site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   28267 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 4, 2024

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

6
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Trump case out on him being an insurrectionists.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf

Compared to the Reddit debates and how the SC would prevent this as a non-lawyer I thought the opinion was fairly basic and simple. It seems to me that they just declared it a Feds power in Federal elections and the States don’t get a say. Personally, I did come to a belief that it was self-executing.

I think they avoided really touching on all the novel legal theories both ways going around on Reddit or twitter.

It came down to what I believe was one of my original views that letting States have any say in declaring someone an insurrectionists would be a complete clusterfuck and basically turn into state legislatures electing Presidents. Therefore they declared it a federal power.

I would call this pragmatic versus legally correct in my opinion. They avoided 100 page treatise on whether the President is an office holder.

I predicted something between 7-2 and 9-0. 9-0 seems better for the nation.

It came down to what I believe was one of my original views that letting States have any say in declaring someone an insurrectionists would be a complete clusterfuck and basically turn into state legislatures electing Presidents. Therefore they declared it a federal power.

For those curious about the specific reasoning, I think the concurring opinion of Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown-Jackson covers this cleanly:

The contrary conclusion that a handful of officials in a few States could decide the Nation’s next President would be especially surprising with respect to Section 3. The Reconstruction Amendments “were specifically designed as an expansion of federal power and an intrusion on state sovereignty.” City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 179 (1980). Section 3 marked the first time the Constitution placed substantive limits on a State’s authority to choose its own officials. Given that context, it would defy logic for Section 3 to give States new powers to determine who may hold the Presidency. Cf. ante, at 8 (“It would be incongruous to read this particular Amendment as granting the States the power—silently no less—to disqualify a candidate for federal office”).

I would describe this as obviously correct. No reasonable person could review the history of the Civil War and the Fourteenth Amendment and arrive at the conclusion that it grants additional state power over selecting Presidents.

This feels to me like a pretty disingenuous interpretation by the court, though.

Like, the question wasn't 'Can a state choose to take someone off the ballot just because they feel like it?' That wasn't what the states said they were doing, that wasn't the legal argument being presented.

The legal argument being presented was 'the federal government has passed a law that insurrectionists may not be elected, we are following that federal law.'

That's not the states having power over the federal government, it's the states following rules set by the federal government, precisely in line with the original intent. Like, the states not electing insurrectionists is exactly what they laws says the states have to do, and the states claim they are just following that law.

Whether or not some states want to follow that law for political reasons, and are being extra-scrupulous about following the law in cases where it benefits them, seem wholly irrelevant to whether they are following the law properly or not.

It seems like any attempt to rule on the law has to answer whether or not the state is following the law as written.

To instead say 'you following a law because you want to follow it is sort of like you breaking the law to get your own way, which we don't like, so we rule against that without answering the question of what the law says' seems really blatantly politically motivated rather than legally correct.

  • -13

The legal argument being presented was 'the federal government has passed a law that insurrectionists may not be elected, we are following that federal law.'

Federal law does not say that insurrectionists may not be elected, or even that oath-breaking insurrectionists may not be elected. The 14th amendment declares that they may not be Senator, Representative, or otherwise "hold any office, civil or military".

Federal law does not have a process or procedure for disqualifying anyone from state ballots, excepting 18 USC  2383, which requires a criminal conviction. In fact, Colorado doesn't have a definition for removing unqualified first-party candidates from the ballot: hence why the underlying Colorado ruling circled so heavily around how it must be a 'wrongful act' for a ballot to be printed with Trump's name on it.

The legal argument being presented was 'the federal government has passed a law that insurrectionists may not be elected, we are following that federal law.'

And states don't get to decide to whom that law applies. There are lots of cases where states don't get to decide.

Are state courts not allowed to enforce any other part of the 14th amendment?

I’ve been wondering how this interacts with the main Article II qualifications for the presidency. If Literal Hitler runs, despite being a foreign citizen without the years of residence, does Colorado still get to throw him off the ballot? Do we have to have an act of Congress stating that candidates violating those qualifications shall be removed from ballots?

That said, I don’t think you’ve got the previous legal theory quite right. It’s not “because they feel like it,” no, but neither does Colorado claim to enforce a federal law. They intended to enforce the 14th directly. Given the 14th also has Section 5, which explicitly says that Congress has to handle enforcement via legislation, that’s an error.

How much of this only applies to section 3 vs election qualifications more broadly?

I can’t tell.

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

This is about all we get from the Constitution, and it assigns power to the states, except when Congress feels like it. I assume most of the details are hashed out by the FEC. Where do they get their authority? No idea.

Leftist (not saying you are) love to make this argument about the other qualifications but there is a clear distinction.

Whether you are over 35 or under 35 is measurable. It’s either true or false. Same with were you born in the US? (Hypothetically I guess borders could change). These are distinct features.

Insurrection is a word that needs defined and is qualitative in your definition.

The closest we have to say someone being 35 and being debatable is the story of a few Cuban baseball players who don’t know their age. But they do have a mathy age we just don’t know it.

It's easy to imagine sticky situations that could arise with other amendments. Say for example Biden names Obama as his VP and promises to resign as soon as he gets re-elected, thereby giving Obama a 3rd term. The 22nd amendment says you can't be elected President more than twice, but it doesn't explicitly mention the Vice-Presidency, and it doesn't explicitly say you can't be appointed President after serving two terms!

It seems to me that situation would be unclear and would lead to litigation. Granted it is very unlikely, but then an attack on the Capitol to prevent Biden from taking office also seemed unlikely until it happened.

That depends on the Twelfth Amendment's clause making those ineligible for the presidency also ineligible for the Vice Presidency as not being applicable to the 22nd Amendment's term limit, which is a possible but rather unlikely interpretation. Neither amendment has a clause calling for legislation.

(not saying you are)

It kind of is a slur around these parts, huh?

Anyway, I agree that there’s a clear distinction. But even when the fact is obvious it still needs an enforcement mechanism. Otherwise someone will push it. “Behind every rule there is a story.”

A good rule would handle insurrectionists correctly but also handle the age or origin ones correctly. I worry that this ruling fixed one at the expense of the other.

It would be better if Congress passed a law that says “conviction under X, Y, or Z bans you from these offices; states shall remove them from the ballot for such offices.” Or even “Donald Trump is an insurrectionist for his actions on Jan 6,” unless that falls under bills of attainder. But there are a dozen reasons that will never happen.

does Colorado still get to throw him off the ballot?

I think this isn’t dissimilar to this case or indeed other constitutional hypotheticals like whether a foreign-born hereditary US citizen like Ted Cruz counts as a “natural born” citizen. A state will try to remove them from the ballot, it will go up to SCOTUS, it will be determined.

The post you're responding to shows up as "Filtered" to me, and is not visible from this page for me. I'm not sure if that's a result of a block, or if there's something else filtering him.

EDIT: visible now

Dang. Thought I was doing a good job fishing stuff out of the filter, too.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats