|
Rigel posted:The flood insurance example could work here because their justification was that flood insurance was becoming "unaffordable". Well poo poo, if that flies, you can say anything is unaffordable and get into that market with the lowest taxpayer-subsidized price. There's no "Government Flood Insurance Corporation" though, like there is "Amtrak" and "The US Post Office."
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
ulmont posted:There's no "Government Flood Insurance Corporation" though, like there is "Amtrak" and "The US Post Office." I bought flood insurance earlier this year through Allstate, and last week got a thing from FEMA that I had to sign and return, so it looks like it's run through FEMA, which makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
LongSack posted:I bought flood insurance earlier this year through Allstate, and last week got a thing from FEMA that I had to sign and return, so it looks like it's run through FEMA, which makes sense. Yea it's a government program administered by an agency, not a public corporation If that matters to the conversation
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 00:57
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:Yea it's a government program administered by an agency, not a public corporation Same as Tricare, structurally. The FDIC might be a better example of a federally-established but not "privately" run insurance company. It even has certain executive and judicial powers!  (asset seizure)
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
If you want to look at history, during world war 2, the US practiced price and wage controls, rationing, and an involuntary draft of citizens into public service. All the tools for Full Communism Now already passed constitutional tests to one extent or another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 18:38
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:If you want to look at history, during world war 2, the US practiced price and wage controls, rationing, and an involuntary draft of citizens into public service. All the tools for Full Communism Now already passed constitutional tests to one extent or another. Finally, a use for our permanent war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:If you want to look at history, during world war 2, the US practiced price and wage controls, rationing, and an involuntary draft of citizens into public service. All the tools for Full Communism Now already passed constitutional tests to one extent or another. We also practiced racial concentration camps so that's more an indictment of the constitution than anything
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
UberJew posted:We also practiced racial concentration camps so that's more an indictment of the constitution than anything It's not an indictment of the Constitution, but of the people sworn to uphold and protect it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 21:16
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:It's not an indictment of the Constitution, but of the people sworn to uphold and protect it. The document that includes a fractional counting of chattel slaves for the purpose of representation doesn't need further indictment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The document that includes a fractional counting of chattel slaves for the purpose of representation doesn't need further indictment. That's a rather dismal view of the world. "If any imperfection exists, the whole is worthless."
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:07
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:The document that includes a fractional counting of chattel slaves for the purpose of representation doesn't need further indictment. I've never really understood this particular talking point, because it would have been worse if slaves counted in full and better if they didn't count at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:That's a rather dismal view of the world. "If any imperfection exists, the whole is worthless." It's a pretty drat big imperfection, an essential contradiction even, especially considering we're still living with its consequences.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:38
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:It's a pretty drat big imperfection, an essential contradiction even, especially considering we're still i mean, the slavery thing in the constitution in general was bigger than precisely how one accounted for their humanity for purposes of representation and taxes
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:It's a pretty drat big imperfection, an essential contradiction even, especially considering we're still It absolutely was, but I still refuse the logic of condemning the whole for the flaw in the part. I'm unsure how any legal system could survive under such judgment, and I'm not an anarchist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
The Income Tax, Social Security, and Medicare existing and being constitutional pretty much destroys libertarian-man's argument. Those alone allow us to completely dismantle capitalism itself if we choose, no additional amendments required.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The Income Tax, Social Security, and Medicare existing and being constitutional pretty much destroys libertarian-man's argument. Something something taxation is theft!!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The Income Tax, Social Security, and Medicare existing and being constitutional pretty much destroys libertarian-man's argument. The 16th was never properly ratified, though, so the income taxes it allows are unconstitutional and are THEFT!
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:The 16th was never properly ratified, though, so the income taxes it allows are unconstitutional and are THEFT! Reading up on the 16th taught me that Democrats beig pro-tax has a long history. Also, that the Pollock ruling, which held that taxes on income from property, diviends, etc. were unconstitutional, was real bad.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 17:56
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Reading up on the 16th taught me that Democrats beig pro-tax has a long history. Also, that the Pollock ruling, which held that taxes on income from property, diviends, etc. were unconstitutional, was real bad. I too enjoy a trip down sovcit avenue once in a while. For general sovcit chicanery, check out the canadian decision of meads v meads https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 18:01
|
|
|
Article I, Section 9 posted:The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person. The wording is a little coy, but that’s saying “the slave trade is cool et good no takesies‐backsies”.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Specifically we were discussing whether Wisconsin could do something more efficient with the hundred billion it's giving to Foxconn such as simply starting up it's own factory to produce electronics to sell on the market for the entire purpose of providing employment. Wisconsin is not the Federal government and is not a government of enumerated powers. If this were a question about what Congress can do there might be something worth discussing (although as you've already heard just say Article I section 8). However, as a state, it has the sovereign power to do anything that isn't exclusively reserved for the Federal government or prohibited by the various provisions of the U.S. Constitution incorporated against the states under the 14th amendment. Your friend would be right to ask of the Federal government "where does it say they can open a car dealership?" (although, again Art. I, Sec. 8) but for Wisconsin the question is "where does it say they can't?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 04:01
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The wording is a little coy, but that’s saying “the slave trade is cool et good no takesies‐backsies”. There were always just enough white males who knew that slavery was a filthy institution that was too toxic to put in writing. Even while enough were around to keep it in effect. This is the point where I'm supposed to condemn Thomas Jefferson and others. But a white person doing that rings a little hollow when we still aren't anywhere close to practicing his phrase that all people are created equal and have rights to life and liberty. Smugly repeating that along with some whatabouts doesn't help. I'm glad that putting it into practice is an official government ideal, and that I'm in a position to keep doing things to try to make it happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Ceiling fan posted:There were always just enough white males who knew that slavery was a filthy institution that was too toxic to put in writing. Even while enough were around to keep it in effect. Not to get all stereotypical modern liberal but this is central to why Hamilton is such a brilliant work of art: it challenges and reclaims and acknowledges and admits all the beautiful and all the vile within the nation's founding. Jefferson's right there being a boss! But so are his slaves! He's giving Sally Hemmings orders right there on stage! Was really interesting listening to cast members talk about the experience of playing those characters. I'm really glad Hamilton exists, because without that kind of creative leap in front of us, I think it would be a lot easier to get stuck on "Ok, yeah, Jefferson: hella rapist," and that'd be missing a lot. The ideals were a high mark worth aiming at, even if the men themselves fell immeasurably short. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 06:16 on Aug 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 06:13
|
|
|
Nothing grotesque at all about Hamilton. Black men and women being cast to dance around and sing as slavers? Just peachy. Sally Hemmings coming out to shake her rear end and wink? Oh what fun. Hamilton being portrayed as a great abolitionist when he himself owned slaves? A triumph of liberalism. Hamilton is a grotesque mockery, even if Miranda meant well. It's loved by some white people. It's not loved by all PoC.
|
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 12:06
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:. It's not loved by all PoC. Doesn't have to be -- people are free to react to art how they prefer. I'm just pointing out that it points & helps open a possible path for POC to claim part of the country_s history for themselves, if they want to. I suspect that general line of thought is why Michelle Obama said it was "the best art I've seen in my life". The downside, though, is that that sort of "reclaiming" is always going to strike some people as offensive and clownish. Chernow's biography does whitewash Hamilton's history re:slavery, and the musical necessarily condenses even that, but it is true that Hamilton belonged to a manumission society and supported freeing slaves (at least in abstract when not too inconvenient for him). Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 12:47 on Aug 17, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 17, 2017 12:40
|
|
|
That's a pretty good response tbh.
|
|
#
?
Aug 18, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
hey folks, i'm looking for an evaluation of the legal situation w.r.t. the trans people ban from the military. how likely is that going to hold up in court? thanks.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
botany posted:hey folks, i'm looking for an evaluation of the legal situation w.r.t. the trans people ban from the military. how likely is that going to hold up in court? thanks. pretty likely imo. Being trans is not a suspect class by way of any federal legislation and any Obama era protections that were extended were done via executive action and have been rescinded. The government will argue hard that this deserves rational basis review and it easily lives up to that scrutiny. I don't think the supreme court as it is made up today would come out and say that being trans is an affirmative suspect classification. Until it gets codified someway poo poo seems like it's just going to suck under a Trump admin without much recourse. I really think this is going to be in place until you have a congress willing to act otherwise. The real challenge is to get courts/congress to consider gender identity a suspect classification. Edit: Note that rational basis review means that if the court can come up with basically any rational reason for the rule, it will defer to the executive. The reason given is medical costs/unit readiness. It doesn't matter that these costs are necessarily trivial in the grand scheme, nor does it matter that the costs may be outweighed by other areas of wasteful spending. The fact that saving medical costs and unit readiness are simple enough reasons to satisfy rational basis review. Basically without suspect classification, there's no recourse. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Aug 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 21:04
|
|
|
Historically-speaking, very likely. The courts give extreme deference to the "good order and discipline" clause in the Constitution. Uniformed service members have far fewer rights than civilians. I'm less certain how this would be ruled for civilian DoD employees (and don't even know if the executive order applies to them or not).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
Ynglaur posted:Historically-speaking, very likely. The courts give extreme deference to the "good order and discipline" clause in the Constitution. Uniformed service members have far fewer rights than civilians. I'm less certain how this would be ruled for civilian DoD employees (and don't even know if the executive order applies to them or not). It is specifically military not DoD iirc. If it was DoD civilian you have a lot harder time with even rational basis review because there is no argument at all for unit readiness, medical costs, or good order and discipline. In that example it looks like plain discrimination and would probably lose out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 21:09
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It is specifically military not DoD iirc. What's more, there is a fair bit of documentation that shows the decision was.not based on any rational basis but rather on a misunderstanding on Trump's behalf of what House Republicans wanted. I think a better supreme Court would overturn this, but I have no confidence in this one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 21:15
|
|
|
Your only hope is that John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy decide they'd rather not be tarred with the Trump brush by historians.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:It is specifically military not DoD iirc. I'm curious then, does that include NOAA?
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I'm curious then, does that include NOAA? I'm not sure. They're a uniform service but fall under the Department of Commerce not DoD. The coast guard is another interesting example. They're not DoD either.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 22:34
|
|
|
Rygar201 posted:Your only hope is that John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy decide they'd rather not be tarred with the Trump brush by historians. I think Chinese historians will look favorably on Trump's failed attempts to stop American decline. They'll probably put up some statues in DC (or whatever they rename it to) in a couple of centuries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 23:02
|
|
|
botany posted:hey folks, i'm looking for an evaluation of the legal situation w.r.t. the trans people ban from the military. how likely is that going to hold up in court? thanks. 100% likelihood of being upheld if they don't just punt on it for some weird reason. The ruling's going to boil down to "this falls within the President's authority as CiC of the armed forces" and it has a better chance of being a 9-0 ruling than a 5-4 one. I don't see RBG or anyone else doing a "this is petty bullshit from trans bigots" protest dissent either just to be on the 'right' side of history with it. Maybe the liberals will do a concurrence saying that it's within the POTUS's right but trans rights and gender identity need to be given a full review (good luck with that, even if the GOP didn't hold ever lever of power).
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2017 23:12
|
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:pretty likely imo. Being trans is not a suspect class by way of any federal legislation and any Obama era protections that were extended were done via executive action and have been rescinded. The government will argue hard that this deserves rational basis review and it easily lives up to that scrutiny. thank you, you and everyone else. so if i understand this correctly, this would hold up since trans people are not a protected class? if trump wanted to ban gay or black soldiers from the military, that would get struck down, right?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 11:19
|
|
|
botany posted:thank you, you and everyone else. so if i understand this correctly, this would hold up since trans people are not a protected class? if trump wanted to ban gay or black soldiers from the military, that would get struck down, right? Pretty sure gay people aren't a protected class either, although banning black people would absolutely be struck down (hopefully, nothing is guaranteed anymore)
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 11:53
|
|
|
edit: i'm confused and not sure about this point, i'll just delete it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
hangedman1984 posted:Pretty sure gay people aren't a protected class either, although banning black people would absolutely be struck down (hopefully, nothing is guaranteed anymore) Discrimination against gay people should be considered a form of discrimination on the basis of sex, unless you think that Loving v Virginia was wrongly decided. This is what the 7th circuit decided recently and I don't see how it can possibly be argued otherwise - it is literally the exact same argument as Loving v Virginia. So the only hope for trans people here is that not only does the Supreme Court agree with the 7th circuit on that, but is also willing to include trans people under a similar logic. I think this is very unlikely. I guess they could also hope that Congress passes a veto-proof bill protecting them, but hoping for Congress to do anything good is pretty obviously stupid.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2017 14:17
|
|
