That's like one of the core moments when

[ocean blaze]

FDR had plenty of time to ensure unprecedented systematic capture of the judicial too which is one of my main gripes with him, Hamilton seemed think this was obviously impossible; that the people would unseat the president after a term or two but FDR got to embed what he envisioned

[zinc patrol]

This relates in part to what I'm working on. Assumption being that the constitution assumed human limits that did not hold, thus a system running on borrowed time, which is arguable every system.

[ocean blaze]

that's pretty similar to my own thesis: the constitution assumes morals it does not prescribe and cannot produce, but further, therefore the states must cultivate virtue internally, but this ability has been stripped from them mostly due to fdr but the door was opened for it after the civil war.

[zinc patrol]

Yeah, madison engineered for the "nation of devils", mechanical checks substituting for virtue ... assumed the states would supply that virtue locally. So the machine assumes a resource it doesn't produce, as you say. Post-war amendments federalized rights upwards. the new deal admin then hollows the states downwards from gov bodies into compliance units. This breaks the virtue-supply-chain entirely. The admin cage remains on pure managerial logic, no virtue at the top, because the structure was designed to distrust popular will. And no virtue at the bottom, because the states were stripped of the ability to cultivate it. ... that's my current working theory, sounds right?

[ocean blaze]

yep and the administrative class only complicates this further; embedded in the executive there's no way to vote them out.

[zinc patrol]

agreed. That makes the whole debate about "saving democracy" so insane. Apart from explaining that republic != democracy, it's so far off the Athenian concept, the "vote" doesn't do what it's advertised to do

from your course or professor, is there any viewpoint you feel is a good alternative interpretation that challenges your perspective? Always look to poke holes into my understanding to see if it holds up

[ocean blaze]

With the system we have now it's sad because it's supposed to be a republic, but your vote, at least federally, is so abstracted and diluted that many question if it's even meaningful and this is further complicated when you look at what is being voted for, it's a vague promise of something. Which more than likely won't even come to pass. And if it does, it will be hindered as hindered by the opposing party to the best of their ability, no matter what party that is, at least at the federal level. Meanwhile the system doesn't want any disruption or anything changing too much. So even if you do get a disruptor in office, their ability is so diluted that it doesn't affect anything. The state level sovereignty was supposed to correct for this but of course, it has been stripped out.

[zinc patrol]

First bank, second bank of the US also didn't help. Jackson tried to get rid of it, but the "National Banking System" and then 1913 ofc removed the financial independence, so basically no incentive left to follow the publics wishes anyway. Now all that's left is "hope" something magically will change organically.

[ocean blaze]

I think Loper Bright is a move in the right direction, just not far enough. the 17th and 14th are also pretty bad. For the 14th - not equal protections in principle, that I understand, but the contriving of it beyond the clear intent of the time. The 17th is just erosion of Madison's design entirely

[zinc patrol]

Question is whether we aren't just long past trying to argue over salvaging that system, or if it's not just viewed as a "fucking piece of paper" by the elected? If the judiciary is unwilling, or unable to keep existing law respected, "what difference at this point does it make?"

[ocean blaze]

look at the oral arguments from the Barbara vs Trump yesterday, I thought Gorsuch made the best points regarding how the text is to be interpreted

Alito kinda pushes back on him though, thomas says like 3 things lol

[zinc patrol]

Man I tried to listen to that while doing chores, got me too annoyed after a while. Didn't hear anything substantive from thomas thus far on this, did he take a backseat? Yes, gorsuch seemed most focused, but I'm not finished listening yet

[ocean blaze]

Gorsuch is the one who actually controls the flow. He's not nudging. He's cornering. Every question chains into the next. If domicile is your test, what's the 1868 standard? OK, then illegality is anachronistic. You want to cite Wong Kim Ark? I'm not sure how much you want to rely on that. Whose domicile matters? The husband? The wife? How do we adjudicate this? Are Native Americans birthright citizens under your test? He doesn't let Sauer recover between questions. By the time he's done, he's demonstrated that the government's theory fails on its own terms, in at least four independent ways, without ever stating his own position.