1. Walt Harris' daughter is missing around Auburn, Alabama. Please read this thread for more information.

Economy Trump Plans to Sign $2.7 Trillion Budget

Discussion in 'The War Room' started by waiguoren, Jul 22, 2019.

  1. Cuauhtemoc

    Cuauhtemoc Silver Belt

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    11,688
    Likes Received:
    7,743
    Location:
    Amazon Forest, Brazil
    Of course, if the Constitution has been changed you should accept that but the originalist position is to not change the interpretation of a given piece of text.
    I agree it's asinine to cling blindly to what men thought 200 years ago and it's basically a form of religion where the deities are the US Founding Fathers.
    The world changes but ideally you would be able to pass amendments instead of relying on supreme court justices to interpret stuff in creative ways.
     
  2. waiguoren

    waiguoren Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,821
    Likes Received:
    10,233
    That's not what I wrote. The size of the federal government is my main concern, not the debt/deficit.

    With a Republican Congress. Divided government restricts spending.

    Sure, but my target for federal spending is <1/100 of the current level so that's a minor point to me.

    Sure, let's compare them. The Bush spending was worse.

    Could you cite an example of such a person?

    Immigration definitely yes (that's one of my main issues with the US Constitution Party), but abortion? What exactly are you referring to?

    • Originalism means we understand the text of the Constitution as the authors intended it to be understood. The meaning of text does not change through time. For example, the 8th Amendment cannot forbid the death penalty since that was a common form of punishment when the 8th Amendment was ratified. If we wish to ban the death penalty, we have legislatures---not judges---for that.
    • Originalism fully embraces the amendment process since it's part of the original text of the constitution (see Article V). For example, the 14th Amendment is to be understood as its authors intended it.
    • The Articles of Confederation =/= the US Constitution, though the former can elucidate some of the ambiguous parts of the former since many of the authors are the same and the latter directly lifted a lot of the text of the former.
    • Current prolific originalist scholars: Professor Caleb Nelson (UVA), Professor Stephen Sachs (Duke).
    • "Most originalist" SCOTUS justices: Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2019
  3. kpt018

    kpt018 Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    23,282
    Likes Received:
    15,939
    Why is that an important distinction? Of course the government can grow and we can reduce deficits/debt.

    It should be obvious to you that's false given you created a thread about increased spending in a time of divided government.

    Why is that your target?

    Cool. I think the biggest misunderstanding is the first point, so I'll wait for your answer on that.
     
  4. panamaican

    panamaican Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    37,120
    Likes Received:
    37,496
    Sure but you wouldn't know them.


    Many of the anti-abortion arguments are rooted in religious reasoning. I think that would contradict the freedom of religion element. Right to privacy is another (but I understand that people might argue over whether or not it's a privacy argument), extended to the states via the 14th.

    I can accept many anti-abortion arguments but I can't see them coming from people who assert that they are true Constitutional originalists.
     
  5. waiguoren

    waiguoren Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,821
    Likes Received:
    10,233
    What? This is not a thread about debt/deficits. It's a thread about the size of the federal government.

    *Relative to unified government*...come on man.

    • Massive federal spending means massive aggregation of power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats and mob-selected figures like Trump or Pelosi.
    • Erosion of federalism/states' rights due to "crowding out"---states cannot compete with federal government so they become dependent on it. This undermines the constitutional structure (see: 10th Amendment).
    • We do not need a $700 billion/annum military to be safe---in fact it makes us less safe.
    • Most of the spending is unconstitutional under any reasonable reading of the commerce and general welfare clauses.
    • For almost all purposes, people spend their own money more efficiently than government, though there are some Keynesian effects that could make that a false dichotomy (e.g., deficit spending during a recession could prevent loss of wealth)
     
  6. waiguoren

    waiguoren Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,821
    Likes Received:
    10,233
    Where are the originalists calling for federal abortion restrictions? I don't know of any.
     
  7. panamaican

    panamaican Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    37,120
    Likes Received:
    37,496
    State or federal restrictions, not just federal.

    As for people calling for state or federal restrictions, are you asking for public figures or just people who claim to hold both positions? I don't know any public figures off the top of my head. Regular people I know but you wouldn't know them.
     
  8. Canned Tuna

    Canned Tuna Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2009
    Messages:
    10,781
    Likes Received:
    6,887
    Location:
    St. Louis
    Basically, if you are opposed to voting for either of the candidates for whatever reason (that we've already thoroughly discussed) I think increasing the viability of future third party options is better than not voting at all and better than casting an uneducated vote that could actually affect the outcome of the election

    I see the possibility of moving out of a two party system as a positive
     
  9. kpt018

    kpt018 Gold Belt

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    23,282
    Likes Received:
    15,939
    WTF? You should reread your OP.

    You only spoke about spending here and didn't mention the size of government at all. Major brain fart on your part man.
     
  10. waiguoren

    waiguoren Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,821
    Likes Received:
    10,233
    How would state abortion restrictions conflict with originalism? (they wouldn't)


    I'm skeptical of this. If they are lawyers, I'll consider them public figures and you should name them. Otherwise, I find it hard to believe that you know people who call themselves originalists. It's not exactly a catchy or common term.

    I did. Nowhere in the OP did I advocate for deficit reduction. My primary interest is in reduction of the size and scope of the federal government.

    ....you do realize that "size of government" means "size of federal outlays"? Government is nothing without the ability to spend.
     
  11. waiguoren

    waiguoren Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,821
    Likes Received:
    10,233
    Sorry, didn’t see this until just now.

    My position on immigration is the federal government has almost no authority in that area. “The wall” is unconstitutional. The system of visas is unconstitutional. The federal government's authority in this area is limited to a establishing a "uniform rule of naturalization" (see: Article I, Section VII, Clause IV). Those who want the federal government to carry out "immigration policy" or "border security" must demonstrate constitutional authority for their desired policy goals. Inevitably, they will fail.

    When have I ever even hinted at a rejection of judicial review? Weird claim there (and I'm pretty confident it's baseless), although I think there is an interesting debate to be had there.

    You're making an unprovable claim there, and I'm confident you're aware of it. Also, what do you mean by "likely cannot possibly be"?

    As for your idea that self-proclaimed originalists are lying or self-deluded: please let us know if Stephen Sachs is lying or self-deluded, and how you know this.

    As usual, Randal Paul did the right thing here:

     
  12. Jack V Savage

    Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    69,918
    Likes Received:
    39,585
    That hasn't been your consistent position. You've presented as a hardliner on immigration, even saying that you support reducing legal immigration based on "objective measures."

    Well, you've arrogated the sole right to determine Constitutionality, rejecting precedent, which amounts to the same thing, doesn't it?

    I believe it's impossible, but I can't demonstrate it. So I say it's likely impossible. I also suspect that a demonstration is possible, but it involves more work than I want to put in.

    I haven't seen any of his plays so I'll pass on addressing him specifically, but deluded is likely if he claims to be a consistent originalist.
     
  13. waiguoren

    waiguoren Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,821
    Likes Received:
    10,233
    It has been my consistent position. I've written as much multiple times over the years here. If I had my way, I would probably amend the Constitution to authorize the federal government to implement border controls and immigration policy. I would definitely amend the Constitution to authorize the federal government to tax sources of emissions of various aerosols (ozone, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide) in proportion to their volume of emissions. I would also ratify a similar amendment for water pollution and another for the creation of protected lands.

    To summarize, I'm an "environmentalist" and "supporter of immigration policy" yet I'm confident the federal government is not authorized to do the things I would like it to do in those domains.

    Really weird thing to write.

    Believing that the Supreme Court got an issue wrong is not even close to the same as rejecting judicial review. I'm sure you disagree with the decision in United States v Morrison---that is, you probably think that the civil penalties included in the "Violence Against Women Act" were constitutional (you would be wrong, but that's a separate issue). Of course, that doesn't mean you "reject judicial review". It means you reject a particular use of the power of judicial review. Of course, most SCOTUS cases aren't even judicial review cases (i.e., the cases do not involve the potential to overturn an existing law), so to say that disagreeing with a decision is the same as "rejecting judicial review" just doesn't make sense.

    So I think you were confusing stare decisis with judicial review. Even then, your statement is inaccurate. Rejecting a particular precedent is not the same as rejecting the doctrine of precedent. Here, I will quote the great Justice Thomas:

    "I read everything I could get my hands on on stare decisis. The theory is all over the place. Justice Goldberg's theory was basically it's a ratchet---as you improve civil liberties, those strict rules of stare decisis apply. But when they need to overrule cases in order to do what he thinks is the right thing, then a loose set of rules for stare decisis apply. Then we have Justice Brandeis. He has his rules on stare decisis. But he overruled Swift v Tyson, which was a 96-year-old precedent! Then what do you do with Plessy v Ferguson? So you have lots of precedents out there that have been changed. You have Justice Brennan re-doing the political question doctrine in Baker v Carr. I'm not saying he overruled anything but boy, it didn't look like it used to look. When people get what they want, then they start yelling 'stare decisis' as though that is supposed to stop you, like the boogeyman or something. I think that the Constitution itself---the written document---is the ultimate stare decisis. Caleb Nelson has a nice piece---I'm not saying it's totally right but Caleb is very thoughtful---on stare decisis. He makes a point. If the statute allows you to choose between 'A' and 'B' and you would, on a clean slate, choose 'B' but the Court has already chosen 'A', then you give that stare decisis. The choices were there and the Court has chosen, so you don't change it. But if the Court has chosen 'C' when the statute gave you 'A' and 'B', then that is clearly erroneous.

    I was referring to the Professor of Law at Duke University, not the playwright.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2019
  14. Jack V Savage

    Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    69,918
    Likes Received:
    39,585
    That you support open borders? That certainly doesn't line up with your posting as one of the most extreme anti-immigration posters here.

    Sure, but you're not disagreeing with a case here and there. Your objections are far deeper, and do require throwing out a big chunk of past rulings.

    I have no knowledge of or opinion about the case. Your assumption is wrong. But on the general principle that one can disagree with individual rulings without rejecting the idea that the SCOTUS has the final say, again, sure. But there's a limit to how often that card can be played without raising issues about the principle.

    Same answer, with minor edits, then.
     
  15. waiguoren

    waiguoren Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,821
    Likes Received:
    10,233
    No. Don't be obtuse.
    Again, I think you're confused about the meaning of the term "judicial review". One could oppose all past uses of judicial review and still support Marbury. Of course, I support many of the past uses, e.g., in Brown. But anyway, you're still mixing up stare decisis and judicial review.

    Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with Professor Sach's writings and approach before rushing to judgment about the validity of his judicial philosophy.
     
  16. Jack V Savage

    Jack V Savage Secretary of Keepin' It Real/Nicest Guy on Sherdog

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2004
    Messages:
    69,918
    Likes Received:
    39,585
    I really don't know how you reconcile your past posting on immigration and related issues with your claim that you've always believed that the federal gov't should not control the border or immigration policy.
     
  17. panamaican

    panamaican Senior Moderator Staff Member Senior Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2009
    Messages:
    37,120
    Likes Received:
    37,496
    They would through the 14th Amendment and the previously stated federal arguments.

    Wait, what? Why would random lawyers be considered public figures?

    As for knowing people who call themselves originalists, apparently I know a broader array of people than you do. But I was politically active for quite a few years right after law school in the GOP so maybe that's just a self-selecting crowd where you'll find people who like to opine on original intent and who also hold politically driven opinions on current events.

    And most of the people I'm thinking about aren't lawyers.
     
  18. ineverpost

    ineverpost Black Belt

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2007
    Messages:
    5,796
    Likes Received:
    3,815
    Thank you for recommending the Libertarian Party. My life is changed and the fate of the country saved.
     
  19. Misfit23

    Misfit23 Black Belt

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    Messages:
    6,221
    Likes Received:
    3,671
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    Companies coming back... Lol. I'm currently in Mexico training engineers because they cost a fraction of what American engineers cost. Once everyone is up and running here I'm gonna have to lay off a good chunk of staff in the US.
     
  20. waiguoren

    waiguoren Silver Belt

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,821
    Likes Received:
    10,233
    Again, it's possible to simultaneously (1) believe that Policy A is unconstitutional 2) wish that Article V authority be used to make Policy A constitutional. There is no contradiction.

    From a different angle, I might adopt the viewpoint that constitutionalism died with
    Home Building & Loan Assn v. Blaisdell and Helvering v Davis, so it's best to ignore the Constitution and merely advocate for policies I believe in. That is, perhaps it is the case that trying to restore constitutionalism is a Sisyphean endeavor.

    No, that is complete nonsense. At the time of the adoption of the 14th Amendment (1868) state abortion restrictions were widespread. By the end of the 19th Century, with the 14th Amendment in full effect, abortion was a statutory crime everywhere in the United States. There is no evidence from the ratification debates on the 14th Amendment to suggest that its authors or the ratifying state legislatures believed the 14th Amendment applied to abortion. I am not aware of any successful federal challenges to state abortion laws on 14th Amendment grounds until Roe 105 years later.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.