US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)

Biden

14 (66.7%)

Trump

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Voting closed: November 02, 2020, 06:25:59 pm

[Alan Goldhammer]

My problem is more general than that. The founders of our Constitution wanted a very very weak central government.  They gave certain powers to the central government. Making war, making treaties, coining money, running a post office, regulating interstate commerce, and international relations. They wanted to leave the living of life and all the rules and regulations people might want to each of the individual states where the residents could decide how they wanted to live. That's why we have 50 states with 50 constitutions 50 governors and 50 legislatures to decide on local laws. Also,  50 judiciaries to decide constitutional issues within their state.  People have different cultures and feelings in different parts of the country. Each state can rule itself the way it wants. That's a better system in my opinion. What's happened over the years, the federal government has expanded its power way beyond which is necessary proper or good for the country. The Supreme Court has allowed that to happen.

The analysis breaks down when you talk about individual liberties that are given by the Constitution.  There is no explicit language regarding abortion anywhere in the Constitution.  I'm an atheist and believe that a woman in consultation with her doctor has a right to do what ever she wants.  I don't believe that life is created at conception.  Why should any state have the right to regulate what is a medical procedure?  I'm fine with not using government funds to pay for abortions as Planned Parenthood would pick those up.  Most health insurance policies cover them.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I wish he would forget his twitter password, everyday.

Pretty hard to do as he uses his birthday.

[Alan Goldhammer]

I had to look this up just to be sure and found that: 

Electric is cheaper to install and maintain.  It is also not as dangerous since it does not produce CO gas nor has the potential to cause an explosion. 

Gas and oil is cheaper when it comes to paying for the energy, although requires more maintenance.  I also read that the furnaces need to be replaced more often, although my boiler is 40 years old, so I find this to be a conflicting statement. 

Wood is a pain in the ass, and literally any source of heat is more convenient.

Correct.  Gas ovens and cook tops vent directly into your house and generate CO2.  Gas furnaces have a lifetime of 15 or so years. The new ones are very effcient. We had a new Lenox furnace installed four years ago and they have a 10 year parts and service warranty so they must be confident about the build quality.  Formerly we had a Carrier unit that was a piece of crap.  Very poor blower motor that had to be replaced twice along with the master circuit board once.  We had that one for 13 years.  Gas water heaters have a life of 20 years and in our area have to be vented to the outside of the house. 

I suspect an efficient boiler for steam radiators may be best but those are only in older buildings.

EDIT ADDED:  I should have noted that electric heat pumps are awful if the temperatures drop below 40 degrees.  They will really light up your electric bill if you rely on it for heat in a cold climate.

[JoeKitchen]

So you want to be the one to decide when, where, and how a woman obtains an abortion? But maybe we are on the same page. Maybe we should leave the federal, state, and local governments out of it. Let the woman decide.

A lot of people say that we have given the government too much power. Usually they are the ones who don't like something the government has done. They never complain about having given the government too much power when the government does something they like.

Since I mentioned abortion, here is an example. Say you know a Catholic motorcycle rider. The legislature passes a law that says he has to wear a helmet. We'll you know what's going to happen. He is going to dress up in his camo, grab his AR15, and ride his motorcycle down to the capitol without a helmet, and exercise his First Amendment right to bitch and moan about having to wear a helmet and about the government having too much power, and generally scaring people because he has a gun, and it looks like he is going to lose it any minute now. Next day the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. You ask him what he thinks about that and he says it is a perfectly acceptable use of government power. I am sure you can think up other examples, but a Catholic motorcycle rider was the first thing that popped into my head.

First, Roe is not getting overturned.  Thomas is the only one we can say for sure would vote to overturn it.  Perhaps Alito and Kavanaugh, and, now, Barrett would as well, but we have no idea.  O'Connor said she was pro-life before getting on the court and then changed her opinion, so who knows.  Given Gorsuch's recent decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, I doubt he would vote to overturn.  That leaves Roberts as the last "conservative" and we know he wont overturn it using his common excuse of protecting the integrity of the court.  So, worse case, it would be a 5-4 vote against overturning it. 

Now, even if it did get overturned, the ruling would not outlaw abortion, but just merely send it back to the states.  Every blue state would make it legal.  Red states would try to make it illegal, but many would get pulled into quagmires and stall out.  For the few states who do outlaw it, easy solution, move to another state if it bothers you. 

I also would like to add that legal scholars on both sides agree the argument for Roe was very weak, and Dems have known this for 60 years.  Where was the movement to get an actual law on the books?   As I alluded to in another post, Brown vs Board ... did not stop the civil rights act from being pursued. 

Also, if Roe was overturned, this would not be giving power to the government, but taking it away.  Abortion is not specifically stated in the constitution, so there is no right to it.  Yet the SCOTUS took power away from the states in Roe's ruling.  Overruling it would give power back to the states and people to decide.  That is how this thing is suppose to work.  As I stated above, if you feel it should be a right, get a bill passed making it a right, case closed. 

Last, the fact that Republicans are against abortion I do find contradictory to the idea of their ideals of negative rights, meaning we should leave people alone to decide what to do with their property, even if it means some may choose to do immoral actions.  To me, in this instance, this means we should allow women to choose what to do with their bodies (property) and accept immoral actions may be committed by some. 

[JoeKitchen]

Correct.  Gas ovens and cook tops vent directly into your house and generate CO2.  Gas furnaces have a lifetime of 15 or so years. The new ones are very effcient. We had a new Lenox furnace installed four years ago and they have a 10 year parts and service warranty so they must be confident about the build quality.  Formerly we had a Carrier unit that was a piece of crap.  Very poor blower motor that had to be replaced twice along with the master circuit board once.  We had that one for 13 years.  Gas water heaters have a life of 20 years and in our area have to be vented to the outside of the house. 

I suspect an efficient boiler for steam radiators may be best but those are only in older buildings.

EDIT ADDED:  I should have noted that electric heat pumps are awful if the temperatures drop below 40 degrees.  They will really light up your electric bill if you rely on it for heat in a cold climate.

I love my radiators!  Water though not steam. 

I had a friend actually pay a plumber $15K to install a radiator system in his house because he hated force hot air so much. 

[faberryman]

Abortion is not specifically stated in the constitution, so there is no right to it.  Yet the SCOTUS took power away from the states in Roe's ruling.  Overruling it would give power back to the states and people to decide.  That is how this thing is suppose to work.  As I stated above, if you feel it should be a right, get a bill passed making it a right, case closed.   

I don't recall seeing an explicit right to breath in the Constitution either, but I bet even an originalist could figure it out. Or an explicit right to clip your toenails. Do you really need to get a bill passed in the state legislature making it a right to clip your toenails? Maybe the nail salon lobby gets a bill passed that only nail salon personnel have the right to clip your toenails? What would you say then? I think even I could do the necessary mental gymnastics to infer an inalienable right to clip my toenails that even Justice Scalia would agree with. I might even be able to extend that to personal hygiene in general. I mean my wife cuts my hair now, so is it back to the state legislature for a bill for that too? Now that I think about it, I also don't remember seeing an explicit right not to have to wear a mask, but I could be mistaken. Maybe all the guys in camo with their guns could stop protesting and get to work on a bill for that.

[JoeKitchen]

I don't recall seeing an explicit right to breath in the Constitution either, but I bet even an originalist could figure it out. Or an explicit right to clip your toenails. Do you really need to get a bill passed in the state legislature making it a right to clip your toenails? Maybe the nail salon lobby gets a bill passed that only nail salon personnel have the right to clip your toenails? What would you say then? I think even I could do the necessary mental gymnastics to infer an inalienable right to clip my toenails that even Justice Scalia would agree with. I also don't remember seeing an explicit right not to have to wear a mask, but I could be mistaken. Maybe all the guys in camo with their guns could stop protesting and get to work on a bill for that.

Ahhh, conveniently leaving out my last line on how I find the anti-abortion movement to be contrary to negative rights championed by the right to prove a point. 

Thanks. 

[faberryman]

Ahhh, conveniently leaving out my last line on how I find the anti-abortion movement to be contrary to negative rights championed by the right to prove a point.

Perhaps you could expound on why you think that a woman's right to an abortion is a negative right.

[JoeKitchen]

Perhaps you could expound on why you think that a woman's right to an abortion is a negative right.

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying, and/or have never heard of the concept of negative and positive rights.  Here are some definitions. 

Negative rights: (or negative freedoms) means freedom from something. ... Examples of negative rights are the right to live, to be free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from violence, freedom from slavery, and property rights.

Positive rights: an obligation by others to provide some benefit to the rights holder. ...

A positive right obliges others to provide benefits, while a negative right only obliges others to avoid interfering with someone's liberty.  I am a strong negative rights person, and highly suspect of positive rights. 

I do not mean that the right to have an abortion is negative, just that it is a "negative right." 

In the ideal of negative rights, people are left to freely choose what to do with their property.  Therefore women, under this ideal (I feel at least), should have the right to choose what to do with their body. 

[faberryman]

I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying, and/or have never heard of the concept of negative and positive rights.  Here are some definitions. 

Negative rights: (or negative freedoms) means freedom from something. ... Examples of negative rights are the right to live, to be free, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from violence, freedom from slavery, and property rights.

Positive rights: an obligation by others to provide some benefit to the rights holder. ...

A positive right obliges others to provide benefits, while a negative right only obliges others to avoid interfering with someone's liberty.  I am a strong negative rights person, and highly suspect of positive rights. 

I do not mean that the right to have an abortion is negative, just that it is a "negative right." 

In the ideal of negative rights, people are left to freely choose what to do with their property.  Therefore women, under this ideal (I feel at least), should have the right to choose what to do with their body.

I can read Wikipedia as well as the next guy. Believe it or not, I actually read about negative and positive rights before I responded, though I do not claim to be an expert.

As I understood you, in the next to the last paragraph of your post, you argued that I had to get a bill passed in the state legislature to give women the right to an abortion since it was not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Did I misunderstand you?

[Alan Klein]

The analysis breaks down when you talk about individual liberties that are given by the Constitution.  There is no explicit language regarding abortion anywhere in the Constitution.  I'm an atheist and believe that a woman in consultation with her doctor has a right to do what ever she wants.  I don't believe that life is created at conception.  Why should any state have the right to regulate what is a medical procedure?  I'm fine with not using government funds to pay for abortions as Planned Parenthood would pick those up.  Most health insurance policies cover them.

Your response is very confusing. First, I never mentioned abortion. I was speaking in general terms. Second, if abortion is not mentioned in the constitution as an individual liberty as you stated, why did the Supreme Court even rule on it?  Shouldn't they have left it to each individual state to decide? That was the policy before Roe.  Finally, what does you being an atheist have to do with anything?  No one is accusing atheists of being immoral or moral.  In any case, lawsuits are not determined based on the bible but rather on the constitution. 

[Alan Klein]

Of course abortion is an issue in the election.  Just wanted to mention that or this thread might get shut down too.

[JoeKitchen]

I can read Wikipedia as well as the next guy.

As I understood you, in the next to the last paragraph of your post, you argued that I had to get a bill passed in the state legislature to give women the right to an abortion since it was not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Did I misunderstand you?

In my ideal world, it would not matter.  It should be automatic. 

However, I take you as a positive rights kind of guy, and certainly the entirety of the Democratic party is, and positive rights need to be listed out and enforced.  So, from a critical stand point, if you are a positive rights kind of person, it is a contradiction to just insist the right to an abortion is an inherent right.  So get a bill passed damn it! 

With that said, those who are for negative rights but still oppose abortion are being contradictory as well.  So plenty of ammo for both sides here. 

I try to avoid contradictions, personally, in my political philosophy.  I support negative rights, and therefore cant see a reason to not support abortion rights (for the first two trimesters at least). 

[JoeKitchen]

But anyway, back to the court and probably my favorite part of this. 

Whenever the chief justice happens to vote with the minority, he loses his right to dictate who writes the opinion.  Instead that right will go the most senior member of the majority. 

So, in this court, if Roberts decides to vote with the liberals on a case and the conservatives win, Justice Clarence Thomas will get to choose who writes the opinion.   

[faberryman]

In my ideal world, it would not matter.  It should be automatic. 

However, I take you as a positive rights kind of guy, and certainly the entirety of the Democratic party is, and positive rights need to be listed out and enforced.  So, from a critical stand point, if you are a positive rights kind of person, it is a contradiction to just insist the right to an abortion is an inherent right.  So get a bill passed damn it! 

With that said, those who are for negative rights but still oppose abortion are being contradictory as well.  So plenty of ammo for both sides here. 

I try to avoid contradictions, personally, in my political philosophy.  I support negative rights, and therefore cant see a reason to not support abortion rights (for the first two trimesters at least).

I am neither a positive nor a negative rights guy. I am not an ideologue. I was trying to make sense of your argument. As I understood you, based on the next to last paragraph in your post, one would have to get a bill passed in the state legislature to confer the right to an abortion because the right was not explicitly enumerated in the constitution. Perhaps you confirm or deny that is your position.

Also, if Roe was overturned, this would not be giving power to the government, but taking it away.  Abortion is not specifically stated in the constitution, so there is no right to it.  Yet the SCOTUS took power away from the states in Roe's ruling.  Overruling it would give power back to the states and people to decide.  That is how this thing is suppose to work.  As I stated above, if you feel it should be a right, get a bill passed making it a right, case closed.

[Alan Klein]

I don't recall seeing an explicit right to breath in the Constitution either, but I bet even an originalist could figure it out. Or an explicit right to clip your toenails. Do you really need to get a bill passed in the state legislature making it a right to clip your toenails? Maybe the nail salon lobby gets a bill passed that only nail salon personnel have the right to clip your toenails? What would you say then? I think even I could do the necessary mental gymnastics to infer an inalienable right to clip my toenails that even Justice Scalia would agree with. I might even be able to extend that to personal hygiene in general. I mean my wife cuts my hair now, so is it back to the state legislature for a bill for that too? Now that I think about it, I also don't remember seeing an explicit right not to have to wear a mask, but I could be mistaken. Maybe all the guys in camo with their guns could stop protesting and get to work on a bill for that.

You've got it backwards.  The constitution does not grant rights to people.  All rights to do what we please are inherently granted by God as the constitution states or let's say natural rights if you're an atheist. Individuals decide how they want to live.  What the constitution does is grant certain enumerated powers to government such as coining money, regulating interstate commerce, creating an army and defending the country, making treaties, etc.  These enumerated powers are all the power the government has.  Everything else is left up to the individual states and individual people to decide whether it's not allowed.  So if a state does not have any law against abortion, you can do it.  The central national government should have no opinion on this at all.  Also note that states don't give individuals rights either.  Just like the US Constitution, you have those rights automatically even in your state.  State laws take away these inherent rights; they don't grant them.  There's no law that gives you the right to speed.  There are only laws that prevent you from speeding. Absent the law, you can speed or not speed.

So getting back to breathing that you brought up.  The constitution does not give the government the enumerated power to regulate breathing.  Therefore, you can do what you want and I can do what I want about it.  We each have the choice to breathe or not.

[JoeKitchen]

I am neither a positive nor a negative rights guy. I am not an ideologue. I was trying to make sense of your argument. As I understood you, based on the next to last paragraph in your post, one would have to get a bill passed in the state legislature to confer the right to an abortion because the right was not explicitly enumerated in the constitution. Perhaps you confirm or deny that is your position.

No, I think it should just be inherent, regardless of what I think. 

I am just pointing out this if you are of the left for positive rights, this makes no sense from that perspective.  I was being critical of that side. 

[Alan Klein]

I am neither a positive nor a negative rights guy. I am not an ideologue. I was trying to make sense of your argument. As I understood you, based on the next to last paragraph in your post, one would have to get a bill passed in the state legislature to confer the right to an abortion because the right was not explicitly enumerated in the constitution. Perhaps you confirm or deny that is your position.

Leaving aside Roe vs Wade for the moment, before it, every women had the right to an abortion.  It was never granted anywheres.  However, certain states had laws against abortion.  Like I said in my last post, you automatically have a right as long as there's no law against it.  Rights are not granted.  You got them.

[Robert Roaldi]

You've got it backwards.  The constitution does not grant rights to people.  All rights to do what we please are inherently granted by God as the constitution states or let's say natural rights if you're an atheist. Individuals decide how they want to live.  What the constitution does is grant certain enumerated powers to government such as coining money, regulating interstate commerce, creating an army and defending the country, making treaties, etc.  These enumerated powers are all the power the government has.  Everything else is left up to the individual states and individual people to decide whether it's not allowed.  So if a state does not have any law against abortion, you can do it.

That last line is interesting. If that were true, why did it used to be so difficult to obtain abortions?

If a state has a law against abortion, doesn't it make sense that lawsuits were brought about to try and change that if people thought it was incorrect to make it illegal? Isn't it kind of inevitable that the Supreme Court should end up hearing arguments about that?

In this context, why are some drugs illegal? Why is it the government's business what you choose to ingest in the privacy of your own home?

 

[Alan Klein]

That last line is interesting. If that were true, why did it used to be so difficult to obtain abortions?

If a state has a law against abortion, doesn't it make sense that lawsuits were brought about to try and change that if people thought it was incorrect to make it illegal? Isn't it kind of inevitable that the Supreme Court should end up hearing arguments about that?

In this context, why are some drugs illegal? Why is it the government's business what you choose to ingest in the privacy of your own home?

 

There were lawsuits that claimed state laws against abortions were illegal.  These laws went through the court system in the particular state.  However, the courts in those states determine that it was not unconstitutional for their state to have laws against abortion.  What happened next was in the case of Roe vs. Wade, (I don't recall what state it was originally sued in), the SUpreme Court decided that there was an inherent right of woman to get an abortion and overruled the state that originally said it was a legal law in accordance with their state constitution.  (Every state has it's own constitution).  Since the US Constitution is primary, the Supreme Court overruled the state's supreme court.  Once done, no other state can make abortion illegal.

The issue that's been fought over the years, is whether the US Constitution had any stipulation in their that gave this right to women.  Such as the government can stop free speech which is specifically enumerated in the constitution, right to bear arms, etc.  There's nothing there about abortion or so many claim.  However, the justices at the time culled this interpretation from the constitution.  I don;t, know off hand what their rationale was but you can look it up.   

YOur argument for drugs is such that the Supreme Court has allowed states to regulate drugs.  They so far haven't found anything in the constitution that gives them the right to overrule state regulation on this matter.  But they did find the rationale with abortions.  Of course there seems to be an inconsistency.  As many have argued, in neither case is there really anything preventing states to regulate either drugs or abortion.  It's why this has been a fight for so many years.  But it is in fact a decision that's 60 years old.  I doubt if i will be reversed, even by the new justice.

Of course, the argument on the street in the election has to do with the moral and ethics behind it one way or the other.  But actually, the constitution is past that point.  Justices have to decide on what the constitution says, for any case, and not their personal ethics, religious or moral beliefs in making a decision.