site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   29463 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of August 7, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Again, why?

I hate to consensus build, but this seems a pretty transparent 'the definition means what I want it to mean at the time, not consistently applied,' and the argument that the conclusion is self-enacting is just assuming the conclusion in a way that would drastically expand the power of the executive branch vis-a-vis the other branches by creating a precedent that the people who would make the determination can invoke magic words to make the appropriate un-appealable conclusion.

I see no reason why the members you cite would suddenly be onboard with a very expansive and novel interpretation of the executive branch's authority to arbitarily ban opposition politicians for conduct less severe than members of the ruling party that remain in good standing.

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?

How is the argument that it's self-executing assuming the conclusion?

Because the self-executing argument assumes that Trump meets the criteria for the sanctions to be leveraged against him without Trump having been charged through the processes that would bestow that criteria.

Moreover, the opening argument claimed legal validity and influence by appealing to claimed influence of originalist principles, without actually validating that the claims mast originalist muster or that that the events of Jan 6 would be considered a rebellion by the standards of the original authors of the amendment.

You have consistently retreated from these points when challenged, and you will continue to do so, and they will remain points that undermine the thesis. The claim that this interpretation is based on actual as opposed to self-claimed originalist principles has not been supported, and the amendment does not negate the need for the government to establish guilt before moving against people on the basis of guilt.

They argue that the text supports that, especially in comparison with other texts, like the age requirements, I believe.

Then you believe wrong. The text of the Constitution does not support that Donald Trump is guilty of insurrection or rebellion without trial by appropriate institutions. This is trivially verifiable via any CTRL-F search of the text, as there is no mention of Donald Trump and thus no Donald Trump exception.

Do you have a problem with any part of the constitution being self-enacting?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Probably not, if you never started, but it would remain as invalid a question when the premise itself has been challenged.

The Constitution not being self-enacting in this legal argument, the claimed justification is being executed by the Executive branch because the Judiciary has not taken the case and the argument is that the Legislative branch does not need to.

The American Constitution sets out rules by which the branches of government act through their various powers. The advocates are ignoring the Constitution's own outlined procedures for establishing guilt on the pretext of self-enacting, and ignorring Constitutional principles on presumption of innocence and separation of powers to argue that the agencies of government controlled by the ruling party can ban political opponents from running on their say-so without going through said processes on the basis of implied repeal.

As such, there's no reason to believe the argument that the de-listing / banning / whatever measure is presumed to occur would be self-enacting, as opposed to being enacting by partisans with no sincere belief in the theory and no intention to uphold it as a standard, at which point it's non-enaction outside of the context of Donald Trump (not having been done before, or against contemporarier,s or with any credibility of consistency in the future) would demonstrate that it is not, in fact, self-enacting Constitutional action, but the actions of a branch of government.

Because they are heavily involved in the conservative legal movement, so ideas that gain traction within the conservative legal movement are likely to have traction with them. If this argument was coming from a fringe Marxist or something, I would expect it to carry much less weight among the Republican lawyers that make up the majority of the court. But it's coming from Republican lawyers, written from an explicitly Originalist perspective.

I see no reason why the members you cite would suddenly be onboard with a very expansive and novel interpretation of the executive branch's authority vis-a-vis opposition politicians.

This has nothing to do with executive branch authority. Their argument is that the disqualification is automatic, with no executive act to make it happen.

They are in academia. This is within that community very useful for them because then they can be seen (at least in their minds) as the “good ones.” That doesn’t imply most conservatives will give this the light of day.

And? It's not "most conservatives" who will decide this issue. It's elite Republican lawyers.

Your evidence is a couple of law professors prove that “elite Republican lawyers” support this position? It is a crack pot theory because it proves too much. We could disqualify most people in two of the branches. You should do what most people do with legal academics — disregard what they have to say.

I am not claiming that this one article proves that the Republican justices on the Supreme Court will see the issue the same way. We will have to wait and see. My point is that the specific people that need to be convinced by this argument for it to apply are people very much like the authors and very unlike the average Republican voter.

I don’t think so. They are members of academia. They are in a different sea compared to RNC related lawyers etc.

Barrett at the least was a legal academic prior to her appointment as a judge.

Norte Dame is itself somewhat unique in being a more friendly place for republicans among academia. It is hard to understate how much academia hates Trump and how beneficial it is for right leaning academics to denounce Trump.

Because they are heavily involved in the conservative legal movement, so ideas that gain traction within the conservative legal movement are likely to have traction with them.

But we don't have evidence that the ideas have gained traction within the conservative legal movement.

This is assuming the conclusion by backwards reasoning that because the two members are Federalist Society affiliated, both the reasoning is conservative in nature and shared broadly amongst conservatives.

If this argument was coming from a fringe Marxist or something, I would expect it to carry much less weight among the Republican lawyers that make up the majority of the court. But it's coming from Republican lawyers, written from an explicitly Originalist perspective.

That is what is what is being challenged!

The Originalist perspective would be, of course, the viewpoints on what rebellion meant to the people whose framework of rebellion was the civil war. Hence asking for by what standard the January 6 is being held as rebellion, but which other actions in that year did not. If the original framers wouldn't recognize something of the scale of January 6 as a rebellion, then the originalist interpretation works against the claim that it's an originalist interpreation of the amendment. If the legal argument is that they were all insurrection, but this legal standard has not, is not, and will not, be enforced consistently, it's not an Originalist perspective, it's an argument for arbitrary political interference on grounds of special pleading, which is not an Originalist principle, as one of the points of the original writers of the Constitution was to prevent arbitrary use of government power against citizens.

Moreover, the amendment isn't the only Originalist perspective relevant to the subject, since the implications to division of powers of course broach on the other parts of the Constitution, and those originalist perspectives, for what self-executing would imply when functionally meaning giving the ruling party to ban opposition party members doing what potentially election-winning pluralities of the American public view as legitimate democratic processes.

This has nothing to do with executive branch authority. Their argument is that the disqualification is automatic, with no executive act to make it happen.

And this argument is nonsensical, because nothing in the government happens automatically, but is executed and enforced through the Executive branch.

As the saying goes, organizations don't make decisions, people in organizations make decisions, and the people who would decide to execute- and then enforce- this policy proposal are the executive branch.

But we don't have evidence that the ideas have gained traction within the conservative legal movement.

We have Bayesian evidence. Two Fed Society authors have published a paper arguing for the position, and a Republican-appointed judge has already removed a low-ranking official from office under section 3 for his involvement in Jan 6.

These things do not prove that this is a mainstream position among conservative legal thinkers. But they are much more likely to happen in a world where it is.

The Originalist perspective would be, of course, the viewpoints on what rebellion meant to the people whose framework of rebellion was the civil war.

Correct. The paper spends a considerable amount of time talking about what the original meaning of "insurrection" and "rebellion" was, to the people of that time. You don't have to agree with the authors' conclusions, but they explicitly deal with that question as the central one.

I really want to delve into the detail of these arguments more and see if I agree with them but unfortunately I can't get the paper to open at the moment, and I didn't get through the whole thing on first read.

Moreover, the amendment isn't the only Originalist perspective relevant to the subject, since the implications to division of powers of course broach on the other parts of the Constitution

I believe their argument is that later amendments to the Constitution override earlier versions (otherwise amendments would not be possible). So to whatever extent Section 3 is in conflict with earlier Constitution provisions, Section 3 prevails.

And this argument is nonsensical, because nothing in the government happens automatically, but is executed and enforced through the Executive branch. As the saying goes, organizations don't make decisions, people in organizations make decisions, and the people who would decide to execute- and then enforce- this policy proposal are the executive branch.

Nope. You can look at the New Mexico case for example - state law allowed private citizens to sue to remove disqualified officials from office, a group did so, and a judge decided to remove him. No executive action involved.

We have Bayesian evidence.

Which is to say you do not have evidence, hence why you are inferring to assume there is rather than demonstrating there is.

Two Fed Society authors have published a paper arguing for the position, and a Republican-appointed judge has already removed a low-ranking official from office under section 3 for his involvement in Jan 6.

And as has been noted elsewhere, that case did not rise, and came with very different political contexts.

These things do not prove that this is a mainstream position among conservative legal thinkers. But they are much more likely to happen in a world where it is.

They are also very easy to happen in a world where Trump Derangement Syndrome driving novel legal theories is a thing, and we actually are in that world.

The Originalist perspective would be, of course, the viewpoints on what rebellion meant to the people whose framework of rebellion was the civil war.

Correct. The paper spends a considerable amount of time talking about what the original meaning of "insurrection" and "rebellion" was, to the people of that time. You don't have to agree with the authors' conclusions, but they explicitly deal with that question as the central one.

Then you should be able to answer the question regarding the standard, and its consistency as a standard.

I believe their argument is that later amendments to the Constitution override earlier versions (otherwise amendments would not be possible). So to whatever extent Section 3 is in conflict with earlier Constitution provisions, Section 3 prevails.

But this isn't an argument that Section 3 is in conflict with other provisions of the Constitution. This is an argument that execution of section 3 by the executive over the conduct of elections prevails over other elements of the constitution, which obviously does not hold to any limit because otherwise any executive could claim that any action in support of a later constitutional amendment is inherently constitutional if it conflicts with others.

There is not, in fact, an unlimited blank check to the American executive drawn just by claiming a more recent ammendment. Where Section 3 does not require overruling other parts of the Constitution, it doesn't. The arguments to date do not indicate that Section 3 requires doing so, on that Section 3 would have to do so to permit the interpretation, which is the sort of backwards reasoning previously noted.

Nope. You can look at the New Mexico case for example - state law allowed private citizens to sue to remove disqualified officials from office, a group did so, and a judge decided to remove him. No executive action involved.

And yet, yup. This isn't state law- this is Federal-level. Moreover, this isn't something the judiciary has made a conclusion on (i.e. that Trump has engaged in Rebellion), and the legal theory is to explicitly leave the Legislature out of it, and thus the only branch of government to make the conclusion and enact and enforce it is the Executive.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats