Felagund
1yr ago
Right. Why drive away Jewish talent? What's the worst case of having Ben Shapiro around? We're a bit more willing to spend on Israel? That hardly seems worth complaining about compared to his value as a pundit in convincing people. Repeat for Sailer, etc. etc.
Felagund
1yr ago
You thinking it's absurd doesn't mean it's not important. As long as other people take it seriously, it'll have effects.
If they're correct (which I'm not certain about), I believe they'd have no objection to Trump or others presenting suits to argue that he is, in fact, eligible, if people try to remove him from ballots or take other actions, which might mitigate some of your concern about no formal determination? The authors go into its civil war era application for some examples of how it played out.
Felagund
11mo ago
I suppose I was asking something closer to foreign policy, not domestic policy.
Essentially zero of this is a product of Biden being elected. You picked Floyd, which was during Trump's term, and a bunch of things that are generally not action by the federal government.
Like, there's plenty to complain about Biden for (e.g. student loans!), but stick to what he's actually done? Or explicitly say that the problem is the missed opportunities for the right to crack down on these things, in which case the problem is not so much that the democrats are (mostly) in power, but that the republicans aren't?
Felagund
1yr ago
I had the opposite impression, that it was useful across the board, but I don't have the data at hand to look.
Felagund
1yr ago
I assumed you were talking about conviction in the case of impeachments, so I actually meant Article I section 3 right there.
What do you mean by the last section, about imposition, attainder, etc?
Felagund
1yr ago
I'm not making any assertion that other acts of violence wouldn't qualify (again, assuming the authors are right on all this).
Nor am I claiming that it wouldn't be politically motivated, or inconsistently applied.
The difference is that now they can claim to be doing it because of law, and it will have to go through courts instead of being shot down right away.
Felagund
2yr ago
But the president isn't spending money in this case. He's just not collecting money back. Those are different. Moreover, Biden v. Nebraska wasn't ruled upon on constitutional grounds, and the affirmative action case involved Harvard, a private actor, where the Constitution only applied because of Title VI (and further, the probably incorrect precedent that the phrase in Title VI is just supposed to be a summary of the equal protection clause)
Felagund
2mo ago
Because I think that people are only saved by Christ, so none of those work.
Now, if you're asking why I think that Christianity is more likely to be true than some position that would recommend any other identifiable course of action, well, I think that the fact that it's claiming to be a revealed religion and is large are reasonably strong points in its favor—if we expect God to reveal himself (or, at least, if we expect that to be likely provided that he care about what we do, which is what is here relevant, since we want to know what can give infinite benefits/harms). I think that the evidence for the resurrection is decent. The teachings make sense.
Felagund
2mo ago
assuming there is an eternal existence beyond my single finite life, it is vastly (infinitely!) improbable that I'm experiencing the finite life right now.
Is this still true if eternity is not temporal? (Or: might not be temporal)
Felagund
2mo ago
Then it's in your interest to estimate the probability space and act accordingly. Not to assume everything magically cancels.
Throwing up your hands and doing nothing is lazy and irresponsible, considering the stakes.
Pascal was quite right to criticize this attitude of carelessness or dismissal in Pensées 195:
Before entering into the proofs of the Christian religion, I find it necessary to point out the sinfulness of those men who live in indifference to the search for truth in a matter which is so important to them, and which touches them so nearly.
Of all their errors, this doubtless is the one which most convicts them of foolishness and blindness, and in which it is easiest to confound them by the first glimmerings of common sense, and by natural feelings.
For it is not to be doubted that the duration of this life is but a moment; that the state of death is eternal, whatever may be its nature; and that thus all our actions and thoughts must take such different directions according to the state of that eternity, that it is impossible to take one step with sense and judgment, unless we regulate our course by the truth of that point which ought to be our ultimate end.
There is nothing clearer than this; and thus, according to the principles of reason, the conduct of men is wholly unreasonable, if they do not take another course.
On this point, therefore, we condemn those who live without thought of the ultimate end of life, who let themselves be guided by their own inclinations and their own pleasures without reflection and without concern, and, as if they could annihilate eternity by turning away their thought from it, think only of making themselves happy for the moment.
Yet this eternity exists, and death, which must open into it, and threatens them every hour, must in a little time infallibly put them under the dreadful necessity of being either annihilated or unhappy for ever, without knowing which of these eternities is for ever prepared for them.
This is a doubt of terrible consequence. They are in peril of eternal woe; and thereupon, as if the matter were not worth the trouble, they neglect to inquire whether this is one of those opinions which people receive with too credulous a facility, or one of those which, obscure in themselves, have a very firm, though hidden, foundation. Thus they know not whether there be truth or falsity in the matter, nor whether there be strength or weakness in the proofs. They have them before their eyes; they refuse to look at them; and in that ignorance they choose all that is necessary to fall into this misfortune if it exists, to await death to make trial of it, yet to be very content in this state, to make profession of it, and indeed to boast of it. Can we think seriously on the importance of this subject without being horrified at conduct so extravagant?
This resting in ignorance is a monstrous thing, and they who pass their life in it must be made to feel its extravagance and stupidity, by having it shown to them, so that they may be confounded by the sight of their folly. For this is how men reason, when they choose to live in such ignorance of what they are, and without seeking enlightenment. "I know not," they say ..."
Felagund
1yr ago
I'm not sure what exactly Rahimi entails. Gorsuch posed it as only saying that banning firearms, temporarily, from those judged, by a court, to be dangerous, is permissible.
Felagund
1yr ago
but I have to admit they have us beat!
Well, except in volume. But yeah, if they all moved here, I assume they'd be downvoted heavily, which is a shame.
Felagund
1yr ago
Why not have one billion Americans (I haven't read it yet myself)? We are nowhere near constraints on space right now; the United States is on the low end for population density. There's so much space to grow.
Sure actively lowering the population would make me question your motives, but if people just prefer cruise ships and video games to reproducing, why do you want to stop them? Why not just have kids of your own who get to inherit a cleaner, more open world with beaches that aren't packed with strangers?
The world will not be more idyllic following a population collapse. Even more of the economy than now will be spent on supporting old people. If this hits worldwide, then we could well have an economic decline everywhere, as division of labor and economies of scale worsen. Especially because developed countries are the ones where birthrates are falling the most, we could see us unable to maintain modern standards of living, and much less innovation. Which might lead to more use of dirtier power and so not the "cleaner, more open world" you describe. And more garbage, as things designed for more people fall into disuse.
People do not think Detroit is better because its population has fallen.
But further, even supposing you're right and those are the options, do you really think that cruise ships and video games are a better life than raising a family?
Felagund
1yr ago
I don't think it's something to be worried about if someone lets a family member fill out their ballot for them. Maybe it's illegal, but when you're saying that an election is fraudulent, and what you mean is "some people illegally let their spouses fill out their ballot for them," that's not what it sounds like you were saying, and it's not what people care about.
Felagund
1yr ago
To be clear, they do think most of the actions done on account of their theory should be able to be appealed.
How is the argument that it's self-executing assuming the conclusion? They argue that the text supports that, especially in comparison with other texts, like the age requirements, I believe. Do you have a problem with any part of the constitution being self-enacting?
Felagund
1yr ago
To be clear, the authors are not stating that state officials can just summarily decide. They're rather saying they can make initial determinations, which can be followed by judicial review as needed. (Although it looks like that's muddied a bit, since they think the proper procedure might vary state by state??)
Felagund
1yr ago
They, generally speaking, don't think it repeals them, because it's not imposing any criminal penalties, just a qualification for office, and isn't a law, but a constitutional provision.
That said, if we ignored that, we can all agree that it applied ex post facto, that is, to the members of the Confederate cause, so at least in that respect it can conflict with the spirit of other parts of the constitution. The enacters at the time also thought it would be equivalent to a bill of attainder.
Felagund
1yr ago
I'm not legally knowledgeable to make an informed evaluation of whether they're right here, but here's what they say:
On page 51, in a footnote, they list in support of their view, that both those at the time of its passage, both those in favor and those opposed considered that it was, in effect, a bill of attainder and an ex post facto law.
On pages 53-54, they argue that it's not a bill (since it's not congressional but constitutional), and it's not attainder, (since ineligibility from office shouldn't be considered a legal punishment).
All this was in the context of a section in which they argue that to the extent that it disagrees with earlier provisions, it supersedes them.
Felagund
1yr ago
I can't respond to the first half until I'm able to access the pdf again, since that's still not working, last I checked.
But to the ending, they might be persuaded that this could present at least the possibility that it might be the correct and legal thing to do—there's no way the indictments would disqualify, and the impeachments weren't agreed to by the margin required in the Senate.
Alternatively, just make the men better.
More options
Context Copy link