Roe no mo?

[Z Buck McFate]

Jefferson himself advocated for essentially scrapping and rewriting it every generation or so. Even then, some knew it would be imperfect and require change—within a couple generations, to say nothing of 2+ centuries. Jefferson almost certainly knew society circa 2000 would look as alien to him as society circa 1800 might to a person from 1600. He’d probably be surprised it took as long as it did for slavery to end (not that he exactly helped in that department) in the US. He saw rightfully the danger of binding future generations to past generations’ mores and attitudes. Such ancestral worship had led to countless past strife and revolutions before his time.

“I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.”

Originalists are a joke.

Is there any chance you remember where you got this? Like, any specific book? (I'm assuming it's an impression from a collection of sources already forgotten, but I'd love to directly read it if you can remember).

Originalists are definitely a joke. It's been so long since reading this kind of material that I can't remember exactly who had this view myself, but I know more than a few of these figures never intended their work to serve as a set of static rules to dogmatically adhere to. There was a notion that "justice" can only be the product of a constantly evolving set of rules, decided by the very people to whom they would apply. I wish i could remember exactly who agreed with it.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

This is why I like genuine multi-party system. Since in that one all those factions in both American parties would be separate parties. What means that you vote exactly for the flavor of right and left that you like. Plus everyone who wants to do politics has to be used to dialogue in order to reach that 50% of the seats (for some stuff you even need 2/3). Therefore often you get this cross left-right coalitions. Since mild left and mild right may be more drown to each other than to the their radical version. Also it can happen that for example light right and medium right don't want hard right in the mix. So they take medium left and/or independents as partners. Since light left right has problems with corruption or something like that. What can be good since that way you also get the stability of the right, but you get left wing element that fix healthcare system and add a few point in environment protection. What makes the whole system more adaptable to the random crisis since the governing isn't strictly left or right in the moment. Especially since voters have easier time picking the sort of apples they like.

Therefore such system is generally doing a better job in keeping the evident extremist out or at least under some control. Plus regarding sense: American system was very progressive when it was made, however since the centuries have passed some better solutions were developed. Multiparty system, snap elections ... etc.

The beauty of the American system was its unoriginality. It was a mishmash of Greek Democracy, Roman Republicanism, old English legal systems, and Iroquois styled split State/Federal level governance. It was the unique blend of those systems that was original and ahead for its time. It would be most in the American spirit to move forward with a system that blends the best aspects of now-outdated systems for something new and workable in the 21st century. Personally I support a blend of democratic socialist ground-up democracy with a Geolibertarian angle that addresses the limitations of land and resources through smarter taxation models--all in a parliamentary model of legislation.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Is there any chance you remember where you got this? Like, any specific book? (I'm assuming it's an impression from a collection of sources already forgotten, but I'd love to directly read it if you can remember).

Originalists are definitely a joke. It's been so long since reading this kind of material that I can't remember exactly who had this view myself, but I know more than a few of these figures never intended their work to serve as a set of static rules to dogmatically adhere to. There was a notion that "justice" can only be the product of a constantly evolving set of rules, decided by the very people to whom they would apply. I wish i could remember exactly who agreed with it.

I have to look but I know he had mentioned it at least in correspondence with friends. I am not sure if he ever said this in a public forum though. It's been years so the particular source evades my memory. But I will find it.

 

[Virtual ghost]

We have had 27 "adjustments", aka amendments, made to the original constitution over the years, the most recent in the 1990's. I'm not sure how the low number of neighboring countries affects the content of our constitution. The US has seen substantial immigration over the generations, from all parts of the world, which makes our society far less monolithic than in many places. Still, people are people, and the policies and institutions we create are subject to the worst - and the best - of human nature.

Smaller number of countries around generally means smaller number of wars on your soil. What means that you can focus on other priorities other than security and back-up planning. The main reason why for example Europe has so much more welfare programs is because of it's centuries of war. In other words you must have a back-up for the times when the war will completely crash the economy. Personal responsibility wouldn't really do it here.

While in the very nature of US you don't really have such a logic and individualism is almost holy. What is because you don't have that scenario of foreign invasion in collective mindset. If you have war or revolution on your soil every few decades then fiscal conservatism and liberalism doesn't make much sense. Since the money and constitution will evaporate once the bigger neighbor or some alliance rolls in the tanks. I mean the American logic worked pretty well until 2 factors started to kick in during the late 20th century. One is that technology evidently requires longer and longer education, while other is globalization caused by technological advancement. In other words you were put in the same pot with plenty of countries that are much more adept in economic war since they are doing that for thousand of years. Therefore they have the collective mindset and mechanism that they can focus on you. While US doesn't have this as much and it focuses on individual gains more. However due to that US can be vulnerable in the big picture. For example jobs were exported to Asia since that made sense on individual level of the owners. However in the bigger strategic and national sense that made very little sense.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Yeah in the 50s and 60s there was progressive Republicans that ran in Chicago and Illinois that were more progressive than the Democratic machine at the time.

Looking at popular vote totals for the Presidential elections of 1968 and 1972 is instructive.

You had a third party get a lot of votes. It's not clear if those all came from the Democratic side but I suspect this was largely the case. But this wasn't a Ralph Nader type third party. This was an outspoken segregationist and a Vietnam war hawk. By 1972 it seems likely that many of those people contributed to Nixon's high margins of victory.

Nixon only won 43% of the vote in 1968. It wasn't all that much, just more than Humphrey and Wallace.


Gosh what could have happened in the 60s to shake up the party landscape so much? I have no idea.

I read an interesting bio on Bobby Kennedy several years ago and I was fascinated to learn that the Kennedys were not generally considered a part of the most liberal wing of democrats. Bobby in particular seemed to drift toward a weird blend of conservatism and progressive values toward the end of his life--I wanna compare it to the progressivism-lite of the Clintonian dems but I feel there's a better historical comparison somewhere to be made (Carter dems, maybe?). Humphrey was probably more progressive-minded, but then his association with the LBJ admin really hurt him with the anti-war voters.

And speaking of Nixon, there's no way a republican open to environmental action and a negative income tax (basically the original version of UBI) would even make it to the primaries in this day and age

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

I read an interesting bio on Bobby Kennedy several years ago and I was fascinated to learn that the Kennedys were not generally considered a part of the most liberal wing of democrats. Bobby in particular seemed to drift toward a weird blend of conservatism and progressive values toward the end of his life--I wanna compare it to the progressivism-lite of the Clintonian dems but I feel there's a better historical comparison somewhere to be made (Carter dems, maybe?). Humphrey was probably more progressive-minded, but then his association with the LBJ admin really hurt him with the anti-war voters.

And speaking of Nixon, there's no way a republican open to environmental action and a negative income tax (basically the original version of UBI) would even make it to the primaries in this day and age

Explain more about a negative income tax. This is the first I've heard about it.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Explain more about a negative incone tax. This is the first I've heard about it.

Basically it's Universal Basic Income Lite. The basic idea involves anyone below a predetermined poverty line receiving a payment from the government rather than paying taxes. Milton Friedman of all people was a big proponent (perhaps he understood the concept of velocity of money). From what I understand, Republicans were only interested in backing it at the time if it were to replace welfare programs. So they never reached a compromise with democrats and it was kind of forgotten about on the scrapheap of great ideas. So the difference from UBI is only the poorer classes receive a payment vs everyone receiving one with UBI.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Is there any chance you remember where you got this? Like, any specific book? (I'm assuming it's an impression from a collection of sources already forgotten, but I'd love to directly read it if you can remember).

Originalists are definitely a joke. It's been so long since reading this kind of material that I can't remember exactly who had this view myself, but I know more than a few of these figures never intended their work to serve as a set of static rules to dogmatically adhere to. There was a notion that "justice" can only be the product of a constantly evolving set of rules, decided by the very people to whom they would apply. I wish i could remember exactly who agreed with it.

It's in a letter he wrote to Madison. I'm not sure if he mentioned the idea anywhere else, but I wouldn't be surprised if he had to Adams or one of his other pen pals.

Featured Documents | The Papers of Thomas Jefferson

jeffersonpapers.princeton.edu

On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who[27] gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19[28] years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.

I could see how this argument could be purposed to back any number of modern views. It's vague in the way a lot of Jefferson's writings were--allowing broad interpretation from people at every point on the political spectrum. If you read further, he complains of the danger of factions gaining control of schools and other institutions. I could see a right winger interpreting that as vindicating their distrust of public education and bureaucracy, but on the flip it's great ammo against the current lot of Trumpies and De Santos types rallying to censor saucy literature and talk that makes white people's ancestors appear as anything less than perfect human beings. But for sure it pokes a hole in some of the claims originalists make when defending the Constitution.

It appeals to me because despite my left leanings, I do think government can still be streamlined and shrunk without forsaking protections on individual liberties and marginalized groups. Even well-intended bureaucracies and programs tend to become bloated and overly politicized over time. Why not wipe the slate clean every generation? Maybe that would have helped in preventing or limiting the radicalization that has occurred over the last several decades. A great deal of dissatisfaction felt by younger generation members of varying political beliefs I think can be chalked up to frustration felt toward the older generations for their failure to adapt and adequately address the collective frustrations of those who feel they've been hand-me-downed a rotten deal.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Where Americans Stand On Abortion, In 5 Charts

Some numbers on the issue.

 

[Indigo Rodent]

Louisiana legislators advance bill classifying abortion as homicide

Louisiana lawmakers have advanced a bill that would abolish abortion in the state, grant constitutional rights to "all unborn children from the moment of fertilization" and classify abortion as a homicide crime.

www.reuters.com

This means the GOP in Louisiana will criminalized contraceptives, IVF, and miscarriages and it took 3 days. Again, you can kindly fuck off if you still think this is about saving babies.

Why not a bill classifying birth as homicide? I mean it causes ageing and death.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Would You Send Your Kid to College in a State Where Abortion Was a Crime?


Some thoughts on the issue.

 

[Coriolis]

I could see how this argument could be purposed to back any number of modern views. It's vague in the way a lot of Jefferson's writings were--allowing broad interpretation from people at every point on the political spectrum. If you read further, he complains of the danger of factions gaining control of schools and other institutions. I could see a right winger interpreting that as vindicating their distrust of public education and bureaucracy, but on the flip it's great ammo against the current lot of Trumpies and De Santos types rallying to censor saucy literature and talk that makes white people's ancestors appear as anything less than perfect human beings. But for sure it pokes a hole in some of the claims originalists make when defending the Constitution.

It appeals to me because despite my left leanings, I do think government can still be streamlined and shrunk without forsaking protections on individual liberties and marginalized groups. Even well-intended bureaucracies and programs tend to become bloated and overly politicized over time. Why not wipe the slate clean every generation? Maybe that would have helped in preventing or limiting the radicalization that has occurred over the last several decades. A great deal of dissatisfaction felt by younger generation members of varying political beliefs I think can be chalked up to frustration felt toward the older generations for their failure to adapt and adequately address the collective frustrations of those who feel they've been hand-me-downed a rotten deal.

I agree in principle, and see our amendment process as one way future generations have tried to keep the document responsive to "the living generation". If anything, those on SCOTUS who insist on holding to the original intent or literal meaning (e.g. lacks mention of abortion) are subverting this principle and committing "an act of force". Especially as amended, the Constitution does a pretty good job of outlining basic rights and responsibilities.

Would You Send Your Kid to College in a State Where Abortion Was a Crime?


Some thoughts on the issue.

This is nothing new. The cry of "states' rights" has been used for generations to uphold a patchwork of laws and regulations, with any push to streamline them opposed by conservatives as an attack on local control. While our Constitution establishes certain freedoms in broad terms, laws and policies that affect our daily lives have always varied from state to state in ways that range from inconvenient to life-threatening. Cross state lines, and all of a sudden your 5 year old needs to be in a car seat. Move from one state to another, and you may not even be able to bring your current vehicle.

These differences are especially consequential in education and social services - what a state determines its residents are entitled to. When I was a child, a neighbor family stayed in my state even though the father was transferred to a worksite 400 miles away, because our laws were relatively strict on meeting special education needs, and they had a disabled child. Years later, a colleague turned down a job in my new state because his current state provided better health care for his aging parents. This is how it has always been, and how it will stay until a critical mass of people - or legislators - can expand the list of what we all should be able to rely upon as Americans, regardless of where we live.

So no: I would not send a kid to college, and would avoid living and working, in a state where government tells women what to do with their bodies, or that tells anyone whom to love and include in their family. Until the patchwork is streamlined, we can vote with our feet, our skills, and our dollars in addition to our ballots. Some companies realize this.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I agree in principle, and see our amendment process as one way future generations have tried to keep the document responsive to "the living generation". If anything, those on SCOTUS who insist on holding to the original intent or literal meaning (e.g. lacks mention of abortion) are subverting this principle and committing "an act of force". Especially as amended, the Constitution does a pretty good job of outlining basic rights and responsibilities.

This is nothing new. The cry of "states' rights" has been used for generations to uphold a patchwork of laws and regulations, with any push to streamline them opposed by conservatives as an attack on local control. While our Constitution establishes certain freedoms in broad terms, laws and policies that affect our daily lives have always varied from state to state in ways that range from inconvenient to life-threatening. Cross state lines, and all of a sudden your 5 year old needs to be in a car seat. Move from one state to another, and you may not even be able to bring your current vehicle.

These differences are especially consequential in education and social services - what a state determines its residents are entitled to. When I was a child, a neighbor family stayed in my state even though the father was transferred to a worksite 400 miles away, because our laws were relatively strict on meeting special education needs, and they had a disabled child. Years later, a colleague turned down a job in my new state because his current state provided better health care for his aging parents. This is how it has always been, and how it will stay until a critical mass of people - or legislators - can expand the list of what we all should be able to rely upon as Americans, regardless of where we live.

So no: I would not send a kid to college, and would avoid living and working, in a state where government tells women what to do with their bodies, or that tells anyone whom to love and include in their family. Until the patchwork is streamlined, we can vote with our feet, our skills, and our dollars in addition to our ballots. Some companies realize this.

I am basically also from a large federal state so I understand. However here there are plenty of decisions and rules that are trying to smooth this problem out and that even works for the most part. What is done exactly so that people can move more freely. However the abortion and prosecution of it to me really looks as a major glitch that really really lowers the odds that you would want to visit some states. It really is undermining the concept of USA.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I am basically also from a large federal state so I understand. However here there are plenty of decisions and rules that are trying to smooth this problem out and that even works for the most part. What is done exactly so that people can move more freely. However the abortion and prosecution of it to me really looks as a major glitch that really really lowers the odds that you would want to visit some states. It really is undermining the concept of USA.

What I wanted to say with this is that this leads into awkward situation. You can live in a blue state and have a abortion in a blue states. However when you go to the red state to visit family you get charged and prosecuted since "they were waiting for you". It is drastic example but the current path leads into that kind of a scenario.

 

[ceecee]

Would You Send Your Kid to College in a State Where Abortion Was a Crime?


Some thoughts on the issue.

Got a kid who's looking at Texas A&M for grad school. He's reconsidering - not just because of the abortion issue but all the oppressive laws and ones that are likely coming.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Got a kid who's looking at Texas A&M for grad school. He's reconsidering - not just because of the abortion issue but all the oppressive laws and ones that are likely coming.

True, at this point stuff like this has to be thought out for years in advance.
But as I said I really don't think they thought this through what crashing Roe really means for the country. Since this will evidently spill out of abortion issues to things like traveling/moving and economy. However I also found the piece that says this is kinda the point. Since it is keeping blue people out of red states, what greatly helps in keeping them red.

 

[ceecee]

Dems could capitalize by simply saying - Only one party is saying shit like this and it's not us.

In an interview with USA Today late last week, McConnell acknowledged that a federal abortion ban was “possible.” He said: “If the leaked opinion became the final opinion, legislative bodies—not only at the state level but at the federal level—certainly could legislate in that area.”

What does that mean? It means that Republicans are contemplating a federal law to make abortion illegal—everywhere. That is to say: Even in the two dozen or so states that will pass laws, if Roe is overturned, to keep abortion safe and legal in at least some circumstances, the superseding federal ban would make abortion against the law.

Mitch McConnell Said Something That Can Help Democrats Win the Midterms

Democrats need to see to it that McConnell’s remark about Congress possibly passing a federal abortion ban is known to every single American voter.

newrepublic.com

 

[Virtual ghost]

Yeah it is almost as they are begging that half of the country that doesn't vote shows up riled up in November. Since they no longer see their vote as pointless.
This simply is no longer bla bla bla politics, this has quite serious implications for many. Therefore the odds that people will let it slide are slim.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

Dems could capitalize by simply saying - Only one party is saying shit like this and it's not us.

Mitch McConnell Said Something That Can Help Democrats Win the Midterms

Democrats need to see to it that McConnell’s remark about Congress possibly passing a federal abortion ban is known to every single American voter.

newrepublic.com

Gosh, you mean the "states rights" thing was utter bullshit? I'm shocked.

 

[Coriolis]

Gosh, you mean the "states rights" thing was utter bullshit? I'm shocked.

It's BS, just like the "less government" rant. Less government if you are a corporation; more if you are an individual.