Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 198 posts

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

#161

Post by jack_h »

eigen wrote: post #116
voidfunc wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was Scalia's position basically.. he always held that there is a process for changing the Constitution.

> 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.

Why would he 'almost certain[ly]' be disingenuous? He stated in at least one interview that he believed the amendment process was too onerous in its requirements.

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

#162

Post by techbio »

iammisc wrote: post #139
int_19h wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as a foreigner who immigrated to the US, I don't see Americans as a single nation. Maybe that was the case at some point in the past, but there are too many cultural divisions by now that transcend compatriotism.

It was never the case. If anything Americans are more homogeneous now than ever.

Interesting but counterintuitive, at least to me. How do you determine homogeneity is this sense? What evidence suggests this to you?

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

#163

Post by jack_h »

bnralt wrote: post #127
wanderingmind wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an age old debate between judicial activism and judicial originalism. Most issues seem to stem from interpretation of the text. Activist wing thinks it needs to be interpreted within the current framework of judicial, social and political viewpoints while originalism wants it to be interpreted in the way it was originally written. It's hard to say one way or another. Activits would claim Brown vs Board create…

I don't think I've ever seen someone who's actually an originalist. For instance, I can't see how the incorporation of the Bill of Rights could possibly fit with originalism, but I haven't come across anyone who's against the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. It mostly seems to boil down to what flavor of activism you support.

As Thomas has argued[1] the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment, now pretty much dead letter, was intended to fully and immediately incorporate the first eight amendments to the states. In fact there are historical records from the drafter of the amendment stating as much.

[1] I don't remember the case, it may have been McDonald or Heller.

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

#164

Post by techbio »

sershe wrote: post #123
BeFlatXIII wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s too easy for citizens to move between states. You no longer need to cross the Atlantic in a Conestoga wagon. This freedom of movement punishes states that attempt to increase their quality of life too far above the national average far more than it punishes low-quality states with brain drain.

It would only punish the states who would attempt to increase the quality of life for people who don't contribute to said quality. Why would others be worried? The more people move in, the better.

This is the flipside of GP. States that increase their quality of life by sending their problems to the states that would attempt to solve them.

Name someone alive who does not contribute to the quality of life.

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

#165

Post by quantumBerry »

Maursault wrote: post #156
quantumBerry wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Prior to 2008 most Americans did not believe the 2nd included an implicit right of self-defense 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…

> Only gun nutters believe in the right to self defense? No. Only gun nutters believe the source of their right to self-defense comes from the 2nd, while the rest of us have that right whether there is a 2nd Amendment or not. > 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? Are you aware that the purpose of a militia is not s…

>Only gun nutters believe the source of their right to self-defense comes from the 2nd, while the rest of us have that right whether there is a 2nd Amendment or not.

Arms are ubiquitous in modern times and the second amendment enshrines the ability for those such as the disabled and women to have a fighting chance against a violent attacker. So you're right, it only protects a certain form of self defense by virtue of allowing the implements to defend yourself (arms).

>It is the right of The People.

Did you purposefully turn "the people" into a proper noun? Do you not understand "the people" are made up of persons? "The people" of the United States are made up of persons. It does not say "the militia" may bear arms, but rather those people ( who are persons ) may bear arms.

>Maybe the First Amendment means that all printed media should be free as in beer?

Since we've gone off to the first amendment, do you believe "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" only applies to an organized militia and not individual people?

The protections of the bill of rights are protections against government, not private entities. You aren't owed something free from a private news company.

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

#166

Post by Aerroon »

zimpenfish wrote: post #148
Aerroon wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But surely interstate commerce should be about how much he can sell, rather than produce, no?

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

#167

Post by iammisc »

watwut wrote: post #151
iammisc wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it was about slavery as the wedge issue over which to decide whether you can leave the union. This sort of reactionary rhetoric just skirts over the surface. It's not like the confederacy was fighting for slavery and to be part of the union. Both Kentucky and Delaware were happy with the status quo. The confederacy wanted both slavery and to leave the union, which they perceived to be their right. The federal go…

The union was good for them as long as union was supporting the slavery. They were perfectly ok with forcing free states to return escaped slaves. They were perfectly ok with the system in which north blacks could be kidnaped to slavery and had little legal recours. The union stopped being good enough for them, when it stopped being perfect.

Correct. Just like the eu was good for the uk until they decided it wasn't. Except the issue of secession was settled in the affirmative there and in the negative here.

You'd be hard pressed to argue the confederacy wanted to take over the union and then impose slavery on the free states. I mean, you could make the argument, but it's more likely to me they simply wanted to leave and continue enslaving people.

I don't know how this turned into a discussion on slavery. The issue was secession. The civil war answered that us states cannot secede. Itll be interesting to see how the dynamic in the eu changes since this is a possibility there (although I'm doubtful they'd let a continental member leave).

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

#168

Post by iammisc »

techbio wrote: post #162
iammisc wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was never the case. If anything Americans are more homogeneous now than ever.

Interesting but counterintuitive, at least to me. How do you determine homogeneity is this sense? What evidence suggests this to you?

The rise of national chain stores and mass media.

In the past, if you traveled from San Francisco to new Orleans you would experience an entirely different set of stores, a new dialect, new customs, and frankly a new language.

Even the difference between California and Oregon is stark. California being mainly Hispanic and Oregon being mainly Nordic and with lots of Slavic influence. The names change and even the languages do.

I'd never see Russian in California but it's a regular occurrence in Oregon.

EDIT: By no means am I suggesting though that Americans do not have fondness for one another. I just think the relationship between a rural Alabaman and an urban Californian is more like the relationship between two citizens of differing EU countries. We certainly have a shared culture of sorts, and we will defend each other in the face of non-Americans, but there are cultural differences that cannot be simply glossed over.

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

#169

Post by vmception »

chmod600 wrote: post #93
vmception wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Little did they know that all commerce would be interstate commerce by the 20th century The Federal government has subjugated all states, and merely tolerates their grasps at 10th amendment autonomy as it derives power from the collection of states. But it is more well funded, controls the currency, and has more land and resources under its title. States don't matter.

You're mistaken. Everything is interstate commerce, whether commerce or not.

Haha yes Supreme Court has gone that direction over the last century.

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

#170

Post by pmyteh »

iammisc wrote: post #167
watwut wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The union was good for them as long as union was supporting the slavery. They were perfectly ok with forcing free states to return escaped slaves. They were perfectly ok with the system in which north blacks could be kidnaped to slavery and had little legal recours. The union stopped being good enough for them, when it stopped being perfect.

Correct. Just like the eu was good for the uk until they decided it wasn't. Except the issue of secession was settled in the affirmative there and in the negative here. You'd be hard pressed to argue the confederacy wanted to take over the union and then impose slavery on the free states. I mean, you could make the argument, but it's more likely to me they simply wanted to leave and continue enslaving people. I don't…

All states have a right to leave the EU by treaty - it was inserted to defuse a previous bout of Euroscepticism that argued by analogy with the US civil war that union author a secession right was tyranny.

I can't see its use being refused: that would disintegrate the bloc. And there was no question that we (the Brits) wouldn't be allowed to, so the precedent has been set.

I would imagine a few tweaks to the Article 50 exit mechanism will be made next time the treaties are revised - there are some game theory problems in the current trigger mechanism and the timescales set down turned out to be too short in practice - but it's no longer in dispute on principle.

Post reply on HN