US Constitution - Originalism vs. Living Constitutionalism

[flyingpylon]

Serious question: What is tyranny?

I think in today's world many think it is the gubmint can't tell me to do anything I don't want to do. Is that what it is?

Pretty much!

[boglerdude]

> what is tyranny

Dont think you actually want the serious answer =) Pretty sure we discussed the 2+ years of martial law where exercise, schools, and small business were illegal while the affluent sent their kids to mask-free private schools. Small business customers diverted to Fed-subsidized Megacorps. Delayed medical diagnosis and record overdose deaths. Vaccine side effects in young people who were never at risk. It would still be going on if not for the Canadian convoy, Sweden, Florida et al. And CA is still in a "state of emergency." I dont think there is any way to stop the coming social credit system, even some here on this libertarian-leaning forum want it. edit1: I'll steelman the other side: "Sure it was tyranny, but its not really tyranny if it was for the greater good" -r/neoliberal

edit2: ha, I forgot the 40 year high inflation. Because that actually is for the greater good, to get around minimum wage and rent/price controls.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/13/china/ch ... index.html

[Kbg]

> what is tyranny

Dont think you actually want the serious answer =)

Actually I do. I think it is a great question if I do say so myself and I'm reading everyone's answers. I completely DO NOT WANT TO TURN THIS INTO A COVID THREAD (not yelling, just emphasizing)...but since your brought it up in the US there have been over a million deaths directly related to Covid. That is not a trivial number. By comparison over roughly the same time there were 75k+ automobile deaths. Should the government have done absolutely nothing at all?

So where is the line between a law and tyranny? What if the people laying down the rules were elected or the rule makers ultimate boss is an elected official? What is actual tyranny vs. government overreach that gets corrected by the elections process after a couple of years?

Is there a priority order to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? If not, why not? If so, how so?

[Xan]

I believe the strict definition of tyranny requires rule by the whims of one person, unfettered by things such as laws.

[vnatale]

I believe the strict definition of tyranny requires rule by the whims of one person, unfettered by things such as laws.

According to this:

https://legaldictionary.net/tyranny/#:~ ... 0authority.

You hit on #3.

Definition of Tyranny
Noun

An oppressive or severe form of government.
An unrestrained use of authority or power.
A state ruled by, or government of, an absolute ruler.
Excessive severity.
Cruel and unfair treatment by someone in authority.

[Xan]

I believe that #3 is the real/original definition, with the others being almost figurative uses of it.

Back in the day, a tyrant was even be a neutral term: it was just the word for the guy in charge.

[boglerdude]

North Korea has a wealthy upper class and the folks pushing for masked store employees/servants and children would be the type to defend that system which keeps them on top.

Thinking its "one bad guy" is what prevents the systemic solutions of ranked choice voting and term limits.

CGP Grey "Democracies are better places to live than dictatorships not because representatives are better people, but because their needs happen to be aligned with a large portion of the population"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs

edit1: Disclosure, I support CA prop 13 which keeps my property tax low to the detriment of renters and new buyers.

[Kbg]

I think tyranny is an abused word these days and is a buzzword that is more appropriately captured by the word anti-establishment. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the right being the guys who want to stick it to the man vs. the left.

[joypog]

I think tyranny is an abused word these days and is a buzzword that is more appropriately captured by the word anti-establishment. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the right being the guys who want to stick it to the man vs. the left.

We've got a society where most institutions have been captured by the left (universities, entertainment, culture in general, decline in religion) while the political system has been captured by the right.

The dual ascendency is creating a fraught time.

[joypog]

Of interest to the original topic, David French and Sarah Isgur interviewed Akhil Amar. He makes a case for a "liberal constitutional originalism". Most of the episode is the guest agreeing with the hosts, but he believes that the conservative originalists emphasize the original constitution while he emphasizes the amendments.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/a ... 0570438169

[Kbg]

I think tyranny is an abused word these days and is a buzzword that is more appropriately captured by the word anti-establishment. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the right being the guys who want to stick it to the man vs. the left.

We've got a society where most institutions have been captured by the left (universities, entertainment, culture in general, decline in religion) while the political system has been captured by the right.

The dual ascendency is creating a fraught time.

Great point.

[glennds]

We've got a society where most institutions have been captured by the left (universities, entertainment, culture in general, decline in religion) while the political system has been captured by the right.

The dual ascendency is creating a fraught time.

Agree, interesting point

[glennds]

I think tyranny is an abused word these days and is a buzzword that is more appropriately captured by the word anti-establishment. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the right being the guys who want to stick it to the man vs. the left.

Yeah, it is an abused word these days. For the purposes of this thread, when I used it, I meant it as a restriction of liberty i.e. a government telling you what you can or cannot do.
And I was raising it more in the context of Federalism vs. anti-Federalism and the parallels to Originalism vs. living Constitutionalism.
I see a fan base for the idea of less power with the Federal government in favor of more authority for state and local governments. I get it. The Feds can easily be the evil empire. But if a liberty is restricted by a local government, why is it any different than a liberty being restricted by the Feds?

[joypog]

The Feds can easily be the evil empire. But if a liberty is restricted by a local government, why is it any different than a liberty being restricted by the Feds?

I know this is coming from the privilege of being able to uproot oneself and leave, but as long as freedom of movement between states is upheld, restrictions of liberty within one state is not as onerous as a national restriction.

[Kbg]

I think tyranny is an abused word these days and is a buzzword that is more appropriately captured by the word anti-establishment. I’m still trying to wrap my head around the right being the guys who want to stick it to the man vs. the left.

Yeah, it is an abused word these days. For the purposes of this thread, when I used it, I meant it as a restriction of liberty i.e. a government telling you what you can or cannot do.
And I was raising it more in the context of Federalism vs. anti-Federalism and the parallels to Originalism vs. living Constitutionalism.
I see a fan base for the idea of less power with the Federal government in favor of more authority for state and local governments. I get it. The Feds can easily be the evil empire. But if a liberty is restricted by a local government, why is it any different than a liberty being restricted by the Feds?

I'd say two things...

When has a government (of some kind, no matter how primitive) not told you what you can and can not do? This state is near mythical and has certainly never, ever applied to a group of people.

In your definition there is no difference. In theory, the more local, the more responsive as A) the politicians are living closer to where they will feel the direct heat of their constituents and B) the typical problems tend to be more easily solvable.

[Mountaineer]

Kbg said
“In theory, the more local, the more responsive as A) the politicians are living closer to where they will feel the direct heat of their constituents and B) the typical problems tend to be more easily solvable.”

+100
I grew up in a very small town where everyone knew everyone. The elected officials and public servants might have also been a store owner or your mechanic or your kids school teacher. Personal relationships facilitated reasonable policies that most people could support.

[I Shrugged]

If the right controls the political system, which I doubt, it is only a matter of time before the left takes it.

[joypog]

If the right controls the political system, which I doubt, it is only a matter of time before the left takes it.

The Republicans have the Senate, the Supreme Court, a majority of State Houses which gives them an edge up in the House of Representatives, as well as an edge in the Electoral College.

Given the capture of other institutions, I might be inclined to agree with your long term prognosis, but Dem's already banked on "demographics as destiny" over the 2010's and have learned the hard way that history is fickle.

[glennds]

In your definition there is no difference. In theory, the more local, the more responsive as A) the politicians are living closer to where they will feel the direct heat of their constituents and B) the typical problems tend to be more easily solvable.

The proximity point is a valid one. In theory, our congressional representatives are supposed to take some of that element to Washington with them, but no question it’s completely lost in the rest of the bureaucratic structure.

[glennds]

When has a government (of some kind, no matter how primitive) not told you what you can and can not do? This state is near mythical and has certainly never, ever applied to a group of people.

No argument here. I don’t even think the most ardent Libertarian expects a No Restrictions society. The harder question is where is the stopping point?

A few weeks ago it was legal anywhere in the country to obtain an abortion within certain parameters. Today some states allow it and some states restrict the choice. So you could say we went from less government restriction to more restriction (depending on state).
I feel the same way about abortion as I do about guns. I choose not to own one, but have no objection to you owning as many as you want. What I don’t like is the government making the end choice for both of us. Can’t be helped in some cases I guess, but a slippery slope.

[Jack Jones]

No argument here. I don’t even think the most ardent Libertarian expects a No Restrictions society. The harder question is where is the stopping point?

Each side takes the position of the man who was arrested for swinging his arms and hitting another in the nose, and asked the judge if he did not have a right to swing his arms in a free country. “Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man’s nose begins.”

In the case of abortion, what is contested is whether another has been hit in the nose.

[vnatale]

If the right controls the political system, which I doubt, it is only a matter of time before the left takes it.

The Republicans have the Senate, the Supreme Court, a majority of State Houses which gives them an edge up in the House of Representatives, as well as an edge in the Electoral College.

Given the capture of other institutions, I might be inclined to agree with your long term prognosis, but Dem's already banked on "demographics as destiny" over the 2010's and have learned the hard way that history is fickle.

I do not think that the "Founding Fathers" could ever imagine how what they set up would lead toward the sparsely populated rural states having disproportionate influence per capita compared to the more populated states.

[Xan]

If the right controls the political system, which I doubt, it is only a matter of time before the left takes it.

The Republicans have the Senate, the Supreme Court, a majority of State Houses which gives them an edge up in the House of Representatives, as well as an edge in the Electoral College.

Given the capture of other institutions, I might be inclined to agree with your long term prognosis, but Dem's already banked on "demographics as destiny" over the 2010's and have learned the hard way that history is fickle.

I do not think that the "Founding Fathers" could ever imagine how what they set up would lead toward the sparsely populated rural states having disproportionate influence per capita compared to the more populated states.

Isn't that exactly what was intended when they designed it?

[boglerdude]

yeah. Vinny lives under house arrest anyway, he'd be fine with NY and CA having the power to extend the "emergency" forever and nationwide.

[vnatale]

If the right controls the political system, which I doubt, it is only a matter of time before the left takes it.

The Republicans have the Senate, the Supreme Court, a majority of State Houses which gives them an edge up in the House of Representatives, as well as an edge in the Electoral College.

Given the capture of other institutions, I might be inclined to agree with your long term prognosis, but Dem's already banked on "demographics as destiny" over the 2010's and have learned the hard way that history is fickle.

I do not think that the "Founding Fathers" could ever imagine how what they set up would lead toward the sparsely populated rural states having disproportionate influence per capita compared to the more populated states.

Isn't that exactly what was intended when they designed it?

Of course. But they never envisioned the vast disparity in populations per state which has led to:

one electoral vote accounts for 193,000 people in Wyoming and over 700,000 people in Texas or California.

You do live in Texas. Why should you only get 2/7 the representation of someone in Wyoming?