14 hours ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

This is absurd and its a fallacy that has unfortunately infected to many people's minds.

Beyond the SCOTUS who has the final legal authority to interpret the Constitution and it's applications? The correct answer is no one. Our interpretations and understanding are dependent upon their holdings. In effect, they tell us what it means when they interpret it. That was my point, and it is true.

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

We've already seen what happens when an entire class of people are restricted from government representation. It was called Jim Crow. It doesn't matter if we decide to exclude people based on race or economic class, the outcome is the same - one group controls all levers of state power and uses that power to ensure the power structure stays that way generationally.

And yet that didnt lead to a revolution

1 hour ago, PoconoDon said:

Beyond the SCOTUS who has the final legal authority to interpret the Constitution and it's applications? The correct answer is no one. Our interpretations and understanding are dependent upon their holdings. In effect, they tell us what it means when they interpret it. That was my point, and it is true.

Not true really. If they do things we dont agree with, we vote in politicians that will challenge and ultimately replace them

I’d use the Dred Scott case (1857) as an example of the Supreme Court "settling” an issue by interpreting the Constitution.  Chief Justice Taney said blacks "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect” in the majority opinion.  Everybody accepted it and moved on.

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Not true really. If they do things we dont agree with, we vote in politicians that will challenge and ultimately replace them

That's a valid point. The replacement process could take a decade or more to accomplish and even when done, there is no guarantee that the new justices would undo previous precedent once on the Court. Of course Congress could impact the SCOTUS in a variety of ways through legislation, constitutional amendments, etc. There are checks and balances in place between them but interpretation of the Constitution is at this time, within the sole purview of the SCOTUS.

4 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

And yet that didnt lead to a revolution

Because of the social dynamics. 13% of the nation only a couple generations removed from slavery, whose melanin levels make them easy to separate into a tribal underclass, and a nation generally not very motivated to do anything about it.

Flip those numbers and make it a true minority rule situation? Even if you adjust spending and tax levels you're setting up a situation where maybe 1/3 of the nation is "allowed" a voice in political representation? Eat the rich will become more than just a bumper sticker on a Prius.

Universal suffrage may have its issues, but making the vote contingent on one's economic status is stupid on its face.

This isn't 1787 America where our form of government is experimental and questions of how to determine voting eligibility is an abstract idea being debated. We know that government policies can be very effective at entrenching a permanent ruling class.

Which is exactly what would happen.

 

Edit: melatonin -> melanin.

25 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Because of the social dynamics. 13% of the nation only a couple generations removed from slavery, whose melatonin levels make them easy to separate into a tribal underclass, and a nation generally not very motivated to do anything about it.

Flip those numbers and make it a true minority rule situation? Even if you adjust spending and tax levels you're setting up a situation where maybe 1/3 of the nation is "allowed" a voice in political representation? Eat the rich will become more than just a bumper sticker on a Prius.

Universal suffrage may have its issues, but making the vote contingent on one's economic status is stupid on its face.

This isn't 1787 America where our form of government is experimental and questions of how to determine voting eligibility is an abstract idea being debated. We know that government policies can be very effective at entrenching a permanent ruling class.

Which is exactly what would happen.

Melanin

13 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

Melanin

Brainfart or autocorrect. Wrote it at a long red light 🙃

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

Melanin

Stay in your lane or you'll incur the wrath of EMB's mighty Autocorrector. 😆

2 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

That's a valid point. The replacement process could take a decade or more to accomplish and even when done, there is no guarantee that the new justices would undo previous precedent once on the Court. Of course Congress could impact the SCOTUS in a variety of ways through legislation, constitutional amendments, etc. There are checks and balances in place between them but interpretation of the Constitution is at this time, within the sole purview of the SCOTUS.

Huge changes are supposed to be difficult

2 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Because of the social dynamics. 13% of the nation only a couple generations removed from slavery, whose melanin levels make them easy to separate into a tribal underclass, and a nation generally not very motivated to do anything about it.

Flip those numbers and make it a true minority rule situation? Even if you adjust spending and tax levels you're setting up a situation where maybe 1/3 of the nation is "allowed" a voice in political representation? Eat the rich will become more than just a bumper sticker on a Prius.

Universal suffrage may have its issues, but making the vote contingent on one's economic status is stupid on its face.

This isn't 1787 America where our form of government is experimental and questions of how to determine voting eligibility is an abstract idea being debated. We know that government policies can be very effective at entrenching a permanent ruling class.

Which is exactly what would happen.

 

Edit: melatonin -> melanin.

History says otherwise. Or at least they are attempted and fail. Look at the sunnis ruling iraq as one example

thr mob generally lacks the means and smarts to pull it off. Required external actors

6 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

Beyond the SCOTUS who has the final legal authority to interpret the Constitution and it's applications? The correct answer is no one. Our interpretations and understanding are dependent upon their holdings. In effect, they tell us what it means when they interpret it. That was my point, and it is true.

This is a philosophically loaded question that presupposes that words even need any kind of interpretation and that people can't know what the words mean unless they are told by another human what they mean.  I think that position is indefensible because if you say we can't know what the words in the constitution mean, then how can we be any better at understanding the words that the supreme court says?  How can the supreme court possibly give an order?  Their words need interpretation don't they?  Who can interpret those words?  You might say the supreme court again I guess, but then we could just perpetually claim to not understand the supreme court's words, and then you have lawlessness and anarchy

5 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

Not true really. If they do things we dont agree with, we vote in politicians that will challenge and ultimately replace them

Or eventually the government can't afford to pay police and soldiers because they've wasted and abused the treasury.  At that point, the voting is pointless and once people realize no one is there to enforce laws or even what the people you vote for order, the government gets replaced with something else that is better able to maintain order.

5 minutes ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

Or eventually the government can't afford to pay police and soldiers because they've wasted and abused the treasury.  At that point, the voting is pointless and once people realize no one is there to enforce laws or even what the people you vote for order, the government gets replaced with something else that is better able to maintain order.

Order? Thats easy

2 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Order? Thats easy

It didnt seem that easy during the aftermath of George Floyd

1 minute ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

It didnt seem that easy during the aftermath of George Floyd

Because they avoided force

those transient blips are hardly an existential threat

2 minutes ago, ToastJenkins said:

Because they avoided force

those transient blips are hardly an existential threat

Well, that's not entirely true.  I think in Portland they tried certain shadow tactics, and they deployed the national gaurd in Kenosha, but not until too late.  Between those, people were emboldened, and the problem with using force is sometimes it only inflames the problem

force is not the only component of maintaining order.  convincing the population that everything is ok is the other big part of it.

2 hours ago, ToastJenkins said:

History says otherwise. Or at least they are attempted and fail. Look at the sunnis ruling iraq as one example

thr mob generally lacks the means and smarts to pull it off. Required external actors

Americans and Iraqis are miles apart culturally.

10 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

We've already seen what happens when an entire class of people are restricted from government representation. It was called Jim Crow. It doesn't matter if we decide to exclude people based on race or economic class, the outcome is the same - one group controls all levers of state power and uses that power to ensure the power structure stays that way generationally.

And we’ve seen what happens when everyone gets to vote: a couple generations and the entire nations finances are in ruin, culture and social norms which support and maintain the nation’s general health are upended, and the country barrels towards rot and corruption… and for all this, the levers of power are still concentrated only without the responsibility and ownership of the outcome because politicians can use class, race, ideology, etc to point the fingers and the leaches accept it because parasites only care about sucking the blood of the host.

9 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Americans and Iraqis are miles apart culturally.

Apartheid south aftica

we are as human as everyone else

10 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Americans and Iraqis are miles apart culturally.

Americans don’t even share a common culture. Doesn’t matter. The core of being human is the same.

1 hour ago, ToastJenkins said:

Apartheid south aftica

we are as human as everyone else

Doesn't the argument for why gun control works everywhere except the US come down to "culture"? 

Cultures have distinct traits. It's what makes them cultures. 

Try to make voting contingent on economic status. See how that goes.

On 6/10/2022 at 4:49 PM, lynched1 said:

I like the "A Perfect Circle" project too. 

 

Ohhh yeah. Thirteenth Step? Great stuff.

1 hour ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Doesn't the argument for why gun control works everywhere except the US come down to "culture"? 

Cultures have distinct traits. It's what makes them cultures. 

Try to make voting contingent on economic status. See how that goes.

Word salad

we have more tolerance for violence no doubt. But thats a two way street

just accept that the whole of human history contradicts your theoretical 

5 hours ago, Seventy_Yard_FG said:

This is a philosophically loaded question that presupposes that words even need any kind of interpretation and that people can't know what the words mean unless they are told by another human what they mean.  I think that position is indefensible because if you say we can't know what the words in the constitution mean, then how can we be any better at understanding the words that the supreme court says?  How can the supreme court possibly give an order?  Their words need interpretation don't they?  Who can interpret those words?  You might say the supreme court again I guess, but then we could just perpetually claim to not understand the supreme court's words, and then you have lawlessness and anarchy

No, it presupposes nothing of the sort. You offer a false premise and I must reject it. The rest I accept as hyperbole. A plain reading of the text is usually enough for our understanding to be correct however, where 2 or more disagree as to the meaning of the words in the Constitution, there must be a final mechanism to resolve the argument. That final mechanism is the SCOTUS. By the rule of law, we all are bound by their holdings and therefore, they tell us what the words mean within a particular context.