80 replies to this topic

[eight bits]

Quote

tangents about the 10th or whatever else notwithstanding.

If the 10th were still in force, then the lady whose face we could see might get more of what she wants. Some states, given the power to do so, would likely regulate Muslim garb in public, and in some states, some civil divisions would, while others would not.

As tangents go, then, the 10th carries an awful lot of traffic. But it isn't in force any longer, and it was part of the Bill of Rights. Both the Constitution with the 10th, and the one with it as dead letter, were equally the Constitution in their respective times, and the change from one to the other was done as the Constitution itself requires.

Someone's factual report about the objective result of a lawful amendment is completely uninformative about their attitude to the Constitution.

Quote

Contrasting French law is no issue with me as I've already had to repeat.

Then why are you talking about it? A development in French law, and how the legal situation differs between France and the United States, is the subject of the video in the original post. I can post here in this thread about it. It is not only on-topic, it is the topic. If that aspect of the subject doesn't interest you, then don't reply. Problem solved.

Quote

And what a great crystal ball you have there, presuming you know all the changes the lack of a Civil War would have had on our history.  

You might want to googlebing civil war amendments. That will explain to you the relationship between the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil War.

You say you're an American. I take it you didn't go to school there. This thing is a staple of American high school history courses. Maybe you were absent that week. Or, maybe they haven't gotten to it yet in your school.

[Yamato]

eight bits, on 09 June 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

If the 10th were still in force, then the lady whose face we could see might get more of what she wants. Some states, given the power to do so, would likely regulate Muslim garb in public, and in some states, some civil divisions would, while others would not.

As tangents go, then, the 10th carries an awful lot of traffic. But it isn't in force any longer, and it was part of the Bill of Rights. Both the Constitution with the 10th, and the one with it as dead letter, were equally the Constitution in their respective times, and the change from one to the other was done as the Constitution itself requires.

Someone's factual report about the objective result of a lawful amendment is completely uninformative about their attitude to the Constitution.


Then why are you talking about it? A development in French law, and how the legal situation differs between France and the United States, is the subject of the video in the original post. I can post here in this thread about it. It is not only on-topic, it is the topic. If that aspect of the subject doesn't interest you, then don't reply. Problem solved.


You might want to googlebing civil war amendments. That will explain to you the relationship between the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil War.

You say you're an American. I take it you didn't go to school there. This thing is a staple of American high school history courses. Maybe you were absent that week. Or, maybe they haven't gotten to it yet in your school.

Civil War history taught in the US public school system?   I have to laugh again.   Are our schools good but not quite as good as French schools too?   But this isn't about high school, or the Civil War, or especially how the Civil War chucked the 10th Amendment.  This is about respecting the rule of law for what turn out to be obvious reasons to any actual libertarian.

Quote

If the 10th were still in force, then the lady whose face we could see might get more of what she wants.

The 10th is in force, and so is the 14th.  What you're trying to assert about the 10th here is coyly pretending that the 14th doesn't exist.   They both exist, and they're both in force.   There is no mutual exclusivity here.  Maybe you're a "libertarian atheist" like the Amazing Atheist describes himself, and you just can't imagine a state doing anything to anybody that isn't infringing on peoples' rights and thus the states have no rights!   That's real clever.   If you want to get rid of the 10th, get yourself a real Amendment that explicitly states this and stop dreaming about what you wish the 14th was, and best of luck with the tsunami of backlash you'll get from everybody but the liberals you exemplify.  You don't have a clue of a prayer of repealing the 10th if you actually tried to put your mettle where your mouth is (ya know, just in case it's not really dead?) and it would be great fun watching the proposal be savaged in the media spotlight for the garbage that it is.

Quote

Then why are you talking about it?

Other than having to keep telling you it doesn't matter?  I'm not.

Quote

A development in French law, and how the legal situation differs between France and the United States, is the subject of the video in the original post. I can post here in this thread about it. It is not only on-topic, it is the topic. If that aspect of the subject doesn't interest you, then don't reply. Problem solved.

No it is not the subject of this video.  The subject of this video is "A Battle of Two Muslim Women" and neither one of them are French.  AGAIN, Spitzer's framework is my framework and splitting hairs over France has nothing to do with it.  This could have happened in Timbuktu, and the relevance and the importance of this thread remains the same.  France is nothing more than incidental to this, and that's why I'm not interested in a debate about France.   If you can't understand the relevance of this debate (or even what the topic is) and how it has nothing to do with contrasting French law, you either haven't watched the video, didn't read the subject line, or (my guess) you don't want to understand.  You can bring up all things French in a reply and type about it all you want of course, but believe me when I tell you that it's meaningless in my process of determining my position on this issue.

[eight bits]

Y

Quote

What you're trying to assert about the 10th here is coyly pretending that the 14th doesn't exist.

No, what I have argued is that since the Fourteenth was adopted, the 10th is now without force. I have given examples.The controversy discussed in the video is itself one example I gave.

That the Constitution may lawfully be amended, and that when it is, the later amendment repeals all incompatible earlier provisions are uncontroversial. There is no "rule of law" issue. The Fourteenth Amendment is the law now. The Tenth used to be the law, but is no longer. The change is an example of the rule of law, not a challenge to it.

If it's news to you, then that's your problem. Since you can't even accurately describe the argument, there is little wonder that you don't understand it. In any case, there is no reason for me to discuss yet another argument you attribute to me that I haven't made, so I won't.

Quote

France is nothing more than incidental to this, and that's why I'm not interested in a debate about France.

Then don't debate about France. If you think my posts are off-topic, then call a moderator. Otherwise, debate them or ignore them, just as you please.

[Yamato]

eight bits, on 10 June 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

Y



No, what I have argued is that since the Fourteenth was adopted, the 10th is now without force. I have given examples.The controversy discussed in the video is itself one example I gave.

That the Constitution may lawfully be amended, and that when it is, the later amendment repeals all incompatible earlier provisions are uncontroversial. There is no "rule of law" issue. The Fourteenth Amendment is the law now. The Tenth used to be the law, but is no longer. The change is an example of the rule of law, not a challenge to it.

If it's news to you, then that's your problem. Since you can't even accurately describe the argument, there is little wonder that you don't understand it. In any case, there is no reason for me to discuss yet another argument you attribute to me that I haven't made, so I won't.



Then don't debate about France. If you think my posts are off-topic, then call a moderator. Otherwise, debate them or ignore them, just as you please.

Okay for the third or fourth time, French law for whatever it is, has no effect on and nothing to do with our ability to debate the subject which is whether or not we should support bans on Muslim women's dress.

This video has nothing to do with liberal nonsense that the 10th isn't in force.  The 10th and the 14th are both in force.  Your petulant claims that they are mutually exclusive is rejected.   Your reading of the 10th, that it only gave states the right to abridge peoples' freedoms (and since the 14th prevents this the 10th is dead) shows you haven't even read it and don't even understand what it says if you did.

[eight bits]

I support the right of the French people to regulate by democratic means overt publc behavior on their  streets, while respecting, as the French do, everyone's freedom to pursue all manner of private concerns in private, such as religion.

I have no personal regret that Americans gave up that right after the Civil War, insofar as religiously motivated expression is concerned. Nevertheless, I have sympathy for people like the woman who showed her face in the video.

It would help the more visible woman's case if she had a genuinely secular purpose to her proposal. For example, part of the legislative history in France which wasn't mentioned in the video was a suspicion that some women were physically assaulted by vigilantes, in order to enforce compliance with the dress code. There is no question that that actually happens in some Muslim countries, The French believed it sometimes happened in France, too. Frustration of vigilantism would be an example of a secular purpose.

It would also help if the practice were clearly identified as cultural rather than religious. Former President Sarkozy was quoted to that effect in the video. If this style of dress is culturally rather than religiously founded, then it would lessen an American government's burden in regulating the behavior.

For all the attention to legal niceties, my guess is that legislation of this sort will atract less support in the United States than in France for cultural reasons. The United States is not, after all, a people. Americans are all the peoples of the world. The difference shows.

For example, Americans do not seem to have a stable national majority in favor of mandating the use of English in all public business. Lol, this forum has stricter rules about the exclusive use of English than much of the United States. In contrast, don't get any French person started on the necessity of everyone in France being a fluent francophone, and the need for the public business to be carried on in French.

So, it's easy to guess that if "speaking American" isn't a consensus issue, then it is pretty ulikely that "dressing American" is going to become much of one, either.

And that's fine with me, too.


Y

Sure kid, whatever you say.

Edited by eight bits, 10 June 2012 - 04:48 PM.

[Yamato]

eight bits, on 10 June 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

I support the right of the French people to regulate by democratic means overt publc behavior on their  streets, while respecting, as the French do, everyone's freedom to pursue all manner of private concerns in private, such as religion.

I have no personal regret that Americans gave up that right after the Civil War, insofar as religiously motivated expression is concerned. Nevertheless, I have sympathy for people like the woman who showed her face in the video.

It would help the more visible woman's case if she had a genuinely secular purpose to her proposal. For example, part of the legislative history in France which wasn't mentioned in the video was a suspicion that some women were physically assaulted by vigilantes, in order to enforce compliance with the dress code. There is no question that that actually happens in some Muslim countries, The French believed it sometimes happened in France, too. Frustration of vigilantism would be an example of a secular purpose.

It would also help if the practice were clearly identified as cultural rather than religious. Former President Sarkozy was quoted to that effect in the video. If this style of dress is culturally rather than religiously founded, then it would lessen an American government's burden in regulating the behavior.

For all the attention to legal niceties, my guess is that legislation of this sort will atract less support in the United States than in France for cultural reasons. The United States is not, after all, a people. Americans are all the peoples of the world. The difference shows.

For example, Americans do not seem to have a stable national majority in favor of mandating the use of English in all public business. Lol, this forum has stricter rules about the exclusive use of English than much of the United States. In contrast, don't get any French person started on the necessity of everyone in France being a fluent francophone, and the need for the public business to be carried on in French.

So, it's easy to guess that if "speaking American" isn't a consensus issue, then it is pretty ulikely that "dressing American" is going to become much of one, either.

And that's fine with me, too.


Y

Sure kid, whatever you say.

Yeah you have sympathy for the rights banner; I got that already.   Secularism wouldn't help the faced woman's case at all in the US and if it did, it'd be an admission that forces of secularism already exist here like I said they did, while we're still protecting religious freedoms at the same time (going to kill the 1st Amendment off too now?  lol) so your latest suggestion for your veiled support of her unconstitutional rights ban defies the earlier claim that tried to preach to me about their vaunted exclusivity.

Your reading of the 10th isn't short of absurd.  The 10th's about more than allowing states to infringe on peoples rights That is something the 10th has absolutely nothing to do with, and the only thing mutually exclusive to the 10th you've talked about yet is the state's right to infringe on individual liberty.  If you can't understand how the 10th and 14th coexist, you won't get either one of them right and it's no surprise you've failed to both ways in your discourse so far.

You and your Washington DC salesman Rick Santorum ought to pick up a copy of the Constitution and read it.   The Bill of Rights are alive and well despite whatever shameful liberal rag told you otherwise.  I can cite all manner of constitutional abuses courtesy of your beloved federal government excused away by paranoid sheeple who parrot liberal nonsense about the Constitution, people who think the force of government can improve human nature and that's why such statists are so detrimental to the liberty movement.

If I ever hear you acknowledge the extent of federal overreach in this country I will treat you as someone having at least some political prudence.  But on this thread, you're utterly oblivious.  I've asked you, this the third time, if you're an American, after you make an issue of me, you still can't answer the question?    Wild guess:  You're a landlord in Michigan?