Conversation
Notices
-
@mv @lnxwalt280 just found out I made an A- in Con Law, so you can take that "-" into account any time I discuss the Constitution, which of course, won't be legal advice because I'm not licensed to give legal advice.
-
does it count if I got an A in con law when I was an undergrad :) and an A- in civil liberties
-
Did your class cover the 1st amendment? How many hours? Just wondering how in depth it was. Actually, all the criminal procedure stuff is in, well, Criminal Procedure, so the law school version is mostly separation of powers and federalism.
-
Torts (via defamation) covers some first amendment stuff. Basically, the 1st Amendment is omnipresent.
-
for what it's worth, my IP prof thinks it's crazy we aren't required to take the 1st Amendment class. It's one I will be taking even though not required.
-
@douglasawh Hey, congratulations. I know you really had to work for it. Good job.
-
@douglasawh sorry I did mean to say congrats too :) my bad I let my sarcasm get to me
-
sarcasm or not, I'm actual curious what gets taught in such an undergraduate course since I never took anything PoliSci related.
-
honestly it has been so long I can't recall the details...but we read through many cases to understand how the supreme court gained it's power and how it shifted ideologically over the years, usually about 20 years behind mainstream movements
-
I'm not sure where you are getting the 20 years. Brown v Board of Education (which was not the first race case) 1954 -- Civil Rights Act 1964.
-
of course, you could say they were 70 years behind since Congress passed Civil Rights stuff right after the Civil War which SCOTUS struck down.
-
again I don't remember the details that well...all I do recall is that the supreme court gaining the "unconstitutional" power was a case where the chief justice was cousins with one of the members of the case and to this day hate Marbur…
-
not true. Article V clearly lays out how to overrule the Supreme Court.
-
also, members of SCOTUS can be impeached.
-
difficult != impossible
-
I guess this could be a topic for the show "Is SCOTUS truly accountable?"
-
one I qualified my statement by "little to no" but the power of determining a law unconstitutional came from the Marbury vs. Madison case...yes they can be impeached how often has that process worked on a national scale? and yes this co…
-
we probably need to do 2 things with SCOTUS: 1) increase the # of people (probably to 15) 2) have some recusal guidelines. Right now if a Justice recusing themselves their "side" is at a significant disadvantage. If you increase the number, each Justice becomes less important.
-
jabber should work, though I'm not enthusiastic about spending time lining up the two sides...though I think I know how I can improve my efficiency.
-
first what more justices? ok FDR.... and second to hell with the supreme court...if we are going to change anything it's um writing a new constitution
-
enthusiastic about lining up the two sides? I don't follow...both @jabber and google are jabber and pretty easy to setup...how can you improve your efficiency?
-
recording on two sides of the pipes.
-
FDR was doing to get what he wanted. Actually, I don't want to give Obama all 6. 2 in 2013, 2 in 2021 and 2 in 2029. That way we ensure different presidents. We used to have 7 and I think 5 at one point too. # isn't in Constitution...so that's an easy fix.
-
unfortunately, you aren't in power, so you can't write a new constitution. We have to get assembly laws and such fixed before there can be any revolution, bloodless or otherwise.
-
it's not that hard you know :)
-
I have no hope that such things will be "fixed" that requires supporting an election process that doesn't work to the advantage of those in the struggle...so in my mind and experience take to the streets and force a response from the system...voting won't do shit
-
no it's not in the consitution but it's a congressional rule, which is even harder to change and one is better off waiting for a supreme court justice to die...the point is that there is no point in expanding the US supreme court or not…
-
unfortunately, there are millions of people that watch FAUX News and are itching to shoot people taking the streets. Cannot be won on any single front.
-
political power is a more legitimate argument that diversity?
-
I'm concerned about being governed by a Cambridge-New Haven oligarchy, which is a problem outside SCOTUS, but expanding SCOTUS is one way to help.
-
@douglasawh same reason why changing the number of members of the court is basically impossible let alone changing laws about assemblies...you proved my point...can't rely on the system do to the correct thing is rarely if ever has
-
great! so go right ahead and see what support that will get in congress...I could careless who runs the courts cause the entire system fails to work for the people and instead works against the people...focus all you want on the the cam…
-
@mv @douglasawh I too feel like I'm tilting at windmills here, but part of the problem is that the two main parties are like conjoined twins. People need to refuse to vote for any D or R candidate. When we have five or seven viable parties, it will be harder for corps to control.
-
Voting does not work because both parties have been bought out by large organizations. The courts do not work because judges are appointed by the elected branches. And protests do not work because the ruthless people at the top would not hesitate call in drone strikes.
-
It just seems to me that the best way to change things is to get enough people voting for third/fourth/fifth parties and deprive D and R of votes.
-
Remember also that both the tea partiers and the occupy movement were (at the core) about trying to restore individuals' freedom and curtail the power of large organizations. If the two groups ever realize this, they will change the nation.
-
@douglasawh I see what you are saying and then I look at other countries that have more parties and see the same thing...England for instance has 3 major parties that are controlled...México same thing...hell Guatemala has 24 different…
-
I disagree about the tea party and the occupy movement...there are similarities but individual something something is not it...they both are pissed at the system...the difference is the Tea Party thinks the system can be changed from wi…
-
@lnxwalt280 I was going to leave the convo, but since you brought it up, I think voting is important damage control but voting alone is ridiculous
-
@douglasawh I'm not suggesting "voting alone" ... I'm suggesting that nothing else will matter without actively seeking to break the major parties' control, by voting.
-
@mv ... large organizations have too much power over individuals.
-
@mv I agree that #teaparty lost its effectiveness by trying to work within the #Republican party. But their message: "get large orgs out of our lives" still resonates.
-
@douglashawh I'm suggesting that protesting without voting invites a "Tiennamen Square" type response from leaders who would gladly do so.
-
I agree that there are concerns about the political parties involvement of occupy and to an extent the tea party...but occupy is much bigger than just the corporations. The tea party claim that big agencies are controlling their lives i…
-
agencies controlling lives is not a stretch if you bump up against them. The EPA can level something like $70,000/day fines. An EPA case went to SCOTUS this year. I don't remember the holding.
-
One the teaparty perspective is that their lives are heavily controlled, second EPA regulates industry not individuals, yes a company is technically an individual (thanks SCOTUS) but the point is that in comparison to say other develope…
-
@mv Some farmers are concerned because recent USDA and DOL rulings make it difficult to employ your own minor children on your farm.
-
@mv Some gardeners are concerned because USDA and FDA proposals seem to indicate that growing your own food may soon be illegal.
-
@mv There are dozens of such rulings in which a large (govt) organization intrudes upon individuals and families. I think they are right to be concerned, myself. But maybe that's because I have a garden.
-
that's simply not true. The EPA also regulates humans. Clearly you haven't purchased much land. :)
-
I'm also concerned for this health "reform" law (really welfare for the insurance industry), because once the door is opened, any industry can seek gov't mandated purchases by individuals. (Besides, gov't single payer is the only just system.)
-
I suppose the EPA would say they regulate land - regardless. Don't get me wrong. I generally like the EPA.
-
@lnxwalt280 what's the rationalisation for disallowing that?
-
@reality I believe it is health & safety rules. Trying to prevent accidents with dangerous equipment.
-
@reality ... for gardening, it is the Constitution's commerce clause. Growing your own food affects interstate commerce.
-
@lnxwalt280 like watering cans?
-
@reality ... we can't allow people to grow GMO-free foods and deprive big campaign contributors of revenue.
-
I don't care to ever do that but the EPA is also underfunded and usually is not able to enforce their rulings much like the NLRA, and many other state and federal agencies...I agree the methods are wrong but I also don't see our lives c…
-
I think there are times yes, but I don't see it as a general practice as the likes of say Stalin, or China...I am more concerned about the government having little no accountability to the people (yes @douglasawh I know there are electi…
-
I think that hits closer to the point yes as a land owner individually you may be regulated but the point is it is not because you are an individual but because you own land.
-
Well yes that is concerning...but why in the world would the USDA and FDA set a rule to make home gardening not allowed? who would pressure the USDA or FDA to make such a rule
-
@mv I would suspect Monsanto and the food processors. Or maybe some "health" advocacy group that wants to ensure families eat "regular and nutritious" processed foods.
-
@mv In other words, I suspect "regulatory capture" is a big factor in many of these intrusions.
-
I think the first idea is more accurate...but what does that mean for the #teaparty are they targeting the group that needs to be changed?
-
I would describe it as using agencies to try and create monopoly power for a select few companies
-
it's not like you need to be a part of the elite to own land. I have friends parents who used to work in factories that have land. My grandparents (mom's side both in unions) and parents own land. Wendy owns a condo and her dad worked in a Kodak processing factory.
-
no i didn't say that, but I also wouldn't recommend owning it either
-
All 280 content and data are available under the