3 ms·

No it means both sides have serious ideological flaws and that their prototypical stances sometimes blur as a result. For instance, the constitution ensures bo

No it means both sides have serious ideological flaws and that their prototypical stances sometimes blur as a result. For instance, the constitution ensures both the right to vote and the right to bear arms. The liberal stance is that voter ID infringes on rights, but gun ID does not. And the GOP stance is the reverse. Both are logically inconsistent, just different dog whistle topics. You can feel however you want to about guns and the 2A, but yours intellectually dishonest to argue in favor of ID for one and not the other from a legal perspective. An independent voter might say that showing ID for both, two very important acts, is not onerous and is an acceptable burden. But most people won’t argue that due to partisan allegiances.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
I wpuld say that's an opposite example. You can or cant do X because of a legalistic reading of an old document seems like a more classic liberal approach. (And in both cases you coukd argue that the original document was explicit in excluding specific groups from these "rights") The classic left position would be about disenfranchisment of certain groups and changing the rules to fix it.
qmmmur 5y ago
I think you're also missing a key nuance to the reality of arguing for voter ID. Right wing didn't want to provide it but agreed it could be mandatory to vote,so it's reasonable to reneg and highlight the issues with that.
mjburgess 5y ago
The constitution does not obviously guarantee a right for individuals to own guns. Nor a right to vote. The second amendment is explicitly predicated on, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State". You can easily now read that predicate as false in the contemporary united states, and hence, the derivative right not obtaining. Ie., the 2nd A. says, "given it is necessary for Militia, individuals need arms". But there no militia, and there need be none. The US has police forces now, and a standing army. The citizens do not form Militias when the US is under attack, nor to police themselves. As for a right to vote, the 15th A. says only what grounds are invalid for denying it -- it can, and is, denied for other grounds (eg., being convicted of a crime). The US constitution, as far as I'm aware, is not a "democratic" document in the sense of establishing anything like an electoral democracy. The US constitution is a series of essentially jointly-incoherent political principles and stipulations that provide the judiciary independent means of constraining the legislature and the executive. There isn't a particularly coherent contemporary political stand point which makes sense of it all. And certainly modern political principles like "individual rights to arms" and "voting rights" are not really to be found in the constitution in anything like a contemporary form.
- underseacables 5y ago
  Well the Supreme Court disagrees with you on that, but I think Penn and Teller’s description and explanation might appeal to you a little better: https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ
  - mjburgess 5y ago
    As of 2008 -- which indicates that this view of the constitution is extremely contemporary, as a legal doctrine. My point wasn't, in any case, about the "facts of the matter". I dont think there are facts about how one should interpret the US constitution. My point was that the commenter I was replying to assumed that these issues "ID for guns", "ID for votes" were somehow prescribed clearly by the constitution -- and one would be hypocritical to defend only one. That view is wholly incorrect. The text of the constitution settles almost no matters. Matters are settled at the interpretive level, and much of what passes for "interpretation" is actually established by the historical tradition of the supreme court. There is no hypocrisy anywhere, because there isnt a stable ideological dogma written down
    - TheParkShark 5y ago
      In your previous comment you said claimed the constitution doesn’t give people the right to own guns, I guess you didn’t watch the video in the reply. Says right at the beginning, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”. You seem to use your language art skills to talk about the actual conversation instead of contributing to it.
      - mjburgess 5y ago
        You mean the video with penn and teller? They're arguing about the placement of a comma: which is exactly my point. I guess you havent understood my point. The constitution does not verbatim say "you have an individual right to own and use weapons". It says, "given the necessity of a millitia". If you whole argument depends on arguing over a comma, then it's pretty clear, there is no "hypocrisy" one way or another. The whole thing is a matter of interpretation.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

I wpuld say that's an opposite example. You can or cant do X because of a legalistic reading of an old document seems like a more classic liberal approach. (And in both cases you coukd argue that the original document was explicit in excluding specific groups from these "rights") The classic left position would be about disenfranchisment of certain groups and changing the rules to fix it.

qmmmur 5y ago

I think you're also missing a key nuance to the reality of arguing for voter ID. Right wing didn't want to provide it but agreed it could be mandatory to vote,so it's reasonable to reneg and highlight the issues with that.

mjburgess 5y ago

The constitution does not obviously guarantee a right for individuals to own guns. Nor a right to vote. The second amendment is explicitly predicated on, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State". You can easily now read that predicate as false in the contemporary united states, and hence, the derivative right not obtaining. Ie., the 2nd A. says, "given it is necessary for Militia, individuals need arms". But there no militia, and there need be none. The US has police forces now, and a standing army. The citizens do not form Militias when the US is under attack, nor to police themselves. As for a right to vote, the 15th A. says only what grounds are invalid for denying it -- it can, and is, denied for other grounds (eg., being convicted of a crime). The US constitution, as far as I'm aware, is not a "democratic" document in the sense of establishing anything like an electoral democracy. The US constitution is a series of essentially jointly-incoherent political principles and stipulations that provide the judiciary independent means of constraining the legislature and the executive. There isn't a particularly coherent contemporary political stand point which makes sense of it all. And certainly modern political principles like "individual rights to arms" and "voting rights" are not really to be found in the constitution in anything like a contemporary form.

underseacables 5y ago
Well the Supreme Court disagrees with you on that, but I think Penn and Teller’s description and explanation might appeal to you a little better: https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ https://youtu.be/Hx23c84obwQ
- mjburgess 5y ago
  As of 2008 -- which indicates that this view of the constitution is extremely contemporary, as a legal doctrine. My point wasn't, in any case, about the "facts of the matter". I dont think there are facts about how one should interpret the US constitution. My point was that the commenter I was replying to assumed that these issues "ID for guns", "ID for votes" were somehow prescribed clearly by the constitution -- and one would be hypocritical to defend only one. That view is wholly incorrect. The text of the constitution settles almost no matters. Matters are settled at the interpretive level, and much of what passes for "interpretation" is actually established by the historical tradition of the supreme court. There is no hypocrisy anywhere, because there isnt a stable ideological dogma written down
  - TheParkShark 5y ago
    In your previous comment you said claimed the constitution doesn’t give people the right to own guns, I guess you didn’t watch the video in the reply. Says right at the beginning, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”. You seem to use your language art skills to talk about the actual conversation instead of contributing to it.
    - mjburgess 5y ago
      You mean the video with penn and teller? They're arguing about the placement of a comma: which is exactly my point. I guess you havent understood my point. The constitution does not verbatim say "you have an individual right to own and use weapons". It says, "given the necessity of a millitia". If you whole argument depends on arguing over a comma, then it's pretty clear, there is no "hypocrisy" one way or another. The whole thing is a matter of interpretation.