Page 279 of 399 FirstFirst ... 179229269277278279280281289329379 ... LastLast
Results 11,121 to 11,160 of 15949

Thread: Inauguration Day, Inauguration Hooooooraaay!

  1. #11121
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    It's definitely interesting that someone posts here who thinks the his radical, ahistorical, personally convenient reading of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence imply his particular world view is the only valid one.
    I believe this is what you meant, but were being too polite to say.

    FWIW I have read both documents, so I have no idea what the blazes he's talking about.
    He hasn't and doesn't either, respectively.

  2. #11122
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    Never rat on your friends, and always keep your mouth shut.

    A quick google search of that quote along with "Trump" reveals I'm not the only one who thinks this.

  3. #11123
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    If you were serious you'd suggest some important rulings, or at least the Federalist Papers - anything to put the constitution and the bill of rights in the originalist context you claim to believe. Otherwise Reid is left to interpret the declaration of independence and constitution in a vacuum. The latter, at least, clearly isn't interpreted the same way by all readers.
    I am serious and that's why I said start with those. Although I haven't read the federalist or anti-federalist papers I think that's a clear direction to follow if one is interested in the then contemporary debate. As far as rulings I like Men in Black by Mark Levin and the cases he references would be interesting rulings to read. And, yes, the constitution should be interpreted as close to literally as possible and the legal system really should have little to do with that matter but of course it does now and that isn't a power explicitly granted in the constitution either.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  4. #11124
    Should the bible be interpreted literally (and completely without context) too?

  5. #11125
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    And, yes, the constitution should be interpreted as close to literally as possible
    How French of you.

    and the legal system really should have little to do with that matter
    Yes it should; common law systems always invest the power of legal interpretation with the judiciary.

    but of course it does now
    It always did.

    and that isn't a power explicitly granted in the constitution either.
    Yes it is: Article 3, Section 2. Or as Alexander Hamilton put it,

    “The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body.”

  6. #11126
    Yes to ascertain its meaning but not change it through "interpretation" nor the concept of a judicial veto.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  7. #11127
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,532
    I guess Wookie06 must have quantum phase shifted from a universe where America wasn’t settled by the British. Either that or he’s never bothered to learn the judicial system of pre-revolutionary America before making up his mind about what “judicial power” means. I’m sure it’s the former.

  8. #11128
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    9,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    I am serious and that's why I said start with those. Although I haven't read the federalist or anti-federalist papers I think that's a clear direction to follow if one is interested in the then contemporary debate. As far as rulings I like Men in Black by Mark Levin and the cases he references would be interesting rulings to read. And, yes, the constitution should be interpreted as close to literally as possible and the legal system really should have little to do with that matter but of course it does now and that isn't a power explicitly granted in the constitution either.
    Do you think Mark Levin, given his background and association with strongly conservative media, might be in any way biased in his presentation of the history of the Supreme Court?

    How do you cope with the fact that originalism is a recent invention and wasn't what the founding fathers originally intended?

  9. #11129
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    Yes to ascertain its meaning but not change it through "interpretation" nor the concept of a judicial veto.

    Fair enough for me I guess (so long as we're still talking about the bible or making biblical analogies).

  10. #11130
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Do you think Mark Levin, given his background and association with strongly conservative media, might be in any way biased in his presentation of the history of the Supreme Court?

    How do you cope with the fact that originalism is a recent invention and wasn't what the founding fathers originally intended?
    Couldn't you say the exact same thing about Saint Peter?

  11. #11131
    My favorite example is the first amendment. It specifically limits congress yet the supreme court decided that it was amended through "incorporation" by the fourteenth amendment, which would have been terribly sloppy if that's what the authors intended the fourteenth amendment to do and, of course, it wasn't.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  12. #11132
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    I guess Wookie06 must have quantum phase shifted from a universe where America wasn’t settled by the British. Either that or he’s never bothered to learn the judicial system of pre-revolutionary America before making up his mind about what “judicial power” means. I’m sure it’s the former.
    Does one need to be a scholar of Jewish and Roman history to understand the bible?

  13. #11133
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    Yes to ascertain its meaning but not change it through "interpretation" nor the concept of a judicial veto.
    *judicial review.

    And yes, the framers did intend for judicial review.

  14. #11134
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    9,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    I believe this is what you meant, but were being too polite to say.

    He hasn't and doesn't either, respectively.
    I'm trying not to be rude to people who disagree with me; that is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    How French of you.
    Your comment that we should understand the debates about the constitution are very important. When the French wrote the Declaration of the Rights of the Man in 1789, they were faced with a big problem of how to actually contextualize the ideas. It turned out that declarations such as "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good." are pretty much impossible to implement without additional knowledge and societal context. Some dialectic needs to be had to understand which social distinctions, and to get some approximation of what we think is generally good, and how you understand and plan to enforce rights.

    So when you're reading the Declaration of Independence, for instance, there are lines such as:

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
    I don't see this as all too different from the declarations of the many failed French constitutions. These are nice sounding declarations, but hold little meaning without understanding context.

    I think conservatives tend to see socialists and communists as evildoers who need to be stopped. If communists truly believe capitalist systems destroy life, liberty and the ability to seek happiness, and are not derived from the consent of the governed, is it not their right to proverbially storm the Bastille and put in a new government? I don't think Wookie would prefer this reading, but without context the Declaration of Independence doesn't exclude it.

    Context is key.

  15. #11135
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    9,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    Couldn't you say the exact same thing about Saint Peter?
    I effectively consider Paul a heretic in my mind, and think his teachings deviate from what Christ meant. But that's my interpretation, and one that most Christians do not share.

  16. #11136
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Do you think Mark Levin, given his background and association with strongly conservative media, might be in any way biased in his presentation of the history of the Supreme Court?

    How do you cope with the fact that originalism is a recent invention and wasn't what the founding fathers originally intended?
    I think it's incredibly stupid to believe that the framers never intended for the constitution to be applied as written but it was also a starting point and full of compromises to get it ratified. The document wasn't perfect but it laid out the best system man has ever agreed enough upon to design. If originalism is a recent concept it's only because it needs to be. As far as the Levin book, it's more a case by case analysis and the arguments he presents are clear so if you end up disagreeing with the conclusions that's fine. It's not a history book and it's also highly readable unlike most of his other books that are much more complexly written.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  17. #11137
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    9,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    My favorite example is the first amendment. It specifically limits congress yet the supreme court decided that it was amended through "incorporation" by the fourteenth amendment, which would have been terribly sloppy if that's what the authors intended the fourteenth amendment to do and, of course, it wasn't.
    The authors intended the constitution to change. An inflexible constitution is not what was originally intended.

    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    Does one need to be a scholar of Jewish and Roman history to understand the bible?
    No, but it would help clear up many of the awful interpretations Christian evangelicals give to the Bible.

  18. #11138
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    My favorite example is the first amendment. It specifically limits congress yet the supreme court decided that it was amended through "incorporation" by the fourteenth amendment, which would have been terribly sloppy if that's what the authors intended the fourteenth amendment to do and, of course, it wasn't.
    Analogy: liberal supreme court interpretations of the constitution are to Islamic interpretation of the New Testament, as "originalist" interpretation of the constitution are to Christian interpretation of the New Testament

    It all makes sense now. Who is this guy, and what is he doing to our constitution with all this Harvard Law school crap??

    Name:  obama_muslim.jpg
Views: 30
Size:  104.2 KB

  19. #11139
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    *judicial review.

    And yes, the framers did intend for judicial review.
    No, I don't mean judicial review. I'm not talking about judicial review, which is a related but separate argument. The supreme court, and lower courts, effectively have a judicial veto.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  20. #11140
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    9,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    I think it's incredibly stupid to believe that the framers never intended for the constitution to be applied as written but it was also a starting point and full of compromises to get it ratified. The document wasn't perfect but it laid out the best system man has ever agreed enough upon to design.
    False. The perfect document was carved into slabs of stone by Moses. The rest is in red.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    If originalism is a recent concept it's only because it needs to be. As far as the Levin book, it's more a case by case analysis and the arguments he presents are clear so if you end up disagreeing with the conclusions that's fine. It's not a history book and it's also highly readable unlike most of his other books that are much more complexly written.
    I don't doubt that he's a clear writer and presents a convincing narrative. If he goes case by case, how can you be sure he isn't skipping over other cases which would confound his point? I looked up reviews and this argument was presented against his work.

  21. #11141
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    The authors intended the constitution to change. An inflexible constitution is not what was originally intended.
    Obviously but that has no bearing on my point.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  22. #11142
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    I don't doubt that he's a clear writer and presents a convincing narrative. If he goes case by case, how can you be sure he isn't skipping over other cases which would confound his point? I looked up reviews and this argument was presented against his work.
    Okay, don't read it if you don't want to. Perfectly alright by me.
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  23. #11143
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    9,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    Analogy: liberal supreme court interpretations of the constitution are to Islamic interpretation of the New Testament, as "originalist" interpretation of the constitution are to Christian interpretation of the New Testament

    It all makes sense now. Who is this guy, and what is he doing to our constitution with all this Harvard Law school crap??
    Most conservative authors I've seen write about the Supreme Court hold the same theses: some argument that original intent is all that matters (it's not), reframing early 20th century conservative court decisions as originally intended (which they were not), and decrying the 1930's changes as unconstitutional (they weren't, but they gave workers rights so they're bad). It's an argument that basically says: all that matters is what was originally intended. And it just so happens that what was originally intended is everything conservatives want. Here's my proof, it's a passionate conservative's screed cherrypicking cases to conclude he's correct.

  24. #11144
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    9,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    Obviously but that has no bearing on my point.
    Maybe you could explain again what the issue was? I don't see why the Supreme Court's ruling on the meaning of the fourteenth was an overstep.

  25. #11145
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    9,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    Okay, don't read it if you don't want to. Perfectly alright by me.
    Do you read any material on the history of the Supreme Court from scholars with less overt bias? I'd find your perspective more convincing if it was sourced from a less partisan person.

  26. #11146
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    9,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    decrying the 1930's changes as unconstitutional (they weren't, but they gave workers rights so they're bad).
    Nevermind that the Supreme Court in the 1930's was conservative. This joke might be misinterpreted, you know.

  27. #11147
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    Does one need to be a scholar of Jewish and Roman history to understand the bible?
    Most Christians seem to think so, they pay someone who learned those things at seminary to teach them how to be Christian.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    I think it's incredibly stupid to believe that the framers never intended for the constitution to be applied as written
    You can believe whatever you want, but America doesn't have a civil law system. Not today, not before the Civil War, not before the Revolution. No matter how long you plug your ears and stamp your feet, it never happened. If you actually cared about what the founding fathers believed you'd pay attention to what they said, instead of stubbornly insisting what you imagine they wanted with no evidence or good faith intention to persuade others.

    The document wasn't perfect but it laid out the best system man has ever agreed enough upon to design.
    lol

    Quote Originally Posted by Wookie06 View Post
    No, I don't mean judicial review. I'm not talking about judicial review, which is a related but separate argument. The supreme court, and lower courts, effectively have a judicial veto.
    That's what judicial review means.

  28. #11148
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    9,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Most Christians seem to think so, they pay someone who learned those things at seminary to teach them how to be Christian.
    Do most Christian teachers in North America go to seminary? I always thought of that as more of a strict Lutheran or Catholic thing.

  29. #11149
    Admiral of Awesome
    Posts
    18,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Do most Christian teachers in North America go to seminary? I always thought of that as more of a strict Lutheran or Catholic thing.
    Might be. That would explain a lot.

  30. #11150
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    9,056
    This reminds me of a thing which happened. I went to a Christian thing here and met some people. One of the guys I met (who I think was organizing the event I went to) was doing graduate work studying older texts, I think it might have been on the Greek parts of the New Testament. Can't remember exactly. I mentioned something about how it must be interesting to have debates about how to interpret the texts. Since we can never know what was really meant in every last sentence outside of approximations, it's an endless source of interesting debates to weed out which exacting interpretations are likely.

    I was met with something between the look of a death stare and the face of an exorcist seeing someone possessed. They were apparently really made uncomfortable that I could suggest interpreting Jesus or other parts of the New Testament wasn't an exact science. Something which seemed really obvious to me was apparently in conflict with a dogmatic persistence in an idea.

    I feel much the same is true of how conservatives engage with constitutional debates.

  31. #11151
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    9,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Jon`C View Post
    Might be. That would explain a lot.
    It would, right? For as much as I disagree with Catholic theology, at least Catholicism seems to be philosophically honest enough to recognize the value and truth of scientific endeavor. There are many good Christian sects in America too. I think there's also a tradition of Christian teaching which is not backed by serious scholarly effort, but by ad hoc reading and interpretation of various passages. Basically all of the negatives feared by common interpretation of the Bible happen there. The negatives of the Luther Bible.

  32. #11152
    American individualism doesn't just mean being free to do whatever you want, it also means believing whatever you want. That's why Fox News conveniently presents both sides of every argument (e.g., those given by a climate scientist on the one hand, and an oilman on the other).

    (Isaac Asimov said it already.)

  33. #11153
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    Maybe you could explain again what the issue was? I don't see why the Supreme Court's ruling on the meaning of the fourteenth was an overstep.
    Because the fourteenth amendment did not amend the first amendment. The court simply chose to do it on their own.

    [I started a longish blog-like post here but I'll do that in another thread at another time. I'm just going to dip back out of this thread because I really don't enjoy the back and forth like I did a decade ago. God we've been doing this for a long time!]
    "I would rather claim to be an uneducated man than be mal-educated and claim to be otherwise." - Wookie 03:16


  34. #11154
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    American individualism doesn't just mean being free to do whatever you want, it also means believing whatever you want. That's why Fox News conveniently presents both sides of every argument (e.g., those given by a climate scientist on the one hand, and an oilman on the other).


    (Isaac Asimov said it already.)
    But the thing is, "knowledge is power", and liberals are oh-so knowledge / power hungry, and they'll stop at nothing, pulling at the very fabric of life until there's nothing left but a thread.

  35. #11155
    They want nothing but nothingness! Nothingness without end! I mean, say what you will about the tenants of MAGA, at least it's an ethos.

  36. #11156
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    It would, right? For as much as I disagree with Catholic theology, at least Catholicism seems to be philosophically honest enough to recognize the value and truth of scientific endeavor. There are many good Christian sects in America too. I think there's also a tradition of Christian teaching which is not backed by serious scholarly effort, but by ad hoc reading and interpretation of various passages. Basically all of the negatives feared by common interpretation of the Bible happen there. The negatives of the Luther Bible.
    I think I know of another ideology that had its own "interpretation" of Christianity (which, bafflingly, seems to be gaining popularity among a certain type of young person in America).

  37. #11157
    Godwin dammit...

  38. #11158
    Quote Originally Posted by Reid View Post
    This reminds me of a thing which happened. I went to a Christian thing here and met some people. One of the guys I met (who I think was organizing the event I went to) was doing graduate work studying older texts, I think it might have been on the Greek parts of the New Testament. Can't remember exactly. I mentioned something about how it must be interesting to have debates about how to interpret the texts. Since we can never know what was really meant in every last sentence outside of approximations, it's an endless source of interesting debates to weed out which exacting interpretations are likely.

    I was met with something between the look of a death stare and the face of an exorcist seeing someone possessed. They were apparently really made uncomfortable that I could suggest interpreting Jesus or other parts of the New Testament wasn't an exact science. Something which seemed really obvious to me was apparently in conflict with a dogmatic persistence in an idea.

    I feel much the same is true of how conservatives engage with constitutional debates.
    And with that lack of critical thought, there's enough leeway to fly a Hindenburg through.

  39. #11159
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    9,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Reverend Jones View Post
    But the thing is, "knowledge is power", and liberals are oh-so knowledge / power hungry, and they'll stop at nothing, pulling at the very fabric of life until there's nothing left but a thread.
    From the person who posted that video:

    The JOO is always portrayed as INNOCENT..It is a part of their PROTOCOL OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION tactic.

    This is how they have come to rob nations blind through their WALL STREET and INVESTMENT BANK tricks.
    You led me into a den of lions Youtube Nazis, Jones!

    It's a reply to the post by "NordicWarrior" who's really angry the movie portrays Jews as victims of antisemitism.

  40. #11160
    ^^vv<><>BASTART
    Posts
    9,056
    The kinds of profiles Youtube Nazis come up with, man. We have "Broadsword Calling" with a Wehrmacht soldier as his icon calling Jews the real antisemites. Some guy with a National Socialist Canadian flag and the name "Official Narrative" talking about Jews masturbating into potted plants. Some guy named "Void Divided by Zero" (no doubt a black piller) who has a problem with Jews saying black people are human.

    It would be really funny if it wasn't so unnerving. And a little depressing.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •