Dak
mentat
Yeah the SC is way out of hand. At this point it matters much less what laws are passed versus how they are interpreted.
The Political & Philosophy Thread
- Thread starter End of Glory
- Start date
Yeah the SC is way out of hand. At this point it matters much less what laws are passed versus how they are interpreted.
Elric of Melniboné
The White Wolf
- Jul 11, 2016
- 1,544
- 1,069
- 113
How is it unconstitutional for agents of the government to make a decision about equal rights at a federal level when they are specifically endowed to do so? I'm not sure how that even makes sense.
Elric of Melniboné
The White Wolf
- Jul 11, 2016
- 1,544
- 1,069
- 113
Actually, it is within the right of the Supreme Court to make rulings on cases that are tossed up to their jurisdiction, and for their ruling to change the standard of how law is enacted at a federal level. That's literally what happened in this instance.
Also, marriage is definitely considered a right of legal entitlement. If it wasn't, there would be no laws related to who is eligible to marry and what benefits and restrictions are placed on them.
Also, marriage is definitely considered a right of legal entitlement. If it wasn't, there would be no laws related to who is eligible to marry and what benefits and restrictions are placed on them.
Elric of Melniboné
The White Wolf
- Jul 11, 2016
- 1,544
- 1,069
- 113
The Fourteenth Amendment says that people shall have the right to marry. The Supreme Court is endowed to make declarations on how legal documents, including the Constitution, are interpreted. They made a ruling on a case that fell within their jurisdiction on how to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment.
Again, this is literally what happened and was within their legal boundaries to do.
Again, this is literally what happened and was within their legal boundaries to do.
Elric of Melniboné
The White Wolf
- Jul 11, 2016
- 1,544
- 1,069
- 113
Oop, I removed part of this post when I read your reply a second time.
The Supreme Court is endowed with the ability to interpret legal documents and make rulings that may cause extant laws to be considered unconstitutional, provided that the law they are interpreting applies to a case that is within their jurisdiction, which is what they did in this instance.
They have invoked this authority countless times during our history and there is nothing about this one instance that makes it drastically different from a legal perspective.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/
This is the case in question and you can see that the ruling is what rendered those laws unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court is endowed with the ability to interpret legal documents and make rulings that may cause extant laws to be considered unconstitutional, provided that the law they are interpreting applies to a case that is within their jurisdiction, which is what they did in this instance.
They have invoked this authority countless times during our history and there is nothing about this one instance that makes it drastically different from a legal perspective.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/obergefell-v-hodges/
This is the case in question and you can see that the ruling is what rendered those laws unconstitutional.
I think their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment regarding gay marriage was fine because giving gay people the right to marry shouldn't be a state's rights issue. At all. There is no real reason why individual states should be making this specific decision.
Dak
mentat
You could fill in the blank here with anything and no more or less correct.
Einherjar86
Active Member
You know what I think would be a great change? An addition at the head of the document that says: This document is a cultural artifact, and subject to change according to the political, economic, and technological developments that transform the relations between citizens.
I don't have any specific suggestions for changes, or specifics as to how changes would be made. But honestly, even if no changes were made, I would still feel better if it sported that disclaimer. My reservations toward it are generally directed at appeals to the Constitution as a mythic text, meaning I'm as skeptical of people's perspectives on the Constitution as I am of its content.
Dak
mentat
Well I'm irritated by people who revere the Constitution but don't know the difference between it and the Declaration of Independence. It is more than a cultural artifact though, and the Constitution has been amended quite a few times (17), so it's not as though there's some precedence against changing it.
Dak
mentat
I don't get much of value from the Mises site anymore, butt I thought this article provided some nice clear visuals:
https://mises.org/blog/when-it-comes-household-income-sweden-and-germany-rank-kentucky
Beyond the point that McMaken makes is that if you look only at the chart of US states (Figure 2), there's a pretty stark divide between "blue" and "red" states in terms of income. The overwhelming majority of blue states have a median income above the national median, and almost all of the red/"battleground" states cluster below the national median. Taking a Marxist perspective, it would seem that it is the Democratic Party that is the party of the bourgeois, especially when education is factored in as well:
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/
And where are those college degrees clustered? In those rich/blue states (the clustering of post secondary education maps on pretty well with the income rankings in the mises article):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment
Therefore, Trumpenproles are merely engaging in necessary revolutionary action that class warfare necessitates.
https://mises.org/blog/when-it-comes-household-income-sweden-and-germany-rank-kentucky
Beyond the point that McMaken makes is that if you look only at the chart of US states (Figure 2), there's a pretty stark divide between "blue" and "red" states in terms of income. The overwhelming majority of blue states have a median income above the national median, and almost all of the red/"battleground" states cluster below the national median. Taking a Marxist perspective, it would seem that it is the Democratic Party that is the party of the bourgeois, especially when education is factored in as well:
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/
And where are those college degrees clustered? In those rich/blue states (the clustering of post secondary education maps on pretty well with the income rankings in the mises article):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment
Therefore, Trumpenproles are merely engaging in necessary revolutionary action that class warfare necessitates.
Baroque
Active Member
Dak
mentat
I'm sure there's p-hacking going on, but some of this is a result of the "file-drawer problem". Non-significant results are less likely to get published.
Einherjar86
Active Member
It's fun to see the guys over at Mises finally coming around to this, but academics have been writing about the contradictions of political ideology and class interests for decades, going back to Louis Althusser.
I feel like the author's impetus behind making this point lies in exposing a contradiction in the democratic party, and I completely agree that it's a bourgeois political party. But I don't think any committed Marxist would claim that the democratic party is a communist party; and I think that plenty of academics vote democrat because they don't self-identify as "Marxist."
Last edited:
CiG
Coming of Age in the Milky Way
The democratic party aren't self-identifying Marxists for the most part, but much of their platform is like Marx-lite.
Einherjar86
Active Member
I know that policies like welfare and other kinds of federal support are often labeled "collectivist," but this is usually more for rhetorical effect and less for identifying something genuinely (or intellectually) communist about the democratic platform - much less Marxist.
The democratic party today is the Clinton party, and I mean that more in terms of Bill's legacy than Hillary's candidacy. The Democratic Party is a neoliberalist organization, a primarily globalist and resolutely capitalist initiative.
The democratic party today is the Clinton party, and I mean that more in terms of Bill's legacy than Hillary's candidacy. The Democratic Party is a neoliberalist organization, a primarily globalist and resolutely capitalist initiative.
CiG
Coming of Age in the Milky Way
Capitalist in what sense that has any meaning? They like money? Like the republicans they're very much of the crony (corporatist) feather.
I would say that the democratic party is definitely entwined with a Marxist worldview, in that many things they support are based in that thought. You must have noticed that they've attached themselves to pretty much every modern identity politic there is?
I would say that the democratic party is definitely entwined with a Marxist worldview, in that many things they support are based in that thought. You must have noticed that they've attached themselves to pretty much every modern identity politic there is?
Einherjar86
Active Member
Capitalist in that they believe in markets comprised of private agents.
Most committed Marxists are deeply opposed to identity politics.
Dak
mentat
The difference between theoretical Marxists and acting Marxists. Theoretical ones wait for the system to naturally implode and Communism is the natural result in the aftermath. Acting Communists act to implode it so they can insure themselves to be a little more equal than others in the aftermath.
Dak
mentat
CiG
Coming of Age in the Milky Way
Somehow I find that very, very hard to believe. Also, "most" must consist of about 7 people because how many committed Marxists really are there?
