Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Culise]

It is out of date (it was originally written in 1868), and subsequent junk has patched up that sort of stuff. Mostly, at the absolute least.

That said, fixed, yes, ignored, no. Pretty sure the 14th was a fairly notable step up from the situation at the time. Most folks I've noticed suggesting abolishing or ignoring it are pretty incredibly shitty people.

Pretty much.  I pointed out that the precise part that was complained about was fixed a mere...oh, 94 years ago, now.  Heck, it was even conveniently on the very next line trimmed from the quote in the complaint. ^_^

Indeed, since it was my post that apparently triggered this outburst, I can probably go into a bit of detail.  Because it *has* already been fixed, abolishing or replacing the 14th amendment typically boils down to shutting down representation based on population, with the most common replacement to my knowledge being to replace it with representation based on citizenship instead.  The reason Native Americans were so contentious, or perhaps more accurately the fig-leaf for this particular facet of the citizenship argument of that day (it's an old argument), was because Native Americans weren't "just" US citizens, even if they renounced their tribes (according to federal courts in McKay v. Campbell and, nationally, Elk v. Wilkins); they're citizens of their tribes, semi-sovereign entities or "domestic dependent nations" that enter into treaty compacts with the United States government.  The contradictions herein in the US simultaneously treating with native tribes as both sovereign states and non-sovereign territories subject to American rule based on which was more convenient were rather elided over because of the views of the day, and extending the rights of citizenship took until 1924 legally, with the provisions not fully enforced until the courts came down hard in 1948.  However, they did, and they did so without the rigorous requirements of a constitutional amendment.  That's obviously not to say that native tribes live a charmed life today, but the problems therein don't have much to do with the 14th Amendment. 

[redwallzyl]

Right now the fun thing we do is completely fail to do anything to enforce laws on native land. Leaving the tribal police both overwhelmed and without the right to properly prosecute crimes committed by non non tribe members.

Which is how this happens: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/02/on-indian-land-criminals-can-get-away-with-almost-anything/273391/

Discrimination is alive and strong.

[Baffler]

It is out of date (it was originally written in 1868), and subsequent junk has patched up that sort of stuff. Mostly, at the absolute least.

That said, fixed, yes, ignored, no. Pretty sure the 14th was a fairly notable step up from the situation at the time. Most folks I've noticed suggesting abolishing or ignoring it are pretty incredibly shitty people.

Pretty much.  I pointed out that the precise part that was complained about was fixed a mere...oh, 94 years ago, now.  Heck, it was even conveniently on the very next line trimmed from the quote in the complaint. ^_^

Indeed, since it was my post that apparently triggered this outburst, I can probably go into a bit of detail.  Because it *has* already been fixed, abolishing or replacing the 14th amendment typically boils down to shutting down representation based on population, with the most common replacement to my knowledge being to replace it with representation based on citizenship instead.  The reason Native Americans were so contentious, or perhaps more accurately the fig-leaf for this particular facet of the citizenship argument of that day (it's an old argument), was because Native Americans weren't "just" US citizens, even if they renounced their tribes (according to federal courts in McKay v. Campbell and, nationally, Elk v. Wilkins); they're citizens of their tribes, semi-sovereign entities or "domestic dependent nations" that enter into treaty compacts with the United States government.  The contradictions herein in the US simultaneously treating with native tribes as both sovereign states and non-sovereign territories subject to American rule based on which was more convenient were rather elided over because of the views of the day, and extending the rights of citizenship took until 1924 legally, with the provisions not fully enforced until the courts came down hard in 1948.  However, they did, and they did so without the rigorous requirements of a constitutional amendment.  That's obviously not to say that native tribes live a charmed life today, but the problems therein don't have much to do with the 14th Amendment. 

For sure. A surprising amount of the legal foundation for relations between the United States and Native groups is composed of treaties signed
a good deal more than 100 years ago.

[Trekkin]

Shulkin is out. Not a huge surprise in and of itself, but this is the fifth major departure from the Trump administration this month. Previously we've seen little clusters of people leave, like how Priebus followed Spicer or Gorka left a week after Bannon, interspersed with periods of relative stability; now people are leaving somewhat consistently at a rate of about one every 5.8 days. It will be interesting to see if Carson, Zinke, or Pruitt are removed at a similar rate, which might suggest this is Trump trying to use firings already justifiable ethically to try to wrest media attention away from Mueller or the whole Daniels thing.

[ECrownofFire]

It is out of date (it was originally written in 1868), and subsequent junk has patched up that sort of stuff. Mostly, at the absolute least.

That said, fixed, yes, ignored, no. Pretty sure the 14th was a fairly notable step up from the situation at the time. Most folks I've noticed suggesting abolishing or ignoring it are pretty incredibly shitty people.

Pretty much.  I pointed out that the precise part that was complained about was fixed a mere...oh, 94 years ago, now.  Heck, it was even conveniently on the very next line trimmed from the quote in the complaint. ^_^

Indeed, since it was my post that apparently triggered this outburst, I can probably go into a bit of detail.  Because it *has* already been fixed, abolishing or replacing the 14th amendment typically boils down to shutting down representation based on population, with the most common replacement to my knowledge being to replace it with representation based on citizenship instead.  The reason Native Americans were so contentious, or perhaps more accurately the fig-leaf for this particular facet of the citizenship argument of that day (it's an old argument), was because Native Americans weren't "just" US citizens, even if they renounced their tribes (according to federal courts in McKay v. Campbell and, nationally, Elk v. Wilkins); they're citizens of their tribes, semi-sovereign entities or "domestic dependent nations" that enter into treaty compacts with the United States government.  The contradictions herein in the US simultaneously treating with native tribes as both sovereign states and non-sovereign territories subject to American rule based on which was more convenient were rather elided over because of the views of the day, and extending the rights of citizenship took until 1924 legally, with the provisions not fully enforced until the courts came down hard in 1948.  However, they did, and they did so without the rigorous requirements of a constitutional amendment.  That's obviously not to say that native tribes live a charmed life today, but the problems therein don't have much to do with the 14th Amendment. 

For sure. A surprising amount of the legal foundation for relations between the United States and Native groups is composed of treaties signed
a good deal more than 100 years ago.

And a SCOTUS decision that the massive asshole Andrew Jackson promptly ignored...

[Maximum Spin]

And a SCOTUS decision that the massive asshole Andrew Jackson promptly ignored...

The "Jackson ignored Worcester v. Georgia" story is generally regarded as a myth. As far as we can tell he never actually said the "now let him enforce it" thing, and Worcester didn't actually place any obligations on Jackson for him to ignore.

[martinuzz]

Shulkin is out

Aaaaaaaaand.... Trump replaced him with.... His personal doctor.

What's next, he's going to make his plumber minister of infrastructure?

[Harry Baldman]

Shulkin is out

Aaaaaaaaand.... Trump replaced him with.... His personal doctor.

What's next, he's going to make his plumber minister of infrastructure?

Put his landscaper in charge of the new Political Wetland Amelioration Bureau

[wobbly]

Shulkin is out

Aaaaaaaaand.... Trump replaced him with.... His personal doctor.

What's next, he's going to make his plumber minister of infrastructure?

Just draining the swamp man, just draining the swamp. You know he never said what he'd replace it with. A sewer aint a swamp.

[martinuzz]

Second amendment under fire by former US Supreme Court judge, the (moderate) conservative John Paul Stevens.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

[sluissa]

Second amendment under fire by former US Supreme Court judge, the (moderate) conservative John Paul Stevens.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

You're going to have people say extreme things for attention and media giving them a soapbox for the same reason. But the fact is support for full repeal is in the minority. I don't see any calls for it being realistic within this generation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/03/27/one-in-five-americans-want-the-second-amendment-to-be-repealed-national-survey-finds/

Only 1 in 5 support and even only 39% among democrats.

[Sheb]

Shulkin is out

Aaaaaaaaand.... Trump replaced him with.... His personal doctor.

What's next, he's going to make his plumber minister of infrastructure?

He's the White House Physician, not Trump's private doctor. He's a carreer naval doctor first nominated by Obama. Still a odd choice, he doesn't seem to have a ton of management experience.

[martinuzz]

Probably a case of 'I guess this guy has been in and around the White House longer than anyone else here'.


That, or the good doctor just told him 'make me minister or I will disclose the REAL results of your medical and mental tests'

[nenjin]

Shulkin is saying he was ousted because he didn’t support privatizing the VA.

[misko27]

By the way, has it been mentioned that Cynthia Nixon is challenging Cuomo for governor in NY?

I'll be honest: I still like Cuomo, but the man seems to need to be in hot water to get anything done. If no one's lighting a fire under his ass he's too damn passive.

Shulkin is saying he was ousted because he didn’t support privatizing the VA.

This is alarming if true.

Surprising to see such openness from an official like this. Usually, it takes weeks before they find their voice. I wonder if that means he was removed out of nowhere or if it was just the breaking point.

Speaking of bureaucrats, here's an article on Bolton, arguing that in addition to his well-known "nuke the world" policy views, he's also a surprisingly adept bureaucratic knife-fighter, which may serve him well in this White House. Maybe a little too well...