The General US Politics Thread

From a legal standpoint you might be right, but here on the forums we had a polyamorous couple^note their various other lovers weren't tropers to my knowledge and I know a 2M1F trio who've been together for over a decade. They certainly exist, but in the US it is legally impossible to be married to two people without going to prison. The legal workaround I've heard of is to have two of them married, and then get a whole bunch of power of attorney papers signed, and even that only nets some of the legal rights automatically granted upon marriage.^note Such as hospital visitation rights, and even there I would be unsurprised if a hospital decided to ignore the power of attorney from the non-legal-spouse and bar them entry. So basically the court told the EPA they hadn't filed their paperwork correctly and to redo it? Isn't he just parroting an argument that's been around since the very first Supreme Court ruling? I recall my US History (or maybe Government) class talking about how some of the founding fathers immediately went, "WTF? I want them out!" after the first decision, but since nothing was in the Constitution for term limits or length of time on the bench for SCOTUS^note which IIRC was done specifically so that the sitting judges could actually be impartial; too bad that hasn't worked out in practice every justice serves until they choose to retire or drop dead. And unlike Presidents, I don't recall any sitting justice getting assassinated.

Re: Oklahoma, I do wonder what makes the state constitution more restrictive than the US Constitution, but my crappy internet connection isn't letting me search up the actual text.

That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw

Re: Deficit Hawks complaining about wasted taxpayer dollars with states using the court's time and resources:

They won't complain, because deficit hawks don't care about the deficit; they just use the deficit as an excuse to complain about "the welfare state." Reducing the deficit is a means not an ends.

In today's "Republicans are Assholes" news, apparently they've been trying to block routine funding reallocation to SSDI (Social Security and Disability Insurance) in an effort to push through "reform" — meaning cutting benefits against a supposed future crisis, partly on the grounds that people are gaming the system by claiming disability when they're able to work. However, actual research reveals no indication that there is any notable increase in disability claims indexed for age; neither is it evident that individuals denied benefits are subsequently able to find work.

edited 30th Jun '15 2:28:41 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The second one is a "well, duh" thing. Of course someone who needs disability is going to have a problem finding a job. Difficulty finding a job is why they're trying to go on disability!

Not Three Laws compliant.

Conservatives argue Obergefell v. Hodges gives precedent for allowing a "federally mandated concealed carry" status for guns.

Mind you the SCOTUS said that the 2nd Amendment only stands with regards to your home.

Mandated concealed carry feels like a fucking awful idea.

Oh really when?

Ok, does that mean they think everyone should carry a gun or that all gun licenses should be concealed carry only?

It means that it would be unconstitutional to not grant conceal carry permits in any state.

I can see where they are coming from...

it all comes down to whether the word "state" used in the second amendment refers to the states... or to the federal government.

I think one can freely assume that it means state as in local state, since militias are managed at the state level.

Thus one state can not infringe on the right of another state to regulate it's militia.

edited 30th Jun '15 3:40:08 PM by BAFFU

Except the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment's right to carry arms applies only universally via homes. That the Militia and Arms issues are decoupled, IIRC.

Nevermind that a gun simply isn't appropriate in many places. Reminds of the case where some folks from like Virginia or something tried to sue DC simply because they couldn't take their guns into the city, instead of just accepting that it was the house rules.

So wait does this mean we should be allowed to bring guns with us into federal government buildings?

Not really. The States, even if forced to grant conceal carry permits, would still be able to regulated the limits of such permits.

Yes your right.

The second amendment has 2 parts.

→the rights of the state to regulate militia

→the right of the people to bear arms.

So states can regulate gun ownership as long as they don't violate the people's basic right to bear arms. Currently, and since about 100 years, the Supreme Court has ascertained (I am not really sure why) that the core right of the people is to be able to own guns and make use of them in their property. I would guess this has something to do with the Castle Doctrine.

As I understand it, what the NRA is trying to do in this instance, isn't really to argue that being allowed to conceal carry is a fundamental part of the right to bear arms (which is like their main argument anyways but that hasn't been successful), but that somehow, regulations from certain states should be made forceful to other states because of the fourteenth amendment (I think).

Which in the end just goes back to the core issue of whether "equal protection under the law" applies to conceal carry permits. But if such were the case, then why have permits at all? (well I guess that some limitations would still apply, like convicts and what not...)

Though I can not fully grasp the Supreme Court doctrines on guns, I would find it very surprising if any court, even a conservative one, would disregard the precedent on this matter...

edited 30th Jun '15 4:06:02 PM by BAFFU

It's simple: gun owners are not a "protected class" entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

What defines a protected class though?

Race, sex, religion, gender, sexual identity, national origin, and a few other things.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I understand that. My question is more what's stopping them from trying to make it one? I believe religion is protected and that's not something you're born with so certain acquired traits are protected.

Religion has long been held as intrinsic to one's being even if it is a voluntary choice, as irrational as that seems. Gun ownership is not an intrinsic part of a person, any more than car ownership or computer ownership.

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

The tricky thing being that gun ownership is a constitutionally protected right. We preserve religion and political viewpoints because of the first amendment.

You know given the way gun nuts act I wouldn't be shocked if owning guns was as vital to their identity as religion is to theists.

Keep in mind that protection swings both ways. Racial discrimination means that it's illegal to discriminate against anyone based on race, regardless of what that race is. Gender discrimination laws work the same, you can't discriminate based on any gender.

So if gun ownership became a protected class than non-gun ownership would likewise become one. So you would both not be able to discriminant against gun owners but also not discriminate against non-gun owners.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

You think they'll ever repeal any of the Bill of Rights as long as the United States of America is a country?

In the foreseeable future? Probably not even though I'd love to see the second amendment get removed.

Yeah, the Second is the odd man out: it's the one that specifically enables a means of suborning democracy.

edited 30th Jun '15 5:02:50 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Which was intentional, since some of the people who drew up the Constitution had little faith at the time that the U.S government (or any kind of government that was built around the concept of liberty) had significant staying power. I remember there being a Thomas Jefferson quote about expecting a revolution every twenty years or so.

They were products of their time; there was pretty much no concept of peaceful protest or anything along those lines. If you wanted liberty, you had to shoot enough of the guys trying to suppress you first. In hindsight, that's obviously not a requirement now, but...

Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)

... now, democracy is threatened more by those numbskulls waving ARs around than by government itself, although if you count the fact that the party that courts gun owners is also in the pockets of the wealthy, who are the greatest threat to liberty and democracy throughout all of history, it's rather ironic.

These people would go to Hell to defend the right of the wealthy to oppress them. Jefferson must be weeping quietly in the afterlife.

edited 30th Jun '15 5:17:25 PM by Fighteer

"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"