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

181–190 of 198 posts

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

#181

Post by Maursault »

quantumBerry wrote: post #179
Maursault wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the second amendment enshrines the ability for those such as the disabled and women to have a fighting chance against a violent attacker The 2nd Amendment never had anything to do with crime and self-defense prior to DC v. Heller 2008. Militias do not enforce law. It also, fwiw, has nothing to do with hunting. The sole original purpose of the 2nd was to be a check against tyranny. That is all it ever was until Just…

So which people are allowed to peaceably assemble? How about my wife and I? What if we also want to bear arms? Having the ability to defend against tyranny with a weapon doesn't mean you drop your right to self defense. The 2nd amendment absolutely protects the right to bear arms as a check against tyranny. I don't understand your bone to pick as to why someone bearing arms couldn't defend themselves with them. Edit:…

So you believe that prior to 1788 no right of self-defense existed? Do you then believe that one can't defend oneself without a gun? Surely you mustn't.

Again, the 2nd only concerns tyranny, and prevents the government from disarming militias in order to have a check on tyranny.

If you'd like another reason why self-defense was not nor should be included in the 2nd, I see no right to breathe in the Bill of Rights. I guess we have no right to breathe and we better pass an amendment giving us that right before we pass out.

The Bill of Rights was not intended to limit rights to those enumerated in the BoR, and I would say a right of self-defense is already included under self-evident and inalienable rights along with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

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

#182

Post by quantumBerry »

Maursault wrote: post #181
quantumBerry wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So which people are allowed to peaceably assemble? How about my wife and I? What if we also want to bear arms? Having the ability to defend against tyranny with a weapon doesn't mean you drop your right to self defense. The 2nd amendment absolutely protects the right to bear arms as a check against tyranny. I don't understand your bone to pick as to why someone bearing arms couldn't defend themselves with them. Edit:…

So you believe that prior to 1788 no right of self-defense existed? Do you then believe that one can't defend oneself without a gun? Surely you mustn't. Again, the 2nd only concerns tyranny, and prevents the government from disarming militias in order to have a check on tyranny. If you'd like another reason why self-defense was not nor should be included in the 2nd, I see no right to breathe in the Bill of Rights. I…

>2nd only concerns tyranny

The 2A was written with tyranny in mind but the 2A does not mention tyranny. It recognizes militia, recognizes security of free state (which can come from foreign sources), and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

If you start with the right to self defense, and add a right to bear arms => you now have self defense + a gun. But your argument is you're not allowed to use it for your "right" to self defense?

>So you believe that prior to 1788 no right of self-defense existed?

The framers of the constitution believed the bill of rights merely codified natural human rights that have always existed.

>Again, the 2nd only concerns tyranny, and prevents the government from disarming militias in order to have a check on tyranny.

The right to keep and bear arms is ascribed to the people.

In practice, rights are whatever you can get away with. You have the right to travel freely in most public land, but you may be eaten by a bear. But the legal distinction helps in restraining the government, to the point that they acknowledge them. If the government stops acknowledge the right of people to bear arms then you're left with the result those of us that can get away with it will and the rest will be killed or imprisoned.

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

#183

Post by krrrh »

krrrh wrote: post #51
rcollyer wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The constitution is remarkably vague about all manner of things. So, the argument that the "expansion of the government beyond what the Constitution allows" is really difficult to support on a textualist basis. What exactly did you have in mind?

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…

Thomas’ dissent really brings home the point on textualist/originalist grounds.

> If the majority is to be taken seriously, the Federal Government may now regulate quilting bees, clothes drives, and potluck suppers throughout the 50 States. This makes a mockery of Madison's assurance to the people of New York that the "powers delegated" to the Federal Government are "few and defined", while those of the States are "numerous and indefinite."

It’s worth adding that in addition to Justice Thomas, O’Conner and Rheinquist dissented on Raich and just a month ago Thomas noted how untenable the majority’s decision has become with regards to current law and practice around cannabis. The court was motivated to find a way to justify the federal governments blanket prohibition and produced bad law, and if the same case had come before them in 2021 it could very well have been decided differently, arguably under equal treatment provisions.

> Whatever the merits of Raich when it was decided, federal policies of the past 16 years have greatly undermined its reasoning. Once comprehensive, the Federal Government's current approach is a half-in, half-out regime that simultaneously tolerates and forbids local use of marijuana. This contradictory and unstable state of affairs strains basic principles of federalism and conceals traps for the unwary.

> …

> Yet, as petitioners recently discovered, legality under state law and the absence of federal criminal enforcement do not ensure equal treatment.

> …

> I could go on. Suffice it to say, the Federal Government's current approach to marijuana bears little resemblance to the watertight nationwide prohibition that a closely divided Court found necessary to justify the Government's blanket prohibition in Raich. If the Government is now content to allow States to act "as laboratories" "'and try novel social and economic experiments,'" Raich, 545 U. S., at 42 (O'Connor, J., dissenting), then it might no longer have authority to intrude on "[t]he States' core police powers . . . to define criminal law and to protect the health, safety, and welfare of their citizens." Ibid. A prohibition on intrastate use or cultivation of marijuana may no longer be necessary or proper to support the Federal Government's piecemeal approach.

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/06/28/justice-thomas-decries-...

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

#184

Post by BeFlatXIII »

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.

> the more people move in, the better

Or much, much worse for the locals if housing construction can’t keep pace with the population influx. Or your state does the right thing and somehow solves its homelessness problem and then homeless from around the nation arrive (or are shipped off by their home states) and overwhelm the system.

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

#185

Post by jessaustin »

shadowgovt wrote: post #160
jessaustin wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not so much "fell apart" as "intentionally overthrown by capitalists when they didn't agree with policies determined through democracy". Madison and his co-conspirators didn't approve of the deliberate currency depreciation and other measures voted in by farmers who fought, unpaid, for years in a war that benefited rich elites and came home to find their farms repossessed by debtors and tax collectors. So long as the…

So long as the various states operated as competing democracies, they couldn't pull together into one country.

Yeah, that was the original idea. United States would menace the rest of the world a lot less if it weren't truly united.

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

#186

Post by fidesomnes »

minikites wrote: post #65
victor106 wrote: post #41

> In 1995, he realized Mississippi had never ratified the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery. So he pushed that state's Legislature to do it — and it worked. Just think about that for a second: Someone had to push the state legislature to abolish slavery in 1995. Just sickening

Slavery was never really abolished, it's still allowed as punishment for a crime. The bias of police and the criminal justice system against people of certain races takes on a new meaning in this light.

I see you live in a world of magical thinking. When was the last time you let anyone (in your mind) wrongly convicted of crimes into your home? I will hazard a guess "none at all" and the last black people you let into your home came in through the television.

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

#187

Post by shadowgovt »

jessaustin wrote: post #185
shadowgovt wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So long as the various states operated as competing democracies, they couldn't pull together into one country.

Yeah, that was the original idea. United States would menace the rest of the world a lot less if it weren't truly united.

Alternate history speculation is a fool's game, but a fun one. ;) It's also extremely likely that the (states that make up the) United States would be the territory of other powers if it hadn't united.

It's interesting to speculate on how much of the colonies Britain would have won back in the War of 1812 if it hadn't faced a unified front, or what a powerful France would have done in world history if it had never made the Louisiana purchase sale to the United States because there would have been no United States to make the sale to (or, for that matter, what a powerful Spain would have done if France had made the sale to Spain instead, expanding the Mexican holdings). Or how long slavery would have lasted in North America if there had been no pressure of maintaining a national-scale rule of law to bring disagreements between Northern and Southern states to the point of a military conflict.

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

#188

Post by int_19h »

Maursault wrote: post #178
int_19h wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "provably not the Founders' intention" part is the one where you're wrong, and the court opinion specifically discusses this, which is why I recommend that people read it before jumping to conclusions. By the way, one thing that's often forgotten is that 2A itself was merely an adaptation of similar clauses in state constitutions at the time (many of which explicitly spelled out self-defense as a motivation). At…

> The "provably not the Founders' intention" part is the one where you're wrong, and the court opinion specifically discusses this, which is why I recommend that people read it before jumping to conclusions. I am afraid not. The court may have had a historical review before discussion, but they did not examine the minutes of the Constitutional Congress, where it can be read plain as day that the Founders discussed at…

"Gun club" is just a name; you should look up what those guys actually do, e.g.: https://psjbgc.org/

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

#189

Post by sershe »

techbio wrote: post #164
sershe wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is this supposed to be a trick question? For example, if you tax people and build a highway (or a rail line), someone driving on it/riding it but not paying taxes does not contribute to this particular QOL improvement.

Generally, there are plenty of people who do not contribute to society in any major way (e.g. even taxes), or even directly harm it.

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

#190

Post by sershe »

BeFlatXIII wrote: post #184
sershe wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> the more people move in, the better Or much, much worse for the locals if housing construction can’t keep pace with the population influx. Or your state does the right thing and somehow solves its homelessness problem and then homeless from around the nation arrive (or are shipped off by their home states) and overwhelm the system.

Well, if housing construction cannot keep up it would balance out the quality of life, right? People will move as long as negative QOL delta from expensive housing is, in their view, less than positive QOL delta from other sources.

As for the homelessness example, that is my point exactly, and the general problem with welfare state. You have to choose - restrict the access to welfare state specifically, restrict movement generally, or don't have a welfare state. I do not view welfare state as a sustainable QOL improvement (or a QOL improvement at all), so I am in favor of the last option. For me, people moving in to abuse a local welfare option is a positive development. Contrary to GGP(?), the localities that get punished are not punished for "improving quality of life"... they are punished for stupid policies.

Post reply on HN