A few folks have asked me to recap the lesson I gave to 3 classes of high school kids on constitution day, and in view of the great article shortage of 2020, I acquiesced.
This is, more or less, a transcription of what I said in those classes. I may over- or under-emphasize some unimportant/important points, but I hope I didn’t get anything factually wrong.
When I tried to think of a topic to discuss for Constitution Day, I reflected on my history classes in high school and what I learned in law school. A few topics stuck out as being taught quite differently in those two settings, but one stuck out more than most. Who does the Bill of Rights apply to? It seems like there’s a simple answer. Everybody! However, history tells a more complicated story, and we’ll investigate it.
Before we discuss the question, I think it’s important to ask and answer another question. Why should we care?
There are a few reasons why we should care about who the Bill of Rights applies to. There are two ways of restricting peoples rights. You can restrict the applicability of the right itself. For example, when you study the First Amendment, you learn about time, place, and manner restrictions. Courts don’t recognize any right to scream through a bullhorn at 2am in a residential area.
You can also restrict who the right applies to. For example, people under the age of 21 cannot drink alcohol. However, this isn’t a bucketized issue. It’s not a matter of putting all restrictions into the “restrict the right” or the “restrict the applicability” bucket. It’s a spectrum, and often courts and legislatures get around the negative reactions to restricting the applicability by framing their action as restricting the right. Middle Eastern immigrants are more likely to eat goat than European immigrants, so you target the Middle Easterners by targeting the goat eating. You’ll see real life examples of this spectrum at the end of this article.
Another reason why we should care is because populism takes rights away from people based on emotion. Mobs do not act rationally, and they don’t care about your rights. When populist movements spin up, they usually leave a wake of rights violations behind them.
Usually, populists target unpopular people or classes to strip of rights. It’s easy to see the impulse in yourself. Do serial killers, racists, rapists, etc. deserve due process? I bet there’s a first impulse within you saying “they deserve exactly what they get.” Often, populists let that first impulse prevail.
However the consequences to the mob mentality can be severe. For example, the case of Emmitt Till. Emmitt was a black teenager who lived in Chicago in the 1950s. He had family in Mississippi, and visited them for a summer. As you can imagine, things were very different for black teenagers in 1950s Chicago compared to 1950s rural Mississippi.
Anyway, Emmitt said something to a white girl behind the counter at a grocery store. Its unclear what he said, but he may have catcalled or flirted with her. Either way, she told her family, and they were highly offended. You simply didn’t do that thing in Mississippi at the time. Whether or not he did anything actually illegal, he had violated the “laws of the land”, and a mob took him out of his bed that night and beat him to death. He received no due process. His rights meant nothing to that mob.
Political mobs operate in a different context, but they operate much the same way, on emotion instead of reason. An example is terrorism. Do the terrorists in Guantanamo Bay deserve protection from the Bill of Rights? We’ll see a case later on that informed the discussion the supreme court had about this very issue.
Another reason why this is important is because of who are most often impacted by people restricting rights. Felons are often impacted. So are hated groups. Also, minors. There are obvious reasons why minors have a smaller portfolio of rights compared to adults, but the rights that vest at 15 or 16 or 18 or 21 or 26 are often arbitrarily decided.
So, now that we know the stakes, who was the Bill of Rights supposed to apply to? I think it’s important to recognize something first, and that is the is/ought problem. What ought to be, based on the principles involved, is often very different from what is actually achieved when the rubber meets the road. I’m reminded of James Madison in Federalist 51.
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
Imperfect people are trying to apply principles to an imperfect society that is often quite resistant to the results when you take those principles to their logical conclusions. The realities of the late 18th and early 19th century were not compatible with actual universal application of the Bill of Rights. The founders were well aware of the fact that they were leaving problems like slavery for future generations to solve.
So, who was the Bill of Rights supposed to apply to? Well, everybody. The Declaration of Independence supports this conclusion.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
Take notice of important terms that show up here. Equality. Unalienable Rights. Government securing our rights. Just powers. Consent of the governed. These are all terms that are loaded with thousands of years of context and history.
One curiosity may strike you when you look at this preamble. Why are these truths self-evident?
Well… they’re not. That is, unless you assume the previous 2000 years of Western philosophy and theology. When you take that away, none of those truths are self-evident in the least.
What of equality? Is it self-evident? Look to the 20th century dystopian authors for their fears of cultures that didn’t value equality. Orwell’s Animal Farm, “Some animals are more equal than others.” There was a facade of equality hiding the fundamental inequality. Huxley’s Brave New World with the Alphas, Betas, Gammas, etc. You were genetically preassigned to a class, and you were stuck in it for life. But these are just some foreign concepts dreamed up for effect, right? History is rife with cultures that treat people differently based on class or caste. Inequality is the norm throughout history.
How about unalienability of rights? Even at the time when the founders were professing the unalienability of rights, utilitarian critiques abounded. In System of Moral Philosophy (1755), Hutcheson wrote “there can be no Right, or Limitation of Right, inconsistent with, or opposite to the greatest public Good.”
Even consent of the governed has come under attack. President Woodrow Wilson, before he attained the Presidency, wrote in The Study of Administration (1887),
Our success is made doubtful by that besetting error of ours, the error of trying to do too much by vote. Self-government does not consist in having a hand in everything, any more than housekeeping consists necessarily in cooking dinner with one’s own hands. The cook must be trusted with a large discretion as to the management of the fires and the ovens. … The problem is to make public opinion efficient without suffering it to be meddlesome.
Without the foundation that 2000 years of Western philosophy and theology provide, the self-evident nature of the truths of the Declaration is lost. So, let’s take a whistlestop tour of 2000 years of Western thought. This is by no means comprehensive in any way, and is only meant to give a brief taste of some influencers of the American founding.
Around the year 50 BC, a Roman governor named Cicero wrote about a great many things. It would be impossible to summarize Cicero’s contributions to the modern West in a single article, but one quote of his is directly relevant to this article. “Let us remember that justice must be observed even to the lowest.” The equality espoused in this quote is quite ahead of its time. Rome, at the time, was a rather hirerarchical society. Classes defined daily life for people. Slaves lived differently from artisans who lived differently from thinkers and politicians. It was overwhelmingly popular to believe that those below you (slaves, especially) were less, and thus deserved less. Cicero’s universal application of justice turned this on its head.
Fast forwarding almost 500 years, Augustine of Hippo was a Christian bishop, philosopher and theologian. Writing on the essential intertwining of justice and legitimate authority in City of God, he wrote,
Remove justice, and what are kingdoms but gangs of criminals on a large scale?… A gang is a group of men… in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed convention. If this villainy… acquires territory, establishes a base, captures cities and subdues people, it then openly arrogates to itself the title of kingdom.
Skipping ahead another 800 years, Thomas Aquinas was a Christian monk, philosopher and theologian. He wrote on a wide array of topics, but he wrote on a few interconnected concepts that influenced the thinking on governance for hundreds of years after.
“Wherefore [the rational creature] has a share of the Eternal Reason, whereby it has a natural inclination to its proper act and end: and this participation of the eternal law in the rational creature is called the natural law.” Summa Theologiae
He outlines the concept of innate human dignity. The truth that no matter who you are, no matter what you have done, you have a certain level of inbuilt value because you are a rational being.
Moving again 250 years ahead, we come to Martin Luther, a Christian monk and pillar of the Protestant Reformation who also wrote on topics of secular governance.
“Since, then, belief or unbelief is a matter of every one’s conscience, and since this is no lessening of the secular power, the latter should be content and attend to its own affairs and permit men to believe one thing or another, as they are able and willing, and constrain no one by force.” Concerning Secular Authority
This concept of freedom of conscience quite strongly foreshadows the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment. In fact, you can see many of the foundations of the Bill of Rights in these thinkers’ ideas.
Finally, we arrive at the Enlightenment, which wasn’t as unified of a movement as you may initially think. On one side of the movement was Thomas Hobbes (philosopher, ~1650). Hobbes wrote
[in a state of nature] Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of very man against every man. . . In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain . . . and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. The right of nature . . . is the liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himself for the preservation of his own nature; that is to say, of his own life; and consequently, of doing anything which, in his own judgment and reason, he shall conceive to be the aptest means thereunto [the best method to preserve his life]. . . and because the condition of man . . . is a condition of war of everyone against everyone, in which case everyone is governed by his own reason, . . . it followeth that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another’s body
Hobbes drives a wedge between reason and natural law. The state of nature he describes is not high minded. It’s not connected to innate human dignity. It’s bestial and violent. Hobbes’ natural law is simple… might makes right.
As such, Hobbes presents civilization in the starkest contrast. The “Commonwealth” (government) prevents the state of nature, and individuals have an obligation to subordinate themselves to the government in order to avoid the state of nature. Reason compels them to do so.
John Locke (Philosopher, ~1680) had a very different view of the state of nature.
To properly understand political power and trace its origins, we must consider the state that all people are in naturally. That is a state of perfect freedom of acting and disposing of their own possessions and persons as they think fit within the bounds of the law of nature. People in this state do not have to ask permission to act or depend on the will of others to arrange matters on their behalf. The natural state is also one of equality in which all power and jurisdiction is reciprocal and no one has more than another. It is evident that all human beings—as creatures belonging to the same species and rank and born indiscriminately with all the same natural advantages and faculties—are equal amongst themselves. They have no relationship of subordination or subjection unless God (the lord and master of them all) had clearly set one person above another and conferred on him an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty. – Second Treatise of Government
Locke’s statue of nature is much more stable than Hobbes’. The natural law includes the aforementioned virtues highlighted in the declaration: equality, just powers, and unalienable rights. However, Locke’s formulation still runs into the is/ought problem. People are not forced to do right by the natural law.
This is where government fits in. People consent to be governed in order to establish an arbiter (the government) to practically protect their lives, liberty, and property.
This philosophy lesson is great and all, but what’s the real difference? Well, these are the foundations of the French Revolution and the American Revolution, respectively. The American Revolution was Lockean, with principles like life, liberty, and property. The French Revolution was Hobbesian/Rousseauian, with principles like liberty, equality, fraternity. The French Revolution was based on a philosophy requiring people to submit and subordinate themselves to the government out of fear of the anarchy.
In part 2, we’ll examine the Bill of Rights itself and look at a few relevant Supreme Court cases.
I’m curious. What kinds of questions did you get?
Mostly the questions were related to the Supreme Court cases that I’ll cover in the concluding part. Many attempts to ask “what do you really think?”
“every man has a right to every thing, even to one another’s body”
STEVE SMITH ERECT LEVIATHAN, AND BY LEVIATHAN MEAN PENIS.
SINCE STEVE SMITH NO MAN (HIM RAPESQUATCH) HIM STILL HAVE RIGHT!!!
I became a libertarian in 7th grade when I first was instructed on the constitution and the bill of rights. It was immediately obvious to me that the BoR was rated R – it sure as Hell was not going to apply to me until I was 18. I was really pissed about that for a long time.
It is one of the driving reasons why I plotted my personal course to (paradoxically) enlist at the earliest possible date so I could be independent of any other person as far as how I lived my life. I preferred the idea of being independent – even within that constrained, military lifestyle – to being dependent on anybody for the basics of life.
Same here man. I had great parents but still wanted to be out on my own, making my decisions and choices, and yes, dealing with the consequences of that – good or bad – on my own. The idea of security due to dependency on someone else will never appeal to me.
Oh yes, I had the greatest respect, love, and appreciation for my parents. I wanted to lighten their burden as well as show that they had finished their job in raising me.
Me too.
My nephew just joined the Marines for this reason, but in his case, it was compounded by his parents being double-rotor-wash Chinook Parents.
Are they the two rotors on one bird, or is each one a Chinook on their own?
Each
dealing with the consequences of that
See, that is what sets apart I would say most everyone here from the rest of our society, both right and left. There are a lot of people, an awful, awful lot, that are quite happy to be relieved of that burden, by one means or another.
Somewhere I have a book which is a collection of Frederick Pohl stories that he put together. He also included some autobiographical notes.
He talked about the hoops he had to go through to get into the military. I don’t remember why the military initially didn’t want him. He tried to get in during the Second World War so there was something. Eventually he got in. He talked about his time in boot camp as a vacation.
He had been supporting some family members, running a business, and publishing sci-fi anthologies for years before he joined the military. He said boot camp was a wonderful change as he was free from responsibility. All he had to do was do what he was told, and he was fine.
And they get evicerated for it now by people who would not be brave enough to even be an abolitionist back then.
It always seemed to me that the Founding Fathers made the choice to at least free some of us from tyranny so we could one day resolve the issue for everybody else. Without that first step there would never be a place for the discussion about emancipation for anybody beyond who had been in the highest ranks of the oppressed under British rule. We needed everybody on board for that first step and pushing too far would not have garnered the required support to fight a war to get there.
It always seemed to me that the Founding Fathers made the choice to at least free some of us from tyranny so we could one day resolve the issue for everybody else.
And it was the wise move, as incremental change tends to be more lasting than sudden revolution. The fact that the American revolution secured liberty for a section of its populace and then slowly expanded that liberty to more and more people speaks to the revolution’s success. Contrast with the French revolution, where they tried to change everything all at once and were back under the thumb of an Emperor within a couple decades, having changed relatively little but spilled a lot of blood in the process.
It’s worth noting that the importation of slaves was banned at the earliest date allowed by the Constitution (and previously as well with the restriction in the Northwest Ordinance). What the Founders couldn’t foresee was the cotton gin, which made slavery so much more economically important – particularly in land that wasn’t part of the country at the time. While there may have once been a hope that slavery would slowly die, the expansion of the plantation economy killed that hope.
Seem awful heavy on old Christian white men, way to shitlord, good job.
Nicely written, I look forward to the second half.
RE: Hobbes and Locke.
I find them both interesting, and i find them both to have compelling arguments. I don’t think life in a state of “nature” is idyllic. It is Nasty, Brutish and Short. However i don’t think the “therefore any government” is better than “no government” is true. Life can be Nasty, brutish, and short under a governmental iron fist too.
I wish I had more time to play the is/ought distinction off of Locke and Hobbes. Hobbes is very much describing what the state of nature is. Locke is very much describing what the state of nature ought to be.
How do we avoid what is while still preserving what ought to be? An open question that is increasingly relevant in the present.
We have been promised the new Soviet man for over a century. So far we have zero success, over 120 million dead, and billions that lived under collectivism’s yoke (meaning they were nothing but serfs to the master class). When will we admit to ourselves human nature can’t be ignored or forcibly changed by fiat?
When people can’t get rich and powerful off of the notion. IOW, never.
Part of Hobbes is historical context: he wrote the book during the English Civil Wars and was responding to the violence in the country with factions competing for power. It’s been a while since I read Hobbes but my recollection is that his key argument was for a single sovereign ruler. Hobbes preferred a monarch but conceded that his ideas could work with a parliament as long as there was no sovereign with which to compete.
Locke wrote his Treatises of Government in 1688/9 in the wake of the Glorious Revolution.
who died and made trshmnstr a constitutional scholar?
I don’t know but I wish it had been Obama.
KInda like killing baby Hitler.
I, too, wish Obama had enough acquaintance with the Constitution to be considered a Constitutional scholar.
Well, my B+ and C in Conlaw 1 and 2, respectively, make me something. Probably not somebody you want to quiz on the details of the court’s treatment of scrutiny levels.
Scrutiny levels are already a betrayal of the constitution. The government cannot have an interest beyond the boundary of its authority as defined. Thus there is nothing to balance – is it in accord with the constitution, or is it not. Most oft it is not, but this fictitious interest is used to handwave the violations.
Thus why I had such a hard time with Conlaw 2 (definitely had nothing to do with studying a cumulative of 5 minutes for the exam?)
Yeah, nowhere in the constitution does it say “unless the government claims a compelling interest”.
Well if we followed the constitution like you suggest, it would really limit the ability of the government to do anything.
And the ruling class wants none of that limitation on their power.
Yeah, the whole “some rights are more equal than others” thing really chaps my ass.
Yeah, and there is a modern implication that the police power has a much broader range than is legitimately assumed from the English Common Law. Goes with WTF‘s point about compelling interest.
Sen. Whitehouse thinks there is a whole Republican cabal and conspiracy against the ACA/gay marriage/etc., hence the ACB nomination. She is the Manchurian candidate.
It is about unlimited dark money in politics and a Republican scheme for total power. The epa has been neutered and corporations are destroying the planet. Not even civil juries are safe.
Who let this asshole out of the loony bin?
Did you know that If you take ACB and convert it into the numbers of the alphabet you get 132, which if you multiply by 2020 you get 266640!!!!
Nice! Waiting at the tire shop and you all are saving my sanity.
Man, that’s some advanced tricknology right there.
Yeah, the whole time he was talking, the Charlie Day meme was popping up in my head. I was really hoping he was leading up to a question so she could answer, “I’m sorry, you lost me 10, 15 minutes ago.”
Courts don’t recognize any right to scream through a bullhorn at 2am in a residential area. – tell that to antifa
For example, people under the age of 21 cannot drink alcohol. – lame
Usually, populists target unpopular people or classes to strip of rights – I blame Trump
Do serial killers, racists, rapists, etc. – ehm one of those things is sort of not like the others
, but the rights that vest at 15 or 16 or 18 – we had a debate on that one
System of Moral Philosophy (1755), Hutcheson wrote – he should of gone fishing instead
People consent to be governed in order to establish an arbiter (the government) to practically protect their lives, liberty, and property. – also don;t forget the mask mandates
Do serial killers, racists, rapists, etc. – ehm one of those things is sort of not like the others
I think trshmnstr was playing to his intended audience (US high school students). At the present moment in the US racism is considered the ultimate taboo. This is an over-correction to the sins of the past, but things are too hysterical in the US at present to discuss certain issues with any nuance. So trshmnstr is essentially saying to his audience that even the worst people (in their opinions) are deserving of their human rights.
^^ this
are things gonna get less hysterical any time soon and if so,if there is no push back now will it be possible later?
I don’t think things will get less hysterical any time soon, but I do think eventually things will get back to an even keel.
while enforcing the racist/murderer association in the minds if the youth?
I see your point, but push-back does require the right time/place in order not to fall on deaf ears. And also, for further contextualization, I do think that currently “murderer” is much less of a taboo in American culture than it should be, so the association is not as far out of whack as it would seem at first blush, given the current cultural context.
Racist was particularly important to add to the list. Why? Because I’m trying to make them think about people they don’t give the benefit of the doubt to and just assume are bad people who “get what they deserve”. By working racists in there, I (hopefully) implanted the idea that even racists are redeemable and even racists have rights. When the concept of innate human dignity came up later, I wanted the thought of racists to still be rattling around in the back of their heads. “No matter who you are or what you did”… even racists, despite your (the kids’) hatred for them, are reasoning beings and thus possess innate human dignity.
I think that is White Supremacist Apologia. Human Dignity is like a dog whistle for white nationalisim.
even racists are redeemable and even racists have rights – after a trial and 20 years in jail I assume. with due process off course.
these are the foundations of the French Revolution and the American Revolution – well don’t leave us hanging, which one worked out better?
The Americans are leading by a head
Thats a no-brainer
What you did there, I see it.
Well clearly the French Revolution. They are in Europe. I hear everything is better there. At least that’s what the left has always pushed over here.
. They are in Europe. I hear everything is better there – it is. the whisky the weather the ladies
Hairy pits and legs are not sexy…
Not many of those in Eastern Europe. wymmins here groom.
Every revolution since has claimed to be following the American model – while inevitably leading to French results.
Well, based on the American model, but without the culture, the protection of freedoms, and after adding some positive rights.
This Hollandaise recipe was awful. I added cilantro, took out the paprika and lemon juice, and it tasted horrible. I will never made this again!
I’d say the Argentine Revolution was closer to the American Model… It was the early 1900’s what did Argentina in.
Great read. Hope you at least sparked some of those young brains to possibly think about our Constitution and that just saying it exists isn’t enough.
Great article. I look forward to part 2.
An interesting note is that the original draft had this line reading as “We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable”, and I’ve heard (though cannot confirm) that this was changed to “self-evident” to tone down the religiosity of the document. But the original reading makes it more clear that the thought process flowed through the path that you outlined.
In a sense, they are both right. Hobbes is right in that might is the only rule of nature, that “the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must”. But Locke is right in that there are higher laws than the bestial laws of nature, and man as a rational creature can and should obey and prefer those laws to the rule of nature.
In a sense, they are both right. Hobbes is right in that might is the only rule of nature, that “the strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must”. But Locke is right in that there are higher laws than the bestial laws of nature, and man as a rational creature can and should obey and prefer those laws to the rule of nature.
I like this interpretation.
Thanks trashie, good fodder for thought.
A thought on the intellectual basis of the French Revolution: Rousseau et al were reacting to the dethroning of the church as a stabilizing moral force on mankind and were seeking to replace it. To them, reason was not sufficient to keep man’s bestial nature in check and some higher power must be present in order to tame him. To me, Rousseau represents the end of the Enlightenment although I know many would argue against that.
More Rousseau
Note that Rousseau was Immanuel Kant’s hero. ’nuff said.
Yeah, you’re going to have to explain what significance that has.
Just that Kant’s philosophical inspiration was an asshole.
Rousseau is the root of European Romanticism (the soil from which Marx would spring), which eschewed both religion and reason. What could possibly go wrong with that? Aside from Platonic ideals – there isn’t a much greater philosophical folly in Western history.
Thanks so much for this.
Well, I learned a lot.
Thanks, trashy!
Thanks, Trashy – looking forward to Part 2!
Special K: I want to point out that Joe Biden is catholic, a man of faith.
Hm, sure. What is his stance on abortion?
Special K: I’d be a benevolent queen.
Um…
And she brought up the bs Lincoln story.
What Lincoln story would that be?
When he said don’t believe everything you read on the internet.
Faake, that was Julius Caesar.
He was so noble and wise that he neglected to fill a court vacancy during an election in the midst of the war between the states when the Republican party had total control of the US government stating that “the voters should decide”.
I just looked it up, and the story is indeed BS resting on a slim reed of plausibility. Justice Taney died Oct 12, 1864, the presidential election was held Nov 8, and Lincoln didn’t nominate Chase until December 6. Where the story utterly falls apart is the fact that the Senate was not in session in October, and in fact did not resume its business until December 5, meaning Lincoln nominated a replacement at the earliest possible moment without regard to the election (since the nomination was being made and confirmed in a lame duck session).
And the voters Lincoln wanted to decide had loyalty to Chase, so Lincoln wanted to bank them before rewarding a potential rival.
You’re shitting me.
That’s inexcusable.
Special K: He (the president) decided to plop a nominee in our laps…
He is constitutionally required to make a nomination, you cunte.
My guess is all the Dems are going to go straight to the media with “she won’t answer our questions the way we want her to”
He could have, constitutionally, made a recess appointment and submitted her for confirmation when the next session began (after the election).
pulling forward from the mourning lynx:
SAE mirror configuration is super helpful in that situation. It’s a bit disorienting for a few weeks if you switch after driving for a long time, but for a new driver I wouldn’t hesitate to teach the SAE configuration. Massively reduces the blind spots.
I have been doing this for decades.
There are no blind spot in properly configured mirrors.
Mirrors are blind spots. They seem perfectly designed to channel high beams into the driver’s eyes.
dimming mirrors are a thing
*deadpan*
So?
*/deadpan*
so the high beams only make you stupid, not blind.
Once of these days you’ll figure out when I’m not serious.
hint – it happens a lot.
I’m rarely serious, but I’m often too subtle. I thought I was lobbing you a softball with the dimming lights – > stupid, not blind joke
But you know they are there.
Same here, Kinnath.
The truth is 95% of people drive with emotion rather than with thought (and forethought); the only time they think is during the license exam.
I remember working with a high-up muckety muck at a software company. We were driving in his car and when I got in I noticed there was no rearview mirror. I asked him what happened. “It fell off a few months ago. I never used it anyway.”
I never drove with him ever again.
That one i’m always checking. Especially when i’m making a rapid stop. Because i’m more worried about the person behind me than me hitting the person in front of me.
yes. I’ve avoided many an accident by being wary of dillholes driving behind me. Anything from leaving enough buffer to pull forward when they panic brake to escaping to the shoulder when they didn’t notice me in time.
I once (mostly) avoided a nasty rear-ending by checking the rearview. I was at the back of a traffic jam on I-45 heading into work, and looked up to see a full size pickup coming in hot. Scooted forward and to the right just enough that when the driver looked up (from digging for his fallen cell phone), he was able to mostly miss me. Clipped the bumper and his rearview dug a channel in the trunk lid.
But it got better. He’d swung into the breakdown lane to complete his stop. When I could, I pulled into it as well. Then the moron backed into my *front* bumper and damaged that too…
That man was clearly a forward-thinker!
Why don’t they just curve the side mirrors?
They do, just not to the point where normies are disoriented by them.
That’s the whole reason “Objects are closer than they appear” gets printed on the mirror.
That sounds interesting, but… Really disorienting for me after so many years of not doing it that way.
But i’m pretty good at headchecking.
2-3 weeks and it passes.
Because by then you’ll have adjusted them back to the position you’re accustomed to…
My mom does it the old way. Drives me nuts. Unless she’s worried about lane splitters, which I doubt.
Interesting. I ALMOST do that, but I adjust down slightly to see lane markings. It was a habit I picked up when I was learning how to drive on a passenger van.
I CAN navigate in my truck without a rearview mirror (I’ve had to a few times), but I don’t like it.
On Reddit once, I read a rant bitching about people who physically turn their heads and look over their shoulders, and how it was unsafe and he wouldn’t ride with those people. There were two flavors of comments and commensurate ages (self-reported): “That’s how you’re SUPPOSED to do it and I’m not riding with you” (everybody over 30). “OMG that’s so unsafe! Good for you for standing up to them” (everybody under 30).
The rearview in the FJ is . . . constrained. One of the major drawbacks of teh FJ Cruiser is visibility toward the rear sides and rear is not good.
I have my side mirrors set close to that standard (I can still juuust see the sides of my vehicle), but I also have fisheye mirrors on them that I have trained myself to check.
Appropriate for my age, I’m a head turner.
I also like the old Kojack and Rockford style of backing up when you’re in a jam. Right arm around the back of the headrest, completely turned around and standing on the gas pedal.
Done it.
So next you’re going to teach her the Jim Rockford J-turn, right?
I have never done that, mostly out of fear of fucking up my transmission. There are a lot of things I don’t do for fear of hurting the car.
From what I can see, most drivers under 30 have trouble staying in their lane because they keep looking down at their phone.
Stick on convex mirrors, if the factory mirror doesn’t have them, gives you the advantage of both. Keep the anchored frame of reference and still see your blind spots.
Okay, so they come back from her lesson and driving teacher says, “You’re not going to believe this, but we had the exact same scenario in the exact same spot.”
“But not the same outcome, I hope?”
“No, she decided to let the other person in and slowed down.”
YAY, XX!!!!
She didn’t want to drive home.
That reads almost like you have raised her to learn from experience.
She would tell you I lecture too much (I do) (in my defense, I consider them tips’n’tricks), but generally speaking, we have given her quite a lot more independence from a young age than any parents of her contemporaries (who are all way younger than we are).
Sometimes, letting her have her head is painful to watch. She’s still not over the trauma of the first boyfriend—3 years ago. But I did not step in until the school got involved.
Working at Walmart has given her a world of confidence.
Oh, and one of her goals after turning 18 is to learn how to drive the forklift, which I think is awesome. She says warehouse work if you can drive a forklift is $$$$.
Poor Joe.
But he’s up 17 points and has a 98% chance of winning!
That bad, huh?
How much was that paid clapper paid to clap?
I talked with the county Republicans outside the precinct where I voted this morning, and they said “we’re only making $10/hour, but there are some better opportunities available.”
It wouldnt shock me if a national photo op paid a hundred bucks.
At least he didn’t have to ask them to clap.
“Please Clap”
That first comment is correct, it could well be edited. I mean, he at least has to have TENS of people who would come to see him.
The problem is that if they publicize his events, a couple thousand Trump supporters will descend upon it and make him look extra pathetic.
The audio is edited. There are some telltale signs, like the lack of ‘room tone’, one of his steps doesn’t sync up with the sound, etc…
I just realized that the guy with a mohawk is a woman. I think.
Well clapping spreads covid so I have read probably somewhere
Looking forward to part 2, trshy.
I like this.
Very nicely done. The tour of Western thought was undoubtedly badly needed.
I could see doing something like that for Constitution Day, if they do anything in the Tucson schools.
I got screwed out of Con Law in law school. When I was a 2L, 3Ls got first pick of classes, and Con Law always booked solid. Then they changed the rule so 2Ls got first pick. Not one person in my law school class took Con Law.
… It’s not a graduation requirement?
No. Elective.
And when you look at law school as a trade school, it makes sense. Very few areas of the law actually require “professional”-level knowledge of Con Law in order to practice competently.
Now I’m even more of a mind that judges should not be lawyers.
One of the few practice areas that would benefit from study of the Constitution is an appellate practice. Which nobody goes into straight out of law school, anyway.
Also, of course, criminal law. But you should get your training in due process in the Crim Procedure class.
I hadn’t thought about it, but it is remarkable how irrelevant the Constitution is to the day-to-day practice of law. And where Constitutional issues do arise, of course the controlling text is always, always, the court opinions, not the document itself. Con Law class itself is almost exclusively concerned with judicial opinions, for that matter.
Seems like were overdue for a simplification of the law code.
Any layman should be able to have the laws memorized without impacting their primary vocations.
I couldn’t even count the number of books containing the federal code in the law school. It was not a small number
Seems like were overdue for a simplification of the law code.
Oh, we are.
Kind of a shame it would require a complete overthrow of the current government, though.
We were required to take 2 semesters of Conlaw. One in 1L, one later. The first one was an overview of BoR jurisprudence. The second was focused on the reconstruction amendments.
Frankly, the second was taught by an amazing prof, but the content was horrible. I found it rather arbitrary. The exam was terrible, too. I spent a few hours studying the concepts and committing them to memory, and about 5 minutes trying to memorize as many cases and decisions as I could. The exam was closed book and 90% “based on Blackmun’s dissent in XYZ, which is the best description of the standard he tried to apply?”
So i imagine there must be a ton of Federal Judges from your Class.
There may be a couple. I’d have to check.
I could see doing something like that for Constitution Day, if they do anything in the Tucson schools.
BoR Institute
I got involved with them via FedSoc.
You have my email if you want any more info or want plugged in next year. BoR institute has some great resources (the Locke v. Hobbes comparison came from one of their resources), but they don’t lean on you when it comes to the curriculum. I could’ve just as easily talked about one of any number of other topics. The only person who saw the curriculum prior to me presenting it was the teacher, and that’s because I wanted to give her an opportunity to review it.
Thanks. On my list of things to follow up on.
“Good morning, class. I like to do things interactively, so let’s start with a couple of questions:
First, who here wants to have their door kicked down, dragged out of their house, and imprisoned indefinitely because they said the wrong thing to somebody important?
No takers. Good.
Now, who here would mind if their next door neighbor, a neo-Nazi white supremacist, had his door kicked down and was dragged out of his house and imprisoned indefinitely?
Ah, I see we have some work to do. Let’s begin with something I call the Iron Laws, and relate them to the Constitution, an historical relic which was once important to the governing of the United States. . . . “
*subscribes to newsletter*
RC Dean is never invited back.
As long as one seed gets planted and take root . . . . .
That happens when you explain the downfall of public employee unions.
Well, I am tentatively planning to end the class by leading the students in a chant of “Attica! Attica!”. Maybe throw some chairs through the windows.
which was once important to the governing of…
Not as important as we like to think. Hamilton schemed the creation of the first Bank of the United States out of whole cloth; Jefferson squeezed the Louisiana Purchase out of the treaty clause.
“We think of them more as… guidelines”.
Einstein never came to grips with the consequences of his great theories.
The founding fathers never came to grips with the founding documents.
Doesn’t in any way diminish the accomplishments.
Einstein didn’t kill himself, either.
Oh wait, that’s the other one. Eh, leave it – it’s right anyway.
Jefferson ended the 1st bank. Jackson the 2nd. If we can get a Dem to end the Fed, we can add them onto the special dinner!
Student: “So what you’re saying is that you’re a white supremacist.”
In all the commenting, I forgot to say, “Great job, Trashy!” In 12 years of public school and 4 years of college I’ve never learned these details. I’m sure this was all news to those kids, too.
Constitution Day? What is that? I thought that got cancelled?
Sorry, Indigenous Documents Day
Was it written on a post?
No, animal skins.
On human bones of slave worked to death in the fields, in a language that no on understands anymore.
I don’t get how the balance of the court is a relevant argument.
If you win elections (holding the presidency and senate) you get to fill court vacancies. The end.
Its relevant if you see the Court as yet another instrument of power to impose your will on the country.
The bitter clingers keep voting against their own self-interests, so how else are they going to implement the things that all smart, right-thinking people agree on?
But we can’t win elections because RUSSIA! /sad progs
But we can’t win every single election
sbecauseRUSSIA!not enough voters hate America and want it fundamentally transformed into, well, not-America-any-more /sad progsWait, if it requires 2000 years of context (and what was the Axial Age, chopped liver?), then how is it self-evident?
There was a lot of liver chopping happening in the axial age, I’m sure.
I didn’t get pressed on the self-evident part, but I would’ve fallen back on the fish/water analogy given the opportunity. One man’s self evident is another man’s pile of assumptions.
I’m not sure that’s how the writers of the DoI understood it though. I posit that as good students of the Enlightenment, they were Rationalists, arguing that the truths were self-evident because all that is needed to deduce them is basic human reasoning. Logical inference being a culturally-neutral endeavor, P → Q, P, therefore Q is true in both America and China. As such, they were arguing that it shouldn’t matter where you are in the “candid world”, any rational human who accepts the “facts” detailed in the DoI would come to the conclusion that the cause of the Americans was just. By stating in the Preamble, they were acknowledging that not everyone did hold that they were self-evident.
Interesting that Locke was an Empiricist as well.
Try:
If your context is 2000 years of context provided by Western philosophy and theology, it is self-evident.
or perhaps
It is self-evident only if your context is 2000 years of context provided by Western philosophy and theology.
Cool links, bro!
Thanks, Trashy, even if I’m late.