coal - ama

Author: coal ,

Posts

Total: 44
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,773
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
--> @Greyparrot
If you had the power to amend the constitution, how would you amend it to make abortion legal or illegal if at all?
On a personal level, I oppose abortion of any kind after conception.  But this is an issue that is best resolved on an individual level, or, otherwise, at a level no higher than the state level.  I really believe abortion is a political question best left to the states, that should not be the subject of either a constitutional amendment or supreme court's judicial intervention in the political process.  Even Sunstein and RBG said  the same thing, back in the 1970s and 80s.  



coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,773
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
--> @Greyparrot
If you had the power to add a constitutional amendment, what would you add to limit the scope of government specifically in the area of the government limiting an American's choice as to what they can or cannot buy. Whether it is in the form of  corporate or banking subsidies or regulations prohibiting the production or sale of many goods? Do you think we need the Federal  government to regulate the economy to such a large extent in order to preserve the Union and how would you stop it from  expanding it's power over commerce indefinitely?
I'm going to indirectly answer that, then directly answer it.  The indirect answer to your question's assumed question (whether I would amend the constitution for any purpose) is that I would add an explicit constitutional right to privacy.

"The people's right of privacy shall not be infringed."  

A right to privacy is presumed by the 10th amendment, both against the federal government and the states.  But that, for some reason, has been controversial for many years.  Asking colonists about privacy is like asking a fish about water.  It was an expectation so foundational it could not even be precisely recognized as necessary to commit to paper.   Clearly, that was not enough even though at common law even dating back to the Magna Carta, the concept of privacy was understood essentially to mean "the right to be left alone."  It was a right to be free from the alienation, molestation and intrusion of others, as people conducted their lives in whatever way they chose.  The right of privacy was so deeply presumed at common law it was thought self evident by the framers.  However, the anti-federalists correctly pointed out the risk that strict textualism would later manifest:  that risk being, a judicial theory beginning from the proposition that the bill of rights was a ceiling, not a floor. 

An infringement on the people's right to privacy would include, domestic commercial activity (such as contracting, banking, products to be purchased, created, produced or distributed). 

I think what you're getting at is what I think about the kind of proposed programmable digital currencies that the antichrists at the World Economic Forum and Federal Reserve are proposing.  And to specifically address that issue,  any kind of programmable digital currency that is controlled by the government would inherently violate individuals' right to privacy.  As to other commercial activity, I think most regulations exist to serve commercial interests.  The problem is that many of them serve only certain commercial interests at the expense of others.  This is anticompetitive; an alienation on free trade by definition, and therefore improper.  
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,773
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
--> @Earth

I think this is what the court will find, and should find.  That yale kid who wrote that article missed the ball. 

coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,773
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
actually I guess he isn't a kid, but a professor or whatever . . . . 

In any case, Miranda is not going to be overturned. 
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,773
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
Together, Chavez and Dickerson make clear that when an un-Mirandized statement is introduced at trial, an individual’s Fifth Amendment rights have been violated.
This is the law.  


Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,791
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @coal
Bold. A right to privacy would have serious ramifications past a simple check on the government playing politics with the economy.
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,773
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
--> @Greyparrot
Right to privacy is really what we need most.  
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,791
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @coal
You of course realize what that would do to what 90% of what the government presently does? You would have to have a serious insurrection to get that implemented.
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,773
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
--> @Greyparrot
You of course realize what that would do to what 90% of what the government presently does?

I have a very good idea, but not obvious we are on the same page in that assumption.
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,791
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @coal
I'm just imagining all the things a constitutional lawyer would define as "government intrusion"
ILikePie5
ILikePie5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 10,517
3
7
10
ILikePie5's avatar
ILikePie5
3
7
10
--> @coal
Who’s your favorite DART user?
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,773
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
--> @Greyparrot
You ever read Vince Flynn novels?
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,773
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
--> @ILikePie5
I don't know that I have a favorite user on DART, actually.  I like a handful of people and dislike a few others.  But I'm pretty neutral on most overall.  
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 13,791
3
4
8
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
8
--> @coal
I like Tom Clancy. Might look at Flynn's books.
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,773
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
--> @Greyparrot
Vince Flynn, Jack Carr and Brad Thor are all three fantastic. 
thett3
thett3's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 1,614
3
2
7
thett3's avatar
thett3
3
2
7
--> @coal
There's a lot of pressure to conform in grad school, too.  A *lot* of pressure.  My colleagues were the pre-woke.  Identity politics had not yet come to replace classically liberal Western values, yet.  But those horsemen were on the horizon.  I remember the first time in 2012 when our department designated a "safe space" for "marginalized groups."  So called "ally" stickers and buttons started showing up.  I was reading Dostoevsky at the time, and this passage has always stood out to me: 
It seems like pre 2013/2014 or so "wokeness" did exist but it was more focused on feminism, which seems to have more or less just disappeared from the discourse in a relatively brief amount of time. I am praying that the same thing happens with the current set of identity politics, which causes unnecessary division between the races. The degree to which identity politics has fomented conflict where none existed previously really can't be overstated. I myself fell into the trap somewhat in reaction and occasionally said but mostly thought things I now deeply regret...treating individuals as anything but individuals really is something grotesque.  Seeing how casually race hate is thrown around in our current society makes me sick, and I think the left will come to regret pushing this stuff so heavily. Maybe I'm too optimistic but it seems like we are near the beginning of the end of wokeness, although I don't know what replaces it
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,773
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
--> @thett3
Wokeness like everything else will run its course.  But the pattern will repeat, almost like some sort of eternal recurrence.

There is order and chaos.  The right's purpose is to order the world, while the left's purpose is to destroy that order on behalf of those disenfranchised by it.  While the particularities of that destruction will change, the impetus towards destruction will not.

Accordingly, there are two options.  In the first case, the right could roll back the clock socially.  This is unwise, because it will repeat history.  In the second case, the direction of the left's destructive impetus could be channeled to something else.  I don't know what that is, but doing so is better than the alternative.

I see wokeness as a response to neoconservative social ossification, which itself was an offshoot of the Moral Majority-type movement conservatism of the Reagan era, which was a response to 1970s and 1960s progressivism and the sexual revolution/third-wave feminism.  We cannot do that again.  

But from a Hegelian perspective, we're in the "thesis" stage.  That's what wokeism is.  It's their new opening bid.  A new anthesis will follow, and its beginnings are in Florida with Ron DeSantis.    
bmdrocks21
bmdrocks21's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 2,461
4
6
11
bmdrocks21's avatar
bmdrocks21
4
6
11
--> @coal
What are your favorite foods?
coal
coal's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 1,773
3
3
9
coal's avatar
coal
3
3
9
--> @bmdrocks21
Ribeye steaks, Mexican (traditional and Mexican-American/Tex-Mex), traditional Persian or Lebanese kebabs, middle eastern/Israeli food in general and South American food (generally, specifically from Brazil, Peru and Argentina)