Felagund
8mo ago
You thinking it's absurd doesn't mean it's not important. As long as other people take it seriously, it'll have effects.
If they're correct (which I'm not certain about), I believe they'd have no objection to Trump or others presenting suits to argue that he is, in fact, eligible, if people try to remove him from ballots or take other actions, which might mitigate some of your concern about no formal determination? The authors go into its civil war era application for some examples of how it played out.
Essentially zero of this is a product of Biden being elected. You picked Floyd, which was during Trump's term, and a bunch of things that are generally not action by the federal government.
Like, there's plenty to complain about Biden for (e.g. student loans!), but stick to what he's actually done? Or explicitly say that the problem is the missed opportunities for the right to crack down on these things, in which case the problem is not so much that the democrats are (mostly) in power, but that the republicans aren't?
Felagund
2mo ago
I had the opposite impression, that it was useful across the board, but I don't have the data at hand to look.
Felagund
8mo ago
I assumed you were talking about conviction in the case of impeachments, so I actually meant Article I section 3 right there.
What do you mean by the last section, about imposition, attainder, etc?
Felagund
8mo ago
I'm not making any assertion that other acts of violence wouldn't qualify (again, assuming the authors are right on all this).
Nor am I claiming that it wouldn't be politically motivated, or inconsistently applied.
The difference is that now they can claim to be doing it because of law, and it will have to go through courts instead of being shot down right away.
Felagund
9mo ago
But the president isn't spending money in this case. He's just not collecting money back. Those are different. Moreover, Biden v. Nebraska wasn't ruled upon on constitutional grounds, and the affirmative action case involved Harvard, a private actor, where the Constitution only applied because of Title VI (and further, the probably incorrect precedent that the phrase in Title VI is just supposed to be a summary of the equal protection clause)
Felagund
28d ago
Why not have one billion Americans (I haven't read it yet myself)? We are nowhere near constraints on space right now; the United States is on the low end for population density. There's so much space to grow.
Sure actively lowering the population would make me question your motives, but if people just prefer cruise ships and video games to reproducing, why do you want to stop them? Why not just have kids of your own who get to inherit a cleaner, more open world with beaches that aren't packed with strangers?
The world will not be more idyllic following a population collapse. Even more of the economy than now will be spent on supporting old people. If this hits worldwide, then we could well have an economic decline everywhere, as division of labor and economies of scale worsen. Especially because developed countries are the ones where birthrates are falling the most, we could see us unable to maintain modern standards of living, and much less innovation. Which might lead to more use of dirtier power and so not the "cleaner, more open world" you describe. And more garbage, as things designed for more people fall into disuse.
People do not think Detroit is better because its population has fallen.
But further, even supposing you're right and those are the options, do you really think that cruise ships and video games are a better life than raising a family?
Felagund
2mo ago
I don't think it's something to be worried about if someone lets a family member fill out their ballot for them. Maybe it's illegal, but when you're saying that an election is fraudulent, and what you mean is "some people illegally let their spouses fill out their ballot for them," that's not what it sounds like you were saying, and it's not what people care about.
Felagund
8mo ago
To be clear, they do think most of the actions done on account of their theory should be able to be appealed.
How is the argument that it's self-executing assuming the conclusion? They argue that the text supports that, especially in comparison with other texts, like the age requirements, I believe. Do you have a problem with any part of the constitution being self-enacting?
Felagund
8mo ago
To be clear, the authors are not stating that state officials can just summarily decide. They're rather saying they can make initial determinations, which can be followed by judicial review as needed. (Although it looks like that's muddied a bit, since they think the proper procedure might vary state by state??)
Felagund
8mo ago
They, generally speaking, don't think it repeals them, because it's not imposing any criminal penalties, just a qualification for office, and isn't a law, but a constitutional provision.
That said, if we ignored that, we can all agree that it applied ex post facto, that is, to the members of the Confederate cause, so at least in that respect it can conflict with the spirit of other parts of the constitution. The enacters at the time also thought it would be equivalent to a bill of attainder.
Felagund
8mo ago
I'm not legally knowledgeable to make an informed evaluation of whether they're right here, but here's what they say:
On page 51, in a footnote, they list in support of their view, that both those at the time of its passage, both those in favor and those opposed considered that it was, in effect, a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law.
On pages 53-54, they argue that it's not a bill (since it's not congressional but constitutional), and it's not attainder, (since ineligibility from office shouldn't be considered a legal punishment).
All this was in the context of a section in which they argue that to the extent that it disagrees with earlier provisions, it supersedes them.
Felagund
8mo ago
I can't respond to the first half until I'm able to access the pdf again, since that's still not working, last I checked.
But to the ending, they might be persuaded that this could present at least the possibility that it might be the correct and legal thing to do—there's no way the indictments would disqualify, and the impeachments weren't agreed to by the margin required in the Senate.
Felagund
10mo ago
Caplan literally listed Jews in that list of groups that scare him.
It's pretty clear that he fears most groups, and what he actually wants is power to be shattered in such a way that no one can cause too great disasters with it.
Felagund
10mo ago
No it doesn't depend on a multiverse at all. (Does all statistical reasoning require multiverses to exist?) It only requires a belief that the universe we see is one example of the set of all possible (imaginable) universes.
It does require it, I think.
One draw from a haystack vs 100000000000000 draws will have different chances of hitting the needle.
If only one universe exists, and most possible universes are very non-conducive to life, it should be surprising to us that we exist, since that seems so unlikely. At that point, we should be looking for explanations that might make it more likely, like multiverses or theism, or it being necessary that the universe be that way, or actually, most universes are conducive to life after all. But we can't just say that in worlds where we woke up it would look like worlds where we might be able to wake up, because the really surprising thing here isn't that but why the hell did we wake up at all, if we are indeed in the only universe, which should by every expectation be very hostile to life. (note, I'm assuming those two things, not asserting them here)
Felagund
10mo ago
Legally, this sort of thing could be relevant, I suppose, and it could be relevant in those relatively unusual cases, but yes, ordinarily it's not difficult.
However, transitioning probably puts the person into an unusual case, where it does take some work to decide how to handle things, because of effects of hormones.
Felagund
10mo ago
I think it would require multiverses. Yes, it proves rather trivially that you are in the kind of universe in which life exists, but it doesn't provide reasoning for why we should expect that universe to exist. A multiverse should be capable of providing the second, assuming that the multiverse is the sort of multiverse that can do that, I would think?
Felagund
2d ago
Yeah, I agree that it isn't saying that there are no differences. But I do think that it is against setting up social divisions, at least, within the Christian community. We're
Felagund
8d ago
Wow, that's bad. Some of that's probably attributable to the thread starting with "what's rape?", meaning that some people certainly thought "that's immoral, but it's not rape, properly speaking" but yeah, that's worse than I was expecting.
Felagund
1mo ago
The problem with libertarian free will isn't that it's magic, the problem is that it's nonsense and doesn't do what its supporters want it to do: give them agency.
Rather, it strips agency from them, because they are a thing, and their choices can't be determined by things.
Felagund
1mo ago
I have a school system that wants to
Does your locale have any meaningful degree of school choice?
Felagund
1mo ago
Yeah. Unfortunately, more despotic governments have their own problems as well.
The American system was better before the successive democratic innovations like primaries. I wish we could have a more stable system.
But I also don't trust the current elite class much, so, we're kind of stuck.
Felagund
2mo ago
The problem is that it reads to me as having a higher chance of biasing the typical person against you rather than for you, unless done very carefully.
There really doesn't seem to be any way to respond to the progressive objections to Hanania's preferred positions other than to talk about it. If blank slatism is true, doesn't the free market just perpetuate the underclass status of an ethnic group that could otherwise be just as successful as others? Aren't we missing out on a huge number of doctors and engineers by not trying to remedy the environmental factors causing such a huge disparity in every measure of cognitive ability?
You could point to culture, but yes, it's to answer that sort of question when it might be most reasonable to bring it up.
Alternatively, just make the men better.
More options
Context Copy link