically legitimate method.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#146

Post by kd5bjo » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 7:00 AM UTC

exhaze wrote: post #38

paxys wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe the paper did deserve a C when it was handed in. Maybe it was poorly written, too short, too long, irrelevant to the topic at hand or just about anything else.

Maybe it's better to just spend 5 minutes looking into that question instead of coming up with random reasons. The paper was originally graded by a TA who gave the "C" grade. Watson appealed the grade to the professor. The professor reviewed it and upheld the "C" grade, stating that he had not sufficiently convinced her that the amendment was still alive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_th..…

It is entirely possible for this paper to contain a "C" quality argument even though its conclusion turned out to be true-- The purpose of an academic paper is to present a convincing argument rather than simply making a true assertion.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#147

Post by vladTheInhaler » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 7:10 AM UTC

newsyyswen wrote: post #140

hvdijk wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor grades are supposed to be for poor work. What you're talking about is intentionally giving good students bad grades for good work just to piss them off, hoping that something good comes out of pissing them off. That's not what grades are for.

Couldn't you make a case that grades should reflect how people will actually be evaluated in their adult lives? I.e. capriciously, arbitrarily, and often based on a random person's mood at some random time?

I give your argument a B-. Not for any particular reason. I just felt like it. Was that a good use of your time?

Many different groups have mutually conflicting expectations about what grades are supposed to be for. But one thing I think students, teachers, and prospective employers would agree on is that they should be rooted in some measure of performance or ability. Otherwise they serve no socially beneficial purpose at all. What is the point in taking a calculus exam if you'll just get 0/100 because the professor doesn't like your handwriting?

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#148

Post by zimpenfish » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 7:51 AM UTC

Aerroon wrote: post #69

krrrh wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about the following… > to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes. Being interpreted thusly… > The government argued that if a single exception were made to the Controlled Substances Act, it would become unenforceable in practice. The government also contended that consuming one's locally grown marijuana for medical purposes affects the interstate market of…

Wickard v. Filburn is crazy. Filburn grew his own crops on his own land to feed his own animals. The government fined him under interstate commerce laws for growing too much wheat. > The Court decided that Filburn's wheat-growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for animal feed on the open market, which is traded nationally, is thus interstate, and is therefore within the scope of the Commerce Clau…

Counterpoints: https://lawyersgunsmon.wpengine.com/2015/05/keep-reading-mcc...

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2015/05/it-is-hardly-la...

> Filburn was not a hobbyist growing a little food for his family[ ...] was someone with a commercial farm who [...] wanted to take advantage of federal price supports that allowed him to sell the wheat for more than twice the price it would command on the world market. While he wanted to take advantage of the federal guarantees, however, he wasn’t willing to comply with the federal regulations, which included a production quota that was a crucial element in the price supports

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#149

Post by watwut » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:50 AM UTC

newsyyswen wrote: post #140

hvdijk wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poor grades are supposed to be for poor work. What you're talking about is intentionally giving good students bad grades for good work just to piss them off, hoping that something good comes out of pissing them off. That's not what grades are for.

Couldn't you make a case that grades should reflect how people will actually be evaluated in their adult lives? I.e. capriciously, arbitrarily, and often based on a random person's mood at some random time?

This way you will produce students that act even more capriciously and arbitrarily toward others.

Re: A bad grade that changed the U.S. constitution (2017)

#150

Post by rayiner » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 8:51 AM UTC

bobsil1 wrote: post #145

rayiner wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Senate was there for the small states, which were evenly split between free states and slave states (whether or not you count enslaved people). Big states likewise includes free states (MA) and slave states (VA). Don’t mix up the parts of the constitution compromising with slavery with the parts liberals just don’t like for unrelated reasons.

GOP created a bunch of low-population states (North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming) in 1889-90 to stack the Senate; and granting 2 senators per artificial perimeter is the same one-person-one-vote problem. National popular vote is the only democratically legitimate method.

California had only 95,000 people when it became a state. At the time of statehood,South Dakota had 350,000 people while North Dakota had 190,000 people. There were political and economic differences (and a rivalry) between the two, due to among other things the structure of the rail networks, from the beginning: https://time.com/4377423/dakota-north-south-history-two. Both were growing very rapidly, and the southern part of the Dakota territory had held a separate constitutional convention. Harrison reportedly shuffled the bills of statehood before signing so nobody knew which became a state first—a sign of the rivalry.

Idaho had 90,000 people, and Montana had 142,000 (and was expected to vote Democrat). Montana, Washington, Wyoming, and Idaho had been separate territories for 35-50 years. This was more than many of the more eastern states had at the time of statehood. (E.g. Tennessee became a state at 75,000 people.)

We think of these states as fungible “flyover country” today, but when they were created they had very distinct identities. (Wyoming for example was a highly progressive state that allowed women to vote 50 years before the 19th amendment.) The economies were tied closely to the land (mineral deposits here or there) and the shape of the country’s rail networks. The perfectly square boundaries are somewhat artificial, but the states themselves represented quite distinct population centers and were quite populous for the time.