It seems pretty ridiculous to base 21st century tax and economic policy off of a document written in the 18th century before the Industrial revolution, before major urbanization, when Mercantilism was still considered good economics, and the founders didn’t even know how the state would function in practice yet. They still considered each state to be quasi-independent wjth citizens loyal to the state before the federal government. Today, states are tightly integrated together into a unified, federal system, not a loosely organized federation that the founders envisioned.
The Constitution, which is a contract, can be amended, like any other contract, when the various parties are in agreement its terms are outdated. There's even a procedure for amending the Constitution written into said contract.
Back when our pre-wwII post-civil-war presidents called the US a backwater swamp that needed to militarize before they attracted someone militarized to invade.
@@kushclarkkent6669 The last time the constitution was amended was 1971, lowering the age to vote from 21 to 18; making them apart of the political community, or, The People. Recently, in a court case involving the sale of pistols to 18yr olds in California, as the State was arguing in the founding era, 18yr olds weren't considered as part of The People, the judge pointed out the 26th Amendment had expanded The People to 18yr olds. Not that the court is likely to rule in favor of the Plaintiffs, California, 9th Circuit, not a single civilian disarmament law they wouldn't use any amount of sophistry to justify their rulings to limit the serfs from having arms. But even the most progressive courts recognize the 26th Amendment and its impact; it alters everything that proceeded it.
@@letsomethingshine Back in the Progressive Era, that was so racist that modern Progressives distant themselves from some of their policies while embracing other policies from that time, as they have selective ignorance of some of their heroes from back then? Example: Margaret Sanger was a favorite speaker to the KKK as she wrote in her letters the extermination of the Negoes and Other Human Weeds was her goal.
I’d like for the next progressive SCOTUS majority to observe that the Founders definitely were not Originalists. Jefferson said that we had the opportunity to begin the world anew.
The Originalists sounds like the overpowered old world vampires on The Vampire Diaries. Our country, just like that show, started to really suck when they showed up.
ORIGINALISM is shit. It should never have reached this point of perceived legitimacy. Under Originalism most of that court could not exist, Especially for Thomas.
Am curious why Gorsuch wasn't required to recuse himself from the Enron case since it involves the work his mom was doing in 1984 as an EPA Administrator
✋ Stop! In the Name of ________ a) Love b) the Law c) a Libertarian attempt to appeal to your nature as the kind of person who-despite being beholden to no one-might independently choose to stop
On the topic of the Chevron ruling: theoretically, could the legislature (local, state or federal) just put the documented standards/rules/limits/regulations into a bill and pass it?
I continue to feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to be disbanded. We do not decide a case based on lifetime appointed career judges-- the standard has always been the JURY, not the COURT. I feel a good replacement for the Supreme Court would be a Jury Of The People; a 200 member body selected at random the same way local courts select jurors, appointed PER CASE and disbanded after its resolved, with participants made inelgiable to sit on the jury for several years so more of the population has a role in the Final Stage of abritation within this system of governance. The dying have no right to tell the living how to go about it.
The Bruen Test is so simple, even an interested layman like me, without a law degree can understand it. The so called confusion in the lower courts is not confusion, but a rebellion as the idea of serfs having access to firearms and other weapons is unthinkable as they misquote Bruen to justify their interest balancing to rule in favor of gun control; there's not a single arms ban law that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th or 9th Circuit Court of Appeals didn't favor, after twisting Staples, Heller, McDonald, Ceatano and now Bruen into a pretzel to justify their conclusions; the serfs don't need guns. Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit went so far as to create a "Military Use Test" to claim AR15s and other semiautomatic rifles have no Second Amendment Protections whatsoever; completely ignoring Staples, Heller, McDonald and Ceatano that weapons in "Common Use For Lawful Means" cannot be banned.
wow, Peter is cute! :D but on topic, honestly I don't how the US still exists, its literally every terrible decision choice and consequence you can imagine time and time again. At this point, the US is held together with gum and tape. its so exhausting
This originalism philosophy is tiresome BS. When the originalists want a certain outcome, they make up exceptions to their philosophy. How else did the "well regulated militia" language disappear? Why isn't the Second Amendment restricted to muskets and front-loading firearms? Yet, the originalists realize people shouldn't have bazookas or machine guns, and found an exception to their exceptions to account for that. The level of hypocrisy is staggering.
Have you ever looked up _in the context of the second amendment what does well regulated mean?_ I'm not asking you to agree with the other side, but, if you can't even put their position into words, are you even qualified to have an opinion?
@@mgancarzjr Yes, there are four mentions of militias in the main text of the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2. The references all pertain to the militias being part of government service. As to any qualification I have, my law practice for more than forty years, has involved Constitutional issues in civil rights and criminal defense. Thanks for asking.
@@mhartan it should be easy for you, then, to state the opposition's view on what _a well regulated militia_ means. I don't care what your position is. I mock you because you can't even verbalize theirs. How good of a lawyer can you possibly be if you lack this ability?
@@mhartan It might answer your rhetorical question: _When the originalists want a certain outcome, they make up exceptions to their philosophy. How else did the "well regulated militia" language disappear?_ When you're finally able to accurately verbalize their position, perhaps this won't be such a huge mystery to you, and you can give an honest opinion rather than being completely in the dark.
In a way, analyzing current politics is kind of like playing the accordion: it requires a lot of practice and expertise in order to do it well, but people only really enjoy listening to it when they know it’s okay to laugh.
Unrealized gain tax is completely counter intuitive and hurts the middle class the most. Why should I have to pay tax on assets I bought but haven’t sold? This would mess up my retirement completely. Tax the extreme wealthy only
@spanqueluv9er perhaps I should have phrased it as commentators continue to say allegedly on already proven information bc the fear of lawsuits, but really 3 comments? You're a clown
![GUILTY GEAR -STRIVE- Season Pass 4 Playable Character #1 [Queen Dizzy] Trailer](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nXDsAgYXXv4/mqdefault.jpg)
It seems pretty ridiculous to base 21st century tax and economic policy off of a document written in the 18th century before the Industrial revolution, before major urbanization, when Mercantilism was still considered good economics, and the founders didn’t even know how the state would function in practice yet. They still considered each state to be quasi-independent wjth citizens loyal to the state before the federal government. Today, states are tightly integrated together into a unified, federal system, not a loosely organized federation that the founders envisioned.
The Constitution, which is a contract, can be amended, like any other contract, when the various parties are in agreement its terms are outdated.
There's even a procedure for amending the Constitution written into said contract.
@@romulus463 You know amending the constitution is damn near impossible these days.
Back when our pre-wwII post-civil-war presidents called the US a backwater swamp that needed to militarize before they attracted someone militarized to invade.
@@kushclarkkent6669
The last time the constitution was amended was 1971, lowering the age to vote from 21 to 18; making them apart of the political community, or, The People.
Recently, in a court case involving the sale of pistols to 18yr olds in California, as the State was arguing in the founding era, 18yr olds weren't considered as part of The People, the judge pointed out the 26th Amendment had expanded The People to 18yr olds. Not that the court is likely to rule in favor of the Plaintiffs, California, 9th Circuit, not a single civilian disarmament law they wouldn't use any amount of sophistry to justify their rulings to limit the serfs from having arms.
But even the most progressive courts recognize the 26th Amendment and its impact; it alters everything that proceeded it.
@@letsomethingshine
Back in the Progressive Era, that was so racist that modern Progressives distant themselves from some of their policies while embracing other policies from that time, as they have selective ignorance of some of their heroes from back then?
Example: Margaret Sanger was a favorite speaker to the KKK as she wrote in her letters the extermination of the Negoes and Other Human Weeds was her goal.
I don't know how half of the judges could even be up there if they were really Originalists.
Underrated comment.
@@spanqueluv9er You right-wing hate-stalkers really like your emojis, don't you? Tell me, do you also think in silly little pictures?
I’d like for the next progressive SCOTUS majority to observe that the Founders definitely were not Originalists. Jefferson said that we had the opportunity to begin the world anew.
The Originalists sounds like the overpowered old world vampires on The Vampire Diaries. Our country, just like that show, started to really suck when they showed up.
They pretty much copied base articles from established democracies - including First Nations tribe to tribe agreements.
SC justices’ originalism: “Uhhh aykshyually, the founding fathers wanted to be ruled by a king.”
These people are beneath contempt
ORIGINALISM is shit. It should never have reached this point of perceived legitimacy. Under Originalism most of that court could not exist, Especially for Thomas.
Am curious why Gorsuch wasn't required to recuse himself from the Enron case since it involves the work his mom was doing in 1984 as an EPA Administrator
The Supremes is exactly the word play this conversation needed. Excellent stuff! Haha
✋ Stop! In the Name of ________
a) Love
b) the Law
c) a Libertarian attempt to appeal to your nature as the kind of person who-despite being beholden to no one-might independently choose to stop
On the topic of the Chevron ruling: theoretically, could the legislature (local, state or federal) just put the documented standards/rules/limits/regulations into a bill and pass it?
They're called gratuities now for Thomas and friends...
One day too soon. These rulings were horrible but today’s ends democracy.
Thank you for your reporting and choosing The guests you interview so carefully
I continue to feel strongly that the Supreme Court needs to be disbanded. We do not decide a case based on lifetime appointed career judges-- the standard has always been the JURY, not the COURT.
I feel a good replacement for the Supreme Court would be a Jury Of The People; a 200 member body selected at random the same way local courts select jurors, appointed PER CASE and disbanded after its resolved, with participants made inelgiable to sit on the jury for several years so more of the population has a role in the Final Stage of abritation within this system of governance.
The dying have no right to tell the living how to go about it.
Next season on originalism:
The emancipation proclamation was too broad
The Bruen Test is so simple, even an interested layman like me, without a law degree can understand it.
The so called confusion in the lower courts is not confusion, but a rebellion as the idea of serfs having access to firearms and other weapons is unthinkable as they misquote Bruen to justify their interest balancing to rule in favor of gun control; there's not a single arms ban law that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th or 9th Circuit Court of Appeals didn't favor, after twisting Staples, Heller, McDonald, Ceatano and now Bruen into a pretzel to justify their conclusions; the serfs don't need guns.
Easterbrook of the 7th Circuit went so far as to create a "Military Use Test" to claim AR15s and other semiautomatic rifles have no Second Amendment Protections whatsoever; completely ignoring Staples, Heller, McDonald and Ceatano that weapons in "Common Use For Lawful Means" cannot be banned.
wow, Peter is cute! :D
but on topic, honestly I don't how the US still exists, its literally every terrible decision choice and consequence you can imagine time and time again. At this point, the US is held together with gum and tape. its so exhausting
Redneck engineering, man.
A country being held together by hope and a prayer, while being shredded apart by thoughts and prayers
What have you done to make you exhausted?
Marinemomof3 ❤️🇺🇸
@@deadfr0g💯 on 🎯
This originalism philosophy is tiresome BS. When the originalists want a certain outcome, they make up exceptions to their philosophy. How else did the "well regulated militia" language disappear? Why isn't the Second Amendment restricted to muskets and front-loading firearms? Yet, the originalists realize people shouldn't have bazookas or machine guns, and found an exception to their exceptions to account for that. The level of hypocrisy is staggering.
Have you ever looked up
_in the context of the second amendment what does well regulated mean?_
I'm not asking you to agree with the other side, but, if you can't even put their position into words, are you even qualified to have an opinion?
@@mgancarzjr Yes, there are four mentions of militias in the main text of the Constitution, in Article I, Section 8 and Article II, Section 2. The references all pertain to the militias being part of government service. As to any qualification I have, my law practice for more than forty years, has involved Constitutional issues in civil rights and criminal defense. Thanks for asking.
@@mhartan it should be easy for you, then, to state the opposition's view on what _a well regulated militia_ means. I don't care what your position is. I mock you because you can't even verbalize theirs.
How good of a lawyer can you possibly be if you lack this ability?
@@mgancarzjr Why would I verbalize an opposition view of what I asserted? And why would I do it in this context? Strange.
@@mhartan It might answer your rhetorical question:
_When the originalists want a certain outcome, they make up exceptions to their philosophy. How else did the "well regulated militia" language disappear?_
When you're finally able to accurately verbalize their position, perhaps this won't be such a huge mystery to you, and you can give an honest opinion rather than being completely in the dark.
Anyone ever told Peter he sounds like Al Yankovic?
In a way, analyzing current politics is kind of like playing the accordion: it requires a lot of practice and expertise in order to do it well, but people only really enjoy listening to it when they know it’s okay to laugh.
Unrealized gain tax is completely counter intuitive and hurts the middle class the most. Why should I have to pay tax on assets I bought but haven’t sold? This would mess up my retirement completely. Tax the extreme wealthy only
I'm glad you said it, "I'm convinced, he can sue me." Ppl say allegedly sometimes on stuff that's proven true
@spanqueluv9er perhaps I should have phrased it as commentators continue to say allegedly on already proven information bc the fear of lawsuits, but really 3 comments? You're a clown
oh hi mark
Can we just admit that the United States has been in a Constitutional Crisis since the 2000 Election?
Its sunday. And i would bet that Joe Biden went to church today. But i cant find any reports on that. Why?
😊
So you agreed to have only millionaires on the SCOTUS, and it hasn't worked out well. Please tell me what you expected to happen?
Who agreed?
Heritage Foundation?🧐 @@russellward4624
Alito. More like Aleako am I right?
Sotomayor needs to retire. She started as a DA anyway, she needs to go just off of that.