House of Eratosthenes

Like the jaws of an alligator or other predator, a pair of pliers works because one side is stationary while the other side moves. You don’t see it until you look closely. But that’s how it works.

Disagreements among people are similar to this; you don’t see it until you look closely, but you’ll find there’s one side in the argument, not quite so much arguing, as protesting against a definition being made (or requested). The other side is trying to establish definitions. Exceptions to this are few and far between. The argument erupts, and persists, because the two sides disagree on whether or not things should be defined.

Also generally true: The side that refuses to define things, which is responsible for the conflict, enjoys a lot of success making the conflict look like the other side’s fault. But you know something is rotten when you can start a big ol’ fight merely by asking that things be defined.

Ten examples, up with which I came:

1. When, during a pregnancy, does life begin?
2. What, exactly, has Barack Obama done to improve the economy?
3. For that matter, what did Bill Clinton ever do to improve the economy?
4. Since the minimum wage makes labor more expensive, how in the world could it possibly NOT eliminate jobs?
5. When we “sit down and talk out our differences with our enemies,” what exactly is going to be discussed?
6. If we’re obliged to allow and recognize gay marriage today, why would we not be doing the same with polygamy and bestiality tomorrow?
7. Are you really supposed to vote today? Do you have I.D.?
8. What makes a government regulator any wiser or more scrupulous than the people he’s supposed to regulate?
9. What EXACTLY are the problems “Common Core” is supposed to fix, and how EXACTLY is it supposed to fix them?
10. If politicians are “just a bunch of crooks, doesn’t matter what party they belong to”…then why would we expect to see a tax increase make anything better for anyone who isn’t a politician?

I’m sure there are more though.

I’ve been noticing that with what we lately call “left” and “right” in politics, it is a rather consistent configuration that this “side that refuses to define things” is on what we call the “left.” Issue after issue. I have also noticed that where these halves overlay occupations, the “left” sympathizes with those who don’t have any. Or, are occupied with something disassociated with any sort of material demand. Community organizing. Wheelchair-ramp-reconstruction or health insurance including birth control; other things people buy not because they actually want them, but to meet some sort of regulatory requirement. Well, this stands to reason. If you’re going to sell something to people who actually want to buy it, you’re going to need to define things in order to do your market research. And, to build the widget to make sure it does what people want it to do. And then the people lining up to spend their hard-earned dollars buying it, oh boy howdy, they’re going to want things defined too. What’s the total cost of ownership? What’s it like to use it? What are the consequences of moving on to this new thing, and stopping using the old thing?

This thing we now call “the left” is awash in pretend-games that cloak various life experiences as their polar opposites. It very often pretends that acts of destruction, as I’ve pointed out before, are brilliant creative efforts that produce something wonderful and great and grand. Can even the most ardent Obama supporter tell me what President Obama is building? They can certainly tell me what He’s destroying; in fact, if you compare those answers to what Obama opponents say He’s destroying, you’ll find the answers are substantially the same even though the two sides might disagree about names for these targets of destruction. It insists on treating people unequally and it calls that “equality.” It insists on forcing people to do things they don’t want to do and it calls that “choice.” When it bellows away about “diversity” you can be sure it will soon be pressing everyone to have the same opinions.

When every argument you make relies on presenting things as the opposites of themselves, that’s deceit; and, deceitful people don’t want things defined, that makes it harder to do the deceiving.

Much easier to tell the hoi polloi “we have to pass the bill so you can see what’s in it.”

Definitions? Well…everyone KNOWS (WARNING: dog whistle, code speak,”trigger” alert) “usage”.
- CaptDMO | 04/06/2014 @ 13:19
mkfreeberg: Ten examples, up with which I came:

Okay, we’ll give it a try.

mkfreeberg: 1. When, during a pregnancy, does life begin?

Pregnancy is medically defined as implantation of the developing embryo in the uterus. Some people define it as occurring at conception. However, even before conception, sperm are alive.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

mkfreeberg: 2. What, exactly, has Barack Obama done to improve the economy?

Ending two wars. The stimulus kept the U.S. from a much deeper recession. The Affordable Care Act will help to slow the growth in medical costs.

mkfreeberg: 3. For that matter, what did Bill Clinton ever do to improve the economy?

Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act.

mkfreeberg: 4. Since the minimum wage makes labor more expensive, how in the world could it possibly NOT eliminate jobs?

Jobs will be lost. CBO estimates that 33 people will be helped for every person who loses their job.

mkfreeberg: 5. When we “sit down and talk out our differences with our enemies,” what exactly is going to be discussed?

Start by finding areas of common ground, discover the concerns of the other party, and develop workable compromises.

mkfreeberg: 6. If we’re obliged to allow and recognize gay marriage today, why would we not be doing the same with polygamy and bestiality tomorrow?

Bestiality lacks valid consent. Polygamy has a history of abuse which would have to be overcome.

mkfreeberg: 7. Are you really supposed to vote today? Do you have I.D.?

India is voting today. They do have voter ID cards, but make it quite easy to get them, including by mail.

mkfreeberg: 8. What makes a government regulator any wiser or more scrupulous than the people he’s supposed to regulate?

They’re not. They just have different incentives. For instance, a builder has an incentive to use the cheapest possible wiring inside the walls where it can’t be seen by the buyer. An inspector will make sure it meets a minimum standard.

mkfreeberg: 9. What EXACTLY are the problems “Common Core” is supposed to fix, and how EXACTLY is it supposed to fix them?

It sets minimum educational standards that all schools are supposed to meet. The stated purpose is to “provide a consistent, clear understanding of what students are expected to learn, so teachers and parents know what they need to do to help them.”

mkfreeberg: 10. If politicians are “just a bunch of crooks, doesn’t matter what party they belong to”…then why would we expect to see a tax increase make anything better for anyone who isn’t a politician?

The job of a politician is to be reelected, so spending on programs that people want is one way to gain public support.
- Zachriel | 04/07/2014 @ 06:53
mkfreeberg: I’ve been noticing that with what we lately call “left” and “right” in politics, it is a rather consistent configuration that this “side that refuses to define things” is on what we call the “left.”

Interesting. We’ve found that so-called conservatives often redefine words to suit their positions.
- Zachriel | 04/07/2014 @ 06:55
What you call “RE-defining” is often merely “defining,” or else the effort to insist on the actual definition of things and concepts, rather than having such terms used for their opposite.

To be nice, I’ll avoid political examples – or at least, as much as I can, inasmuch as certain people want everything on earth to be a politician’s business – I’ll just go to my Strunk and White: “Prefer the specific to the general, the definite to the vague, the concrete to the abstract.”

The whole reason to be clear is to communicate. Ideas are tough enough to handle when one knows what they really are; perhaps because of this there is a burgeoning class of charlatan that prefers bilious vapors to small, concrete thoughts. They speak as broadly and grandly as can be contrived, and then hammer through the particulars later.

There are many complaints about this approach when it comes to something like advertising or corporate language… but since the goal there is clear and precise – SELL THE PRODUCT OR SERVICE – there’s not nearly the wiggle room. Consumers have their time and money at risk; bungle the job and you won’t be trusted with it. Refuse to say what you’re trying to sell or provide, and you’ll go bust.

Well, maybe the Right tends to prefer concrete things precisely because they tend to have more of a direct connection to business. The Left increasingly does not, having spent their entire lives in academia or politics, where the bilious and vague have taken over entirely, and all under the false flags of “honest debate” and “open mindedness.” It was the 1994 Republican Congress that wrote a specific and precise “Contract with America,” and the 2008 Democratic Congress that insisted that we had to pass an SUV-sized law just to find out what was in it.
- nightfly | 04/07/2014 @ 10:05
nightfly: What you call “RE-defining” is often merely “defining,” or else the effort to insist on the actual definition of things and concepts, rather than having such terms used for their opposite.

Providing clear definitions is certainly important. The problem occurs when conflating the usual meaning of a term with an ad hoc use of the term.

nightfly: Well, maybe the Right tends to prefer concrete things precisely because they tend to have more of a direct connection to business.

We didn’t mean to overgeneralize. Actual conservatives are typically conservative in their use of language, which means the traditional use of terminology, as well as being clear and concise.

nightfly: It was the 1994 Republican Congress that wrote a specific and precise “Contract with America,” and the 2008 Democratic Congress that insisted that we had to pass an SUV-sized law just to find out what was in it.

Legislative implementation of the Contract with America ran hundreds of pages.
- Zachriel | 04/07/2014 @ 11:02
“The problem occurs…”

What problem would that be?
- mkfreeberg | 04/07/2014 @ 17:25
Zachriel: Providing clear definitions is certainly important. The problem occurs when conflating the usual meaning of a term with an ad hoc use of the term.

mkfreeberg: What problem would that be?

nightfly: The whole reason to be clear is to communicate.
- Zachriel | 04/07/2014 @ 17:30
I think most people would agree that communication is not being achieved — or at the very least, it certainly is not being attempted — when words and phrases are used to describe things that are the exact opposite of what those words & phrases are supposed to mean.

Treating men and women differently, or gays and straights differently, in the name of “equality” would be one such example.

Barring dissenting opinions from being represented in a forum, for the sake of “diversity,” would be another example.

Describing illegal aliens as “obey[ing] the law” would be a third, good example. There are others — from the left. But three is good enough to illustrate the trend, I think.

“Words mean things.” — Rush Limbaugh
- mkfreeberg | 04/07/2014 @ 18:06
9. What EXACTLY are the problems “Common Core” is supposed to fix, and how EXACTLY is it supposed to fix them?

Helluva a question.

Of course, it also knocks out charter schools, parent-trigger laws, home-rule districts in Texas, testing, and the general libertarian drive to stick a shiv in every teacher just for the heck of it.

You should ask it more.
- edarrell | 04/07/2014 @ 22:08
mkfreeberg: I think most people would agree that communication is not being achieved — or at the very least, it certainly is not being attempted — when words and phrases are used to describe things that are the exact opposite of what those words & phrases are supposed to mean.

Sure. Anytime you use an non-standard meaning, it can lead to confusion.

mkfreeberg: Treating men and women differently, or gays and straights differently, in the name of “equality” would be one such example.

We can only guess at your meaning. If you mean an aggrieved party, then they normally get restitution. Do you mean that people should not get compensation for wrongs? Thieves get to keep their ill-gotten gains? Is that what you mean by equality?

If that is not your meaning, then you may want to use concrete examples.

mkfreeberg: Barring dissenting opinions from being represented in a forum, for the sake of “diversity,” would be another example.

Again, we can only guess at your meaning. Is this some sort of right-wing code? In the U.S. at least, people have the right to express their opinion, and others have the right to criticize that opinion.

mkfreeberg: Describing illegal aliens as “obey[ing] the law” would be a third, good example.

In the example you provided, it’s clear the speaker meant laws other than the immigration laws. Don’t think anyone was confused on the meaning.

mkfreeberg: There are others — from the left. But three is good enough to illustrate the trend, I think.

The Southern Strategy would be an example on the political right.
- Zachriel | 04/08/2014 @ 05:53
You should ask it more.

Maybe I should. I have yet to get an answer.

The Southern Strategy would be an example on the political right.

Southern Strategy is actually an excellent example of more lack-of-definition in leftist propaganda. Supposedly, it is the Republican party’s appeal to white racists in the South, successfully changing them from democrats into Republicans. All sorts of questions spring up from that.

Like: Would this not disprove the democrat canard that good laws make good people, if the democrat party had been so saturated with racists that these newer and better laws actually damaged the party’s chances from the subsequent hemorrhaging of votes? How many racists actually did change their votes over this issue? How many in Congress changed parties in this direction over this issue?

Can we trust the leftists of the time to define “racism” for us? We sure as hell can’t nowadays, when their definition of racism is: “We have a plan; anyone who doesn’t support it, we’ll label as a racist.”

Would those who talk up this “Southern Strategy” be willing to concede there might have been valid, states-rights reasons to object to more & greater power being concentrated at the federal level? Would the present ObamaCare debates be an apt representation of their willingness and ability to concede this entirely valid point? And what of those democrats who opposed the Civil Rights legislation who never switched parties?

In fact, are Republican statements about “The Southern Strategy” any more credible than LBJ’s alleged quote “I’ll have those ni**ers voting democrat for the next 200 years”?
- mkfreeberg | 04/08/2014 @ 06:05
mkfreeberg: Like: Would this not disprove the democrat canard that good laws make good people, if the democrat party had been so saturated with racists that these newer and better laws actually damaged the party’s chances from the subsequent hemorrhaging of votes?

Good laws are important, but not sufficient in and of themselves to make for “good people”.

mkfreeberg: Would those who talk up this “Southern Strategy” be willing to concede there might have been valid, states-rights reasons to object to more & greater power being concentrated at the federal level?

Federal power is obviously a two-edged sword. Central power can be more detached from the concerns of average citizens, while also providing strength in adversity. However, since the inception of the Republic, states’ rights has been used to support white supremacy.

mkfreeberg: In fact, are Republican statements about “The Southern Strategy” any more credible than LBJ’s alleged quote “I’ll have those ni**ers voting democrat for the next 200 years”?

Johnson actually said the Democrats “have lost the South for a generation.” It was an act of political courage that still reverberates today.
- Zachriel | 04/08/2014 @ 06:43
[…] Justice Expert April Fool’s…is the Name of the Baby Noah Arguments About Definitions The Debate Rule Back From the Road Trip Pushing the Envelope “The Wealth in America Doesn’t […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 04/08/2014 @ 06:45
Federal power is obviously a two-edged sword. Central power can be more detached from the concerns of average citizens, while also providing strength in adversity. However, since the inception of the Republic, states’ rights has been used to support white supremacy.

Right on both counts. So, the solution is to apply critical inspection and critical thought to the policy proposal, or the protest against the policy proposal. And to ponder, not what might be motivating it, but its likely consequences.

To dismiss any resistance against greater federal power as something that “has been used to support white supremacy,” would be animal-like thinking, as in, “I was abused by a man in a hat, that man is wearing a hat, I shall bark at him.”

To think like a human, you have to define things more strongly than that. Defining things is also a prerequisite to building things, if you want to build things that possess some attribute of complexity and capability, and actually work. That’s got a lot to do with why Detroit is the way it is, and the healthcare.gov website launch went the way it did.
- mkfreeberg | 04/08/2014 @ 06:56
It was an act of political courage that still reverberates today.

Is LBJ the model, then? Is he emblematic of the democrat party’s desire for improved race relations? Can we learn about their vision, accurately, and in a way suiting their preferences, through his deeds and words?
- mkfreeberg | 04/08/2014 @ 06:57
mkfreeberg: So, the solution is to apply critical inspection and critical thought to the policy proposal, or the protest against the policy proposal. And to ponder, not what might be motivating it, but its likely consequences.

Of course. The politicians who voted for civil rights legislation were, um, politicians, meaning they generally had mixed motives.

mkfreeberg: To dismiss any resistance against greater federal power as something that “has been used to support white supremacy,”

Of course we didn’t say that. However, states’ righters are often supporting policies that have ramifications for civil rights, and it is correct to point that out. That doesn’t make them racist, but often blind to the impact of their policies.

mkfreeberg: Is LBJ the model, then?

Johnson was a man of many contradictions.
- Zachriel | 04/08/2014 @ 07:06
[…] Hereabouts, we spend a fair bit of time discussing terminology. Which covers it better, “liberal” or “leftist”? That kind of thing. Because definitions are important. […]
- I Made a New Word: “Neo-Calvinist” | Rotten Chestnuts | 04/08/2014 @ 08:27
So LBJ is not the model, and resistance against federal power is not necessarily support of white supremacy. Those are reasonable disclaimers. But they’re so large and invasive against the original statements, that it seems there is no worthy point being made in either case.

“Act of political courage,” well, so was the invasion of Iraq…
- mkfreeberg | 04/09/2014 @ 06:30
And, really, who better to recognize “a man of many contradictions” than your resident Cuttlefish collective? 🙂
- Severian | 04/09/2014 @ 07:56
mkfreeberg: But they’re so large and invasive against the original statements, that it seems there is no worthy point being made in either case.

We raised two valid issues. States’ righters are often supporting policies that have ramifications for civil rights, and it is correct to point that out. That doesn’t make them racist, but often blind to the impact of their policies.

mkfreeberg: “Act of political courage,” well, so was the invasion of Iraq…

Not at all. There was virtually no political risk for Bush based on their belief the action would be a cakewalk. Johnson knew civil rights legislation would undercut Democratic support in the South, risking the coalition originally crafted by Franklin Roosevelt.
- Zachriel | 04/09/2014 @ 09:18
There was virtually no political risk for Bush based on their belief the action would be a cakewalk.

A “cakewalk.” Ah, yes…that term is from which speech? Location? Date? Time?
- mkfreeberg | 04/09/2014 @ 18:25
mkfreeberg: A “cakewalk.” Ah, yes…that term is from which speech

Beliefs aren’t speeches, but it was clear that the Bush Administration thought it would be a cakewalk. They denigrated estimates that stabilizing Iraq would take several hundred thousand troops.

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld: “the idea that it would take several hundred
thousand U.S. forces, I think, is far from the mark.”

They publicly stated the war would go quickly.

Vice President Cheney: “I think {the war will} go relatively quickly … Weeks rather than months.”

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld: “{The war} could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”

They prematurely declared victory in the battle of Iraq.

President Bush: “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended.”

Then there’s this:

Defense Policy Board Adelman: “I believe demolishing Hussein’s military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk.”

It’s quite clear the Bush Administration didn’t anticipate the problems inherent in toppling the Iraqi regime.
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 05:23
Okay, we have our answer. Y’all were quoting Kenneth Adelman.What exactly was his role in the Bush administration?

And what did President of Iraq Saddam Hussein have to say about the Mission Accomplished banner and the combat-operations-ended comment?
- mkfreeberg | 04/10/2014 @ 05:42
mkfreeberg: Y’all were quoting Kenneth Adelman.

We quoted the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and a member of the Defense Policy Board. As we said, it’s quite clear the Bush Administration didn’t anticipate the problems inherent in toppling the Iraqi regime.

mkfreeberg: And what did President of Iraq Saddam Hussein have to say about the Mission Accomplished banner and the combat-operations-ended comment?

Toppling Saddam did not end the Iraq War. It started it.
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 05:44
We quoted the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and a member of the Defense Policy Board. As we said, it’s quite clear the Bush Administration didn’t anticipate the problems inherent in toppling the Iraqi regime.

The claim was that “there was virtually no political risk for Bush based on their belief the action would be a cakewalk.” History has shown the primary point of this statement to be in error; now I’m going after the tangential point, that the Bush administration believed the action would be a “cakewalk.” Just asking to see some evidence here.
- mkfreeberg | 04/10/2014 @ 05:48
Here’s an example of political courage; when Bush pushed Cheney and Rumsfeld aside, and ordered the surge in Iraq in order to salvage something from the carnage. Do you see the difference?
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 05:52
mkfreeberg: Just asking to see some evidence here.

We provided that evidence. They thought the war would take minimal troops and be over in weeks. That’s not political courage.
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 05:55
Here’s an example of political courage; when Bush pushed Cheney and Rumsfeld aside, and ordered the surge in Iraq in order to salvage something from the carnage. Do you see the difference?

Yeah, y’all don’t like Cheney and Rumseld. It might mean something if I knew who y’all are.

We provided that evidence. They thought the war would take minimal troops and be over in weeks. That’s not political courage.

Alright, y’all are entitled to y’all’s opinion, but I think most people would define “political courage” has something to do with standing against a majority. Or, against an overwhelmingly well-organized, well-spoken and voluminous orchestra of united opinion, which is what the anti-war movement was.

The “long hard slog” memo written by Rumsfeld strongly discredits any insinuation that the administration made up its mind the invasion would be any kind of “cakewalk.” If I understand the way y’all have now modified y’all’s position, y’all are saying it was risky politically but the dumb clucks at the Bush administration expected this cakewalk, so in perception, there was little risk therefore no courage being demonstrated. Alright, well the facts don’t support this. Either.

As far as LBJ’s “political courage,” in that context the phrase just means what it usually means when democrats are involved: Everyone else has figured out the drawbacks to the policy change, and a majority would no longer support it, or at least now acknowledges the constitutional problems with it, but the dems refuse to admit to any of this. Just like with ObamaCare.

The agenda always seems to come before the interests of the people the agenda is supposed to help. And, before the U.S. Constitution.
- mkfreeberg | 04/10/2014 @ 06:08
mkfreeberg: Yeah, y’all don’t like Cheney and Rumseld.

That doesn’t address the point.

mkfreeberg: Alright, y’all are entitled to y’all’s opinion, but I think most people would define “political courage” has something to do with standing against a majority.

The vast majority of the American people were willing to follow Bush into war, or not, as he decided as President. More particularly, it’s a willingness to take political risks for a larger purpose.

mkfreeberg: The “long hard slog” memo written by Rumsfeld strongly discredits any insinuation that the administration made up its mind the invasion would be any kind of “cakewalk.”

That memo was written after the country had started to come apart at the seams. Over 500 Iraqi civilians were killed the month the memo was drafted, nearly 800 the month before.

mkfreeberg: As far as LBJ’s “political courage,” in that context the phrase just means what it usually means when democrats are involved:

It meant the Roosevelt coalition would fracture, and the Democrats would lose the South.
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 06:17
Here’s an example of political courage; when Bush pushed Cheney and Rumsfeld aside, and ordered the surge in Iraq in order to salvage something from the carnage. Do you see the difference?
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 06:18
Z: Do you see the difference?

Bush was already receiving withering criticism from all sides. Pushing Cheney and Rumsfeld aside alienated the right. The surge only further inflamed the left. There was no political upside. But Bush thought it was something that had to be done, the only chance to salvage something from the carnage unleashed by the invasion. It was politically courageous.
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 07:15
… and the Democrats would lose the South.

The democrats would lose the South, because the U.S. Constitution lost the democrats.

There are supposed to be consequences when you flout the U.S. Constitution. Weathering that storm is not courage; it’s vandalism.
- mkfreeberg | 04/10/2014 @ 16:47
mkfreeberg: The democrats would lose the South, because the U.S. Constitution lost the democrats.

That is incorrect. The Civil Rights Act has been held constitutional over the years, but the recent Supreme Court decision found the circumstances that existed then no longer applied, quoting precedent “In 1966, these departures were justified by the ‘blight of racial discrimination in voting’ that had ‘infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century'”.
- Zachriel | 04/10/2014 @ 18:41
So that, whatever transgressed against the equal-protection clause today, back then, didn’t. Sure.

It’s okay to have an opinion that the Supreme Court doesn’t know what it’s talking about. Liberals everywhere invoked that rule after Bush v. Gore. Right here is where that becomes reasonable: The notion that, with the Constitutional verbiage remaining static, what violated it back then doesn’t now, or what violates it now, didn’t previously. It is certainly reasonable for people to recognize that that’s wrong.

So y’all’s statement about “incorrect,” is incorrect.
- mkfreeberg | 04/10/2014 @ 21:41
mkfreeberg: So that, whatever transgressed against the equal-protection clause today, back then, didn’t.

The Supreme Court had found that the Civil Rights Act, with regards to specific states, were a reasonable reason to generations of discrimination. The Supreme Court recently found in Shelby County v. Holder, that those conditions no longer apply, that treating states differently is no longer tenable. Read the decision:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf

mkfreeberg: So y’all’s statement about “incorrect,” is incorrect.

Your argument that passage of civil rights legislation wasn’t politically risky in 1965 because some portions of the Civil Rights Act are , nearly half a century later, no longer constitutional because conditions of changed, is simply untenable.
- Zachriel | 04/11/2014 @ 02:31
Your argument that passage of civil rights legislation wasn’t politically risky in 1965 because some portions of the Civil Rights Act are , nearly half a century later, no longer constitutional because conditions of changed, is simply untenable.

That is not my argument.
- mkfreeberg | 04/11/2014 @ 05:17
mkfreeberg: That is not my argument.

That’s usually good place to clarify your argument.

In any case, the Supreme Court did decide that circumstances matter. At the time of passage of the Civil Rights Act, Southern states were patently guilty of a pattern of discrimination in violation of the 14th Amendment. Those conditions no longer prevail. Other sections of the Civil Rights Act are still in force, but the government must act retroactively, rather than the said states having to get preapproval for changes in election laws.
- Zachriel | 04/11/2014 @ 07:04
That’s usually good place to clarify your argument.

Baby steps. First, we have to introduce y’all to the concept of uncertainty. Then, we need to introduce y’all to the concept of humility; I think such-and-such a thing, but my level of certainty is less than 100%.

After y’all get that far, then we can graduate to the level of: My argument was something other than what y’all inferred. And after that bar has been cleared, we can start to explore what y’all missed. But first we have to clear that first hurdle.

In any case, the Supreme Court did decide that circumstances matter.

The SCOTUS is made up of mortals, who often get things wrong. Usually it’s a matter of opinion whether they got something wrong.

When they say, essentially, that — the Constitution is static; the policy proposal is static; but whether there is an unworkable transgression between statute and Constitution, is a question whose answer morphs across the decades — well, we don’t need to form an opinion about whether that’s wrong. It’s factually wrong. Time can change a lot of things, but not math or logic. If VRA Section 5 is constitutional in the here-and-now, it must have always been that way. If SCOTUS says otherwise, then they’re wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 04/11/2014 @ 19:08
mkfreeberg: The SCOTUS is made up of mortals, who often get things wrong.

Sure.

mkfreeberg: It’s factually wrong.

Except that circumstance has always been a part of law, including constitutional law. Southern states were institutionally guilty of gross violations of civil rights, hence, they are subject to federal oversight. How long this oversight should last was the issue the court addressed in Shelby County v. Holder.

But all that’s irrelevant to your claim, which was “the democrats would lose the South, because the U.S. Constitution lost the democrats.” They lost the South because they supported the end of segregation, which split white southerners from the Democratic coalition of white southerners, labor, and liberals.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 06:47
Except that circumstance has always been a part of law, including constitutional law.

Not sure about the “always.” It is true that for a long time we’ve had meddlers in our constitutional law who insist that context should be used to propose that the Constitution doesn’t mean what it says. Where they prevail, the Constitution fails.

After all, if the document doesn’t mean what it says and it doesn’t say what it means, then why have it? This is the point Chief Justice Marshall was making in Marbury vs. Madison.

But all that’s irrelevant to your claim, which was “the democrats would lose the South, because the U.S. Constitution lost the democrats.” They lost the South because they supported the end of segregation, which split white southerners from the Democratic coalition of white southerners, labor, and liberals.

And just like that…”equal protection under the law” suddenly didn’t count for anything. For awhile. Beginning and end of this interim to be decided by the Supreme Court as they “interpret” the “meaning” of the clause. But that is not interpreting a meaning; that is modifying it.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 07:41
mkfreeberg: Not sure about the “always.”

Of course it has. Consider terms such as “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “preponderance of the evidence” or “reasonable person principle”. These all require the courts to evaluate circumstances, as well as law. That’s why they’re called judges.

In this case, the South was patently guilty of depriving blacks of their civil rights guaranteed under the 14th Amendment. Therefore, the federal government put elections in the South under supervision to ensure that they ceased their illegal persecution. The Supreme Court recently found those conditions no longer prevailed, so determined that the *renewal* of the law was unconstitutional.

mkfreeberg: And just like that…”equal protection under the law” suddenly didn’t count for anything.

Are you saying Jim Crow embodied equal protection?
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 07:54
Consider terms such as “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “preponderance of the evidence” or “reasonable person principle”.

How do you equate subverting the Constitution with “beyond a reasonable doubt”?
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 07:56
mkfreeberg: How do you equate subverting the Constitution with “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

Do try to focus. The question was whether “circumstance has always been a part of law, including constitutional law”. In this case, we have a guilty party who is put under supervision. If they didn’t commit the crime, they wouldn’t have had to do the time. It’s not as if they were punished. They just had to stop the illegal activity.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 08:10
mkf: How do you equate subverting the Constitution with “beyond a reasonable doubt”?

[Z]: Do try to focus….

Did I characterize the false-equivalence y’all were trying to make, inaccurately? If so, which half of it did I mess up? Both sides of it are rote repetition. Can y’all really play the “do try to focus” card when I’m just repeating what y’all said?

The question was whether “circumstance has always been a part of law, including constitutional law”. In this case, we have a guilty party who is put under supervision. If they didn’t commit the crime, they wouldn’t have had to do the time. It’s not as if they were punished. They just had to stop the illegal activity.

When the state is required to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is found to fall short of this, that is not a finding that the defendant is innocent. Actually, that example is damaging to the point y’all are trying to make because that standard is at least supposed to be static across the passage of time. Now it’s true that it has not been, but that is because of human/cultural error.

The rights we enjoy under the Constitution are not the result of such error.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 11:56
mkfreeberg: Did I characterize the false-equivalence y’all were trying to make, inaccurately?

No, you used a complex question fallacy. We didn’t equate subverting the constitution with anything. Rather, we pointed out that all law includes consideration of circumstance. In this case, the circumstance is southern states repeatedly and persistently violating the rights of African-Americans to vote.

mkfreeberg: When the state is required to prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and it is found to fall short of this, that is not a finding that the defendant is innocent.

Are you arguing that southern states were not complicit in preventing blacks from voting?
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 12:39
Are you arguing that southern states were not complicit in preventing blacks from voting?

Wouldn’t know, it was before my time. The liberals sure do like to say so over & over again when they’re grasping for more power, but they say a lot of things. Anyway, thought we had come to agreement in another thread that laws don’t make people more moral.

And the Supreme Court has held that Section 5 was unconstitutional. They were right to do so, since picking and choosing which states are not allowed to pass what laws, is irreconcilable with the equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 12:42
mkfreeberg: Wouldn’t know, …

Then you can’t argue as to whether or not federal oversight was justified.

mkfreeberg: it was before my time.

But not before Hank Aaron’s time. In any case, there is significant documentary evidence of southern states being complicit in preventing blacks from voting, much of it included in the findings that led to the Civil Rights Acts.

mkfreeberg: And the Supreme Court has held that Section 5 was unconstitutional.

They ruled that the legislative renewal was unconstitutional, not the original Act. The decision is Shelby County vs. Holder. Read the decision:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 14:29
Then you can’t argue as to whether or not federal oversight was justified.

Sure I can. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection, does it not?

Yes or no.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 15:53
mkfreeberg: The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection, does it not?

Yes, and the southern states were found to have a pattern of violating 14th Amendment protections, hence, like anyone on parole, they were given oversight until they cleaned up their acts.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 17:37
Yes, and the southern states were found to have a pattern of violating 14th Amendment protections, hence, like anyone on parole, they were given oversight until they cleaned up their acts.

While the people living in those states, were denied equal protection, for nearly fifty years. Unconstitutionally. While the Supreme Court pretended that something that violated the Fourteenth Amendment — didn’t. Eventually, they corrected the mistake. Until they did, justice did not prevail.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 18:13
mkfreeberg: While the people living in those states, were denied equal protection, for nearly fifty years.

Convicted criminals have some of their rights revoked. In this case, there was no punishment—though well deserved—, just supervision of the electoral process.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 18:33
Convicted criminals have some of their rights revoked. In this case, there was no punishment—though well deserved—, just supervision of the electoral process.

Oh, so now people who live in states not to y’all’s liking should be treated like criminals. This just gets better and better.

It might mean something, if I knew who y’all were.

Meanwhile — denial of equal protection is denial of equal protection. It was then, it is now. Rationalizing it only says something about y’all’s attachment to reality, or lack thereof.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 18:39
mkfreeberg: Oh, so now people who live in states not to y’all’s liking should be treated like criminals.

You’ve already said you don’t know whether southern states were complicit in preventing blacks from voting.

There is a large amount of documentary evidence showing that southern states were directly involved in preventing blacks from voting. It’s part of the Congressional record, which the courts reviewed and found convincing. For generations, southern states deprived blacks of equal protection, including the right to vote. To end this pernicious practice, and with the courts approval, the federal government instituted oversight.

Are you really that ignorant of American history?
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 18:46
There is a large amount of documentary evidence showing that southern states were directly involved in preventing blacks from voting. It’s part of the Congressional record…Are you really that ignorant of American history?

We’re all ignorant. Massively.

But it seems y’all have a special case of ignorance: Y’all conflate “states” with the people living in them. Those are two different things.

Well, the Supreme Court eventually fixed their mistake. It doesn’t matter that y’all haven’t caught on. They figured out what they did wrong, and rectified the situation.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 18:55
mkfreeberg: We’re all ignorant. Massively.</i.

Sure, but most people know the Earth is round, and most Americans known about Jim Crow. But ignorance is curable!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

mkfreeberg: Y’all conflate “states” with the people living in them.

Institutions are responsible, just as are individuals. No one was hurt by requiring federal oversight.

mkfreeberg: Well, the Supreme Court eventually fixed their mistake.

No. They only overturned the renewal of the law, not the original law. Indeed, they indicated that a new law could be crafted that would be constitutional, but would have to account for current conditions, not based on conditions from fifty years ago.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 18:59
Nevertheless, The People, the federal government, and the states are distinctly different entities. That was the original design.

Why should the people living in a southern state, be singled out for victimization by vote fraud in that state, just because of historical wrongs that took place in that state? In many cases, before they were born.

The Supreme Court came to grips with their mistake. It isn’t necessary for y’all to follow along.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 19:01
mkfreeberg: Why should the people living in a southern state, be singled out for victimization by vote fraud in that state, just because of historical wrongs that took place in that state?

The people weren’t under supervision, the institution of states (and some counties) found to have violated the constitution were under supervision.

mkfreeberg: The Supreme Court came to grips with their mistake.

Apparently not. The majority said in Shelby Count v. Holder, “In 1966, we found these departures from the basic features of our system of government justified. The ‘blight of racial discrimination in voting’ had ‘infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century,'” also noting that the 15th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the command that the right to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race or color.

The Court also said “Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions.” So you are simply wrong on what the Court decided.
- Zachriel | 04/12/2014 @ 19:24
The majority said…

If the Supreme Court justices were always infallible, all of their decisions would be nine-zip.

“In 1966, we found these departures from the basic features of our system of government justified…”

So they did admit it was a departure. That makes it an unconstitutional departure. The decision earlier that said it was “justified” was in error, or at the very least, unconstitutional. Lots of thieves think their theft is justified.

So you are simply wrong on what the Court decided.

The only comment I’ve made on the Court’s decision, was that it rectified its earlier error, which is correct. As far as the earlier decision transgressing against the equal-protection clause, we don’t need a Supreme Court decision to figure that out. It’s just a fact.
- mkfreeberg | 04/12/2014 @ 20:37
mkfreeberg: If the Supreme Court justices were always infallible, all of their decisions would be nine-zip.

We didn’t say the Court was infallible, indeed, we said just the opposite. However, you had said—more than once—, that the Supreme Court had “come to grips with their mistake”, and that is not the case. They found the original decision was justified.

mkfreeberg: So they did admit it was a departure.

That’s right. They found the departure was justified by circumstance.

mkfreeberg: That makes it an unconstitutional departure.

The recent Court decision reached a different conclusion. And while you are free to disagree with that ruling, you mischaracterized it above.

mkfreeberg: The only comment I’ve made on the Court’s decision, was that it rectified its earlier error, which is correct.

That is incorrect. They found the original decision justified, and specified that Congress could pass a new law with similar effect. They have upheld the right of the federal government to enforce the 15th Amendment, which is reasonable considering that’s exactly what it says.
http://www.archives.gov/historical-docs/todays-doc/?dod-date=203
- Zachriel | 04/13/2014 @ 05:23
We didn’t say the Court was infallible, indeed, we said just the opposite.

Then what is the point y’all were trying to make here?

That is incorrect. The Civil Rights Act has been held constitutional over the years, but the recent Supreme Court decision found the circumstances that existed then no longer applied, quoting precedent “In 1966, these departures were justified by the ‘blight of racial discrimination in voting’ that had ‘infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century’”.

Y’all have already demonstrated how we invite error, in fact glaring error, when we rely on other people to do our reasoning for us. Now y’all are backpedaling and saying the Supremes are not infallible, you never said they were, and y’all “said just the opposite.”

So I guess y’all have also demonstrated the folly of multiple users logging in under the same ID to argue on a blog. Those two things, not much else…
- mkfreeberg | 04/13/2014 @ 06:52
mkfreeberg: Then what is the point y’all were trying to make here?

We’re not arguing whether the decision is or was correct, only that you have misstated what the decision.

Z: So you are simply wrong on what the Court decided.

mkfreeberg: Now y’all are backpedaling and saying the Supremes are not infallible, you never said they were, and y’all “said just the opposite.”

We did, in direct response to you.

mk: The SCOTUS is made up of mortals, who often get things wrong.

Z: Sure.
- Zachriel | 04/13/2014 @ 08:39
Mkay. Well, meanwhile, Section 5 of the VRA is unconstitutional — which means, it always has been. The relevant parts of the Constitution have not been subject to change since the 1960’s; Section 5 of the VRA was not subject to change before it was ruled unconstitutional. So the best information we have is, it was unconstitutional from the very beginning.

The concepts involved are not complicated or hard. “The rules work this way for you if you’re from this jurisdiction, and in some other way if you’re from some other jurisdiction” — that is not equal protection. By the way, this is a boolean thing. It’s either equal-protection, or not-equal-protection. There are not increments, so there is no middle-ground, it’s all of one or none of the other.

So the Supreme Court eventually corrected its mistake. It fell short of admitting that it was a mistake; but who cares. Give ’em another fifty years, maybe they’ll come around. Meanwhile, out here in the real world where we have to build things that actually work, “equal” and “unequal” mean different things. If our nation’s capitol is in some special universe where those things are not different…well…that need not concern us real people out here, who have red blood in our veins, and are burdened with the daily task of building things that actually work. The idea-people who live in the world of ideas are done interfering with us, on this one issue anyway, and that’s a good thing.
- mkfreeberg | 04/13/2014 @ 16:17
mkfreeberg: Well, meanwhile, Section 5 of the VRA is unconstitutional —

The renewal is unconstitutional, not the original Act.

mkfreeberg: which means, it always has been.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

mkfreeberg: “The rules work this way for you if you’re from this jurisdiction, and in some other way if you’re from some other jurisdiction” — that is not equal protection.

Equal protection doesn’t mean the law can’t make distinctions. The 15th Amendment gives Congress the right to enforce voting rights. Southern states engages in generations of oppression against black voters, so Congress instituted oversight of the electoral process. Convicted criminals can have some of their rights revoked. In this case, there was no punishment—though well deserved—, just supervision of the electoral process. You have misrepresented what the Court has found.

None of this addresses the issue of political risk. Your argument that passage of civil rights legislation wasn’t politically risky in 1965 because some portions of the Civil Rights Act are , nearly half a century later, no longer constitutional because conditions of changed, is simply untenable.
- Zachriel | 04/13/2014 @ 16:35
The renewal is unconstitutional, not the original Act.

Mumbo jumbo. As has already been made clear to you, the original act has not been modified in the interim, nor has the Constitution. The object of the exercise is to reconcile the act with the Constitution, period. If it’s unconstitutional now, it was at the beginning, regardless of circumstance. And it is irreconcilable with the Constitution. It has always been so.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Then they’re wrong.
- mkfreeberg | 04/13/2014 @ 21:13
mkfreeberg: As has already been made clear to you, the original act has not been modified in the interim, nor has the Constitution.

That is incorrect. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was amended in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006. The question raised in Shelby County v. Holder was the 2006 reauthorization.

mkfreeberg: If it’s unconstitutional now, it was at the beginning, regardless of circumstance.

That’s certainly not the opinion of the Supreme Court in 1966, or since.

mkfreeberg: Then they’re wrong.

Perhaps, but your claim was that they have overturned the original Act, which is not the case. Please read the decision, Shelby County v. Holder, and correct your statements on this.

Furthermore, this does nothing to support your claim about political risk. The invasion of Iraq was not an act of political courage, because the Bush Administration had wide public support and thought it would be a cakewalk. The surge in Iraq was an act of political courage, because Bush stood alone, with virtually no public support, and with a high risk of failure.
- Zachriel | 04/14/2014 @ 05:02
That is incorrect. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was amended in 1970, 1975, 1982, 1992, and 2006. The question raised in Shelby County v. Holder was the 2006 reauthorization.

Misleading. They did not strike down the 2006 amendment, they struck down Sections 4 and 5.

Petitioner Shelby County, in the covered jurisdiction of Alabama, sued the Attorney General in Federal District Court in Washington, D. C., seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 4(b) and 5 are facially unconstitutional, as well as a permanent injunction against their enforcement. The District Court upheld the Act, finding that the evidence before Congress in 2006 was sufficient to justify reauthorizing § 5 and continuing § 4(b)’s coverage formula. The D. C. Circuit affirmed. After surveying the evidence in the record, that court accepted Congress’s conclusion that § 2 litigation remained inadequate in the covered jurisdictions to protect the rights of minority voters, that § 5 was therefore still necessary, and that the coverage formula continued to pass constitutional muster.

Held: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to pre-clearance.

So Congress didn’t screw the pooch in 2006. They did so at the very beginning. And why would y’all try to assert otherwise? Aren’t y’all trying to make the point that when 2+2=4 at one time, and circumstances change, well golly 5 might be the correct answer at another time? Thought that was the true focus of our disagreement here. “Something extraordinary is happening and now unequal means equal.”

It’s as if conditions are supposed to somehow improve if one merely listens to one’s own pomposities. Oh well, that explains Chicago, Detroit and the healthcare.gov launch.
- mkfreeberg | 04/14/2014 @ 05:44
mkfreeberg: They did not strike down the 2006 amendment, they struck down Sections 4 and 5.

Of the 2006 law. Everything you posted confirms that it was the renewal at issue, not the original law.

“sufficient to justify reauthorizing”

“therefore still necessary”

“can no longer be used”

Reading the decision further:

“imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs”

“The Court nonetheless upheld the Act, concluding that such an ‘uncommon exercise of congressional power’ could be justified by ‘exceptional conditions.'”

“Nearly 50 years later, things have changed dramatically.”

It’s all about the circumstances that apply today. So you are wrong to say that the Supreme Court ruled that the original Act was in error. Indeed, they say exactly the opposite.

“These basic principles guide review of the question presented here..,. In 1966, these departures were justified by the ‘blight of racial discrimination in voting’ that had ‘infected the electoral process in parts of our country for nearly a century’”.
- Zachriel | 04/14/2014 @ 06:01
Actually, I have been quite consistent in my claim that there is a difference between what the Supreme Court finds, and what is right. The potential, in fact, is always there. This is called “fallibility” and, in fact, y’all have agreed to it. It would be silly not to, in fact, since as I’ve already pointed out, if they were infallible then all their decisions would be nine-zip.

Now that we have dispensed with that, let’s proceed to the associate justice who got it right:

However one aggregates the data compiled by Congress, it cannot justify the considerable burdens created by §5. As the Court aptly notes:

“[N]o one can fairly say that [the record] shows anything approaching the ‘pervasive,’ ‘flagrant,’ ‘widespread,’ and ‘rampant’ discrimination that faced Congress in 1965, and that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the Nation at that time.”

Indeed, circumstances in the covered jurisdictions can no longer be characterized as “exceptional” or “unique.” “The extensive pattern of discrimination that led the Court to previously uphold §5 as enforcing the Fifteenth Amendment no longer exists.” Section 5 is, thus, unconstitutional.

While the Court claims to “issue no holding on §5 itself,” its own opinion compellingly demonstrates that Congress has failed to justify “‘current burdens’” with a record demonstrating “‘current needs.’ By leaving the inevitable conclusion unstated, the Court needlessly prolongs the demise of that provision. For the reasons stated in the Court’s opinion, I would find §5 unconstitutional.

There’s a certain level of sophistication and maturity that must be reached to grasp this. When someone says “A, therefore B” there are two arguments being presented, not just one: First, A (changing circumstances can magically make something constitutional that otherwise would not be); and second, the logical conclusion that if A, then we must know B. The thing y’all are missing is that by providing a rebuttal against the latter, the opposition is not necessarily agreeing to the former.

Nor should they. Unconstitutional acts become constitutional if the circumstances might merit? That’s just silly. As I’ve already explained, if the Supreme Court says otherwise, even if they consistently state otherwise — they’re wrong. If it works like that, then why have a Constitution at all?

From Marbury vs. Madison (1803):

So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If, then, the Courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the Legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those, then, who controvert the principle that the Constitution is to be considered in court as a paramount law are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the Constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written Constitutions. It would declare that an act which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare that, if the Legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the Legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.
- mkfreeberg | 04/14/2014 @ 06:22
mkfreeberg: I have been quite consistent in my claim that there is a difference between what the Supreme Court finds, and what is right.

While you did misrepresent what the Court found, you have correctly pointed out that the Court is not infallible.

mkfreeberg: As the Court aptly notes: “[N]o one can fairly say that [the record] shows anything approaching the ‘pervasive,’ ‘flagrant,’ ‘widespread,’ and ‘rampant’ discrimination that faced Congress in 1965, and that clearly distinguished the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the Nation at that time.”

Good. You had pled ignorance of the pernicious effects of voter discrimination, so perhaps this will enlighten you.

mkfreeberg: While the Court claims to “issue no holding on §5 itself,”

Good, so that’s settled then. The Court issued no holding on §5 itself.

mkfreeberg: Unconstitutional acts become constitutional if the circumstances might merit?

That’s what the Court found. The 15th Amendment gives Congress the power to protect voting rights of minorities. The Court held that Congress exercised that power appropriately when circumstances required, but that they exceeded that authority when circumstances changed.
- Zachriel | 04/14/2014 @ 06:32
While you did misrepresent what the Court found…

Y’all are the ones misrepresenting what the Court found. They did not roll back the 2006 amendment and go back to the way things worked before 2006. They declared the entire situational premise, under which the law might have been declared constitutional (and was, once upon a time, incorrectly — in MY view) to no longer be in effect.

Good, so that’s settled then. The Court issued no holding on §5 itself.

But they should’ve. It’s irreconcilable with the equal-protection clause, as I have said.

This is where y’all have to achieve an understanding of the difference between opinion and fact. The Supreme Court can form an opinion that “unequal is equal,” or that “exceptional circumstances make unequal equal.” That doesn’t make it so.
- mkfreeberg | 04/14/2014 @ 06:49
Zachriel: Good, so that’s settled then. The Court issued no holding on §5 itself.

mkfreeberg: But they should’ve.

But they didn’t. You were wrong above when you said otherwise.
- Zachriel | 04/14/2014 @ 06:51
Okay, so our dispute is on whether they ruled Section 4 unconstitutional or whether they ruled Section 5 unconstitutional.

The point of the post is the conflict between people who define things and people who don’t define things. It’s funny how y’all have to pick at these fine details, in y’all’s crusade to stop things from being defined.

So fine, let’s clear that up:

In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, the Court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required. But much more importantly, it held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which sets out the formula that is used to determine which state and local governments must comply with Section 5’s preapproval requirement, is unconstitutional and can no longer be used. Thus, although Section 5 survives, it will have no actual effect unless and until Congress can enact a new statute to determine who should be covered by it.

Meanwhile, Justice Thomas’ words remain true, on whether the whole arrangement is actually constitutional. And is this a difference that is meaningful? We’ll have to wait for Congress to take up this cause, and see what they write, along with how they justify it. In the meantime, the default answer is no.
- mkfreeberg | 04/14/2014 @ 07:01
mkfreeberg: In an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts that was joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, the Court did not invalidate the principle that preclearance can be required.

Which means you were wrong that the Courts had determined otherwise. Circumstances can and do matter when deciding constitutional issues. Glad that’s cleared up.

mkfreeberg: Meanwhile, Justice Thomas’ words remain true, on whether the whole arrangement is actually constitutional.

Which means you were wrong that the Courts had determined otherwise. Only Thomas would vote to strike down preclearance entirely.
- Zachriel | 04/14/2014 @ 07:07
[…] it on down the line. This is why liberals react to specificity like vampires to garlic — they say they’re for gassy platitudes like “social justice,” but when you […]
- Dreaming the Unpossible Dream | Rotten Chestnuts | 04/14/2014 @ 09:23
Circumstances can and do matter when deciding constitutional issues.

Well, if that’s what it takes to make lefty ideas look like good ones…but, no. Circumstances do not change hard-science questions of “does this law conflict with that one?” anymore than they change “what is the product of these two factors?”

Only Thomas would vote to strike down preclearance entirely.

They all could; it seems only Thomas would.

You know, it’s odd. I have yet to hear a logical argument about how preclearance could be reconciled with the notion of equal protection under the law. You live in Alabama, your vote goes through this process, you live in Vermont your vote goes through some other process — and it’s the federal government deciding that, based on where you live.

I’m sure with a lot of highbrow speeches that could be made to look like “equal protection” — or maybe, to be precise about it we have to call it “unequal we’re calling ‘equal’ but we have a great excuse for doing so, extraordinary circumstances blah blah blah.” Meanwhile…unequal is not equal. It’s just a fact. If Thomas is the only one who got it right, I guess that means SCOTUS is 88.89% cocked up. Hey, I didn’t make it that way, just pointing it out.

Which means you were wrong that the Courts had determined otherwise.

Until Congress acts, in the aftermath of this decision, where can Section 5 of the VRA be enforced? And how?
- mkfreeberg | 04/14/2014 @ 18:29
mkfreeberg: Circumstances do not change hard-science questions of “does this law conflict with that one?” anymore than they change “what is the product of these two factors?”

Law is not “hard science”. The 15th Amendment says that Congress can enforce voting rights by “appropriate legislation”. What is appropriate in one circumstance may not be appropriate in another.

mkfreeberg: They all could; it seems only Thomas would.

That’s right, so there’s no doubt where the court stands on the issue, contradicting your claim above.

mkfreeberg: I have yet to hear a logical argument about how preclearance could be reconciled with the notion of equal protection under the law.

Southern state governments were guilty of violating equal protection. They were on supervised probation. You said you were ignorant of this history, but it was detailed in the original voting rights act, as well as described generally in Shelby County v. Holder.

mkfreeberg: You live in Alabama, your vote goes through this process, you live in Vermont your vote goes through some other process — and it’s the federal government deciding that, based on where you live.

Well, the state of Alabama shouldn’t have conspired to rob generations of blacks of their rights.

mkfreeberg: Until Congress acts, in the aftermath of this decision, where can Section 5 of the VRA be enforced?

As the formula for preclearance has been overturned, until Congress acts, section 5 can no longer be enforced; however, the Voting Rights Can can still be enforced, after the fact, through section 2.
- Zachriel | 04/15/2014 @ 05:25
Law is not “hard science”.

Ah. Now we see where y’all went wrong.

Equal, unequal. Them two are different things. This part of it is not open for debate. Lots of things in life are like that.

As the formula for preclearance has been overturned, until Congress acts, section 5 can no longer be enforced; however, the Voting Rights Can can still be enforced, after the fact, through section 2.

When THAT happens, drop me a line about your quibbles.
- mkfreeberg | 04/15/2014 @ 06:16
mkfreeberg: Equal, unequal. Them two are different things.

That’s right. Law is not “hard science” and doesn’t use the same methods.

The word at issue is “appropriate”. Consider terms such as “beyond a reasonable doubt” or “preponderance of the evidence” or “reasonable person principle”. These all require the courts to evaluate circumstances, as well as law. That’s why they’re called judges.

mkfreeberg: When THAT happens, drop me a line about your quibbles.

We take it, then, that you have dropped your claim that circumstances are not part of constitutional law.
- Zachriel | 04/15/2014 @ 06:19
The word at issue is “appropriate”.

No, the word at issue is “equal.”

These all require the courts to evaluate circumstances, as well as law. That’s why they’re called judges.

And — just because they’re judges, doesn’t mean ALL of the judging they do is proper. Once they’re in the realm of calling unequal equal, they’re biffing it so badly that they’ve defeated the purpose of the entire system, including the Constitution and the judicial officers who interpret it.

“No speeding. Speed limit 65.” Well the judge’s wife tears through it at 110, gets busted, and the decision is…we’ll just call it 65. There’s no justice when “interpretation” is used to relabel things that are something else.
- mkfreeberg | 04/15/2014 @ 06:29
mkfreeberg: No, the word at issue is “equal.”

Yes, you equated law and “hard science”. They’re not the same, and use very different methods.

mkfreeberg: And — just because they’re judges, doesn’t mean ALL of the judging they do is proper.

The Supreme Court was proper to rule on the Voting Rights Act, even if you disagree with their decision.

mkfreeberg: Well the judge’s wife tears through it at 110, gets busted, and the decision is…we’ll just call it 65.

Right. So the 15th Amendment provides voting rights, and Alabama broke that law. (We remember you professed ignorance of this, but perhaps you have since done a bit of historical research. The violations were long term and egregious.) So Alabama was put on supervised probation. They say they’ve reformed, and sued to end their probation. The Court ruled that circumstances had changed substantially, so probation was no longer appropriate.
- Zachriel | 04/15/2014 @ 06:37
Yes, you equated law and “hard science”. They’re not the same, and use very different methods.

Right. When the question is “Is unequal the same as equal” y’all want to use circumstances, wisdom of strangers, mysterious political agendas, gut feel, magical incantations…

Is “110 mph > 65 mph” hard science?
- mkfreeberg | 04/15/2014 @ 06:39
So the 15th Amendment provides voting rights, and Alabama broke that law. (We remember you professed ignorance of this, but perhaps you have since done a bit of historical research. The violations were long term and egregious.) So Alabama was put on supervised probation. They say they’ve reformed, and sued to end their probation. The Court ruled that circumstances had changed substantially, so probation was no longer appropriate.

This is something that comes up now and then, usually right before wretchedly bad ideas. “We know something, and someone else is ignorant of it so that makes us wise therefore this must be a good idea.”

Seems to me y’all are jumping the gun on “we remember you professed ignorance of this.” First of all, what does it matter, I’m just a stranger on the Internet. But where did I profess this ignorance?
- mkfreeberg | 04/15/2014 @ 06:43
mkfreeberg: When the question is “Is unequal the same as equal” y’all want to use circumstances, wisdom of strangers, mysterious political agendas, gut feel, magical incantations…

What are the terms of the equality or inequality to which you are referring?

mkfreeberg: Is “110 mph > 65 mph” hard science?

Yes. Did Alabama deny the voting rights of blacks for generations?

mkfreeberg: Seems to me y’all are jumping the gun on “we remember you professed ignorance of this.” First of all, what does it matter, I’m just a stranger on the Internet.

It matters to the determination of “appropriate legislation” under the 15th Amendment. It calls into question your understanding of American history, and the attitudes people have towards it.

mkfreeberg: where did I profess this ignorance?

Z: Are you arguing that southern states were not complicit in preventing blacks from voting?

mk: Wouldn’t know, it was before my time.
- Zachriel | 04/15/2014 @ 06:56
Z: We remember you professed ignorance of this, but perhaps you have since done a bit of historical research. The violations were long term and egregious.

M: [W]here did I profess this ignorance?

Z: quotes M: Wouldn’t know, it was before my time.

Alright, I see the problem then. I’ve laid out a sensible and consistent argument that these historical wrongs are irrelevant to the question. Seems y’all have entirely ignored that, even though it cuts to the heart of the difference between states, and the people living in them.

In effect, y’all are trying to make two different things into the same thing — simply by ignoring any differences. For example:

Did Alabama deny the voting rights of blacks for generations?

The answer to which is: There are certainly a lot of people living in Alabama who never did that. True?

This is a fascinating thing about liberals. For all the prattling on they do about “sitting down with our enemies and talking out our differences,” they have a very militaristic approach to this. Their side is always to prevail completely, with absolutely nothing to be learned from the opposition’s case — it is to be vanished into the cornfield, like the opinion of a Captain when a Colonel has a different idea about the same question. Transported into the universe of Sen. Aaron McComb and missing socks.

Ignoring things systematically, in this way, leads to…ignorance. Hence the term.

So we can settle the matter that the people living and voting in Alabama, are different from Alabama itself. Right? Since they are.
- mkfreeberg | 04/16/2014 @ 06:49
mkfreeberg: I’ve laid out a sensible and consistent argument that these historical wrongs are irrelevant to the question.

Your original contention was that the Supreme Court had overturned preclearance, which they did not. They only overturned a particular formula for preclearance. They specifically said that preclearance was constitutional.

As for whether historical wrongs are relevant, well, it’s hard to imagine that the 15th Amendment could have been enforced in 1965 absent preclearance.

mkfreeberg: The answer to which is: There are certainly a lot of people living in Alabama who never did that.

That’s not an answer. Previously you pled ignorance. The question concerned the state government of Alabama, which has responsibilities under the Constitution, including the 14th and 15th Amendment.

mkfreeberg: True?

Absolutely. Some Alabamians were not only innocent, but actively worked against segregation.
http://www.uab.edu/civilrights/images/Event_Icons/ScreeningPic.jpg

Did the state of Alabama systematically deny the voting rights of blacks for generations?
- Zachriel | 04/16/2014 @ 07:17
Your original contention was that the Supreme Court had overturned preclearance, which they did not.

Really. Where, in the aftermath of this decision, can preclearance be properly exercised, until Congress acts?
- mkfreeberg | 04/16/2014 @ 18:15
mkfreeberg: Where, in the aftermath of this decision, can preclearance be properly exercised, until Congress acts?

They can’t. But that’s the point. The Court specifically noted that preclearance was constitutional, but no longer under the old formula.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2014 @ 05:24
Did the state of Alabama systematically deny the voting rights of blacks for generations?
- Zachriel | 04/17/2014 @ 05:24
Are there people in Alabama who are legally entitled to vote, under the age of 40?
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2014 @ 05:35
They can’t. But that’s the point. The Court specifically noted that preclearance was constitutional, but no longer under the old formula.

Let’s call that “under the existing formula,” until there is a new formula.

So it isn’t constitutional.
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2014 @ 05:36
mkfreeberg: Are there people in Alabama who are legally entitled to vote, under the age of 40?

Sure. And they still could under the Voting Rights Act. Indeed, the Voting Rights Act protects that right to vote for millions who were previously denied that right.

You didn’t answer, though. Did the state of Alabama systematically deny the voting rights of blacks for generations?

mkfreeberg: Let’s call that “under the existing formula,” until there is a new formula.

That would be incorrect, as there is no existing formula. The old formula was based on the long history of persecution in the South. However, the South has changed substantially since that time. Any new formula would need to be a uniform standard across the states. Under such a standard, if a locality was shown to have a practice of violating voting rights, then they could constitutionally be put under supervision, i.e. preclearance.

mkfreeberg: So it isn’t constitutional.

The Supreme Court specifically has said that preclearance was constitutional, from Katzenbach to Shelby.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2014 @ 05:56
You didn’t answer, though. Did the state of Alabama systematically deny the voting rights of blacks for generations?

Y’all just did answer y’all’s own question.

Unless this happened in the last 40 years, the people y’all were just talking about couldn’t possibly have done it. And that would mean pre-clearance punishes them for things they haven’t done.

This may come as a bit of a shock, but there’s a reason states pass laws about voting. It isn’t to deny the vote to people who may or may not be entitled to vote; it is to protect the votes, of those who definitely are.

Protection. Equal. A fourteenth-amendment guarantee.

A guarantee has to be honored by the guarantor, in order to be worth anything.
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2014 @ 06:49
Z: The Court specifically noted that preclearance was constitutional, but no longer under the old formula.

M: Let’s call that “under the existing formula,” until there is a new formula.

Z: That would be incorrect, as there is no existing formula.

Okay, then preclearance could be constitutional again once there is a new formula, but until that happens, it isn’t.

I think, when y’all’s argument depends on confusing “does exist” with “does not exist,” it’s probably time for y’all to declare defeat and walk away proud. That’s a concept much more fundamental to reality than “constitutional” vs. “unconstitutional,” and when we take the time to dissect it y’all’s viewpoint still doesn’t make sense yet. Keep digging, though. What’s next, splitting atoms?
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2014 @ 06:52
mkfreeberg: Y’all just did answer y’all’s own question.

We had pled ignorance previously. Did the state of Alabama systematically deny the voting rights of blacks for generations?

mkfreeberg: Unless this happened in the last 40 years, the people y’all were just talking about couldn’t possibly have done it.

Your claim is that the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act isn’t subject to change in circumstances, and that the Court had ruled as such. Hence, a discussion of changing circumstances is relevant to the discussion. In any case, you were wrong on both claims. The constitutionality does depend on circumstance, because that is a component of what is meant by “appropriate legislation”, and the Supreme Court has ruled that circumstances matter, indeed, if the very core of the recent Shelby decision.

mkfreeberg: This may come as a bit of a shock, but there’s a reason states pass laws about voting. It isn’t to deny the vote to people who may or may not be entitled to vote; it is to protect the votes, of those who definitely are.

Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations? If you don’t know, just say so. We’ll be happy to provide documentation.
http://civrights.wikispaces.com/file/view/amelia_bloody-sun.jpg/143779451/amelia_bloody-sun.jpg

mkfreeberg: Protection. Equal. A fourteenth-amendment guarantee.

These people were trying to register to vote in Alabama. Is this equal protection?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N3qm8GQE148/T1ZuzBMFG7I/AAAAAAAAAag/s34jzBbkapg/s400/Selma+March+1965.jpg

mkfreeberg: A guarantee has to be honored by the guarantor, in order to be worth anything.

That’s right. And the 15th Amendment gives Congress the power to enforce voting rights. Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations?
- Zachriel | 04/17/2014 @ 07:07
Z: {You} had pled ignorance previously.
- Zachriel | 04/17/2014 @ 07:07
Do y’all make it a habit of asking questions of people y’all have made up y’all’s minds don’t know anything about those questions? That’s a very odd way to get information. No wonder y’all’s opinions don’t make any sense.

Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations?

Unless this happened in the last 40 years, the people y’all were just talking about couldn’t possibly have done it. I’m right about that, aren’t I?
- mkfreeberg | 04/17/2014 @ 18:51
mkfreeberg: Do y’all make it a habit of asking questions of people y’all have made up y’all’s minds don’t know anything about those questions?

Ignorance is curable.

Zachriel: Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations?

mkfreeberg: Unless this happened in the last 40 years, the people y’all were just talking about couldn’t possibly have done it.

Among your false claims on this thread is that circumstances are irrelevant to the constitutional question. To evaluate that claim, it does matter what happened in the past, and whether legislation was “appropriate”. Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations?
http://dilemmaxdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/john-lewis-04.jpg
- Zachriel | 04/18/2014 @ 03:39
Ignorance is curable.

We are all ignorant and always will be.

“Learning is possible” would be a more accurate way to put it. But the ignorant has to want to do the learning for it to be effective. And, practicing ignorance is not the same as learning new things.

Among your false claims on this thread is that circumstances are irrelevant to the constitutional question.

That’s not a false claim. That, right there, is a true claim.

Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations?

There are people living in Alabama, right now, who did not. That should be a good enough answer.

I’m right about that, aren’t I?
- mkfreeberg | 04/18/2014 @ 04:37
Zachriel: Among your false claims on this thread is that circumstances are irrelevant to the constitutional question.

mkfreeberg: That’s not a false claim. That, right there, is a true claim.

Well, you say it is a true claim, but refuse to defend it.

Zachriel: Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations?

mkfreeberg: There are people living in Alabama, right now, who did not. That should be a good enough answer.

No, it’s not an answer. The question is relevant to your claim that circumstances are not relevant to what is “appropriate legislation”. The Supreme Court has said, repeatedly, that circumstance do matter. Not only on this issue, but other issues as well. That you refuse to discuss this is not an argument, but a clear sign that you have no argument.

There are people living in Alabama today who were part of the problem in 1965. There were Alabamians who were innocent of the problem in 1965. But that’s not relevant. The state itself has responsibilities under the constitution. The state of Alabama was guilty of oppressive voter discrimination over generations. The Congress is empowered by the 15th Amendment to enforce voting rights. They did this by putting Alabama elections under federal supervision. Since then, Alabama has changed, and the Court has ruled that supervision is no longer appropriate.
- Zachriel | 04/18/2014 @ 09:21
Well, you say it is a true claim, but refuse to defend it.

As I’ve noted before: Y’all have a **very** low bar imposed on y’all’selves, when it comes to falsifying claims. That’s all it takes?
- mkfreeberg | 04/18/2014 @ 17:58
You seem to have abandoned any pretense of supporting your claims.

Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations? If you don’t know, you can simply say so.
- Zachriel | 04/18/2014 @ 18:35
You seem to have abandoned any pretense of supporting your claims.

I seem to have done this…to whom? Why would I abandon a position of “the Constitution means what it says,” or “There are people living in Alabama who have nothing to do with your vendetta”? These are factual.

Y’all seem, to me, to have become overly fond of a certain cliche of discourse, and made the mistake of deploying it in a situation where it isn’t suitable.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2014 @ 05:12
mkfreeberg: I seem to have done this

Sure you have as is evident by your refusal to answer simple questions about your position. Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations? You previously admitted to ignorance, however, it is part of the legislative and court record concerning the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

mkfreeberg: Why would I abandon a position of “the Constitution means what it says,”

Fifteenth Amendment

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

What part of “Congress shall have the power” do you not understand?
- Zachriel | 04/19/2014 @ 06:23
Sure you have as is evident by your refusal to answer simple questions about your position. Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations? You previously admitted to ignorance, however, it is part of the legislative and court record concerning the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

I never agreed it was relevant.

Y’all are really bad at this.

There were Alabamians who were innocent of the problem in 1965. But that’s not relevant.

It’s not relevant that y’all are proposing punishment upon people, for crimes they never committed?

Y’all are really bad at this.

What part of “Congress shall have the power” do you not understand?

Let us pretend that this “probation” y’all call it, is kinder to the Constitution than it really is. Congress, with the power to enforce with appropriate legislation granted under the 15th amendment, tries Alabama and finds it guilty. Congress passes sentence. It meets one time, to declare a set, limited term of time throughout which the probationary period is to apply. Having declared that, Congress can never again modify this probationary period (unless Alabama is found, by Congress, to be guilty of some other crime). This probationary term is guaranteed to end after the expiration of that term. It cannot be lengthened under any circumstances, for that offense, but it might possibly be abbreviated if Alabama demonstrates good behavior.

That would make Congress’ role functionally equivalent to that of…a judge. With some jury powers thrown in.

Two responses are available to y’all if y’all want to continue propping up this specious argument: 1. mkfreeberg‘s hypothetical is a bad one, it does not reflect fact. Which is technically true — what has been practiced against the Southern states, in fact, is much more offensive to our system of a constitutional republic with identified and limited powers accorded to the three branches of government. Or, 2. Yeah, so?

If y’all opt for Door #1, y’all are effectively saying that such actions become more compatible with our system of constitutional representation, when the abuses against the Constitution are more egregious. Which would be silly. If y’all opt for Door #2, that would have the virtue of being more honest since y’all would be admitting that the American political system is for losers and squares, who needs it, that “Separation of Powers” thing is getting in the way of y’all’s fun. We could call that the “Piers Morgan approach” or something.

But, here in America, we happen to like our separation of powers. We like being protected against the tyranny of the majority. It’s a drag from time to time when we want to see someone punished just because they happen to be unpopular…wait long enough, that’ll always happen. But, it’s a system of necessary trade-offs. It’s against our value systems to approve of someone being continually punished, like Titus Oates, indefinitely or as long as it happens to be politically expedient. That’s not the American way.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2014 @ 11:35
mkfreeberg: Congress, with the power to enforce with appropriate legislation granted under the 15th amendment, tries Alabama and finds it guilty. Congress passes sentence.

It’s not a sentence, but supervised elections. It was reviewed by the Court, who found that the legislation was appropriate to protecting the right to vote for all Alabamians.

mkfreeberg: Having declared that, Congress can never again modify this probationary period (unless Alabama is found, by Congress, to be guilty of some other crime).

The renewals were also reviewed by the Courts. While previous renewals were left intact, Shelby County v. Holder found that preclearance was no longer appropriate.

mkfreeberg: It cannot be lengthened under any circumstances, for that offense, but it might possibly be abbreviated if Alabama demonstrates good behavior.

It can be renewed for as long as it is needed to ensure all Alabamians can vote.

mkfreeberg: That would make Congress’ role functionally equivalent to that of…a judge. With some jury powers thrown in.

No. The courts were the judge, with the power to review the legislation.

mkfreeberg: But, here in America, we happen to like our separation of powers.

Sure, which is why the Voting Rights Act had to be enacted by the legislature, signed and executed by the president, and reviewed by the courts.

In any case, you seem to understand now that Alabama’s behavior was egregious, and needed to be put under supervision to protect the rights of Alabamians to vote, and that this power was granted by the Constitution under the Fifteenth Amendment.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2014 @ 13:21
It’s not a sentence, but supervised elections. It was reviewed by the Court, who found that the legislation was appropriate to protecting the right to vote for all Alabamians.

Right. A sentence would have to be imposed, one time. The judge would not have the luxury of being asked periodically “How about now, is it okay to end his house arrest now” and answering “no.” They don’t have that much power.

And yet, judges and justices are supposed to be vested with all of “the judicial power of the United States.” U.S. Constitution, Article III. Separation of powers doctrine can be such a drag! But that’s how our system is supposed to work.

In any case, you seem to understand now that Alabama’s behavior was egregious…

This is where lefties lose fact, logic and truth — willfully. Here comes an inconvenient, but simple and durable, argument hostile to the leftist position. And here comes the retort: “Yeah, but such-and-such, which was glorious, spectacular, mega-awesome, or awful, terrible, egregious, therefore we must do the opposite.”

It is the triumph of emotion over reason. The cessation of what separates humans from wild animals.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2014 @ 17:22
mkfreeberg: A sentence would have to be imposed, one time.

It’s not a sentence, and the Fifteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to protect the voting rights of all Alabamians. It becomes a matter of whether the remedy is appropriate, something which can change over time.

mkfreeberg: And yet, judges and justices are supposed to be vested with all of “the judicial power of the United States.”

Yes, and the Voting Rights Act is subject to judicial oversight, including the formula which put Alabama under supervision.

mkfreeberg: And here comes the retort: “Yeah, but such-and-such, which was glorious, spectacular, mega-awesome, or awful, terrible, egregious, therefore we must do the opposite.”

It’s hard to parse that, but presumably you’re arguing that the remedy was not “appropriate legislation” under the Fifteenth Amendment. The only way to determine whether it is appropriate is to examine the situation that led to the Voting Rights Act. Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations?
- Zachriel | 04/19/2014 @ 18:42
It’s not a sentence, and the Fifteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to protect the voting rights of all Alabamians.

First of all, it doesn’t protect the voting rights of Alabamians to put the U.S. Attorney General in charge of their elections, when from time to time the A.G.’s interest may not be aligned (like right now) with the preferences of the majority of those Alabamians; and second of all, as has already been explained to y’all, if there’s any difference between this “probation” and an actual sentence, the observable difference shows what is being practice to be more offensive to the U.S. Constitution, not less so.

Third of all: The authorization says “appropriate legislation.” So the question must arise, is it “appropriate” for Congress to extend this probationary period, indefinitely, across decades and generations, as long as it is politically expedient? That question would be answerable with a yes or a no.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2014 @ 19:03
mkfreeberg: First of all, it doesn’t protect the voting rights of Alabamians to put the U.S. Attorney General in charge of their elections

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has oversight.

mkfreeberg: if there’s any difference between this “probation” and an actual sentence, the observable difference shows what is being practice to be more offensive to the U.S. Constitution, not less so.

The 15th Amendment is part of the constitution, so the only question is whether the legislation is an appropriate remedy, and you can’t discuss that without understanding the history. The history, by the way, was explicitly considered by the legislature and judiciary.

mkfreeberg: So the question must arise, is it “appropriate” for Congress to extend this probationary period, indefinitely, across decades and generations, as long as it is politically expedient?

No. And that was the basis of the Shelby decision.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2014 @ 19:33
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia has oversight.

The political class has oversight. Over elections.

Yeah, that’s what the country needs.
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2014 @ 19:42
The courts have oversight of the legislative process.
- Zachriel | 04/19/2014 @ 19:56
The courts have oversight of the legislative process.

So preclearance is in keeping with America’s separation-of-powers principles?
- mkfreeberg | 04/19/2014 @ 21:02
mkfreeberg: So preclearance is in keeping with America’s separation-of-powers principles?

It consistent with the separation of executive, legislative, and judicial functions. It is an exception to federalism, but the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments superseded the 10th Amendment. Among other things, states could no longer independently decide the slave question.
- Zachriel | 04/20/2014 @ 05:14
And, I’m sure there are people who agree. Even people who practice law, teach law, serve in all sorts of courts including the Supreme Court.

But at the end of the day, the change is bigger than the design of the system, and thus defeats the design. We in America are not good with the idea of the political class achieving greater power over declaring who gets to vote, or how, or when. Eric Holder gets to decide on the motives of Alabama’s latest voting laws? Try, as a hypothetical: John Ashcroft gets to decide the same thing about Hawaii, Illinois, Vermont, or the District of Columbia.

And Americans don’t consider it “legislative” to say: This person has to do such-and-such a thing. Or is to be punished in such-and-such a way. That is judicial.

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

The rule that says citizens are to enjoy equal protection under the law, is part of this 13th-14th-15th triad that y’all say supersedes the earlier amendments. That is what is being denied to Alabamians, since the voting laws to be passed in Alabama, presumably, are passed to protect them. When the Attorney General gets to pick and choose which laws apply and which laws don’t, he might as well be able to pick and choose who votes. And once that’s done, he might as well be able to choose how the election should go. Again: John Ashcroft making the same decisions about Vermont.

The above doesn’t even begin to address the idea of this “legislative branch” meeting to decide if The South has been behaving, and it’s time for the probation to be lifted. Being a political animal, it will decide, of course, in perpetuity, that they’re not done enjoying this special power just yet. While new generations of Alabamians are born and older generations die off, and justice is thwarted.

Indeed, that is exactly what has been happening.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2014 @ 06:20
mkfreeberg: Eric Holder gets to decide on the motives of Alabama’s latest voting laws?

Learn to read. The courts have oversight.

mkfreeberg: Try, as a hypothetical: John Ashcroft gets to decide the same thing about Hawaii, Illinois, Vermont, or the District of Columbia.

Learn to read. The courts have oversight.

mkfreeberg: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

It’s not an ex post facto law: The Fifteenth Amendment had been on the books for nearly a century. It’s not a Bill of Attainder: They had a chance to defend their actions and to argue the constitutionality of the law in court. They lost.

mkfreeberg: The rule that says citizens are to enjoy equal protection under the law, is part of this 13th-14th-15th triad that y’all say supersedes the earlier amendments.

That’s right, and the Voting Rights Act helps to provide that equal protection with regards to voting.

mkfreeberg: That is what is being denied to Alabamians, since the voting laws to be passed in Alabama, presumably, are passed to protect them.

As was shown in the legislative and judicial records, that was not the case. Alabama and other jurisdictions were patently discriminatory.

mkfreeberg: Being a political animal, it will decide, of course, in perpetuity, that they’re not done enjoying this special power just yet.

That is certainly what the Supreme Court decided in the Shelby decision which found that the preclearance requirements based on conditions in 1965 were no longer appropriate.
- Zachriel | 04/20/2014 @ 06:32
…and the Voting Rights Act helps to provide that equal protection with regards to voting.

The right to vote is not safeguarded just because the political class gets to decide how the voting is done. That’s actually a danger to the right to vote.

As was shown in the legislative and judicial records, that was not the case. Alabama and other jurisdictions were patently discriminatory.

Gee, and the problem still isn’t fixed?

That’s a pretty good sign that whatever’s been done, hasn’t been working.

Of course, if the problem is fixed by now, then that’s a sign that the peclearance has been abused.

Either way, it’s a powerful argument against the appropriate-ness of this “appropriate legislation.” Either it’s been abused, or it’s effective. One or the other. Could be both.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2014 @ 08:46
mkfreeberg: The right to vote is not safeguarded just because the political class gets to decide how the voting is done.

In the case of the Voting Rights Act, in 1965, it certainly did safeguard the right to vote.

mkfreeberg: and the problem still isn’t fixed?

The Voting Rights Act led to a dramatic increase in black participation in elections in the South. It worked. The Court recently ruled that southern states have changed enough that there is no longer a need for preclearance. There are other mechanisms in the law which can be brought to bear if a jurisdiction violates 15th Amendment protections.
- Zachriel | 04/20/2014 @ 11:36
The Court recently ruled that southern states have changed enough that there is no longer a need for preclearance. There are other mechanisms in the law which can be brought to bear if a jurisdiction violates 15th Amendment protections.

If that is true, then there is no need for Congress to come up with a new formulation.

If preclearance is constitutional, but only so long as there is a need, and there is no need — it’s not constitutional.
- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2014 @ 12:18
mkfreeberg: If that is true, then there is no need for Congress to come up with a new formulation.

If a jurisdiction is shown to have engaged in systemic violations of voting rights, then preclearance makes sure the elections are fair in advance, rather than after the elections have already occurred.

mkfreeberg: IIf preclearance is constitutional, but only so long as there is a need, and there is no need — it’s not constitutional.

The Court ruled that preclearance was appropriate in 1965, and that preclearance could be appropriate in the future, but not under the current formula. What the court wants to see is a law crafted to account for the current circumstance.
- Zachriel | 04/20/2014 @ 12:28
If a jurisdiction is shown to have engaged in systemic violations of voting rights, then preclearance makes sure the elections are fair in advance, rather than after the elections have already occurred.

Right! It puts the people at the top of the power pyramid, who after all must be wise and fair or else they wouldn’t be there…in charge of the elections.

Nothing can EVER go wrong with that.

- mkfreeberg | 04/20/2014 @ 13:49
mkfreeberg: It puts the people at the top of the power pyramid, who after all must be wise and fair or else they wouldn’t be there…in charge of the elections.

If you mean the courts had oversight when southern states were caught violating the 15th Amendment, then sure.

You really don’t seem to be making a coherent argument. Are you saying the federal government should have not intervened to protect minority voting rights under the 15th Amendment? Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations?
- Zachriel | 04/20/2014 @ 15:23
You really don’t seem to be making a coherent argument.

I don’t seem to be that…to whom? Y’all have to remember, y’all are participating anonymously. Y’all aren’t even making it known to us who y’all are, Americans, foreigners, illegal immigrants, or how many are in y’all’s group. As such, y’all are more than welcome to support y’all’s claims, although it hasn’t escaped my notice that most of this “support” is passive-voice support, pointing to what someone else thinks. Which, although falling short of proving y’all’s arguments are bad ones, strongly suggests exactly that…

But y’all don’t get to say “seems,” or discuss in any way how things appear to y’all.

I mean, y’all can — but it doesn’t bring any weight. Such-and-such seems like so-and-so…to an anonymous group of busybodies somewhere. ++shrug++ What of it? The moon landings seem fake, to some people. The Earth seems to be six thousand years old, to some people. Sarah Palin seems to have said “I can see Russia from my house!” to some people. Who cares?
- mkfreeberg | 04/21/2014 @ 05:46
mkfreeberg: I don’t seem to be that…to whom?

To a reasonable reader. At this point, most people would clarify their meaning. None of your latest comment addresses the topic.

Are you saying the federal government should have not intervened to protect minority voting rights under the 15th Amendment? Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations?
- Zachriel | 04/21/2014 @ 05:51
To a reasonable reader.

Reasonable…to whom?

I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that when elections are out of the control of the political class, it’s a good thing, and when they’re put more under the control of the political class that’s a bad thing.

Are there people somewhere who fail to catch on to that? I’m sure there are. But why call them reasonable?
- mkfreeberg | 04/21/2014 @ 06:16
mkfreeberg: Reasonable…to whom?

We just answered that. A reasonable reader.

mkfreeberg: I think most reasonable people would acknowledge that when elections are out of the control of the political class, it’s a good thing, and when they’re put more under the control of the political class that’s a bad thing.

Elections are under the control of the political class, and have been for the last 225 years in the U.S. In the case of the Voting Rights Act, the federal government used it’s power under the 15th Amendment to protect the rights of blacks to vote.

You never answered. Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations? Are you saying the federal government should have not intervened to protect minority voting rights under the 15th Amendment?
- Zachriel | 04/21/2014 @ 10:05
M: Reasonable…to whom?

Z: We just answered that. A reasonable reader.

Self-proclaimed reasonable-ness! Well, I say I’m reasonable. Mkay, we’ve dealt with that, then.
- mkfreeberg | 04/22/2014 @ 05:59
mkfreeberg: Self-proclaimed reasonable-ness!

Not self-proclaimed, but the reasonable person principle. For instance, a reasonable person might wonder why you refuse to answer specific questions directly related to your position.

Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations? Are you saying the federal government should have not intervened to protect minority voting rights under the 15th Amendment?
- Zachriel | 04/22/2014 @ 07:31
Not self-proclaimed, but the reasonable person principle. For instance, a reasonable person might wonder why you refuse to answer specific questions directly related to your position.

And seriously consider the possibility: Maybe there was nothing to answer.

An unreasonable person would rule that out summarily, go through the motions of trying to make sense of what’s left, and come up with other excuses for never learning anything new.
- mkfreeberg | 04/22/2014 @ 18:45
[…] “‘The Debate is Over’ Syndrome” High Cost of Liberalism “Just Deal With That!” At Home With the Old Folks Stoffel Escapes…Again Mentally Deficient…You Might as Well be Arguing With a Tree Movies So Bad They’re Funny “Liberalism Works on People Who Don’t Think” The New Style Achieves Mainstream Acceptance “I’m My Own Boss…Sick and Tired of My Party Treating Me Like a Victim” Really Looking Forward to Working with These Guys Are the Clintons Still Married? Wrong Party, Hank The Depth of the Problem “Feel Free to Ridicule” Social Justice Expert April Fool’s…is the Name of the Baby Noah Arguments About Definitions […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 04/22/2014 @ 21:33
mkfreeberg: And seriously consider the possibility: Maybe there was nothing to answer.

Here’s the question: Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations?

This discussion concerned definitions. We provided the Southern Strategy as an example on the political right of the manipulation of language. This led to your claim that constitutional questions never depend on circumstance. However, the 15th Amendment grants Congress the power to enforce voting rights with “appropriate legislation”. What is appropriate does depend on circumstance, as the courts have repeatedly found with regards to the Voting Rights Act. The only way to have a reasonable discussion of this issue is to discuss the circumstances at the time of passage, and over the course of time. This is what the Court has done in multiple decisions, including the recent Shelby decision. So,

Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations? Are you saying the federal government should have not intervened to protect minority voting rights under the 15th Amendment?
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 05:19
Here’s the question: Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations?

This discussion concerned definitions.

As y’all have already conceded there are many people living in Alabama who never had anything to do with the systematic denial of voting rights, and they are the ones who would be punished by y’all’s remedies, we know y’all’s argument falls apart when we define things. The problem is with y’all’s definitions. There is the state; there is the people living within it. Those are two different things.

Just to note, this has already been explained to y’all several times. Y’all haven’t countered that the difference is ineffectual in any way, so I’m not sure what the problem is.

Are y’all saying people should be punished for living in the wrong state?
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 05:28
mkfreeberg: As y’all have already conceded there are many people living in Alabama who never had anything to do with the systematic denial of voting rights …

Sure. Even in 1965, there were people in Alabama who were not involved in denying blacks their right to vote, indeed, fought for voting rights.

mkfreeberg: and they are the ones who would be punished by y’all’s remedies, we know y’all’s argument falls apart when we define things.

No one was being punished by the Voting Rights Act. Southern states were put under supervision to make sure they stopped their patently unconstitutional actions.

But you didn’t answer. Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations? Are you saying the federal government should have not intervened to protect minority voting rights under the 15th Amendment?
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 05:33
Sure. Even in 1965, there were people in Alabama who were not involved in denying blacks their right to vote, indeed, fought for voting rights.

“Good, then it’s settled,” a Star Wars character in a conference-room-scene might say. Y’all’s inquiry is entirely irrelevant.
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 05:34
mkfreeberg: “Good, then it’s settled,” a Star Wars character in a conference-room-scene might say. Y’all’s inquiry is entirely irrelevant.

It’s odd then that Congresses, Presidents, and Courts, found it relevant. That means it’s relevant to the legislative and court records, and it’s relevant to the question of whether the legislation was, as determined by the Courts, “appropriate” under the 15th Amendment.

Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations? Are you saying the federal government should have not intervened to protect minority voting rights under the 15th Amendment?
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 06:19
It’s odd then that Congresses, Presidents, and Courts, found it relevant.

Well YEAH, especially when they’re sworn to defend the Constitution. Which is entirely my point.

Although “odd” isn’t the word I’d use.
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 17:25
mkfreeberg: Well YEAH, especially when they’re sworn to defend the Constitution.

That’s right, and the U.S. Constitution includes the 15th Amendment, which guarantees the right to vote.

Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations? Are you saying the federal government should have not intervened to protect minority voting rights under the 15th Amendment?
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 18:57
Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations? Are you saying the federal government should have not intervened to protect minority voting rights under the 15th Amendment?

The following has already been explained to you: If Congress met ONE TIME to pass limited sentence on Alabama, that would be a violation of separation of powers.

The reality is that they’re renewing the sentence — by default — indefinitely, so long as it remains politically expedient. With such an arrangement in place, why even bother to have constitutional verbiage prohibiting the Bill of Attainder?
- mkfreeberg | 04/23/2014 @ 19:24
mkfreeberg: If Congress met ONE TIME to pass limited sentence on Alabama, that would be a violation of separation of powers.

That doesn’t answer the first question, but does suggest an answer to the second. It does help when you attempt an answer in good faith.

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments override any previous provision of the U.S. Constitution, and grants Congress the power to act on certain issues with appropriate legislation. For instance, before the 13th Amendment, slavery was a state issue. With the adoption of the 13th Amendment, it became a federal mandate.

That doesn’t mean there is no separation of powers. The enabling legislation still have to be signed by the executive, and reviewed by the courts. However, it does shift some powers to the federal government.

Do you understand why your argument about separation of powers is moot due to the 15th Amendment? That returns us to whether it was appropriate legislation. Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations?
- Zachriel | 04/23/2014 @ 19:35
That doesn’t answer the first question, but does suggest an answer to the second. It does help when you attempt an answer in good faith.

Actually, I offered a very detailed analysis the very first time I made this point:

Two responses are available to y’all if y’all want to continue propping up this specious argument: 1. mkfreeberg‘s hypothetical is a bad one, it does not reflect fact. Which is technically true — what has been practiced against the Southern states, in fact, is much more offensive to our system of a constitutional republic with identified and limited powers accorded to the three branches of government. Or, 2. Yeah, so?

If y’all opt for Door #1, y’all are effectively saying that such actions become more compatible with our system of constitutional representation, when the abuses against the Constitution are more egregious. Which would be silly. If y’all opt for Door #2, that would have the virtue of being more honest since y’all would be admitting that the American political system is for losers and squares, who needs it, that “Separation of Powers” thing is getting in the way of y’all’s fun. We could call that the “Piers Morgan approach” or something.

But, here in America, we happen to like our separation of powers. We like being protected against the tyranny of the majority. It’s a drag from time to time when we want to see someone punished just because they happen to be unpopular…wait long enough, that’ll always happen. But, it’s a system of necessary trade-offs. It’s against our value systems to approve of someone being continually punished, like Titus Oates, indefinitely or as long as it happens to be politically expedient. That’s not the American way.

Do you understand why your argument about separation of powers is moot due to the 15th Amendment?

No, actually when one amendment nullifies a previous amendment, the language used is much clearer than “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” Those amendments say things like:

The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Do y’all understand that the equal protection guarantee is part of the 14th amendment, and the 14th amendment is one of the three that y’all say supersede what came previously?

That doesn’t mean there is no separation of powers. The enabling legislation still have to be signed by the executive, and reviewed by the courts.

Yeah, this actually is an example of why we don’t want liberals making decisions about anything until they figure out how government works. “Separation of powers” is not purely a “who,” it’s not like making sure a panel draws on a diverse suite of racial origins. It’s more of a what than a who; just like “we don’t want liberals making a decision about anything” is not purely a “who.” There is a reason we force the legislative branch to share this power. Independence of decisions, insulation from the forces of political whim, trial by jury, presumption of innocence, no guilt-by-association.

These are important things in the American system of government. Shrugging them off with fancy but mendacious rhetoric, would only illustrate how and why some Americans who think very highly of their capacity for rational thought, nevertheless repeatedly get things wrong — and, why the healthcare.gov launch went the way it did.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2014 @ 04:43
mkfreeberg: No, actually when one amendment nullifies a previous amendment, the language used is much clearer than “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments don’t nullify the separation of powers completely, but does move some powers to the federal government.

mkfreeberg: No, actually when one amendment nullifies a previous amendment, the language used is much clearer than “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

So you’re saying Congress can’t enforce the end of slavery? That it’s still up to the states to decide?
- Zachriel | 04/24/2014 @ 05:41
So you’re saying Congress can’t enforce the end of slavery? That it’s still up to the states to decide?

Thought y’all were the jellyfish-like creatures who were accusing me of “black-and-white thinking.” How ironic, and what a great example of false-choice fallacy.
- mkfreeberg | 04/24/2014 @ 18:19
mkfreeberg: Thought y’all were the jellyfish-like creatures who were accusing me of “black-and-white thinking.”

Then this would be a good place to clarify your thinking on the issue. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments use the same basic terminology: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

We asked a question. Are you saying Congress can’t enforce the end of slavery through “appropriate legislation”? That it’s still up to the states to decide? We have a followup, depending on your answer.
- Zachriel | 04/26/2014 @ 07:20
Are you saying Congress can’t enforce the end of slavery through “appropriate legislation”?

No, the language says what it means and means what it says. But the word “appropriate” has meaning.

Are y’all saying this “appropriate legislation” can ignore the constraints placed on it by prior amendments and constitutional language, and remain constitutional? Are y’all saying, if it does that, it is still somehow “appropriate”?
- mkfreeberg | 04/26/2014 @ 19:17
mkfreeberg: No, the language says what it means and means what it says. But the word “appropriate” has meaning.

Exactly the point!

mkfreeberg: Are y’all saying this “appropriate legislation” can ignore the constraints placed on it by prior amendments and constitutional language, and remain constitutional?

Where they differ, new amendments necessarily supersede previous amendments, but all other aspects of the Constitution remain intact. While the original constitution made slavery a state issue, the 13th Amendment made it a federal issue with the mandate to end slavery. Hence, Congress can pass laws that enforce the end of slavery, but only to enforce the end of slavery.

The remedy has to be appropriate to the purpose. The 13th Amendment was originally enforced through the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Act included provisions for equality before the law, which some deemed not “appropriate” under an anti-slavery amendment. Shortly thereafter, the 14th Amendment was adopted guaranteeing equality before the law, with its own enabling clause, enforced under a reenactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1870. Some provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 are still in effect.

Similarly, the 15th Amendment made it a federal responsibility to ensure voting rights, and gave Congress the power to enforce voting rights. The question, then, is whether particular legislation is appropriate to given circumstances. That can only be addressed by examining those circumstances, and the proposed remedy. Any action by the Congress is subject to judicial review. Any proposed remedy not only can take into account circumstances, but any proposed remedy *must* take into account circumstances in order to tailor as narrowly as possible any proposed remedy while still achieving the constitutional mandate.
- Zachriel | 04/27/2014 @ 06:04
Where they differ, new amendments necessarily supersede previous amendments, but all other aspects of the Constitution remain intact.

By default, they don’t differ.

If someone detects a contradiction, and it is litigated, the courts will have to decide. Such matters may be elevated all the way to the Supreme Court. Which may hand down a definitive decision.

And may do it incorrectly. Their opinions are, after all, just opinions.

But, of all the various interpretations available for “Congress shall have the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation,” none of the ones that have withstood the test of time resemble y’all’s. Actually, the most reasonable interpretation of the phrase is this: Conservatives are correct about the Constitution’s application, that The People enjoy whatever rights the Constitution does not expressly say they don’t have, and the Government does not wield any authority the Constitution does not expressly say it does have.

Had the phrase been intended to say some previous definition of powers had been nullified, it would be necessary to jot down a few sentences to define the perimeter of wreckage. What has been superseded, exactly? What hasn’t? Who is to say the entire apparatus has not been thrown out, and the “real” constitution begins with the 15th amendment, no point going back any further than that to read anything?

That would be silly. But that is where y’all’s flawed interpretation would have to lead.
- mkfreeberg | 04/27/2014 @ 06:57
mkfreeberg: By default, they don’t differ.

Except where they do. For instance, the 13th Amendment mandates the end of slavery and gives the federal government the power to enforce the mandate.

mkfreeberg: But, of all the various interpretations available for “Congress shall have the power to enforce this by appropriate legislation,” none of the ones that have withstood the test of time resemble y’all’s.

Huh? Discrimination in public accommodations is still the law in the U.S. Are you saying this exceeds Congress’s mandate under the 14th Amendment?

That returns us to whether it was appropriate legislation. Did the state of Alabama pass laws that systematically denied the voting rights of blacks for generations?

mkfreeberg: Conservatives are correct about the Constitution’s application, that The People enjoy whatever rights the Constitution does not expressly say they don’t have, and the Government does not wield any authority the Constitution does not expressly say it does have.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to enact legislation ending slavery, protecting equal rights, and guaranteeing the right to vote.

mkfreeberg: What has been superseded, exactly?

The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments transfer power from the states to the federal government. While slavery used to be a state issue, it is now a federal issue. While equal rights used to be a state issue, it is now a federal issue. While voting rights used to be a state issue, it is now a federal issue. States retain their privileges, except when they run afoul of these rights, then they are subject to federal power.

mkfreeberg: But that is where y’all’s flawed interpretation would have to lead.

That’s exactly wrong. We even provided an example.

The remedy has to be appropriate to the purpose. The 13th Amendment was originally enforced through the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The Act included provisions for equality before the law, which some deemed not “appropriate” under an anti-slavery amendment. Shortly thereafter, the 14th Amendment was adopted guaranteeing equality before the law, with its own enabling clause, enforced under a reenactment of the Civil Rights Act in 1870. Some provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 are still in effect.
- Zachriel | 04/27/2014 @ 09:24
Except where they do. For instance, the 13th Amendment mandates the end of slavery and gives the federal government the power to enforce the mandate.

And, as we have seen with the mish-mash that has resulted from years of litigation and re-litigation of the equal protection clause, it may be a matter of opinion. Example: The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble. The Second Amendment guarantees that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Suppose someone can make the case that someone’s right peaceably to assemble, and to keep and bear arms, may pose a threat to the guarantees in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments? According to y’all’s logic, if the case can be eloquently made, a convenient conflict can then be generated and two of Americans’ most cherished individual rights shall have been nullified.

There are two conflicting views of the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, that are in conflict here: One says that the conflict must exist, until it can be resolutely determined that no conflict could ever be possible; the other says that there is no conflict, unless an argument can be formed that each clause’s application to a particular case is mutually exclusive from the other, and that in that situation, at least, the two are utterly irreconcilable.

From actually reading Marbury v. Madison, the case that establishes the power of judicial review, we see that the first of those two views, upon which y’all’s interpretation relies, completely, is utterly unwarranted and illegitimate, and only the second has merit.

So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution, if both the law and the Constitution apply to a particular case, so that the Court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the Constitution, or conformably to the Constitution, disregarding the law, the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.
- mkfreeberg | 04/27/2014 @ 20:17
mkfreeberg: Example: The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law abridging the right of the people to peaceably assemble. The Second Amendment guarantees that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Suppose someone can make the case that someone’s right peaceably to assemble, and to keep and bear arms, may pose a threat to the guarantees in the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments?

Militias are subject to regulation. The government can prevent armed gangs from violating people’s rights under the 14th and 15th Amendments.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k57rt58vUYw

mkfreeberg: From actually reading Marbury v. Madison, the case that establishes the power of judicial review, we see that the first of those two views

Where law and constitution conflict, the constitution prevails. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments are part of the constitution.
- Zachriel | 04/28/2014 @ 15:18
Where law and constitution conflict…

That’s been addressed. To the dungeon with y’all now.
- mkfreeberg | 04/28/2014 @ 21:00
mkfreeberg: That’s been addressed.

As we said, your comment was incoherent. At this point, it is usual to clarify your position. Are you saying the federal government can’t prevent armed gangs from violating people’s rights under the 14th and 15th Amendments?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k57rt58vUYw
- Zachriel | 04/29/2014 @ 07:13
We’re going to try to parse your statement again:

mkfreeberg: There are two conflicting views of the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, that are in conflict here: One says that the conflict must exist, until it can be resolutely determined that no conflict could ever be possible; the other says that there is no conflict, unless an argument can be formed that each clause’s application to a particular case is mutually exclusive from the other, and that in that situation, at least, the two are utterly irreconcilable.

In the first case, you seem to be saying that conflict is assumed unless it is shown no conflict is possible. In the second case, you seem to be saying that no conflict is assumed unless it is shown there is a conflict. No one takes the first position.

The quote from Marbury v. Madison does not address that question. Rather, it stipulates that if and when a conflict exists, the Constitution takes precedence over law.
- Zachriel | 04/29/2014 @ 07:51
As we said, your comment was incoherent.

To whom?

As I said, give me a shout if these incoherent, incomprehensible things pose some unsolvable puzzle to someone who has an actual name. Being anonymous has a price: It doesn’t mean anything to anybody else if y’all fail to understand something.

How much weight could such an argument possibly carry? “Oh look, someone on the Internet didn’t understand something I said, well, I certainly feel chastened.” Sounds almost like a Monty Python skit.
- mkfreeberg | 04/29/2014 @ 18:01
mkfreeberg: How much weight could such an argument possibly carry?

As we’re not claiming any personal expertise, it would depend on the argument, not the identity of the arguer.

When juxtaposed with Marbury v. Madison, your comment just didn’t seem to make any sense. Nonetheless, we attempted a parsing, which you can correct as you see fit.

You’re not required to defend your position. Most readers will simply assume you can’t.
- Zachriel | 04/30/2014 @ 03:20
As we’re not claiming any personal expertise, it would depend on the argument, not the identity of the arguer.

When juxtaposed with Marbury v. Madison, your comment just didn’t seem to make any sense…

To whom? That would depend on the identity of the arguer.
- mkfreeberg | 04/30/2014 @ 04:30
mkfreeberg: That would depend on the identity of the arguer.

It depends on both parties to communicate. Not sure why you have decided to devolve into ad hominem. Is that the only argument you have left?
- Zachriel | 04/30/2014 @ 06:55
It depends on both parties to communicate. Not sure why you have decided to devolve into ad hominem. Is that the only argument you have left?

I’m not the one arguing.

And neither are y’all, from the looks of things. What is it y’all are presenting that’s supposed to be an argument: “We, a collective of unknown number of anonymous Internet busybodies, who apparently do not understand concepts fundamental to the accumulation of human knowledge, such as equal, unequal, spurious, certain, uncertain, and who knows what else — are having trouble figuring out what you just said even though nobody else has indicated any similar trouble figuring out the same thing.”

Does that even require any sort of rebuttal?

Does it even make one possible? It’s the sort of question that involves nullities, like, “Can you compress a vacuum” and “If a tree falls down in the forest with no one around to hear it, etc.”

Anonymous people are having trouble figuring out what I’m saying. Well, I certainly feel chastened.
- mkfreeberg | 04/30/2014 @ 17:40
Zachriel: Not sure why you have decided to devolve into ad hominem. Is that the only argument you have left?

mkfreeberg: Does that even require any sort of rebuttal?

In other words, yes, your only remaining argument is ad hominem. In any case, we’ll try again.

mkfreeberg: There are two conflicting views of the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, that are in conflict here: One says that the conflict must exist, until it can be resolutely determined that no conflict could ever be possible; the other says that there is no conflict, unless an argument can be formed that each clause’s application to a particular case is mutually exclusive from the other, and that in that situation, at least, the two are utterly irreconcilable.

In the first case, you seem to be saying that conflict is assumed unless it is shown no conflict is possible. In the second case, you seem to be saying that no conflict is assumed unless it is shown there is a conflict. No one takes the first position.

The quote from Marbury v. Madison does not address that question. Rather, it stipulates that if and when a conflict exists, the Constitution takes precedence over law.
- Zachriel | 05/01/2014 @ 09:07
In other words, yes, your only remaining argument is ad hominem.

Interesting. Y’all have just explained in great detail how ignorance is confused, subtly but somewhat deliberately, with knowledge. Y’all have demonstrated this in equal detail before, but this time more concisely than usual.

Now we know why the healthcare.gov launch went the way it did. By the way, it’s still an open question as to whether it’s possible to provide a rebuttal to “We, an undisclosed number of anonymous people, claim not to be able to understand.” So if y’all proclaim victory just because I pointed out the obvious, that means y’all are proclaiming victory out of a nothing.

We now have new insight into how twisted the reality is in y’all’s universe: Y’all “win the argument” because y’all fail to understand things, and that is somehow the other guy’s problem. It’s as if the aesthetics of the InternetNerdSlapFight trump reason, common sense, fact, and the objective of helping people in need.

Well. That explains Detroit.
- mkfreeberg | 05/01/2014 @ 19:45
Zachriel: In other words, yes, your only remaining argument is ad hominem.

mkfreeberg: Interesting.

Rather than responding to the point, or explaining your position more clearly, you had suggested the validity of an argument depends on the identity of the arguer. As we didn’t base our argument on our own expertise, that would be a fallacious ad hominem.

mkfreeberg: Y’all have just explained in great detail how ignorance is confused, subtly but somewhat deliberately, with knowledge.

Do you mean that knowledge can sometimes confuse people? Of course. And sometimes knowledge can lead to unwarranted certainty? We’re in complete agreement. However, that doesn’t constitute an argument concerning the constitutionality of civil rights laws.
- Zachriel | 05/02/2014 @ 07:25
Here’s what caused the confusion:

There are two conflicting views of the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, that are in conflict here: One says that the conflict must exist, until it can be resolutely determined that no conflict could ever be possible; the other says that there is no conflict, unless an argument can be formed that each clause’s application to a particular case is mutually exclusive from the other, and that in that situation, at least, the two are utterly irreconcilable.

The word “conflict” appears overly much in that paragraph. I do admit, if I were in my dream vocation of beaming manuscripts to a publisher from a log cabin in North Montana via Satellite, and using my royalties and advances to buy some sage and seasoning salts from the dry goods store eighty miles away to go with my 500 pounds of winter kill brought down with my Barrett .50 BMG from 2 miles away — this paragraph would not quite have met my standards. The same word is used to apply to several different situations and contexts; it’s confusing.

However: Anyone with a better-than-casual familiarity with the turmoil that has been taking place with American legal jurisprudence throughout the 20th century, since the New Deal era, should have been able to skim through and get a good reckoning of my references. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the “American Caesar,” found out the hard way that we have three branches of government and Separation of Powers. He was saved from lasting embarrassment by the “Switch in time that saved nine,” and then by World War II. By the end of that conflict, FDR was dead. And then Chief Justice Vinson was dead, and we had the Warren Court, at which time liberalism invaded our government’s third branch.

The question that has confronted this up-until-now-neglected third branch of government: What’s up with this 1803 Marbury vs. Madison decision? Does our government’s judicial branch resolve conflicts between the Constitution, and real-life cases? Or is it the judicial branch’s job to generate those conflicts? So that liberals can pass “law,” through the courts, that they would not be able to pass through ballot. Like, for example, the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, written by a Chief Justice who was on the wrong side of history. And a democrat.
- mkfreeberg | 05/02/2014 @ 18:23
mkfreeberg: Does our government’s judicial branch resolve conflicts between the Constitution, and real-life cases? Or is it the judicial branch’s job to generate those conflicts?

Courts can only hear cases that are brought before it by entities that have legal standing, and Congress determines what entities have legal standing. Furthermore, the makeup of the Courts are determined by Congress, and lifetime appointments have to be confirmed by the Senate. That doesn’t make the Courts infallible, but it does mean they are limited in power.
- Zachriel | 05/02/2014 @ 18:48
[…] Hoc fallacy works out to the benefit of liberals; awkward for them, that is. Being adamantly opposed to definitions in pretty much anything, but always ready to “win” an argument, they put one up that […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 05/03/2014 @ 17:41
[…] and with poor results to show for it, proves that out. They don’t fix problems, because they won’t define what the problem is. To them, if the stated problem is solved and everyone keeps their […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 05/22/2014 @ 06:16
[…] it took for me to succeed, but more like about their differing approaches to life. They were having arguments about definitions, with the outcome-thinkers requiring strong and crisp definitions in order to even begin to assess […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 06/03/2014 @ 06:34
[…] who are trying to take matters into their own hands, to get something done, and therefore require something to be defined, while the other side insists on avoiding definitions. In their world, it is the definitions that cause the conflict. The job of us “little […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 10/24/2014 @ 05:53
[…] I daresay, makes everything click into place. It has become an argument about definitions, with conservatives insisting on crisp, strong, clear definitions, and liberals resisting […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 11/08/2014 @ 06:01
[…] Elsewhere, I waxed lyrically of the great schism that is taking place: People are arguing about definitions. I summarized it more elegantly off-line, in an e-mail: […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 12/31/2014 @ 17:38
[…] the part that furrows the brow with concern, and maybe a bit of distress. They won’t say what. They want to monologue away endlessly about the who, but not the what, the why, or how it’s […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 01/10/2015 @ 09:45
[…] have been monopolized not quite so much by liberals, or conservatives, but rather by those who loathe definitions. What’s happening with science is that this rot has spread. We’re seeing the same […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 02/21/2016 @ 19:06
[…] define things, and throughout this period of gradual degradation it has become harder and harder to define anything. The undefiners have become more popular than the definers, because the undefiners are more fun to […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 04/23/2016 @ 23:29
[…] are, and have been, as I’ve pointed out — undefiners. And, unproducers. Their appeal has been to the young, and they know it. If there’s little […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 12/06/2016 @ 07:52
[…] support if they defined too much about themselves, although there most certainly is that. “Undefining” things is actually a way of life. It’s a lot like lying; you do a little bit of it, […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 04/19/2017 @ 05:53

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Arguments About DefinitionsSunday, April 6th, 2014

Arguments About Definitions
Sunday, April 6th, 2014