4 ms·

What are the amendements that they want to pass, but cannot?

by akomtu 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
advisedwang 4y ago
Some examples: * Equal rights ammendment * DC representation * Abolish electoral college * one person one vote * End the death penalty * Campaign finance reform
jfengel 4y ago
The Equal Rights Amendment would have been nice. A Supreme Court member did say that without it, the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on sex. There are certain rights that are broadly popular, such as the right to birth control and the right to be gay, which are currently only protected by Supreme Court judgment. A member of that court explicitly called for reconsidering them. They are so broadly accepted that nobody even does polling for them, but there is so little chance of passing an amendment to protect them that nobody is even trying.
- prottog 4y ago
  You don't need a constitutional amendment -- just pass a law. If they're so broadly accepted, it shouldn't be difficult. > the right to birth control You mean the right to contraceptives paid for by the public, covered by insurance, or administered by people who may have sincerely-held religious beliefs against contraception? No state, Supreme Court judgments aside, forbids an adult from paying for birth control pills on their own prescribed by a doctor who sees it fit. > the right to be gay What? Obergefell requires states to grant and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. That seems like a pretty narrow part of "being gay".
  - ausbah 4y ago
    inalienable rights shouldn't be subject to the whims of what most people want. sure that kicks the fan down the road by having to define what is an "inalienable right", but "mob rulel, "tyranny of the majority" whatever you like to call it shouldn't be a basis to deprive certain peoples of basic rights
    - prottog 4y ago
      I agree, inalienable rights shouldn't depend on what other people think or want. That's why basic rights should only be negative rights; in the classical formulation, your rights to be free from the government depriving you of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Increasingly, "basic rights" are being morphed into positive rights that require other people supporting (whether in though, speech, or action) said right. Right to birth control? Someone needs to make and administer those pills. Right to housing? Someone needs to build and maintain the houses. I'm afraid that such rights will always depend on the whims of those around you, and hence cannot be truly basic.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    Thomas didn't just single out Obergefell. He also mentioned Lawrence v Texas, which overturned sodomy laws. And Griswold, which lets you pay for birth control with your own money. It says nothing about the public paying for it.
    - prottog 4y ago
      > Griswold You're right -- I was thinking of more recent cases that expanded upon Griswold. Thank you for reminding me. As I understand it, Justice Thomas's mentioning of Lawrence v. Texas and other laws "to be revisited", so to speak, were limited to the application of substantive due process in arriving at those judgments, and not necessarily to reverse the outcome of those judgments.
      - jfengel 4y ago
        That's right. He just wants to take those old cases out for a spin, give 'em a tune up, kick the tires a bit. No chance he'd take away some rights that George Washington didn't put explicitly in the Constitution.
- akomtu 4y ago
  This equal rights principle is implied by "all men are created equal" and both parties would support the explicit amendment, maybe for different reasons. The red camp wants to end "affirmative" action, while the blue camp wants to affirm rights of minorities. I guess the wording of the amendement is what would cause a fight.
  - jfengel 4y ago
    Scalia disagreed. He says only purpose of the 14th amendment was to make sure slaves were on equal footing. If women had rights they wouldn't have needed an amendment to vote. He's dead but at least five people almost certainly agree with him.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jakeogh 4y ago
A new user commented: excite1997 0 minutes ago | unvote | parent | next [–] This thread is likely gonna be a minefield and get canned, but the article takes a swing at the 2nd Amendment, for example, pretending to be impartial but calling it a "reinterpretation". I was surprised to see it go dead almost instantly. It's a fair comment (well, the minefield part is unnecessary). I wanted to reply with: Listening to the decision is fun (Heller 2008). Justice Antonin Scalia reads Heller(2008)[1] for the majority: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... (Justice Breyer also reads the dissent) [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290
- wincy 4y ago
  Weird. I have showdead on but was this actually deleted? I see no such comment, but see the other dead comment where someone said a poem or something in another thread.
  - jakeogh 4y ago
    Yea, all I can think of is that it was deleted, I think a user can do that. I wish I had screenshotted what happened when I hit reply, I thought I saw [dead], but idk.

What are the amendements that they want to pass, but cannot?

by akomtu 4y ago

What are the amendements that they want to pass, but cannot?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

advisedwang 4y ago

Some examples: * Equal rights ammendment * DC representation * Abolish electoral college * one person one vote * End the death penalty * Campaign finance reform

jfengel 4y ago

The Equal Rights Amendment would have been nice. A Supreme Court member did say that without it, the Constitution does not prohibit discrimination based on sex. There are certain rights that are broadly popular, such as the right to birth control and the right to be gay, which are currently only protected by Supreme Court judgment. A member of that court explicitly called for reconsidering them. They are so broadly accepted that nobody even does polling for them, but there is so little chance of passing an amendment to protect them that nobody is even trying.

prottog 4y ago
You don't need a constitutional amendment -- just pass a law. If they're so broadly accepted, it shouldn't be difficult. > the right to birth control You mean the right to contraceptives paid for by the public, covered by insurance, or administered by people who may have sincerely-held religious beliefs against contraception? No state, Supreme Court judgments aside, forbids an adult from paying for birth control pills on their own prescribed by a doctor who sees it fit. > the right to be gay What? Obergefell requires states to grant and recognize marriages between two people of the same sex. That seems like a pretty narrow part of "being gay".
- ausbah 4y ago
  inalienable rights shouldn't be subject to the whims of what most people want. sure that kicks the fan down the road by having to define what is an "inalienable right", but "mob rulel, "tyranny of the majority" whatever you like to call it shouldn't be a basis to deprive certain peoples of basic rights
  - prottog 4y ago
    I agree, inalienable rights shouldn't depend on what other people think or want. That's why basic rights should only be negative rights; in the classical formulation, your rights to be free from the government depriving you of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Increasingly, "basic rights" are being morphed into positive rights that require other people supporting (whether in though, speech, or action) said right. Right to birth control? Someone needs to make and administer those pills. Right to housing? Someone needs to build and maintain the houses. I'm afraid that such rights will always depend on the whims of those around you, and hence cannot be truly basic.
- jfengel 4y ago
  Thomas didn't just single out Obergefell. He also mentioned Lawrence v Texas, which overturned sodomy laws. And Griswold, which lets you pay for birth control with your own money. It says nothing about the public paying for it.
  - prottog 4y ago
    > Griswold You're right -- I was thinking of more recent cases that expanded upon Griswold. Thank you for reminding me. As I understand it, Justice Thomas's mentioning of Lawrence v. Texas and other laws "to be revisited", so to speak, were limited to the application of substantive due process in arriving at those judgments, and not necessarily to reverse the outcome of those judgments.
    - jfengel 4y ago
      That's right. He just wants to take those old cases out for a spin, give 'em a tune up, kick the tires a bit. No chance he'd take away some rights that George Washington didn't put explicitly in the Constitution.
akomtu 4y ago
This equal rights principle is implied by "all men are created equal" and both parties would support the explicit amendment, maybe for different reasons. The red camp wants to end "affirmative" action, while the blue camp wants to affirm rights of minorities. I guess the wording of the amendement is what would cause a fight.
- jfengel 4y ago
  Scalia disagreed. He says only purpose of the 14th amendment was to make sure slaves were on equal footing. If women had rights they wouldn't have needed an amendment to vote. He's dead but at least five people almost certainly agree with him.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

jakeogh 4y ago

A new user commented: excite1997 0 minutes ago | unvote | parent | next [–] This thread is likely gonna be a minefield and get canned, but the article takes a swing at the 2nd Amendment, for example, pretending to be impartial but calling it a "reinterpretation". I was surprised to see it go dead almost instantly. It's a fair comment (well, the minefield part is unnecessary). I wanted to reply with: Listening to the decision is fun (Heller 2008). Justice Antonin Scalia reads Heller(2008)[1] for the majority: https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/07-290/20080626o_07-290.ogg https://s3.amazonaws.com/oyez.case-media.ogg/case_data/2007/... (Justice Breyer also reads the dissent) [1] https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290

wincy 4y ago
Weird. I have showdead on but was this actually deleted? I see no such comment, but see the other dead comment where someone said a poem or something in another thread.
- jakeogh 4y ago
  Yea, all I can think of is that it was deleted, I think a user can do that. I wish I had screenshotted what happened when I hit reply, I thought I saw [dead], but idk.