Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Frankly, if there's a split coming in the Democratic Party, it could only reasonably come in two places:
- Between "moderates": what we might think of as the Pelosi or Clinton faction, who represent stable governance and a gradual leftward movement; and "progressives": more radical Democrats in the Ocasio-Cortez mold who want rapid and fundamental change. On the first side, you could also lump Democrats in highly conservative states, like Manchin, who have to switch-hit to stay in office.
- Between those who focus on social injustice as a primary issue vs. those who focus on economic injustice. Think of the latter as the Sanders faction, or maybe the Warren Democrats. This is the most likely, as Sanders in particular has seemed at times aggressively colorblind and thus out of touch with the racial and social justice movements, which in turn can be very single-minded about their own issues.
This absolutely will not happen without a fundamental disruption on the Republican side that takes them out of any hope of reaching national power.
Edited by Fighteer on Nov 21st 2018 at 2:56:30 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"In other news, here is a Ocasio-Cortez reasonably commenting
on the house speaker issue.
Her first tweet sums it up nicely:
Hard pass. So long as Leader Pelosi remains the most progressive candidate for Speaker, she can count on my support.
Since I read some of this thread today, a quick word on why the ruling that you can't federally prosecute FGM is the right call:
The government's argument was that the two items that gave power to federally outlaw Female Genital Mutilation were the 1992 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the commerce clause of the constitution allowing congress to regulate interstate commerce.
The problem with viewing a treaty as granting Congress powers forbidden from Congress elsewhere in the constitution is that it would mean Congress is one treaty away from acquiring any power. It would effectively be a short cut to amend the Constitution. So that's got to be out.
The problem with using the commerce clause is that it would be reasonable under that logic to charge people with transporting girls across state lines to perform FGM, but not if they stay within one state. Human trafficking is a federal crime but rape is not for the same reason.
Twenty-seven states already have laws on the books prohibiting FGM. Michigan is the 27th, and added its law because of this incident. Michigan can't charge the parties in this particular incident with FGM because it wasn't a crime under state law when they did it, but they can still charge them with general child abuse and obstruction of justice.
The ruling isn't a federal blessing on FGM, it is a reiteration that we have to follow the law when going after bad guys. It should be a wake-up call to the other 33 states that don't have specific laws on the books against FGM yet.
This means that activists should be lighting fires under the asses of every state government that hasn't declared FGM a crime.
That said, it does seem like making criminal (as opposed to some aspects of regulatory law) law a federal thing would be more efficient...but that's more than a bit hard to change.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Ocasio-Cortez is really great, it's wonderful to see a major Progressive who's so thoughtful and rational.
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangActually, ~Bense, Congress can conclude treaties even if it normally couldn't legislate in the topic that is subject of the treaty, see Missouri v. Holland
and I am not sure if the more recent Medellín v. Texas
overrides Missouri. Mind you, this broad authority has been contentious over time as noted on the Wikipedia article on Missouri. The treaty also cannot explicitly violate Constitutional rights, see Reid v. Covert
.
Riiiight, the conservative judge appointed by Regan is "disgusted"
Just like the GOP is "saddened" by the people that die every time they try to slash healthcare.
No its a feature not a bug to them, and there just saying that to save face.
![]()
![]()
Only bad thing about her Twitter feed is that she attracts a lot of Justice Dems, Unicorn Brigade, Gabbard fans, etc. But then again, what doesn't attract garbage on Twitter these days?
Hopefully she stays on the right path, builds experience and a solid political resume; because she is prime leadership material for the future.
Supporting FGM generally isn't a conservative policy plank (though some less savory types use opposition to it to go after certain groups of immigrants), and banning it (at the state level) usually carries bipartisan support if/when the motion gets rolling. The strike down was unfortunate, but it was procedural and consistent with the US Constitution (flawed beast that it is)
Edited by Rationalinsanity on Nov 21st 2018 at 5:22:36 AM
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.I think you’re missing the actual most likly split point, the faction of the party represented by Manchin and King (who sits as an independent but is effectively a Democrat).
If the Republican Party dies out federally what you may well see is the likes of Manchin, Angus King forming a party alongside the likes of Romney and Governor Charlie Baker.
So you’re looking at a more tradditonal Conservative party forming, opposed to state healthcare but onboard with regulated private healthcare, largly white and male but with some women and people of colour, close to both Wall Street and rural groups but neither openly racist nor opposed to all regulation. Accepting of climate change as real but slow and unwilling to carry out serious actions to combat it. Not evangelical but still very religious.
Edited by Silasw on Nov 21st 2018 at 9:21:48 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
Controlling women IS a conservative policy plank, unless we are living in different worlds here.
And again that the federal government has no jurisdiction is 100% bullshit unless your telling me that if a state wanted to it could make it legal for some one to remove a mans penis, or assault them with a knife, or any thing like that.
Its 100% bodily harm with no other purpose what so ever.
I’m pretty sure that’s exactly what you’re being told, I can’t say if this true or not, but that’s what’s being claimed.
Also just to note, it is legal to perform non-consensual cosmetic surgery on a boy’s penis in all 50 states (in fact it’s common) same as with other cosmetic surgeries upon children to younge to consent. Now that’s cosmetic surgery as opposed to direct assault, but the similarity is there.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSure but the precedent that cosmetic surgery can be done regardless of any good is there, it leads generally to other cosmetic surgeries that do do obvious harm, things like foot binding, neck-rings and FGM.
Regardless that’s all handled at a state level according to what’s being said, the federal government doesn’t get to outlaw assault, mutilation or grievous bodily harm if done within the confines of a single state.
Edited by Silasw on Nov 21st 2018 at 9:56:01 AM
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranFor the record, I do not support this decision, it strikes down a perfectly good law to the benefit of nobody except people who belong in prison (those who preform or and aide and abet FGM). Frankly I think that criminal law in general should be in federal hands in any case, no reason why crimes should have different definitions or penalties in different areas.
But regarding all those federal laws
mentioned, could it be that (when there isn't an inter-state aspect) that they just haven't been challenged on those ground before, or have ran into the right judges when they are challenged?
And yes, its obviously highly suspect (at best) that this law ran into problems but others did not. And the potential precedent (states being able to theoretically decriminalize a host of shit if they manage to totally localize it and think they can tank the backlash) is a 'big'' problem. We've already seen shit go down with regards to discrimination, etc.
Edited by Rationalinsanity on Nov 21st 2018 at 6:09:38 AM
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Are we sure that "others" aren't being struck down? A law will only be struck down if it's challenged and the Constitution does not mandate that states outlaw certain things.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanSeptimusHeap,
The Judge pointed out that the congressional report on this particular treaty which recommended adoption to Congress included: "that this Convention shall be implemented by the Federal Government to the extent that it exercises legislative and judicial jurisdiction over the matters covered therein, and otherwise by the state and local governments; to the extent that state and local governments exercise jurisdiction over such matters, the Federal Government shall take measures appropriate to the Federal system to the end that the competent authorities of the state or local governments may take appropriated [sic] measures for the fulfillment of the Convention.”
Likewise the Bush (that's Bush Sr.) administration at the time said "even though the Covenant will apply to state and local authorities, it will be implemented consistent with U.S. concepts of federalism. The proposed understanding serves to emphasize domestically that there is no intent to alter the constitutional balance of authority between the State and Federal governments or to use the provisions of the Covenant to ‘federalize’ matters now within the competence of authorities of the state or local governments . . . .”
So when the particular treaty in question in this matter was ratified by Congress it was with full expectations that it would be up to the states to support it with legislation.
This rather undermined the current government's argument that the treaty was a suitable basis for adding additional federal crimes. In other words, this ruling was generally in line with Reid v. Covert allowing the Feds to agree to treaties that are normally outside their preview as long as they don't overstep other constitutional lines, like where states are supposed to have jurisdiction.
Personally I would say Missouri v. Holland was a bad ruling, and Medellin v. Texas seems to be a recent affirmation of the idea that Congress shouldn't be using international treaties to give itself more domestic power. It's questionable whether Medellin v. Texas would apply to this specific case, though, because Congress had passed a federal statute against FGM (18 U.S.C. § 116), and Medellin v. Texas held that treaties weren't binding on the states only if Congress hadn't passed statutes supporting them.
Edited by Bense on Nov 21st 2018 at 3:49:37 AM
My follow up question this is that if things that don’t cross state lines can’t be criminalised by the federal government, how is the federal government able to legislate on drug possession? The inter-state trade of drugs sure, but internal possession and distribution should be outside the federal remit shouldn’t it?
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

Economics, most likely — pro-business vs. pro-regulation. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny are becoming universally verboten in the party, while being pro-business isn't.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."