Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Apparently some Amish people about 15 years ago were charged with hate crimes for cutting other Amish men's beards.
They tried to argue that the federal government had no constitutional authority to prosecute them, but the judge ruled that since the scissors used to cut the hair, and the vans used to drive to the men, had at some point crossed state lines, this was a valid prosecution under the interstate commerce clause.
I don't really have the time right now to make this into an effortpost for the main thread. But this is crazy. I'm living in crazytown. How we reached the point where such rulings aren't immediate grounds for revolution, I'll never know.
A lack of revolution is understandable, it's not a trivial matter, and the regime is otherwise not that terrible. What I have very little patience for is our local lawcells acting, and expecting that others act, like law texts are meaningful, and that matters of law be debated within their framework.
Critically, this is a federalism issue with no important underlying policy disagreement. Non-consensually cutting people's hair (except in specific situations like the military draft) is uncontroversially illegal everywhere. In the modern US, nobody cares whether the same policy is implemented by the States or the Feds except in so far as it works as a litigation maneuver. (This isn't true in Europe, where the EU is not a country and the member states are still seen by their electorates as countries, and a substantial minorities of people are deeply attached to the idea that certain types of decision are made at country level)
Since America became a country and the individual States ceased to be countries (which a lot of people date to the Civil War, but I think happened somewhere between the Monroe and Jackson administrations) federalism ceased to be a principle people actually believed in and became a peace treaty. (Compare the infamous Yonatan Zunger essay making the same argument about liberal tolerance.) And right now, politically engaged Americans on both sides unfortunately don't seem to believe in abiding by the long-standing peace treaties between the Red and Blue tribes.
No, critically this is an issue of whether words in legal texts mean anything at all, whether George Bush was right about the constitution, and of whether, as erwgv3g34 points out, "rule of law" is even a coherent concept. Whether or not I agree with a given policy, or the manners in which powers are delegated between administrative units is completely irrelevant to whether or not judges are making shit up out of thin air.
Then they should have changed the constitution to reflect that. By not doing so, they are either admitting to be in it's blatant violation, or to it not having any meaning to start with.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link