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 -
I'd be curious if Section 5 of the 14th Amendment ("The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.") indicates that Congress, and not Colorado, is responsible for its enforcement. But it doesn't feel like a slam dunk argument.
Having now read the dissent by Samour I actually do think this is a slam dunk argument.
I'm very unconvinced by Samour's argument. He says sure, the 13th and 15th amendments are self-executing despite featuring the same "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" language. And sure, the 14th is self-executing when used "as a shield". But it can't be self-executing when used "as a sword" by a state because that would violate the due process protections of the 14th amendment (which also lack enabling legislation in respect to presidential eligibility - but these parts are self-executing in this context for some reason). It feels very strained, exceptions built on exceptions.
He also has the problem that his argument proves too much. In my view most of the various legal arguments offered in Trump's defence run into the problem that they would also allow Jefferson Davis to become President. That was true of the "officer of the US" position the district court took, and it's true of Samour's dissent here. Davis is the central case of what section 3 is for, so any interpretation that is so permissive as to allow him to become POTUS is akin to an interpretation of the 1st amendment that says you have freedom to believe in whatever religion you want as long as it's Catholicism.
There are Federal crimes related to slavery though: 18 U.S. Code ยง 1583 - Enticement into slavery. This is more than just a gotcha; we're talking about punishments here, and I don't really see how the 13th amendment can be self-executing with regard to charging, trying, and punishing an individual for holding someone else in involuntary servitude. So if we imagine a case where a slave sued his enslaver who held him in bondage after 1865, sure, the court would rule that the slave could no longer be held, but without further legislation, they couldn't really specify a punishment for the slave holder. Presumably the slaveholder could then be sued in civil court for damages by his slave. I think in that case the 13th amendment would prevent the slaveholder from using "this man is my slave" as a defense.
Getting kind of far afield here, but the overall point is that the difference between sword and shield actually is important; if the Constitution establishes a specific punishment, then it makes sense to believe that it is up to Congress to establish a procedure for determining to whom that punishment should be applied.
On the other hand, I don't have much to say in response to your point about Jefferson Davis. It's a good point.
This argument only makes sense if you consider disqualification from public office a punishment. But if it is, it's a punishment that is arbitrarily applied to every naturalized citizen, with no recourse or due process. Elon Musk can never be President because he was born in South Africa, and therefore his loyalty cannot be trusted. Doesn't matter if his record is spotless, doesn't matter if he has had no jury trial, doesn't matter if the American voters trust him, he cannot be President. An irreversible and unappealable "punishment" for the crime being born in the wrong place.
Rather I think it makes sense to say that punishment for slavery or insurrection would need to be legislated and to be subject to a criminal trial before a term of imprisonment can be applied. But disqualification is not a punishment - it's simply a judgement about who can be trusted to hold public office. Those who are too young an inexperienced, those who may hold split national loyalties, and those who have shown themselves to be oath-breakers are judged to be unacceptable risks by the constitution. It's got nothing to do with "fair", and there is no right to hold public office.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not confident on it, but I think Davis-as-President would have been subject to Section 14 and 15 of the Enforcement Act of 1870, during his lifetime, if a bit of a clusterfuck given the attorney general component (and judicial) making it a bit of a race.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If you are interested in the counter-argument, check out the discussion in the Court's opinion, starting at paragraph 90 (page 51 of the pdf), on whether section 3 of the 14th amendment is "self-executing"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link