zataomm
1yr ago
zataomm
1yr ago
Looking at the IRS IRA required minimum distribution (RMD) table, at age 80 you are required to withdraw 5% from your 401k, and the percentage goes up each year after that. At age 75 your withdrawal already exceeds 4%. You don't have to spend it, but you do have to take it as income and pay taxes on it.
zataomm
1yr ago
Yes, good call, I was confusing the criminal cases about interference with the current case.
zataomm
1yr ago
Look, obviously, I agree that it’s ridiculous, but I like that it has a parallel to Trump’s encouraging the mob who rioted at the capitol. Could one of the people held up in traffic have been a government official on their way to an important meeting? So the protesters were interfering with a government function.
zataomm
1yr ago
This is beautiful in its simplicity, and the Right Thing To Do for the sake of America. But woe unto the Democratic senator or congressman who voted to remove Trump’s disability if Trump actually wins the 2024 election.
zataomm
1yr ago
I’ve heard it said that Republicans are getting ready to nominate the only person who can lose to Biden, and Democrats are getting ready to nominate the only person who can lose to Trump. Obviously, a bit overstated, but it feels true. Sensible people in both parties would love to get away from their party's likely presidential candidate, but the Republican experience over the last seven years basically proves that it’s hard to do in the real world.
But yeah, it’s nice to see someone acknowledge that if there were any responsible adults involved, both parties would be taking seriously the major deficiencies in their candidates, rather than just spending their time and energy trying to make the other party’s candidate look worse.
zataomm
1yr ago
The sad part is they couldn't even find a good "insurrection" to allege. Hunter Biden's dealings with China? Come on. Can't they argue that Biden in some way encouraged the protesters who block traffic to fight climate change? Or the people who graffiti'd the Lincoln memorial in support of Palestine? Everybody hates those guys, why not go ahead an call it an insurrection?
zataomm
1yr ago
The thread is intended as a follow-up to this comment. America-centric for sure but it seems pretty important. Donald Trump, a leading candidate for one of the two major political parties has been declared ineligible for the presidency because, according to the supreme court of Colorado, he engaged in an insurrection against the US government.
zataomm
1yr ago
Yeah, weird. Mod intervention or bug? Definitely a bug in the sense it was not “deleted by user” (me)
zataomm
1yr ago
Thanks for the quote. I'm really puzzled by both the dissent and majority's opinion on this matter. As the dissent writes after the line you quoted:
If any federal legislation arguably enables the enforcement of Section Three, it’s section 2383.
I don't understand why neither side considers section 2383 to "enable the enforcement of Section Three". That seems to be exactly what it does, yes "arguably", but the "argument" would mainly just point out that that section uses the exact same language found in the 14th amendment!
Congress has not acted at all, and the issue is whether the bar is self-executing
Congress has acted though, 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
That's why I found this passage shocking; I take your point that if Congress hasn't set up any mechanism to enforce the amendment then it's reasonable to believe that it should be enforcable somehow, but it's much harder for me to swallow the argument that even when Congress does address the matter, the States can set up their own enforcement bodies. In paragraph 105 of the CO decision, the Court writes:
We are similarly unpersuaded by Intervenors’ assertions that Congress created the only currently available mechanism for determining whether a person is disqualified pursuant to Section Three with the 1994 passage of 18 U.S.C. § 2383.
Or are you saying "Congress hasn't acted" because the code doesn't say that § 2383 is "pursuant to the 14th Amendment" or some such language?
zataomm
1yr ago
zataomm
1yr ago
zataomm
1yr ago
To not clog up top comments, I'm deleting this and and putting it in a new thread which hopefully will be of interest to somebody. Colorado Supreme Court thread
zataomm
1yr ago
I've been going over the Colorado decision and found this passage from the majority opinion shocking:
Although we do not find Griffin’s Case compelling, we agree with Chief Justice Chase that 'it must be ascertained what particular individuals are embraced by the definition.' 11 F. Cas. at 26. While the disqualification of Section Three attaches automatically, the determination that such an attachment has occurred must be made before the disqualification holds meaning. And Congress has the power under Section Five to establish a process for making that determination. But the fact that Congress may establish such a process does not mean that disqualification pursuant to Section Three can be determined only through a process established by Congress. Here, the Colorado legislature has established a process—a court proceeding pursuant to section 1-1-113—to make the determination whether a candidate is qualified to be placed on the presidential primary ballot.
This just... doesn't seem right. Imagine Congress passes a law granting some benefit to Americans with disabilities, and furthermore establishes a Board to review cases and determine which people are entitled to the benefit, could a State really set up its own separate Board and establish its own criteria determining who is "disabled"? It seems like this would be challenged and lose, ironically, under the 14th amendment, which disallows States from setting up their own processes by which to deny citizens rights to which they are entitled under federal law.
zataomm
1yr ago
There are Federal crimes related to slavery though: 18 U.S. Code § 1583 - Enticement into slavery. This is more than just a gotcha; we're talking about punishments here, and I don't really see how the 13th amendment can be self-executing with regard to charging, trying, and punishing an individual for holding someone else in involuntary servitude. So if we imagine a case where a slave sued his enslaver who held him in bondage after 1865, sure, the court would rule that the slave could no longer be held, but without further legislation, they couldn't really specify a punishment for the slave holder. Presumably the slaveholder could then be sued in civil court for damages by his slave. I think in that case the 13th amendment would prevent the slaveholder from using "this man is my slave" as a defense.
Getting kind of far afield here, but the overall point is that the difference between sword and shield actually is important; if the Constitution establishes a specific punishment, then it makes sense to believe that it is up to Congress to establish a procedure for determining to whom that punishment should be applied.
On the other hand, I don't have much to say in response to your point about Jefferson Davis. It's a good point.
zataomm
1yr ago
Having now read the dissent by Samour I actually do think this is a slam dunk argument.
zataomm
1yr ago
Yeah, it makes sense that sometimes it's just easier to state the exceptions than all the allowed cases. And apparently the Latin origin of the phrase, "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis," is something like "the exception demonstrates the rule for non-excepted cases", so I don't really have an etymological leg to stand on. I just like my understanding of the phrase so if we are going to move away from the original meaning, I'm trying to steer people towards my preference rather than the nonsensical "the counter-example that invalidates my supposed rule actually proves that my rule is correct!"
Edit: After discussion with AI, I have decided that I need to be charitable and allow that the common, modern usage also is sensible, under this interpretation: "the exception proves the rule" --> "the distinctiveness and memorability of an exception highlight the regularity or norm of other cases"
In cognitive psychology, there's a concept known as the "von Restorff effect" or "isolation effect," which states that an item that "stands out like a sore thumb" is more likely to be remembered than other items. Applying this to the phrase, an exception is memorable precisely because it deviates from the norm. Its uniqueness and the mental emphasis we place on it implicitly reinforce the understanding that it is an outlier, while the standard or usual cases don't stand out in memory because they conform to the expected pattern.
a sign saying "visiting hours 3-5 pm" at a hospital, from which we can glean that visiting isn't allowed outside this window
Apparently there is some debate about this, with many internet sources supporting your interpretation, but this is not how I understand the phrase "the exception proves the rule." Your example about limited hours (at a hospital, or parking) is commonly used but I don't really think it demonstrates the true meaning of the phrase. My perspective is, as long as people keep visiting the hospital between 3-5 pm, we can't really know what would happen if someone visits outside those hours. Maybe it is really enforced, or maybe the sign is like those vestigial "Please maintain 2 meter distance" signs we see everywhere nowadays, and nobody really cares.
So the way we really prove (in the sense of to test, as in "the proof of the pudding is in the eating) is when a visitor shows up at the hospital at 6pm. If they are turned away, then there really is a rule that nobody can visit outside the hours of 3-5 pm. If they are let in, there is no such rule. So in other words, it's not the sign, but the attempted visit outside "visiting hours," that proves the rule.
Edit: For transparency, the Wikipedia article which I indirectly referenced here thinks I'm engaging in wishful thinking about what I think the phrase should mean, rather than its actual origin. Which.... may be a fair criticism.
zataomm
1yr ago
You're right that whether I feel sad is not the point of this discussion. The fact that it has generated several replies should indicate to you that people think there is something interesting to be discussed, and it is not my sadness. Here are the bullet points of what we are talking about:
- public policy decisions are made as a function of public discourse
- a significant(?) number of people are unable to have rational discussions, i.e. weigh the pros and cons, of matters of public policy importance
- this situation as described leads to bad public policy decisions which are difficult to correct
I actually don't think I understand your point overall but it feels like your point is we can't rationally prove that pain and suffering are bad, so checkmate rationalists, we're no better than anyone else. Which... okay.
zataomm
1yr ago
Frankly, I think this is a terrible theory of mind.
Well... I disagree that it is a terrible theory of mind. In line with the main theme of this discussion, people just don't tend to think very deeply about most issues. And I don't believe that the average person who supports, say, rent control laws, understands the economic argument against them but still supports them because they have a different moral philosophy from economists, even though I agree that in theory there could be such a person with such a philosophy. I just think most voters go by "gut instinct", so if something sounds bad, they want a law against it, and if it sounds good, they want a law promoting it.
zataomm
1yr ago
Maybe proto-Indian males were killing each other a lot in order to marry the victim's widow?
zataomm
1yr ago
I'm surprised that you're surprised to see people behaving this way.
Yeah, good point. And I'm sure if you get down to it I have topics that make me react emotionally instead of logically as well. Maybe it's the contact between different "tribes" with different taboos that happens on Twitter that makes other humans seem like a weird alien species to me, whereas if they just shared my taboos I would just say, "well of course B' is more objectional than B, B' is just disgusting."
Ilya Somin addresses the gravity of civil liabilities compared to criminal penalties. He suggests that sometimes, a short prison term might be preferable to substantial civil damages. And he is approaching a really good point when he writes:
Unfortunately, the next sentence is
I say "unfortunately" because he was on the verge of an important conclusion. His analysis goes beyond simply stating, as a fact, that the criminal standard of proof is different from the civil standard of proof, and actually explains why the legal system makes such a distinction. He even points out that in some cases, a light criminal punishment would be preferable to a harsh civil punishment. And yet, for some reason, his analysis stops there, just saying that "disqualification isn't one of those cases" where we really need to really think about what standard of proof is appropriate.
So, instead of just stating, without evidence(!), that "disqualification isn't one of those cases", let's think about the importance of Section 3 disqualification. If you become the nominee for one of the two major parties in the US, a reasonable estimate would be that you have a 50% chance of becoming President. How much time would you be willing to spend in jail to get that kind of chance? For me personally, I have basically no desire to be president, and even so I would be willing to spend, say, 6 months in jail, for the salary and pension alone (N.B. I am poor). Actual ambitious people would probably be willing to give up a lot more.
From the perspective of the American voter, not being able to vote for their preferred candidate is a big deal. This is the kind of statement for which no proof should be necessary, but as an attempt at proof I will offer the time and energy Americans dedicate to voting each election year. That behavior seems like sufficient demonstration that it is really important to them.
I do get it, we have to have standards in legal matters because we can't just let every judge and jury make decisions based on their own idiosyncracies. But rather than falling back on the claim, "well, disqualification is not really a punishment, because no one has the right to be President of the United States", I would suggest taking a second to think about what this concrete case of disqualification means, both to Trump and to his supporters. It is actually, to quote President Biden, "a big fucking deal", and should be treated as such.
Dismissing the severity of disqualification without deeper analysis underestimates its substantial impact on individuals and the democratic process. It deserves the same rigorous debate and consideration as any severe legal sanction.
More options
Context Copy link