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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The point is not whether the specific legal pathway taken in the Brown case is valid. As I said, it occurred before the passage of the 14th Amendment. We are discussing a new Constitutional requirement that was created shortly after that case.
The point is that the Brown case helps elucidate how the people who created section 3 wanted it to be used. Brown was the type of person they wanted to keep out of Congress, and the fact that he only engaged in speech did not change the fact that they wanted him barred. So it seems a stretch to argue that section 3 cannot bar people from office solely on the basis of speech. The first amendment does not stand above the fourteenth.
As others have noted, the courts are generally dubious of implied repeal, and more so with constitutional law. "Insurrection", "rebellion", and "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" are all phrases with meaning pre-dating the Fourteenth Amendment, and which did not include speech (with some narrow exceptions, such as taking an oath to an enemy). There is therefore no reason to believe their inclusion in the Fourteenth Amendment made speech acts subject to penalty. The two Amendments may be taken together without contradiction.
Brown was about the House's ability to choose it's own members, which would not be subject to the First Amendment. The later Powell case said they could not refuse to seat for arbitrary reasons, but was pointedly silent on whether the House could expel for them. None of which has any bearing on eligibility for the Presidency.
It really is funny. The OP acknowledged the refusal to seat Brown wasn’t a 14th amendment case, but is claiming “this proves the 14th amendment prohibition repeals the 1st amendment.”
Hell, Eugene Debbs was convicted of sedition for his speech but no one thought that even that sedition charge precluded him for running for president. And that happened relatively near in time to the 14th amendment.
Right, perhaps because back in the early 20th century, people realized that "sedition" and "insurrection" and "rebellion" were different things. Whereas nowadays, some judges insist that "trespassing" and "insurrection" are the same thing and other judges do their best to look the other way. Or perhaps it's just because Debs was on the left, and even back then, it was only enemies to the right.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link