thelawlorfaithful

I wanna leave the originalism vs living document argument for another thread. Maybe someday we can come closer on that issues. What I really want to address is your last paragraph, because I’ve seen the argument put elsewhere on different subjects and I think it’s dead wrong. Yes, most of us have not gone through the institutional rigor of getting a law degree. Thus, we have not passed a bar and cannot practice law in our given state. Now there is no bigger “muh Institutions” guy on the board than me, at least their has been no one who has openly staked so much on their faith in them as me. That doesn’t mean in my mind they aren’t open to criticism, or that only criticism from those bestowed of legitimacy by those institutions are all that should be allowed to be interpreted thoughtfully. We all live under the legal system bestowed upon us by those who have done the grind and received acceptance by those institutions of law, and also under those decisions by those who became lawyers before there was such a rigid institutional control. This is no different in 2018 as it was in 1778, or 1768. People rightfully objected to the law that they found unreasonable. What else is there to do? We live in a system where the scaffolding of that system is apparent to most people. Criminal law is supposed to be understood by the idiots who ho run afoul of it, even they know this. Constitutional law is the same thing. Decent, reasonable people are supposed to be able to understand the reasoning of the Supreme Court, and object to it if they find the reasoning wanting. How could it be otherwise? Are we supposed to live in a land where law is dictated by a few unquestionably? Of course not, they are supposed to convince of their reasoning in order for the scaffolding to not fall apart upon the people. And when they failed to do so, it doesn’t take a law degree to level legitimate criticism. If it did so, your textual reading of the equal enforcement clause would have no legitimacy of a good argument. And it does, I just disagree. If it didn’t, there would be no reason for any of the populace to question any of the laws passed and upheld by congress. It doesn’t take a law degree to live under the scaffolds, nor does it take a law degree to say the scaffolds are insufficiently built.

I don’t mean to disagree with you entirely, because I think we’re on the same page with regards to communism as it scales to large systems. But I do disagree that human nature is primarily driven by greed and desire for material success. Yes, a part of human nature is driven by, I think greed is the wrong word because it’s inherently negative, so how about self-interested success. And this self interest leads to material success because that’s what culture if not human nature values, and I’m definitely not saying human nature does not value it. But it is also driven, at least for non-psychopaths which is almost everybody, by compassion, and empathy, and love. This is self-evident to anyone who ever raised a family. I don’t begrudge my good for nothing 7 year old because all he wants to do on summer vacation is play basketball, swim, ride bikes, and put up 60 shots a game on NBA2K18 (He is the worst chucker, on track to break Wilt’s ppg record and still lead Golden State to the 1 seed because Golden State). He could be out pulling weeds, mowing lawns, taking care of the man’s work at home while daddy is bringing home the bacon; and yet I don’t hold it against him. I want the best for him, not the best for his contribution to the system. And despite all the economic advantages I might personally benefit from by him getting of his ass and doing his part, it’s not important to me, at all. Because self-interest is not the primary driving force, my love and desire that he developes into a well rounded, strong individual; drives absolutely everything about how I treat him and how he exists within our family system. So communism works in this tiny system. And it works better than the free market. Because the primary object has nothing to do with self-interest, my own personal development, or anything other than my benevolence towards those I deeply love. I’m willing to work ridiculously hard for all of their sake for no certain material benefit to me. Now, this is not a portion of history I’ve studied very much. But I feel safe in saying there are tribal examples where such a system worked great, at least until they came in contact with a much larger, more powerful system. There is something in human nature, and I’d call that the enforcement of culture, that allowed these larger, but still tiny, communist systems to excel because compassion, empathy, and the recognition of eventual fulfilled self-interest within that culture; drove them to success. At least until they hit an undeniable iceberg of a much larger system. Communism has an irreconcilable problem of scale. Once it passes the tribal threshold, the monopoly on violence comes to the forefront and destroys what is good about it. That’s not to say there is no scenario where it is good. And it’s also not to say that communism at the nation state level doesn’t express itself as violent tyranny, because all empirical evidence shows that it does. Where and why that leap from tribal to a larger system goes horribly wrong isn’t clear. I think it’s because you can’t enforce a culture of compassion, when the clear inequities or honesty and character, simple unfairness if you will, become self evident to everyone. What’s interesting/horrifying is that this recognition of unfairness in human nature is both what drives the appeal of communism/socialism and is also the complete undoing of all the best aspects of it.

You know who tigers don’t do this to? Bears. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129551459&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20180715 At the center of the story is Vladimir Markov, a poacher who met a grisly end in the winter of 1997 after he shot and wounded a tiger, and then stole part of the tiger's kill. The injured tiger hunted Markov down in a way that appears to be chillingly premeditated. The tiger staked out Markov's cabin, systematically destroyed anything that had Markov's scent on it, and then waited by the front door for Markov to come home. "This wasn't an impulsive response," Vaillant says. "The tiger was able to hold this idea over a period of time." The animal waited for 12 to 48 hours before attacking. When Markov finally appeared, the tiger killed him, dragged him into the bush and ate him. "The eating may have been secondary," Vaillant explains. "I think he killed him because he had a bone to pick."

All of the favorites still in the race are very much still in the race.

Almost everybody hit the deck at least once, Porte crashed out, Van Garderen lost 5 minutes almost immediately after taking on the leadership role, Uran lost 90 seconds, and in the end the stage wasn’t all that decisive. It was awesome. The battered and bruise peleton is gonna badly need tomorrow’s rest day (or to the cynics, blood bag Monday). Then it’s straight into the alps.

I don’t think so. The first one is titled “The Forgotten Man” so I think he’s just some generic ‘Merican.