The end of the Republic

[Kbg]

Why should we be much more concerned about the crazy proposals put forth by the Democrats than we have been in the past? Surely there must be institutional barriers that would keep them from bringing them to fruition even if they wanted to.

This is wrong. The Democrats have already announced that they have a "3 pack" plan to change the country.

1. Pack the Supreme Court by adding enough new left-wing justices that will rule in the Democrats' favor in every important case.
2. Pack the Senate by adding at least two new states, DC and Puerto Rico, who will always send Democrat Senators to the Senate. If that turns out not to be enough, they can add Guam and probably several more.
3. Pack the electorate by making all the illegal aliens instant citizens, and open the borders to the world.

At that point, they can do anything they want, including eliminating the Electoral College and repealing the Bill of Rights, just to make sure they never lose another Presidential election and can run roughshod over any opposition.

You may say "But someone would sue on the basis that those changes would take Constitutional Amendments."
What would happen when that lawsuit got to their packed Supreme Court?

I hope I have explained clearly enough why this election is different.

Well as they say, elections have consequences. Let's take them one by one.

1. Yep, they could do that with no constitutional problems with a majority in Congress and presidential nominations
2. Yep, they could do that with no constitutional problems with a majority in both houses and the President signing on the dotted line
3. Yep, they could do that with no constitutional problems with a majority in both houses and the President signing on the dotted line

Nope they can't do those next without changing the Constitution which is a exceedingly tough requiring 2/3rds of both houses or 2/3rds all all state legislatures. And no, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution it doesn't get to rewrite what exists...and these particular clauses are basic math.

And to be completely blunt, I have zero tolerance for any partisan of either party on this particular issue...that's what happens when you systematically take out all rules and procedures requiring cross party majorities for important issues (which both parties have done.) As they say, what goes around, comes around.

If you're a bible reading guy, Galatians 6:1 is most perceptive on these things.

Is the sky falling at your house, I'm getting concerned.

[Mountaineer]

Why should we be much more concerned about the crazy proposals put forth by the Democrats than we have been in the past? Surely there must be institutional barriers that would keep them from bringing them to fruition even if they wanted to.

This is wrong. The Democrats have already announced that they have a "3 pack" plan to change the country.

1. Pack the Supreme Court by adding enough new left-wing justices that will rule in the Democrats' favor in every important case.
2. Pack the Senate by adding at least two new states, DC and Puerto Rico, who will always send Democrat Senators to the Senate. If that turns out not to be enough, they can add Guam and probably several more.
3. Pack the electorate by making all the illegal aliens instant citizens, and open the borders to the world.

At that point, they can do anything they want, including eliminating the Electoral College and repealing the Bill of Rights, just to make sure they never lose another Presidential election and can run roughshod over any opposition.

You may say "But someone would sue on the basis that those changes would take Constitutional Amendments."
What would happen when that lawsuit got to their packed Supreme Court?

I hope I have explained clearly enough why this election is different.

Well as they say, elections have consequences. Let's take them one by one.

1. Yep, they could do that with no constitutional problems with a majority in Congress and presidential nominations
2. Yep, they could do that with no constitutional problems with a majority in both houses and the President signing on the dotted line
3. Yep, they could do that with no constitutional problems with a majority in both houses and the President signing on the dotted line

Nope they can't do those next without changing the Constitution which is a exceedingly tough requiring 2/3rds of both houses or 2/3rds all all state legislatures. And no, the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution it doesn't get to rewrite what exists...and these particular clauses are basic math.

And to be completely blunt, I have zero tolerance for any partisan of either party on this particular issue...that's what happens when you systematically take out all rules and procedures requiring cross party majorities for important issues (which both parties have done.) As they say, what goes around, comes around.

If you're a bible reading guy, Galatians 6:1 is most perceptive on these things.

Is the sky falling at your house, I'm getting concerned.

As is Psalm 46.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV

[glennds]

If you're a bible reading guy, Galatians 6:1 is most perceptive on these things.

Is the sky falling at your house, I'm getting concerned.

As is Psalm 46.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=ESV

Good one.
As a child I learned it as Mungu ni nguvu yako.
Psalm 46 is a beloved one in Kenya.

[pp4me]

So if Biden wins, the government will be run by a bunch of crooks and liars who want to steal your money and send your kids off to war.

What is unusual about that?

[doodle]

So if Biden wins, the government will be run by a bunch of crooks and liars who want to steal your money and send your kids off to war.

What is unusual about that?

nothing....
you would think a party with a "no corruption, no tyrannical aspirations, no unnecessary war" platform could rise and would do well, but they don't even exist, go figure...

Or maybe you're just describing the outcome of organized humans in general...not specific only to organization of modern government and politics. Government....can't live with it, can't live without it.

and you wonder why the right/libertarians are resistant to any suggestion that more government is the solution... "eternal vigilance" we know giving people power to solve things tends to fail because people are fallible and inclined to abuse any power they are given..

[pp4me]

Since we're getting Biblical.....

"But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived." - 2 Timothy 3:13

[doodle]

So if Biden wins, the government will be run by a bunch of crooks and liars who want to steal your money and send your kids off to war.

What is unusual about that?

nothing....
you would think a party with a "no corruption, no tyrannical aspirations, no unnecessary war" platform could rise and would do well, but they don't even exist, go figure...

Or maybe you're just describing the outcome of organized humans in general...not specific only to organization of modern government and politics. Government....can't live with it, can't live without it.

and you wonder why the right/libertarians are resistant to any suggestion that more government is the solution... "eternal vigilance" we know giving people power to solve things tends to fail because people are fallible and inclined to abuse any power they are given..

Yes, but the American iteration of libertarians somehow thinks that corporate organizations will be free from such behavior. I think the large amount of government regulation and oversight regarding big business came as a response to corporate abuses.

i don't think they believe that corporate organizations will be free from such behavior, just that market forces fix them better.. more government as a solution just adds more government over which they can have a corrupt influence..

[doodle]

So if Biden wins, the government will be run by a bunch of crooks and liars who want to steal your money and send your kids off to war.

What is unusual about that?

nothing....
you would think a party with a "no corruption, no tyrannical aspirations, no unnecessary war" platform could rise and would do well, but they don't even exist, go figure...

Or maybe you're just describing the outcome of organized humans in general...not specific only to organization of modern government and politics. Government....can't live with it, can't live without it.

and you wonder why the right/libertarians are resistant to any suggestion that more government is the solution... "eternal vigilance" we know giving people power to solve things tends to fail because people are fallible and inclined to abuse any power they are given..

Yes, but the American iteration of libertarians somehow thinks that corporate organizations will be free from such behavior. I think the large amount of government regulation and oversight regarding big business came as a response to corporate abuses.

i don't think they believe that corporate organizations will be free from such behavior, just that market forces fix them better.. more government as a solution just adds more government over which they can have a corrupt influence..

That's the detail that I disagree with...corporations hate free markets. Competition exerts downward pressure on prices, and consumers are difficult. Corporations will also do as much as they can to externalize costs onto society dumping pollution instead of going through costly cleanup. As a government sanctioned entity i view corporations and government as somewhat of a two headed dragon. American libertarians worry me because while they see the dangers inherent to government they ignore the dangerous tendencies of big corporations.

corporations hate free markets. i agree ..the big corporations anyway,... but they hate them because (corruptly) influencing government can get them off the hook for all the things you list.. it is a two headed dragon, so feeding one head to starve the other makes little sense.. again i don't think librarian types are oblivious to the dangers of the big corporation, they just don't see feeding one head as a solution to keeping the beast from growing...

[Mountaineer]

So if Biden wins, the government will be run by a bunch of crooks and liars who want to steal your money and send your kids off to war.

What is unusual about that?

nothing....
you would think a party with a "no corruption, no tyrannical aspirations, no unnecessary war" platform could rise and would do well, but they don't even exist, go figure...

Or maybe you're just describing the outcome of organized humans in general...not specific only to organization of modern government and politics. Government....can't live with it, can't live without it.

and you wonder why the right/libertarians are resistant to any suggestion that more government is the solution... "eternal vigilance" we know giving people power to solve things tends to fail because people are fallible and inclined to abuse any power they are given..

Yes, but the American iteration of libertarians somehow thinks that corporate organizations will be free from such behavior. I think the large amount of government regulation and oversight regarding big business came as a response to corporate abuses.

i don't think they believe that corporate organizations will be free from such behavior, just that market forces fix them better.. more government as a solution just adds more government over which they can have a corrupt influence..

That's the detail that I disagree with...corporations hate free markets. Competition exerts downward pressure on prices, and consumers are difficult. Corporations will also do as much as they can to externalize costs onto society dumping pollution instead of going through costly cleanup. As a government sanctioned entity i view corporations and government as somewhat of a two headed dragon. American libertarians worry me because while they see the dangers inherent to government they ignore the dangerous tendencies of big corporations.

In my view, ALL organisms are primarily interested in self-preservation and secondarily growth. Pick your evil: government of all sizes and types, corporations, families, churches, small businesses, ourselves. There is only one solution that I'm aware of to help keep it/us in check - seriously, and we are trying to increasingly ignore that redeeming factor in the USA and many other places.

[doodle]

Organized religion is up there with government and corporations. While humans need meaning and purpose I don't know if that has to come from God. I don't feel like I personally need a god to fill in the areas where my knowledge and understanding end. That being said, I respect the historical wisdom contained within religious texts and traditions but worry when people turn off their brains and use it as a playbook for every choice or decision...

[glennds]

Leftist judges don't care what the Constitution says. That's how they've avoided the very clear language of the 2nd Amendment.
And they also ignore the 9th and 10th Amendments that limit the scope of the power of the federal government.

Even more specifically and very recently, the Supreme Court decided that "sex" includes sexual orientation or claiming you are a member of the opposite sex, which it most certainly did not mean when the relevant legislation was written (even assuming that it means that now). So they just redefined a phrase to mean what they wanted it to mean.

"In landmark case, Supreme Court rules LGBTQ workers are protected from job discrimination"
The decision said Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal for employers to discriminate because of a person's sex, also covers sexual orientation and transgender status."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... n-n1231018

If you can redefine terms retroactively, you can do anything you want with a law. E.g., they could define the Electoral College as an actual college with "students" representing the congressional districts, and have the President chosen by a vote of those students. Insane, you say? Of course, but it follows the same theory as redefining "sex" as above, to wit:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

Could it be reasonable to not redefine, but re-interpret terms in the context of today's world?
The alternative being that anything and everything in 2020 would be run through a literal legal filter designed for 1787.

I'm not focusing specifically on sexual orientation, gender or race, just in general there is so much to the complexity of today's world that was not even remotely contemplated in the work product of the Constitutional Convention.

the constitution is written to set foundational principals (often limiting government) in place, what fundamental principals of representative (republics) government are changed by complexity?

[Xan]

And, if a change is required, then it can be changed. There's a procedure for that.

For example, if Congress wanted to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation, it could have done so (and still can).

Relatedly, here's a fascinating interview about what sexual orientation is considered to be by modern gender studies scholars. The most interesting part is that for example pedophilia is, by really any definition, a sexual orientation, and is now (presumably?) a protected class under the new interpretation of the Civil Rights Act.
https://issuesetc.org/2020/10/21/2951-s ... -10-21-20/

[glennds]

And, if a change is required, then it can be changed. There's a procedure for that.

Right, and there's a judiciary available for interpretation also. There is no guarantee that the decisions of the judiciary or the subsequent legislation enacted by Congress will be to a given individual's liking though.

For example, if Congress wanted to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation, it could have done so (and still can).

Relatedly, here's a fascinating interview about what sexual orientation is considered to be by modern gender studies scholars. The most interesting part is that for example pedophilia is, by really any definition, a sexual orientation, and is now (presumably?) a protected class under the new interpretation of the Civil Rights Act.
https://issuesetc.org/2020/10/21/2951-s ... -10-21-20/

I would have thought pedophilia to (at best) a fetish and (at worst) a psychiatric disorder) more than a sexual orientation.
Following this logic, maybe Jeffrey Dahmer simply had an eating disorder.

Merriam Webster dictionary calls Pedohilia both a sexual perversion and a psychiatric disorder, for whatever that's worth.

[Xan]

I would have thought pedophilia to (at best) a fetish and (at worst) a psychiatric disorder) more than a sexual orientation.
Following this logic, maybe Jeffrey Dahmer simply had an eating disorder.

Merriam Webster dictionary calls Pedohilia both a sexual perversion and a psychiatric disorder, for whatever that's worth.

It may be those things too, but there isn't an accepted definition of sexual orientation that pedophilia does not meet. It's an unacceptable one, to be sure. The idea of there being unacceptable sexual orientations doesn't sit well anymore though.

[Kbg]

Techno... I suspect your understanding of constitutional law vs. legislative law isn’t very well established in your mind. When that understanding is obtained I’ll pick this one up again. Currently your arguments are completely muddled between the two.

[Libertarian666]

And, if a change is required, then it can be changed. There's a procedure for that.

For example, if Congress wanted to amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation, it could have done so (and still can).

But the Democrats don't want to bother with such an approach that might not go well with the voters.
It's much easier to have the courts act as super-legislatures that can just create law at a whim.
That's exactly what I'm talking about.

[glennds]

I would have thought pedophilia to (at best) a fetish and (at worst) a psychiatric disorder) more than a sexual orientation.
Following this logic, maybe Jeffrey Dahmer simply had an eating disorder.

Merriam Webster dictionary calls Pedohilia both a sexual perversion and a psychiatric disorder, for whatever that's worth.

It may be those things too, but there isn't an accepted definition of sexual orientation that pedophilia does not meet. It's an unacceptable one, to be sure. The idea of there being unacceptable sexual orientations doesn't sit well anymore though.

Xan I really do not think this is correct. You managed to send me on an expedition searching for definitions of sexual orientation. Every one that I found referred to identity in relation to gender or genders to which a person is sexually attracted. I could not find a definition that included an age based attraction, specifically underage children.
Thus I accept the Merriam definition of pedophilia as not a sexual orientation but a perversion and psychiatric disorder. I would not object to adjectives like deviant or repulsive being thrown in.

Since the thread evolved from a discussion of changes in society from the time of the Constitution's framing in 1787, I was not sure if you were making a case that like the evolution of homosexuality, there might be a day when pedophilia might be acceptable and protected as a right under law.
Such a thing would be remarkably hard to believe as inherently abusive as pedophilia is, but societies do in fact change in terms of social acceptance in ways that may have been unthinkable at one time. So there might be a grain of logic buried in what would otherwise be an absurd argument.

[Xan]

I would have thought pedophilia to (at best) a fetish and (at worst) a psychiatric disorder) more than a sexual orientation.
Following this logic, maybe Jeffrey Dahmer simply had an eating disorder.

Merriam Webster dictionary calls Pedohilia both a sexual perversion and a psychiatric disorder, for whatever that's worth.

It may be those things too, but there isn't an accepted definition of sexual orientation that pedophilia does not meet. It's an unacceptable one, to be sure. The idea of there being unacceptable sexual orientations doesn't sit well anymore though.

Xan I really do not think this is correct. You managed to send me on an expedition searching for definitions of sexual orientation. Every one that I found referred to identity in relation to gender or genders to which a person is sexually attracted. I could not find a definition that included an age based attraction, specifically underage children.
Thus I accept the Merriam definition of pedophilia as not a sexual orientation but a perversion and psychiatric disorder. I would not object to adjectives like deviant or repulsive being thrown in.

Since the thread evolved from a discussion of changes in society from the time of the Constitution's framing in 1787, I was not sure if you were making a case that like the evolution of homosexuality, there might be a day when pedophilia might be acceptable and protected as a right under law.
Such a thing would be remarkably hard to believe as inherently abusive as pedophilia is, but societies do in fact change in terms of social acceptance in ways that may have been unthinkable at one time. So there might be a grain of logic buried in what would otherwise be an absurd argument.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newslett ... pedophilia
"Consensus now exists that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation, not something that develops in someone who is homosexual or heterosexual. Some people with pedophilic urges are also attracted to adults, and may act only on the latter urges. Because people with pedophilic urges tend to be attracted to children of a particular gender, they are sometimes described in the literature as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual pedophiles."

Here's the article that inspired the earlier interview I linked to. It's a survey of the latest thinking by gender studies people on what sexual orientation is and is not.
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/10/72218/

[glennds]

I would have thought pedophilia to (at best) a fetish and (at worst) a psychiatric disorder) more than a sexual orientation.
Following this logic, maybe Jeffrey Dahmer simply had an eating disorder.

Merriam Webster dictionary calls Pedohilia both a sexual perversion and a psychiatric disorder, for whatever that's worth.

It may be those things too, but there isn't an accepted definition of sexual orientation that pedophilia does not meet. It's an unacceptable one, to be sure. The idea of there being unacceptable sexual orientations doesn't sit well anymore though.

Xan I really do not think this is correct. You managed to send me on an expedition searching for definitions of sexual orientation. Every one that I found referred to identity in relation to gender or genders to which a person is sexually attracted. I could not find a definition that included an age based attraction, specifically underage children.
Thus I accept the Merriam definition of pedophilia as not a sexual orientation but a perversion and psychiatric disorder. I would not object to adjectives like deviant or repulsive being thrown in.

Since the thread evolved from a discussion of changes in society from the time of the Constitution's framing in 1787, I was not sure if you were making a case that like the evolution of homosexuality, there might be a day when pedophilia might be acceptable and protected as a right under law.
Such a thing would be remarkably hard to believe as inherently abusive as pedophilia is, but societies do in fact change in terms of social acceptance in ways that may have been unthinkable at one time. So there might be a grain of logic buried in what would otherwise be an absurd argument.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/newslett ... pedophilia
"Consensus now exists that pedophilia is a distinct sexual orientation, not something that develops in someone who is homosexual or heterosexual. Some people with pedophilic urges are also attracted to adults, and may act only on the latter urges. Because people with pedophilic urges tend to be attracted to children of a particular gender, they are sometimes described in the literature as heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual pedophiles."

Here's the article that inspired the earlier interview I linked to. It's a survey of the latest thinking by gender studies people on what sexual orientation is and is not.
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/10/72218/

Xan, The first link was an article whose context was primarily clinical disorder treatment. It used the term orientation and disorder somewhat interchangeably, which I think makes a distinction from the LGBTQ orientations that spring to mind for most of us.

The second link however is an interesting and thought provoking read. In light of it I will take back my comments about the pedophilia argument being absurd and instead accept that the mere term sexual orientation is more complicated than I realized.

But in partial redemption of my earlier point and back on topic, I would use this as an example of complexity in society that could not have been contemplated at the time of drafting of the Constitution.
If the Constitution were limited to an outline of the structure of government, that's one thing. But when we're into the Bill of Rights and articulation of individual freedoms and liberties, then definitions in complex grey areas like this are another matter.
Thank you for sharing the links.