Well, now, it's not like the Founders designed a democratic nation so much as one that ensured the control of a white male sub-1%. So, arguably, all the little fascists are on to something.
And of course the anti-law GOP majority at SCOTUS is ready to do what they must to ensure what can be called the 1,000 Year GOP Reich.
But, but what about the Silent Majority, that imaginary herd of true blue Americans who deserve to determine the fate of the country every four years? Are they to be abandoned in favor of the Selectoral College? How, um, fortuitous.
Many people, right-wingers especially, think that the 3/5ths compromise was some sort of concession on the part of slave states, that the choice was between counting each slave as three-fifths of a person or a whole human being when apportioning representation in Congress. In reality, the choice was between 3/5 and zero, since in all other things slave states did not treat slaves as humans, but property, and property can't vote. The compromise was a concession on the part of free states, and gave the south disproportionate influence in the House and the Electoral College.
Of course, today's bigots wouldn't even allow D.C. to be 3/5ths of a state.
"The Supreme Court held in 1868 that once a state enters the union, the relationship is “indissoluble.” "
Thankfully, the Roberts Court is doing everything it can to completely wipe out the principle of stare decisis and to make precedent a quaint notion. If something happens to Biden and Harris becomes president, I think we'll see a near-instantaneous suit by Texas that it MUST be allowed to secede because they're not going to be under the thumb of that woman! And Roberts and the rest to palm off an opinion that basically says "Sure, we fought war over this question, and this Court has ruled many times on this question, but LOL, why not? Let the new nation of Texas be established!"
...don't you think there would be some awareness that without Texas, they'd never win another Presidential election? I think that might give them pause.
Republicans thought that Iraq would turn into a stable democracy with the help of a few Young Republicans interns and a stock market, so yeah, the Republic of Texas would totally be the cornerstone of a United Federation of States. What could possibly go wrong?
"Thankfully, the Roberts Court is doing everything it can to completely wipe out the principle of stare decisis and to make precedent a quaint notion."
Roberts Court is trying to replace Stare Decisis with Cosa Nostra.
"It would have been better if the founders had never been hypocrites. But we should feel deeply grateful for that hypocrisy, because it was the irritant that created the pearl."???
Sort of like Ike Turner demanding gratitude for Miss Tina Turner winning all her Grammies
Isn't the pearl democracy, while the irritant is anti-democratic action and words. The conservatives seem to think the anti-democratic action and words are the pearl.
Let's see... pulling out my Goldbergeuse translation doo-hickey. Carry the one, salt the ground, throw some over the shoulder. Do the hokey-pokey... yes... yes, I can confirm it does indeed.
I don't agree with Lumpy about pearls, but I do agree with him that there are places where hypocrisy is better than plain-spoken evil. I forget who it was who put it this way, maybe a character in "The Diamond Age" who was keen on hypocrisy, but it was something like 'Vice paying tribute to Virtue at least keeps in our mind that Virtue and Vice exist.'
Put another way, hypocrisy created the cheque that Martin Luther King Jr noted had been written by America but it had never cashed. Many of Trump's _less_ idiosyncratically awful bits were actually places where he was not really out of the mainstream except in his refusal to admit that we could do better, or that 'better' potentially existed. Example: most conservative politicians are _fine_ with police treating suspects roughly, but most of those at least hold up the ideal that they shouldn't by denying that they do and don't actively encourage it.
This is not full-throated: when it dominates, hypocrisy allows people to feel good while never doing a good thing or trying to stop an evil one, and of course it's more acceptable in the people we like than the ones we don't. …but I'm tired of the callow-youth fixation on sincerity as an end in itself. Beside its ignoring the sincere S.S. man or N.K.V.D.nik, it too easily allows us to feel that we must be right because we feel sincere, and it encourages misjudging our opponents as (e.g.) only in it for the money when they are very often completely sincere and much more dangerous because of it.
Anytime someone prefaces an argument by citing the constitution, all I can think is, "What I'm about to hear is complete bullshit from a moron." The biggest tell is in the constitution itself: the 18th amendment prohibited the manufacturing and sale of alcohol in the US, and the 21st amendment, regarding the 18th, is "lol jk." Which means any of this can be changed whenever we want---including the second amendment.
Great idea about the Mall. It's certainly less than ten square miles and not in a current state, so it qualifies. Push it up through White House to Lafayette Square and down around Tidal Basin. Nobody lives there anyway. States are where voters are.
That line of Goldberg's about the Founders being an oyster is incredibly telling as an illustration of what I call the Scalian hermeneutic. Their intention in writing all this shit is of no relevance to what the words actually mean, in the Republican view. They were just irritated, and the words assembled themselves around the irritation. That's the source of their magic power, that nobody composed them.
"...conservatives have been getting away with anti-democratic fuckery for so long they’re inclined to try anything to keep the ball rolling,..." and they're always assisted mightily by 85% of the media.
One thing we can be pretty confident about the Founders: If it helps you get re-elected, they were probably for it.
Americans have been so conditioned by 40 years of Reaganism to think that tax rates are set somewhere in the Constitution that I'm actually kind of grateful there are Senators who are old enough to remember what the US looked like before it left for a long trip on the good ship Libertarian Paradise.
The GOP has almost convinced people its impossible for governments with money to do positive things. But its clear there are a whole lot of D legislators who were waiting for the dam to break and are now not just ready to tax obscene wealth but aren't fazed by the choking sobs of rage on the WSJ Op Ed pages.
but but.... didn't Jesus himself write the constitution and hand it down from on high to Saint Washington at the holy site of Mt. Vernon? And if Jesus is OK with slaves being 3/5 of a person then who are we to argue?
The compromises the northern states made with the southern states has been a poison pill that continually disrupts and threatens the union (see: War, American Civil). In that same spirit, the union should have never taken their boot off the necks of the Confederates, but they did, and within days Lincoln was dead and we have spent the next century and a half fighting with these degenerates. I'm not simply saying "Pennsylvania good, Mississippi bad" (although I can tell you which state I'd rather live in), but the overall battle of abolitionists vs slavers has been the defining characteristic of this country since its inception (genocidal maniacs can be included with the racists). Mitch McConnell may not own people or lead an army into an indigenous settlement, but is he not of their ilk?
Moving on...
"For instance, the Admissions Clause gives Congress the power to admit new states but no power for expulsion or secession."
Weird that the Admissions Clause deals with Admissions. And did anyone else note it is a Clause?
"In that vein, some legal scholars have contended that just as the Constitution provides a way for states to enter but not leave the union, the Constitution provides a way for land to enter the district but not to be given away."
That's a fair point. Never has the federal government given land back to states in any way, shape or form. Definitely there are no former national parks whose land is now controlled by state or county governments or even private enterprises. These folks are legal scholars the same way Lionel Hutz is an attorney or Nick Riviera is a doctor.
"Never has the federal government given land back to states in any way, shape or form. Definitely there are no former national parks whose land is now controlled by state or county governments or even private enterprises."
The core of Conservative philosophy is that Man is a Creature Fallen from Grace, and requires the instruction of Religion and Domesticity, or as I would put it, fear of God and the love of a good woman, to keep him from being a howling animal in a pit filled with beer cans and pizza boxes.
Curse you Substack. I wanted to add that this Philosphy lets conservatives see the world divided between the Worthy and Unworthy, those who aspire to Heaven, and those happy to wallow in the pit. This leads them directly to Real America vs. Godless Heathens, and guess who should have the ability to make decisions in that match-up? When what's at stake is not just your immortal soul, but the capital gains tax rate, you can see that vote nullification in defence of liberty is no vice, and democracy is no virtue.
All of this, and let me add that the idea that Conservatism believes that some were born booted and spurred to rule/ride others who are saddled and bridled.
Which of course is how you get to what they really want--Aristocracy. (Or Kakistocracy.)
We have Aristocracy, it's a fight whether it will be a TMZ Aristocracy or a Fox Aristocracy, whether we give our betters our money for entertainment, or give them our money so they don't kill us.
I have no woman (good or otherwise) and I also have no beer cans or pizza boxes in the pit in which I live. I did not have these even when I wasn't diabetic.
The very intelligent kind who hides his fear of rejection behind a mountain of inadequacies and realization that he isn't everyone's (and maybe no one's) cup of tea
I ;earned the hard way that once you learn how to like yourself, most of the other stuff works out. A big dose of humility forced down my throat helped a lot.
Well, now, it's not like the Founders designed a democratic nation so much as one that ensured the control of a white male sub-1%. So, arguably, all the little fascists are on to something.
And of course the anti-law GOP majority at SCOTUS is ready to do what they must to ensure what can be called the 1,000 Year GOP Reich.
But, but what about the Silent Majority, that imaginary herd of true blue Americans who deserve to determine the fate of the country every four years? Are they to be abandoned in favor of the Selectoral College? How, um, fortuitous.
Many people, right-wingers especially, think that the 3/5ths compromise was some sort of concession on the part of slave states, that the choice was between counting each slave as three-fifths of a person or a whole human being when apportioning representation in Congress. In reality, the choice was between 3/5 and zero, since in all other things slave states did not treat slaves as humans, but property, and property can't vote. The compromise was a concession on the part of free states, and gave the south disproportionate influence in the House and the Electoral College.
Of course, today's bigots wouldn't even allow D.C. to be 3/5ths of a state.
"3/5's? After inflation...?"
"The Supreme Court held in 1868 that once a state enters the union, the relationship is “indissoluble.” "
Thankfully, the Roberts Court is doing everything it can to completely wipe out the principle of stare decisis and to make precedent a quaint notion. If something happens to Biden and Harris becomes president, I think we'll see a near-instantaneous suit by Texas that it MUST be allowed to secede because they're not going to be under the thumb of that woman! And Roberts and the rest to palm off an opinion that basically says "Sure, we fought war over this question, and this Court has ruled many times on this question, but LOL, why not? Let the new nation of Texas be established!"
...don't you think there would be some awareness that without Texas, they'd never win another Presidential election? I think that might give them pause.
Maybe, maybe not. They certainly cosplay as deep thinkers, but I'm not sure there are many people left in the GOP who can count to a hundred.
Republicans thought that Iraq would turn into a stable democracy with the help of a few Young Republicans interns and a stock market, so yeah, the Republic of Texas would totally be the cornerstone of a United Federation of States. What could possibly go wrong?
"Thankfully, the Roberts Court is doing everything it can to completely wipe out the principle of stare decisis and to make precedent a quaint notion."
Roberts Court is trying to replace Stare Decisis with Cosa Nostra.
Jesus Fuck, JG:
"It would have been better if the founders had never been hypocrites. But we should feel deeply grateful for that hypocrisy, because it was the irritant that created the pearl."???
Sort of like Ike Turner demanding gratitude for Miss Tina Turner winning all her Grammies
Without the experience the plantations provided, Frederick Douglass would never have written so many books. Yet he never showed gratitude!
But he's being recognized more and more these days. Or so I'm told.
Isn't the pearl democracy, while the irritant is anti-democratic action and words. The conservatives seem to think the anti-democratic action and words are the pearl.
Let's see... pulling out my Goldbergeuse translation doo-hickey. Carry the one, salt the ground, throw some over the shoulder. Do the hokey-pokey... yes... yes, I can confirm it does indeed.
I don't agree with Lumpy about pearls, but I do agree with him that there are places where hypocrisy is better than plain-spoken evil. I forget who it was who put it this way, maybe a character in "The Diamond Age" who was keen on hypocrisy, but it was something like 'Vice paying tribute to Virtue at least keeps in our mind that Virtue and Vice exist.'
Put another way, hypocrisy created the cheque that Martin Luther King Jr noted had been written by America but it had never cashed. Many of Trump's _less_ idiosyncratically awful bits were actually places where he was not really out of the mainstream except in his refusal to admit that we could do better, or that 'better' potentially existed. Example: most conservative politicians are _fine_ with police treating suspects roughly, but most of those at least hold up the ideal that they shouldn't by denying that they do and don't actively encourage it.
This is not full-throated: when it dominates, hypocrisy allows people to feel good while never doing a good thing or trying to stop an evil one, and of course it's more acceptable in the people we like than the ones we don't. …but I'm tired of the callow-youth fixation on sincerity as an end in itself. Beside its ignoring the sincere S.S. man or N.K.V.D.nik, it too easily allows us to feel that we must be right because we feel sincere, and it encourages misjudging our opponents as (e.g.) only in it for the money when they are very often completely sincere and much more dangerous because of it.
Anytime someone prefaces an argument by citing the constitution, all I can think is, "What I'm about to hear is complete bullshit from a moron." The biggest tell is in the constitution itself: the 18th amendment prohibited the manufacturing and sale of alcohol in the US, and the 21st amendment, regarding the 18th, is "lol jk." Which means any of this can be changed whenever we want---including the second amendment.
I do appreciate that Amy Coney Barrett is a strict constitutionalist. At least she's open with her bullshit.
Great idea about the Mall. It's certainly less than ten square miles and not in a current state, so it qualifies. Push it up through White House to Lafayette Square and down around Tidal Basin. Nobody lives there anyway. States are where voters are.
That line of Goldberg's about the Founders being an oyster is incredibly telling as an illustration of what I call the Scalian hermeneutic. Their intention in writing all this shit is of no relevance to what the words actually mean, in the Republican view. They were just irritated, and the words assembled themselves around the irritation. That's the source of their magic power, that nobody composed them.
Nice analysis, good sir
Jonah Goldberg is a hack who happened to have well connected parents, a.k.a. the story of most conservative writers and politicians.
Irritation in the oyster may produce a pearl. Irritation in an asshole produces a Rightwing screed.
"We should be sorry that we irritated Jonah, because it was the irritation that created the hemorrhoid of his prose."
Preparation J
Next they'll argue that since there aren't any slave states left to admit for "balance', D.C. can't become a state.
"...conservatives have been getting away with anti-democratic fuckery for so long they’re inclined to try anything to keep the ball rolling,..." and they're always assisted mightily by 85% of the media.
And Goldberg...meh, what a schlub.
One thing we can be pretty confident about the Founders: If it helps you get re-elected, they were probably for it.
Americans have been so conditioned by 40 years of Reaganism to think that tax rates are set somewhere in the Constitution that I'm actually kind of grateful there are Senators who are old enough to remember what the US looked like before it left for a long trip on the good ship Libertarian Paradise.
The GOP has almost convinced people its impossible for governments with money to do positive things. But its clear there are a whole lot of D legislators who were waiting for the dam to break and are now not just ready to tax obscene wealth but aren't fazed by the choking sobs of rage on the WSJ Op Ed pages.
but but.... didn't Jesus himself write the constitution and hand it down from on high to Saint Washington at the holy site of Mt. Vernon? And if Jesus is OK with slaves being 3/5 of a person then who are we to argue?
Bleah.
"...the Founders would rise from the dead, march on Washington like the Justice League..."
Write it, Roy. It has "OSCAR" potential.
Ye Walkinge Deade
Or at least it's a Jon McNaughton painting.
The compromises the northern states made with the southern states has been a poison pill that continually disrupts and threatens the union (see: War, American Civil). In that same spirit, the union should have never taken their boot off the necks of the Confederates, but they did, and within days Lincoln was dead and we have spent the next century and a half fighting with these degenerates. I'm not simply saying "Pennsylvania good, Mississippi bad" (although I can tell you which state I'd rather live in), but the overall battle of abolitionists vs slavers has been the defining characteristic of this country since its inception (genocidal maniacs can be included with the racists). Mitch McConnell may not own people or lead an army into an indigenous settlement, but is he not of their ilk?
Moving on...
"For instance, the Admissions Clause gives Congress the power to admit new states but no power for expulsion or secession."
Weird that the Admissions Clause deals with Admissions. And did anyone else note it is a Clause?
"In that vein, some legal scholars have contended that just as the Constitution provides a way for states to enter but not leave the union, the Constitution provides a way for land to enter the district but not to be given away."
That's a fair point. Never has the federal government given land back to states in any way, shape or form. Definitely there are no former national parks whose land is now controlled by state or county governments or even private enterprises. These folks are legal scholars the same way Lionel Hutz is an attorney or Nick Riviera is a doctor.
"Never has the federal government given land back to states in any way, shape or form. Definitely there are no former national parks whose land is now controlled by state or county governments or even private enterprises."
These also never happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Land-Grant_Acts
The core of Conservative philosophy is that Man is a Creature Fallen from Grace, and requires the instruction of Religion and Domesticity, or as I would put it, fear of God and the love of a good woman, to keep him from being a howling animal in a pit filled with beer cans and pizza boxes.
Curse you Substack. I wanted to add that this Philosphy lets conservatives see the world divided between the Worthy and Unworthy, those who aspire to Heaven, and those happy to wallow in the pit. This leads them directly to Real America vs. Godless Heathens, and guess who should have the ability to make decisions in that match-up? When what's at stake is not just your immortal soul, but the capital gains tax rate, you can see that vote nullification in defence of liberty is no vice, and democracy is no virtue.
All of this, and let me add that the idea that Conservatism believes that some were born booted and spurred to rule/ride others who are saddled and bridled.
Which of course is how you get to what they really want--Aristocracy. (Or Kakistocracy.)
We have Aristocracy, it's a fight whether it will be a TMZ Aristocracy or a Fox Aristocracy, whether we give our betters our money for entertainment, or give them our money so they don't kill us.
I have no woman (good or otherwise) and I also have no beer cans or pizza boxes in the pit in which I live. I did not have these even when I wasn't diabetic.
What kind of godless heathen is that? Decadence isn't easy, you know. It takes effort.
The very intelligent kind who hides his fear of rejection behind a mountain of inadequacies and realization that he isn't everyone's (and maybe no one's) cup of tea
I ;earned the hard way that once you learn how to like yourself, most of the other stuff works out. A big dose of humility forced down my throat helped a lot.
Pack the court, I says. If FDR considered it, we ought to act on it. That's progress, by jingo! That's progress, I say!