(PO) Temperatures Rising, not good...

[Z is for Zangie]

I am pretty anti-violence of any kind, no matter who is doing it and I wish the more anarchist wing of both parties would knock it off. It is never the answer and doesn't change anything. Have a tumult-free Tuesday!

[Mike]

The thing that gets me about the states banning abortion is that they will essentially be tracking the travels of all their birthing-age female population. You know, the party that stands for personal liber….. oh wait…. HAWHAWHAWHAW

They have NEVER stood for personal liberty! What they do stand for is the ‘right’ to spew a large trail of cost into the population and environment in pursuit of personal profit. THAT is the major crux of “states’ rights”. To wit:

- They block, and sometimes even criminalize, investigation into the underground weapons trade. Which virtually always originates in those states.
- They block, and sometimes even criminalize, any/all attempts to document the enviro effects of the industries from which they reap their fortunes.
- They block virtually all legislation concerning accurate product labeling.
- They cry about restrictive federal regulation, yet they regulate industries in ways that guarantee that particular ‘connected’ individuals sit back and accumulate money. (Case in point: Tesla’s sales paradigm. Many states, all in the Confederacy, would not permit Tesla to sell or service directly but forced them to go through the ‘dealership’ structure.)

And so if a teen girl from Oklahoma travels to Delaware, they will be tracking her travels as closely as they can. Especially if her neighbors tell the authorities that the girl is known to have a sensual personality. Which, btw, the neighbors will be eager to do.

Due in from Miami Beach, BOAC…. the Right’s issue with the communist countries was never about their ‘snitchiness’.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

The ruling on public funding to religious institutions is among the worst decisions of all time. I've been wondering, if contribution of money is is protected speech under the first amendment, how can public funds going to a religious institution not be the establishment of religion? Traditionally the court has erred on the side of not regulating the first amendment, this ruling is a perfect example of legislating from the bench. Not only that but it is legislation the weakens all of our rights.

The abortion ruling is right. Roe v. Wade has always been an example of legislating from the bench. It was a bad ruling used to move toward the right outcome. That is a fragile way to implement laws as is being demonstrated today. The problem for the last 100 years has been a congress that increasingly deferring to the other branches and refusing to do anything meaningful. The less congress legislates the more chaotic our laws will be. People seem to be okay with that when they are winning, and see it as the downfall of Democracy when they are losing. Until we hold our legislators responsible for doing their jobs this is what we get.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

And so if a teen girl from Oklahoma travels to Delaware, they will be tracking her travels as closely as they can.

It will be interesting to see this work it's way through the courts. States only have legal authority to legislate what happens within their boarders. There is near 200 years of precedent about US citizens right to freely travel between states including privacy in such activities while there.

Of course we have as deep a precedent about the separation of church and state so...

[Mike]

And so if a teen girl from Oklahoma travels to Delaware, they will be tracking her travels as closely as they can.

It will be interesting to see this work it's way through the courts. States only have legal authority to legislate what happens within their boarders. There is near 200 years of precedent about US citizens right to freely travel between states including privacy in such activities while there.

Of course we have as deep a precedent about the separation of church and state so...

Interestingly, I see the religious point on that coach. With true freedom of religion, he should be able to drop to his knees and pray whenever and wherever he wants - as long as his employer is in agreement that so doing does no interfere with the doing of his job while he is on duty.

And that last is where it gets sticky. Because the real-world effects must be taken into account. And it has been demonstrated, many many times, that authority figures give preference based on personal belief. So much so that mediocre performers often advance more quickly than better-qualified peers. Sooo… if you have two linebackers competing for a position, and one consistently performs a bit better during practice and games but opts out of the coach’s prayer circle, is it OK that the coach chooses to showcase the skills of the one who prays?

If it’s a private religious school there’s little that can be done. But up until yesterday, if the school took taxpayer funding in any way the school would have to halt the religious group observance. For those very obvious reasons.

As for Clarence Thomas, Howard Stern’s cohort Robin Quivers - a black woman - said it best: we should backtrack to where blacks were enslaved, and drop him in a plantation. As plenty of pundits have noted, Thomas benefits directly from liberal social action. Were it not for certain decisions by previous SCOTUS benches, he might have been barred from marrying white woman Ginni Thomas.

Clearly, this Court is going to take, and steamroll through, as many cases as they can to undo a century of social progress.

[Mike]

[Tarmaque]

It will be interesting to see this work it's way through the courts.

There are already bills in states like here in Washington to make extradition for people convicted of these so-called "crimes" to these Y'alliban states illegal. I foresee that happening more and more. What I find more concerning is the depths to which Bigtruckistan will pursue these people.

I'm also curious if this will spark a minor migration of people from the more liberal parts of Trucknutistan to the rational states. I would actually like to encourage all of San Antonio to move to Georgia. That would probably turn Georgia from purple to blue. Or they could split the difference: Some go to Georgia and some go to Arizona.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

There are already bills in states like here in Washington to make extradition for people convicted of these so-called "crimes" to these Y'alliban states illegal

That suprprizes me. Not that those laws exist, I know they do, but I wouldn't have expected it in Washington.

I'm also curious if this will spark a minor migration of people from the more liberal parts of Trucknutistan to the rational states.

I suspect the migration will work in both ways. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Tarmaque]

That suprprizes me. Not that those laws exist, I know they do, but I wouldn't have expected it in Washington.

Washington State's government is dominated by Democrats. While this state is quite divided politically, those divisions are more geographic than popular. The I-5 corridor and Spokane have the vast majority of the population, and the conservative rural areas just can't compete.

That said, I haven't heard much about this bill progressing. However I know it was being discussed.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Interestingly, I see the religious point on that coach. With true freedom of religion, he should be able to drop to his knees and pray whenever and wherever he wants - as long as his employer is in agreement that so doing does no interfere with the doing of his job while he is on duty.

I think we are talking about two different cases. I was talking about this one: https://www.reuters.com/legal/governmen ... 022-06-21/

I agree with you on the case you mentioned.

As for Clarence Thomas, Howard Stern’s cohort Robin Quivers - a black woman - said it best: we should backtrack to where blacks were enslaved, and drop him in a plantation. As plenty of pundits have noted, Thomas benefits directly from liberal social action. Were it not for certain decisions by previous SCOTUS benches, he might have been barred from marrying white woman Ginni Thomas.

Samuel L Jackson had a tweet along similar lines.

I think I've made my feelings on Thomas clear. I read an interesting interview with Sotamayor about Thomas. They have apparently developed a friendship. She said, "That's why I can be friends with him and still continue our daily battles over our differences of opinions in cases. You Really can't begin to understand an advisory unless you step away from lookin at their views as motivated in bad faith." While I agree with her in principle, I'm not as understanding of Thomas specifically as she is. I did save the quote though.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

65EE5272-358D-4E03-858A-7BE2EC421C4C.jpeg

More then complicated I would call this amendment incredibly unclear. There are two valid readings of the amendment. I don't see either side as legislating from the bench on this one, just accepting the meaning that best backs up their beliefs. Which is to be expected.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

65EE5272-358D-4E03-858A-7BE2EC421C4C.jpeg

More then complicated I would call this amendment incredibly unclear. There are two valid readings of the amendment. I don't see either side as legislating from the bench on this one, just accepting the meaning that best backs up their beliefs. Which is to be expected.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

That said, I haven't heard much about this bill progressing. However I know it was being discussed.

I just can't imagine any sate not outlawing abortion and then arresting people from other states for having abortions in their states. That just feels like crazy town to me. Then again it's 2022....

[Tarmaque]

I just can't imagine any sate not outlawing abortion and then arresting people from other states for having abortions in their states. That just feels like crazy town to me. Then again it's 2022....

Oh, you misunderstood. It is a bill that would prohibit extradition of people from other states who got abortions in Washington. Or any other state, and then moved to Washington. Some states like Texas have been arguing they would have the right to bring back women that have abortions (or doctors who perform abortions) to face trial. Washington's bill will simply stop that, at a legislative level. This would make it illegal for an anti-abortion LEO or judge to comply with a request for extradition to another state for such a "crime."

[Tarmaque]

Here's a scenario: A doctor in Alabama performs an abortion that has been declared illegal, and is turned in by someone. That doctor could then flee to Washington State and be free from extradition to Alabama.

Another scenario: A teen girl in South Carolina takes a bus to Pennsylvania to get an abortion. Pennsylvania (may have) an extradition agreement with South Carolina, so is legally required to take her into custody and send her back to South Carolina for trial. (Presuming SC has a law against abortion at that time.) That girl could then flee to Washington State (or some other non-extradition state) without fear of being sent back to South Carolina for trial.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Oh, you misunderstood. It is a bill that would prohibit extradition of people from other states who got abortions in Washington.

Okay. It all makes sense now, as does you explaining to me how most of the populace in Washington is Democrat.

I will say they will probably lose the case if someone had an abortion in Texas and then fled to Washington.

[Mike]

65EE5272-358D-4E03-858A-7BE2EC421C4C.jpeg

More then complicated I would call this amendment incredibly unclear. There are two valid readings of the amendment. I don't see either side as legislating from the bench on this one, just accepting the meaning that best backs up their beliefs. Which is to be expected.

One thing is clear: the amendment specifies that this is about the militia, and that the militia (as known at that time) exists as a component of the security of a free State. A collection of people and geography, a body politic.

A second thing is clear: nowhere does the Amendment mention personal self defense.

A third thing is clear. The Founders were very good wordsmiths, and were specific in their application of the words ‘persons’ and ‘people’. For example, the 10th Amendment that is so hallowed by the Right does not say that the powers not enumerated are reserved to the states…. or to persons”. It says “to the states,… or to the People”.

The People is a different thing than persons. It is a body politic.

Take all that together, and one has to travel a loooong and twisting intellectual road to decide that the Amendment is all about your “personal defense” right to deploy an AR15 to gun down your aunt when you confuse her for a burglar in the middle of the night. The events around Boston in 1775 were NOT ragtag individuals. They were about the British moving to attack militia storehouses, and an organized militia response to the threat.

Consider also that the same group that crafted that Amendment had already, and in the very near future would again, put down armed rebellions against the new government. So the claim that the Amendment exists in order to allow a small pissed off group to away a vote that you don’t like is as nonsensical as the claim that it’s about personal self defense.

[Mike]

I just can't imagine any sate not outlawing abortion and then arresting people from other states for having abortions in their states. That just feels like crazy town to me. Then again it's 2022....

Oh, you misunderstood. It is a bill that would prohibit extradition of people from other states who got abortions in Washington. Or any other state, and then moved to Washington. Some states like Texas have been arguing they would have the right to bring back women that have abortions (or doctors who perform abortions) to face trial. Washington's bill will simply stop that, at a legislative level. This would make it illegal for an anti-abortion LEO or judge to comply with a request for extradition to another state for such a "crime."

But this raises another huge issue. If you go to Amsterdam and do cocaine, you are out of US jurisdiction and therefore cannot be prosecuted for it upon your return to the States. how can it be that, if a woman travels from a Texas to NJ or to Israel or to Sweden and gets an abortion, she can be arrested for it upon her return to Texas?

But I’m sure this Court will find some way to make that OK. They are staging a broad-based attack on virtually the entirety of the past 70 years of jurisprudence.

[Tarmaque]

I will say they will probably lose the case if someone had an abortion in Texas and then fled to Washington.

Perhaps in Texas, but extradition law is complex and relies on agreements. In this case, if said woman fled to Washington I doubt they would extradite her to Texas even without legislation prohibiting it. Washington itself would never try someone for such an offense perpetrated in Texas.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

One thing is clear: the amendment specifies that this is about the militia,

Sort of. The problem is it can be read as a justification for the amendment or a limitation to it. If they meant it to be limiting why does it say "The people's right to bare arms..." as opposed to "The malitia's..."?

A second thing is clear: nowhere does the Amendment mention personal self defense.

This is true but a rather flimsy argument. The first amendment doesn't mention a person's right to speak out against the government, but it is vary well established in other documents from the period that this might have been the one thing that was universal at the convention.

A third thing is clear. The Founders were very good wordsmiths, and were specific in their application of the words ‘persons’ and ‘people’. For example, the 10th Amendment that is so hallowed by the Right does not say that the powers not enumerated are reserved to the states…. or to persons”. It says “to the states,… or to the People”.

Again, let's go back to the first.

By this same logic an individual person does not have a right to assembly.

or the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Shouldn't this say "persons" too ? The only place that the original text uses the word "persons" is when referring to elected officials (and the 4th). There is freedom granted to person, or persons until the 14th.

The one exception is the 4th, but here the right itself again is granted to the people, that right is the right to secure their persons.

We als

Take all that together, and one has to travel a loooong and twisting intellectual road to decide that the Amendment is all about your “personal defense” right to deploy an AR15 to gun down your aunt when you confuse her for a burglar in the middle of the night. The events around Boston in 1775 were NOT ragtag individuals. They were about the British moving to attack militia storehouses, and an organized militia response to the threat.

I'm sorry but your arguments don't hold up if applied anywhere else on the document. The rights granted to the people are in every other instance agreed to mean all the people both individually and collectively.

I'm not going to debate the other side. Scalia has already done so better then I could. It really comes down to 1. thing, is the first part of the sentence a justification or limitation?

Like a spot of ink on the page people see what they want. You included. Try to give that sentence a reading without your bias, and tell me how "clear" it is. Again the issue could be fixed, but neither party really wants to do that. They both love ignoring and twisting the words. So we get these standoffs time and time again.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

What is obvious here is that you are repeating something you heard and never questioned.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Perhaps in Texas, but extradition law is complex and relies on agreements. In this case, if said woman fled to Washington I doubt they would extradite her to Texas even without legislation prohibiting it. Washington itself would never try someone for such an offense perpetrated in Texas.

It is when it is between countries. Between states it fairly simply. Article IV section 2

A person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

There is a long history of precedent to back it up as well. One state can not refuse to expedite to another because they disagree with the laws. The darkest example of this being upheld was during the times of slavery, where free states were forced time and time again to return escaped slaves who's only crime was being free.

[Tarmaque]

There is a long history of precedent to back it up as well. One state can not refuse to expedite to another because they disagree with the laws. The darkest example of this being upheld was during the times of slavery, where free states were forced time and time again to return escaped slaves who's only crime was being free.

Interesting. I read a little bit about that, and it seems that the SCOTUS for 140ish years held that the Federal Government had no duty to enforce this.

The act does not provide any means to compel the execution of this duty, nor inflict any punishment for neglect or refusal on the part of the Executive of the State; nor is there any clause or provision in the Constitution which arms the Government of the United States with this power. Indeed, such a power would place every State under the control and dominion of the General Government, even in the administration of its internal concerns and reserved rights. And we think it clear that the Federal Government, under the Constitution, has no power to impose on a State officer, as such, any duty whatever, and compel him to perform it.

Kentucky v Dennison, 65 U.S. 66 (1861)

What's interesting about the Dennison decision is that it found that States did have a right to demand extradition of a fugitive, but that it basically had to come from one Governor to another. So while it did happen from time to time during this period, they were generally high profile fugitives for which there was little argument. So in essence Mom was given the absolute authority to tell the kids to go to bed, but Dad didn't have the power to spank them if they didn't. So Mom barely made an effort.

However this changed in 1987 when the Rhenquist court overturned it, finding that the Constitution did in fact give the federal courts jurisdiction over the process, and could force an extradition from one state to another.

So I was wrong, but right considering the time I grew up.

[Mike]

By definition, one person cannot assemble. lol

Collective and individual rights do overlap. But if we run with the inherent logic of your retort, the Tenth Amendment becomes impossible to administer. “The rights of the States respectively, or to the People” - how can one possibly decide, in that context, which takes precedence? Is the individual subject to the laws of the state? If we say ”the people” is the same thing as the individual person, then the individual has no obligation to respect any law passed by any state. This has been tested in the courts, and the result has never gone in favor of the individual as complete sovereign. But who knows? This current Court just might go that way lol

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

So I was wrong, but right considering the time I grew up.

It's funny how perspective colors our point of view. In my mind it has always been that way. So, I was equally wrong.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

By definition, one person cannot assemble. lol

And by basic logistics the people as whole can not assemble. Only some subset of them. Which goes to your argument that "people" means all of them collectively.

Collective and individual rights do overlap. But if we run with the inherent logic of your retort, the Tenth Amendment becomes impossible to administer. “The rights of the States respectively, or to the People” - how can one possibly decide, in that context, which takes precedence?

250 years of conflict on this issue including a civil war shows that you can't. That includes a state and people as a whole. It doesn't change either way. It's another confusing amendment mostly meant as a catch all which is never very useful in practice over the long term.

If we say ”the people” is the same thing as the individual person, then the individual has no obligation to respect any law passed by any state

And if people means the people collectively the people as a whole have no obligation to respect the laws of the state. I would argue that people is used in both senses. Like I said it is either that are there are literally no individual rights, expect in the 14th. Is that really what you believe? You seem to be ignoring this.

I want to be clear, I'm not arguing for the personal rights reading of the 2nd amendment. I've read a lot from the founding father's and I can find quotes to back up either reading. I'm just pointing out that it isn't as clear cut as either side thinks it is. It's this black and white thinking that makes the issue impossible to discuss.