SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Antonin Scalia, a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice, has died:
US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia - one of most conservative members of the high court - has died. Justice Scalia's death could shift the balance of power on the US high court, allowing President Barack Obama to add a fifth liberal justice to the court. The court's conservative majority has recently stalled major efforts by the Obama administration on climate change and immigration.
Justice Scalia, 79, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986. He died in his sleep early on Saturday while in West Texas for [a] hunting trip, the US Marshall service said. Justice Scalia was one of the most prominent proponents of "originalism" - a conservative legal philosophy that believes the US Constitution has a fixed meaning and does not change with the times.
Justice Scalia's death is, unsurprisingly, now being widely reported.
From the San Antonio Express News:
According to a report, Scalia arrived at the ranch on Friday and attended a private party with about 40 people. When he did not appear for breakfast, a person associated with the ranch went to his room and found a body.
[...] The U.S. Marshal Service, the Presidio County sheriff and the FBI were involved in the investigation. Officials with the law enforcement agencies declined to comment.
A federal official who asked not to be named said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes.
A gray Cadillac hearse pulled into the ranch last Saturday afternoon. The hearse came from Alpine Memorial Funeral Home.
Most major news outlets are covering this story, including CNN [video autoplays], The Washington Post, The New York Times, and NBC.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:58AM
"originalism" - a conservative legal philosophy that believes the US Constitution has a fixed meaning and does not change with the times.
Also known as the ability to read plain English.
I favor another amendment: "And we really mean it!"
Perhaps I would expand on the simplicity of "And we really mean it!" by explaining "Whenever another law disagrees with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. And whenever a historical court decision disagrees with the plain wording of the Constitution, the Constitution wins." In other words, none of this gradual warping by piling interpretation on interpretation and holding upon holding.
Of course, power hogs would ignore it all, just like the rest of the Constitution.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by jmorris on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:25AM
They ignore such plain English that no possible Amendment could contain them other than the following, and it would reign in the entire government.
It shall be an affirmative defense in the trial of an assassin of any elected official that they were violating their Oath of Office by failing to uphold the Constitution. Once this defense is invoked the jury shall be instructed as follows: Guilt of murder is now settled. You must now decide the question of failure to uphold the Oath of Office. The accused may speak in their own defense, the State will bring in expert witnesses. Should the jury return a verdict the official had indeed violated their Oath the accused must be set free and awarded $1M USD (inflation adjusted). Otherwise the accused is to be put to death within 72 hours and the normal prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is waived. The jury is to prescribe the method and is encouraged to be a creative as they feel the case warrants in handing out a sentence as this is the best way to discourage the widespread, indiscriminate use of this law.
(Score: 4, Informative) by darnkitten on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:53AM
Hey--- I remember something like that!
H. Beam Piper-- Lone Star Planet/A Planet for Texans, [archive.org] 1958, which was a takeoff on an essay by H.L. Mencken-- The Malevolent Jobholder, [mencken.org] 1924, which itself referenced Prussian law.
...Of course that was in Piper's Libertarian phase, before he became disillusioned and increasingly authoritarian in his writing. "Flower Festivals, all around the galaxy, without end." [gutenberg.org]
-
jmorris, I googled your "amendment," above, and couldn't find it. If I may ask, did you write it--or if not, what's the source? I'd love to add it to my quotes file...
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:19AM
I have used something similar in the past, including on the 'other' site. Didn't intentionally copy anyone else directly but there aren't many totally new ideas in political science either so not shocked to see 90+ year only references to similar ideas.
Basically going with the Founders ideas that we should keep a bit of Revolutionary spirit. Since too much of anything tends to go bad wanted to temper it a bit. So shoot a rat bastard who ignores their oath but it is all or nothing, Patriot or Traitor judged by a jury of your peers forced to either turn you loose with a sack of cash or make an example of you in the negative way. Most people tend to want stability in their society so unless it was a very cut and dry case they would be assumed to want to have the assassin taken out back and executed in some very grisly way, especially if the only other option is not only turning a stone killer loose but also handing them a sack of cash and declaring them a Patriot, thus all but certain to encourage copycats. But knowing that law was on the books would tend to make government officials take their oath a bit more seriously.
If this amendment passed tomorrow the only thing keeping Hillary Clinton alive the next 24 hours would be her current status as a private citizen. (only current government officials, no mention of previous ones)
(Score: 2) by darnkitten on Tuesday February 16 2016, @07:32PM
I'd recommend reading through "Lone Star Planet" [archive.org]--It's still a fun read about a society based around your concept, and was one of my first exposures to Libertarian sci-fi, way back in Junior High.
I was intrigued by the idea until I realized that with the resentful divisiveness, bitter hatreds and unquenchable anger (and the hotheads) on both sides of partisan politics in real life and with the Judiciary just as willing to play politics as the other branches (as well as with the passions that the folks in my town bring to municipal issues), that every seat of government, from local on up, would turn into a shooting gallery with every election, and that every faction would be able able to find a judge/jurors to back their action...
And as to your Hillary comment, Lone Star Planet covers that as well (if she were to get elected)--
Actually--I'm still intrigued by that idea (among others), but am wary of any political theories being put into practice, given humanity's success/failure ratio in the last few centuries.
And--I'd recommend reading Piper [gutenberg.org] in general--he could have been one of the Grand Masters of sci-fi, if he had had the time to develop. Most of his works are available on Project Gutenberg.
Finally--If I were to quote your amendment, how should I credit you?
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Sunday February 14 2016, @11:20AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:40PM
No Amendment required. States have both of those powers. On paper.
So long as standing U.S. Government policy is massive war crimes against civilian populations for daring to try leaving this "Free Country" it isn't likely anyone is going to try. The only way would be some improbable plan that had a State or group of leave and on day one be able to invoke the MAD Doctrine. Not likely a State can both have WMD and a viable threat to be able to weaponize and deploy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:28AM
Where's that '-1, I have no brain' mod when you need it?
Or less succinctly, you're saying that you want to live in a society that's less free and would embrace slavery, child abuse, violence against women, all manner of bigotry and rampant corporate corruption.
What's more, your suggestion that "Whenever another law disagrees with the Constitution, the Constitution wins" is the reason we (at least after Marbury v. Madison [wikipedia.org]) have the Supreme Court.
You're spouting ignorant bullshit that someone smarter than you told you is true. You sound like a moron. I suggest you attempt to get a clue.
What you envision is not a society I want to live in. Fortunately, more people agree with me than agree with you.
(Score: 2) by goody on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:29AM
** except when it comes to the Second Ammendment and that stuff about well-regulated militias
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:50AM
that stuff about well-regulated militias
What stuff is that?
Oh, you mean the part where it says a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state?
You do realize, don't you, that the phrase about a well-regulated militia being necessary does not cancel the separate phrase shall not be infringed or the application of that phrase to the people (not just the militia)?
Again... reading skills... plain English... not that difficult for those who know the language.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:06AM
Justin Case, you're wasting your time.
The "progressive" movement preaches lofty goals like "tolerance," "diversity," and "keep an open mind," but in truth, they're every bit as tyrannical and coldblooded as any of the institutions they wish to replace.
They've already decided on their goals; things like the Constitution mean nothing to them.
Rational argument means nothing to them either.
(Score: 2) by goody on Sunday February 14 2016, @12:49PM
Tolerance, diversity, and open-mindedness don't include agreeing with the opposition when it goes against your values or is just plain wrong, like when conservatives claim non-acceptance of their intolerance of gays is intolerance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:40PM
"Not agreeing" is far and away different from "enforcing conformity under threat of death". All law is ultimately backed by the threat of death.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:15AM
Taken with the historical context the 2nd amendment was there to ensure that what has become the national guard would have access to the necessary weapons to wage war. Hence why they get to have most of the same hardware that the military does. They can have RPGs and amphibious assault ships that civilians are legally barred from owning.
If the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd amendment were correct and that it granted an individual right to keep and bear arms, then the only thing barring us from having those things would be the ability to pay for them. In short, the amendment doesn't apply the way the NRA thinks it does otherwise we'd have an amendment removing or amending the rights for the sake of our own safety.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday February 14 2016, @09:46AM
At the time the constitution was written, "the militia" was every person who owned a gun and "well regulated" meant able to shoot safely and accurately.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:55PM
At the time it was written they were using flintlock rifles, they had no standing army and most of the country had no full-time police force. They were also likely to be deputized or expected to take part in military operations as needed.
The requirements were lower because the weapons were less dangerous, not because they intended for those to be the requirements forever.
At any rate, if they meant to create an individual right to have firearms, they should have said a person's rather than the people's.
(Score: 1) by Fauxlosopher on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:31PM
I guess Francis is a-okay with licenses being mandatory for Internet access - after all, all the founders had at the time was mechanical presses and ink quills.
Francis may not have heard of 10 USC 311 [findlaw.com]: are you a male able-bodied US citizen between the ages of 17 and 45? Congratulations, you are part of the official US militia! Now, where do I pick up my Stinger and Javelin missile launchers and M4A1 rifle?
Even if it weren't for 10 USC 311, the authority US government has is given to it by delegation derived from the authority of the individual citizen. If the individual citizen can't do a thing, neither can the person delegate such authority to any other [soylentnews.org].
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday February 14 2016, @05:47PM
The requirements were lower because the weapons were less dangerous, not because they intended for those to be the requirements forever.
I see no expiration date or other exit condition. They did provide a mechanism to change the Constitution should it become necessary. We haven't followed that procedure yet WRT the 2nd amendment.
(Score: 2) by goody on Sunday February 14 2016, @01:01PM
Right, "plain English", from the 18th century with two recorded versions and a questionable comma; text which legal minds much more qualified than us have been arguing about for decades.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:11AM
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the health of the nation, the right of the people to keep and eat cereal, shall not be infringed.
Who has the right to eat cereal: a well-balanced breakfast, or the people?
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @02:30AM
But what if they aren't eating it for breakfast?
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday February 14 2016, @04:02AM
I would like to appoint Bane [youtube.com] as head of the Bureau of Cereals, Strawberries, and Breakfasts!
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:03AM
"Whenever another law disagrees with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. And whenever a historical court decision disagrees with the plain wording of the Constitution, the Constitution wins."
And even laws that agree with the Constitution should contain sunset clauses, so they can be more readily discarded if they prove not beneficial.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @03:52PM
At least one Founder appears to agree with you on this. Jefferson was of the opinion that US government should be totally redone every twenty years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 14 2016, @06:12AM
Also known as the ability to read plain English.
The problem with that idea is that English, like every other language, changes. Words shift denotations and connotations over time. And while looking at 250 year old dictionary might help with the denotations, the cultural shifts between the mid 1700s and the mid 1900s make working out the connotations difficult. Context-sensitive languages are a pain that way.