POTWR: Inaugural Address 2019

[Higus]

You decide what format you're most interested in. Whatever inspires you to devote some energy to the thread probably works for me. You for or against legal abortions?

Pro-Choice. I'll think of a format, or respond to someone else who would like to tackle it from the other side.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Pro-Choice. I'll think of a format, or respond to someone else who would like to tackle it from the other side.

Let me know. Honestly, years ago I burnt myself out on discussing the topic. If we just did this as a hot-button issue thread where you lay out your case then I'm sure there'll be no shortage of folks taking up the pro-life position.

 

[Jack V Savage]

UBI is a good one. I'm for it, but couldn't begin to offer the first bit of technical analysis on the subject. Plus, I think @Jack V Savage is also for UBI. Would love to Jack debate someone on this. Or someone far more knowledgeable lead a thread on it.

At this time I wouldn't say that I'm for UBI, but I also wouldn't argue against it very hard. So it's more of the kind of issue that I'd like to see other people discuss and then weigh in on (the "help me make up my mind" thing, although I wouldn't choose that topic myself). I think that as Noah Smith put it, some people want to reward luck and productivity and others want to reward neither, but we should be trying to reward only productivity and distribute luck broadly. UBI is kind of a step in the right direction in that sense so the idea is OK, but I don't really see it as a good way to get there (like single payer in that--the goal of universally affordable coverage is good but I'm not convinced that it's the best way to achieve the goal).

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

At this time I wouldn't say that I'm for UBI, but I also wouldn't argue against it very hard. So it's more of the kind of issue that I'd like to see other people discuss and then weigh in on (the "help me make up my mind" thing, although I wouldn't choose that topic myself). I think that as Noah Smith put it, some people want to reward luck and productivity and others want to reward neither, but we should be trying to reward only productivity and distribute luck broadly. UBI is kind of a step in the right direction in that sense so the idea is OK, but I don't really see it as a good way to get there (like single payer in that--the goal of universally affordable coverage is good but I'm not convinced that it's the best way to achieve the goal).

If you want to have people help you make up your mind on this or any other topic please let me know. I'm certain it'll be a good thread no matter the topic.

 

[Higus]

Let me know. Honestly, years ago I burnt myself out on discussing the topic. If we just did this as a hot-button issue thread where you lay out your case then I'm sure there'll be no shortage of folks taking up the pro-life position.

I was having a semi-productive exchange with @waiguoren before he went AWOL. I can try to reproduce it.

Maybe it's too late now, but another thread format that might be good would be a "How would you solve X?"

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I was having a semi-productive exchange with @waiguoren before he went AWOL. I can try to reproduce it.

Maybe it's too late now, but another thread format that might be good would be a "How would you solve X?"

Right on.

That's a good idea too. We're certainly not limited to the specific options above.

 

[JamesRussler]

Maybe @Lord Coke can provide some tips on how best to research the 2nd Amendment? Gotta figure he's done 100x more of it than anyone here.

Here's a good summary of the history of the Second Amendment by law professors Adam Winkler and Nelson Lund. This is represents the mainstream view from balanced perspectives, and it's a quick read. Unless you want to spend weeks reading the Federalist Papers and derivative interpretations, I suggest starting there.

If you want to get a sense for modern 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, read District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (holding that 2nd Amendment guarantees an individually held, enforceable right to bear arms); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporating 2nd Amendment against the states through 14th Amendment Due Process clause), and Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) (holding, per curium, that the 2nd Amendment includes "arms" not in existence at time of nation's founding). Make sure to read the dissents and concurrences, because they'll give you a sense of where the genuine legal disputes are. If you want a sense of pre-Heller 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, read United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), and United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The latter three cases are good for historical perspective, but be advised that the Supreme Court has limited and / or distinguished them to the point that they are effectively overruled (at least so far as gun control advocates are concerned). The current composition of the SCOTUS is not terribly enamored of them.

The law among the circuits and states varies, as Lord Coke can tell you. In fact, I believe that in the next few years, the Supreme Court will issue a landmark ruling expounding upon the pronouncements in Caetano (remember, that case was per curiam, and was relatively short), and clarifying the limits of the state's ability to place restrictions on gun ownership. In particular, the recent case of Young v. Hawaii, 896 F. 3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2018) arguably evinces a circuit split regarding so-called "open carry" laws. The case is pending en banc review in the Ninth Circuit, and may end up in the SCOTUS.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

@Fawlty

 

[Limbo Pete]

Here's a good summary of the history of the Second Amendment by law professors Adam Winkler and Nelson Lund. This is represents the mainstream view from balanced perspectives, and it's a quick read. Unless you want to spend weeks reading the Federalist Papers and derivative interpretations, I suggest starting there.

If you want to get a sense for modern 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, read District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) (holding that 2nd Amendment guarantees an individually held, enforceable right to bear arms); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (incorporating 2nd Amendment against the states through 14th Amendment Due Process clause), and Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. ___ (2016) (holding, per curium, that the 2nd Amendment includes "arms" not in existence at time of nation's founding). Make sure to read the dissents and concurrences, because they'll give you a sense of where the genuine legal disputes are. If you want a sense of pre-Heller 2nd Amendment jurisprudence, read United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886), and United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The latter three cases are good for historical perspective, but be advised that the Supreme Court has limited and / or distinguished them to the point that they are effectively overruled (at least so far as gun control advocates are concerned). The current composition of the SCOTUS is not terribly enamored of them.

The law among the circuits and states varies, as Lord Coke can tell you. In fact, I believe that in the next few years, the Supreme Court will issue a landmark ruling expounding upon the pronouncements in Caetano (remember, that case was per curiam, and was relatively short), and clarifying the limits of the state's ability to place restrictions on gun ownership. In particular, the recent case of Young v. Hawaii, 896 F. 3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2018) arguably evinces a circuit split regarding so-called "open carry" laws. The case is pending en banc review in the Ninth Circuit, and may end up in the SCOTUS.

Problem no. 1:

The onset of war does not always allow time to raise and train an army, and the Revolutionary War showed that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense. The Constitutional Convention therefore decided that the federal government should have almost unfettered authority to establish peacetime standing armies and to regulate the militia.

You'll notice how there is no mention of Shay's Rebellion here, which is extremely important for understanding the context and motivations for expanding Federal authority to organize military action. The apparent desire, or at least inadvertent neglect, to omit that and other key events shaping the formation of the Constitution borders on revisionism imo.

 

[Andy Capp]

After a further bit of thought, I realized there's no actual dilemma when I consider how I intend to frame the discussion. I just have to make like Mozart and write it down, now. Otherwise, in my mind's eye, it's done. I'll be in touch.

@Cubo de Sangre there will be a slight delay due to life happening, but I don't imagine it's pressing anyway.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

@Cubo de Sangre there will be a slight delay due to life happening, but I don't imagine it's pressing anyway.

We're good for a bit. Hope it's good busy and not bad busy.

 

[Fawlty]

@Fawlty

Thanks, I'm familiar with all of those cases (we used to yell at each other about bringing Miller into debates). Court decisions are definitely the easier part of researching the 2nd.

 

[Fawlty]

Problem no. 1:

You'll notice how there is no mention of Shay's Rebellion here, which is extremely important for understanding the context and motivations for expanding Federal authority to organize military action. The apparent desire, or at least inadvertent neglect, to omit that and other key events shaping the formation of the Constitution borders on revisionism imo.

The evolution of the wording of the 2nd is very interesting too. There are are lot of wee rabbit holes to run down but I'm convinced that the language of the amendment was made purposefully vague with respect to the different POVs held by the different states.

 

[JamesRussler]

Problem no. 1:

You'll notice how there is no mention of Shay's Rebellion here, which is extremely important for understanding the context and motivations for expanding Federal authority to organize military action. The apparent desire, or at least inadvertent neglect, to omit that and other key events shaping the formation of the Constitution borders on revisionism imo.

I missed the part where the authors said "Shays' Rebellion had absolutely no influence on the Framers or the Second Amendment." It may be that the effect of Shays' Rebellion is more of an in-depth subject of discussion, not properly included in a summary of the Second Amendment's history.

 

[Limbo Pete]

I missed the part where the authors said "Shays' Rebellion had absolutely no influence on the Framers or the Second Amendment." It may be that the effect of Shay's Rebellion is more of an in-depth subject of discussion, not properly included in a summary of the Second Amendment's history.

Uh, no. Shays' Rebellion was one of the principal events that shaped the need for developing the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment. The difference between knowing and not knowing the context for an event can mean wildly inadequate or essentially revisionist analysis.

 

[JamesRussler]

Uh, no. Shay's Rebellion was one of the principal events that shaped the need for developing the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment. The difference between knowing and not knowing the context for an event can mean wildly inadequate or essentially revisionist analysis.

Sounds like you have an axe to grind. Something about the Shays' Rebellion compels your singular focus on its significance with respect to the Second Amendment. I have my suspicions about your motives, but suffice to say the revisionist here is none other than yourself.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Sounds like you have an axe to grind. Something about the Shays Rebellion compels your singular focus on its significance with respect to the Second Amendment. I have my suspicions about your motives, but suffice to say the revisionist here is none other than yourself.

 

[JamesRussler]

Okay Pete, tell me why you think the Shays' Rebellion means the Framers wanted strict gun control.

 

[NoDak]

Am told mods will kill any race/genetics thread so how about something else? What would you like to debate someone on where trolls and assholes would be weeded out?

Oh, nothing really.

Most of the subject matter I focus on is fairly esoteric to a lot people, it doesn't leave much room for debate. I'd argue my signature with anyone (first quote, second one is just hateful) or maybe the aesthetics and artistic detail of the human masculine / feminine forms with @franklinstower lol.

 

[Limbo Pete]

Okay Pete, tell me why you think the Shays' Rebellion means the Framers wanted strict gun control.

You've lost me