4 ms·

What's problems are those? (No snark, just honest confusion)

by mpyne 13y ago

hga 13y ago
Well, to take the area of Constitutional jurisprudence I'm most familiar with, look at all the effort that was put into claiming the 2nd Amendment created a "collective" right instead of acknowledging an individual right. This interpretation caused more than a little mischief, especially in state courts against their own versions of the 2nd Amendment, but also in at least one lower level Federal court decision, but a bottom line was that it was rejected 9-0 in Heller (this is a good article on all that: http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html). The Federalists' argument was that a government of limited powers could never even do such things. Unfortunately, the subsequent history of "a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce [us to] absolute Despotism...."
- mpyne 13y ago
  Well, the Federalists didn't think far enough ahead. We have CPUs that are Turing complete with only a single instruction, so in retrospect simply limiting the number of abilities the government had wouldn't have been sufficient in the long term. It's easier to say that in retrospect but I'm glad that the debate process for the Constitutional ratification led to the Bill of Rights being drafted in a compromise. I'm not sure how to take the last sentence though. I know who the Continental Congress felt the despot was; who is the despot now?
  - hga 13y ago
    A "Despotism" can be run by an oligarchy, which is what our ruling class has become. And "absolute Despotism" is a reasonably accurate description of where we seem to be headed, given a minimal allowance for rhetorical flourishes. Quite seriously, re-read the Declaration if you haven't lately, history does tend to repeat itself, for people remain people.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      I've actually read the Declaration recently enough to have linked a good part of it into one of the innumerable HN discussion threads around here. And if this is an absolute despotism then I'll need to know what word to use for what despotism meant when Jefferson wrote those words, so that I can keep my thoughts straight.

What's problems are those? (No snark, just honest confusion)

by mpyne 13y ago

What's problems are those? (No snark, just honest confusion)

hga 13y ago

Well, to take the area of Constitutional jurisprudence I'm most familiar with, look at all the effort that was put into claiming the 2nd Amendment created a "collective" right instead of acknowledging an individual right. This interpretation caused more than a little mischief, especially in state courts against their own versions of the 2nd Amendment, but also in at least one lower level Federal court decision, but a bottom line was that it was rejected 9-0 in Heller (this is a good article on all that: http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html http://davekopel.org/2A/Mags/Collective-Right.html). The Federalists' argument was that a government of limited powers could never even do such things. Unfortunately, the subsequent history of "a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce [us to] absolute Despotism...."

mpyne 13y ago
Well, the Federalists didn't think far enough ahead. We have CPUs that are Turing complete with only a single instruction, so in retrospect simply limiting the number of abilities the government had wouldn't have been sufficient in the long term. It's easier to say that in retrospect but I'm glad that the debate process for the Constitutional ratification led to the Bill of Rights being drafted in a compromise. I'm not sure how to take the last sentence though. I know who the Continental Congress felt the despot was; who is the despot now?
- hga 13y ago
  A "Despotism" can be run by an oligarchy, which is what our ruling class has become. And "absolute Despotism" is a reasonably accurate description of where we seem to be headed, given a minimal allowance for rhetorical flourishes. Quite seriously, re-read the Declaration if you haven't lately, history does tend to repeat itself, for people remain people.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    I've actually read the Declaration recently enough to have linked a good part of it into one of the innumerable HN discussion threads around here. And if this is an absolute despotism then I'll need to know what word to use for what despotism meant when Jefferson wrote those words, so that I can keep my thoughts straight.