Political Discussion

[debianlinux]

Supreme Court won't hear challenge to male-only military draft

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a constitutional challenge to the male-only registration requirement for the draft filed by a group called the National Coalition for Men.

www.cnn.com

The SCOTUS has declined to take on the military draft case. This means that the lower court's ruling that the draft is for men only stays in place.

I mean you left out the part about congress reviewing and potentially striking it without the need for SCOTUS ruling.

 

[RenegadeMonster]

I mean you left out the part about congress reviewing and potentially striking it without the need for SCOTUS ruling.

I'll be honest, I didn't read that far in the article yet. I still need to read the whole article verses just the breaking Apple News Headline and paragraph I got as a notification.

 

[nolalady]

@RenegadeMonster I know you were interested in inflation and those mechanisms. I'm skimming this and it's really illustrative of what seems to be happening. We are increasingly a society that must depend on debt and that happens when financial deregulation causes inequality. Where inflation falls in this is that lax lending allowed for asset price rise since the Federal Bank was holding interest rates around 2% (quantative easing). I think the reason that the stimulus checks only partially worked is because of this large debt burden a lot of people had prior, thus, making a pretty good case for this model.

We propose a theory of indebted demand, capturing the idea that large debt burdens lower aggregate demand, and thus the natural rate of interest. At the core of the theory is the simple yet under-appreciated observation that borrowers and savers differ in their marginal propensities to save out of permanent income. Embedding this insight in a two-agent perpetualyouth model, we find that recent trends in income inequality and financial deregulation lead to indebted household demand, pushing down the natural rate of interest. Moreover, popular expansionary policies—such as accommodative monetary policy—generate a debt-financed short-run boom at the expense of indebted demand in the future. When demand is sufficiently indebted, the economy gets stuck in a debt-driven liquidity trap, or debt trap. Escaping a debt trap requires consideration of less conventional macroeconomic policies, such as those focused on redistribution or those reducing the structural sources of high inequality

Here's a bit more about interest rates and debt:
In general equilibrium, indebted demand thus implies that greater levels of debt go hand in hand with reduced natural interest rates. From the perspective of savers, reduced interest rates are necessary to balance the greater desire to save in response to greater debt service payments. In an interest rate - debt diagram, the savers’ indifference condition is therefore represented by a downward-sloping saving supply schedule

Thus, as interest rates go down (or are held down), it creates an incentive to not save, because it's not worth it. However, it also pushes asset prices higher since easy borrowing means more money in circulation (but only for those that have been deemed "credit worthy" AKA those who already have means). However, this just adds to the unaffordability puzzle.

Indebted Demand

Atif Mian, Ludwig Straub, and Amir Sufi. 2021. “Indebted Demand.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 136, 4, Pp. 2243–2307.

scholar.harvard.edu

 

[Dtknuckles]

I would say you’re in the neighborhood, but still missing a few points. The SAK comparison comes because the AR-15 (Armalite Rifle 15) and similar types of rifle can serve multiple uses. From defense of home to defense of homeland and everything in between, the AR can do that job well.

The term ‘assault rifle’ has a very specific meaning. It is a lightweight, select fire (semi or full auto) rifle in an intermediate caliber. An intermediate caliber(5.56, 7.62x39) is defined as one that is more powerful than a pistol caliber (9mm, .45) but less powerful than a full power rifle caliber (.308/7.62x51, .30-06, 7.62x54r). The lack of select fire renders most ARs in the public’s hands ineligible for this definition.

The term ‘assault weapon” is one with a nebulous definition existing only in legislation and advocacy literature written by folks who are not well versed in the subject. (Generally a semiautomatic firearm with a collection of mostly cosmetic features.) To be blunt, it was a term invented by gun control advocates because it sounds scary.

I focus so much on the terminology because it has long been used in weaselly manner to muddy the issue.

Overall, I am unsurprisingly in agreement with this ruling, but I also believe it to be very well crafted and worth measured reading and consideration by those who disagree with it. In particular I do like that Judge Benitez not only draws from more recent case law, but is also drawing from Miller vs The United States. For the folks that would argue that “weapons of war” are not what are protected by the 2A, I would strongly suggest looking into that judgement.

There is a problem with the way the analogy is portrayed in the media. They take is as a blanket statement, but he is saying they are similar in this one specific way.

 

[Chucktshoes]

There is a problem with the way the analogy is portrayed in the media. They take is as a blanket statement, but he is saying they are similar in this one specific way.

Exactly. When you actually look at the way the analogy is used, it’s not crazy or controversial. That doesn’t generate outrage and clicks though, and what good is that?

 

[Dtknuckles]

Here is a link to the entire decision document and not just the judgement.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...2850515/Miller_v_Bonta_Opinion.pdf?1622850515

The second and third paragraph have to with delineating the assault weapon designation. They are not weapons that whose sole purpose is war. I do kind of agree with that. When they are a very basic stripped down version. I could see that with enough modifications that could change, but I’m not knowledgeable enough to draw that line.

I do disagree with the part where he talks about the frequency of use in killings. I don’t think their prohibition is a reaction to the frequency of their use, but the fact that there is graeater potential for more acute problems that stem from the use of these arms. One incident with a semi or fully automatic weapon has the potential to be responsible for more deaths per incident vs handguns or even knives. Specifically with knives that connection rings a little false with me. Knives are so prevalent in our society of course more people get attacked with them. There is less prevalence with At-15s so naturally they are responsible for less deaths. But with more prevalence and the potential to kill more people per incident I see a reason why they should be examined differently.

 

[Dtknuckles]

Exactly. When you actually look at the way the analogy is used, it’s not crazy or controversial. That doesn’t generate outrage and clicks though, and what good is that?

and people are just not reading that closely and interpret it wrong.

 

[Chucktshoes]

The second and third paragraph have to with delineating the assault weapon designation. They are not weapons that whose sole purpose is war. I do kind of agree with that. When they are a very basic stripped down version. I could see that with enough modifications that could change, but I’m not knowledgeable enough to draw that line.

I do disagree with the part where he talks about the frequency of use in killings. I don’t think their prohibition is a reaction to the frequency of their use, but the fact that there is graeater potential for more acute problems that stem from the use of these arms. One incident with a semi or fully automatic weapon has the potential to be responsible for more deaths per incident vs handguns or even knives. Specifically with knives that connection rings a little false with me. Knives are so prevalent in our society of course more people get attacked with them. There is less prevalence with At-15s so naturally they are responsible for less deaths. But with more prevalence and the potential to kill more people per incident I see a reason why they should be examined differently.

The number 3 on the list of deadliest mass shootings is VA Tech and that one was done with handguns. (It’s also debatable whether the #2 is rightly placed because there is a strong likelihood that multiple victims were killed by police fire. Still waiting on those bodycam videos to be released.)

With regards to prevalence, there are an estimated 20 million AR15s in the hands of the general public. It is the most popular rifle in America. Of the many ways one may describe it, “in common usage” most definitely applies. Yet still, they are attributable to only a very small fraction of deaths.

 

[RenegadeMonster]

Does yesterday's supreme court ruling impact children protected under DACA?

Yesterday's ruling determined that under federal immigration law anyone who has entered the country illegally is not eligible to apply for a green card.

The ruling just said all immigrants with protected status who are allowed to remain in the United Sites. The term DACA never came up.

So, what about those kids brought to the United States by their parents and grew up here. Are they not eligible for a green card when they grow up and go off on their own?

 

[Chucktshoes]

Does yesterday's supreme court ruling impact children protected under DACA?

Yesterday's ruling determined that under federal immigration law anyone who has entered the country illegally is not eligible to apply for a green card.

The ruling just said all immigrants with protected status who are allowed to remain in the United Sites. The term DACA never came up.

So, what about those kids brought to the United States by their parents and grew up here. Are they not eligible for a green card when they grow up and go off on their own?

DACA didn’t come up because it wasn’t a DACA related case. Here is a link to the SCOTUSblog article on it. It’s going to need more caselaw, but even though it wasn’t directly related to DACA, it does appear to blow a howitzer sized hole through the middle of it. Barring legislative action, DACA is not a path to citizenship, simply a deferment of deportation.

 

[RenegadeMonster]

Preemption of laws passed by democratic cities and/or counties in red states by republican legislators and governors is growing at an alarming rate.

A lot of this started last year with preempting COVID related health restrictions, then moved on to voting rights after the 2020 election.

Now emboldened by this trend, republicans are preempting virtually everything blue cities are passing in 2021. The level of preemption across the country is only becoming more frequent and aggressive.

As Steve Adler, the mayor of Austin, the most frequent target for Republicans in the Texas Legislature, told me last weekend, "There is a [long-standing] difference in priorities" between urban and rural parts of the state, but traditionally most of those differences have been treated as "local decisions for local communities to make." Now, he says, working through the state legislature and governor, "local communities around the state are trying to impose their values, their priorities, on Austin."

Local taxes, zoning, police budgets, homeless policies are among the things being preempted.

Police funding is a huge hot button issue for Republicans after the BLM movement and George Floyd last year. They don't want to see reform and redirecting funding into more meaningful things. They want to strong law enforcement and locking people up rather then sending them to addiction treatment centers or funding boys and girls clubs.


Education is another area being impacted by all this.

Harris County Commissioner Rodney Ellis, a Democratic former state senator, says the GOP-led Legislature has put local governments in an untenable position by reducing the state's contribution to public K-12 and higher education and then "handcuffing" the locals from raising enough revenue to meet the needs.

State's have cut money being provided for public k-12 education while at the same time capping the taxes the the city certain level or severely limiting how often and by how much a local community can raise taxes. Meaning, the city's are left with cut funding and no authority to raise taxes to raise the money they need.

 

[Dtknuckles]

The number 3 on the list of deadliest mass shootings is VA Tech and that one was done with handguns. (It’s also debatable whether the #2 is rightly placed because there is a strong likelihood that multiple victims were killed by police fire. Still waiting on those bodycam videos to be released.)

With regards to prevalence, there are an estimated 20 million AR15s in the hands of the general public. It is the most popular rifle in America. Of the many ways one may describe it, “in common usage” most definitely applies. Yet still, they are attributable to only a very small fraction of deaths.

It is dangerous to look at this by single incidents, because naturally the most extreme incident will not represent the general trend of the interaction between the variables. Furthermore, all of these incidents have a lot of variables at play. Which makes it difficult to draw causal conclusions.

“Assault Weapons” do have a potential to cause more damage when they are used to kill people. It would be interesting to see what the data says about rate of death/injury per incident about these weapons. His argument, at least as I’ve read so far, doesn’t show understanding of this. That’s ok, because he has studied law, not research or anything that involves statistics. Same for the people who presented the argument. Law concentrates on the history of the interpretation of semantics not measurement of reality.

 

[Chucktshoes]

It is dangerous to look at this by single incidents, because naturally the most extreme incident will not represent the general trend of the interaction between the variables. Furthermore, all of these incidents have a lot of variables at play. Which makes it difficult to draw causal conclusions.

“Assault Weapons” do have a potential to cause more damage when they are used to kill people. It would be interesting to see what the data says about rate of death/injury per incident about these weapons. His argument, at least as I’ve read so far, doesn’t show understanding of this. That’s ok, because he has studied law, not research or anything that involves statistics. Same for the people who presented the argument. Law concentrates on the history of the interpretation of semantics not measurement of reality.

We can dig down into the semantics of the potential to cause more damage and such, but I must confess that that’s not even part of the conversation for me. It’s a question of legal infringement and rights. The only nod I’d give to the issues you raise is that lethality is the entire point of these rifles. I’m not one to bring up crap weaselly terms like “modern sporting rifles” or terms as meaningless as “assault weapon”. To put it another way, “weapons of war” in the hands of the general public are the entire point of the 2A.

 

[Dtknuckles]

We can dig down into the semantics of the potential to cause more damage and such, but I must confess that that’s not even part of the conversation for me. It’s a question of legal infringement and rights. The only nod I’d give to the issues you raise is that lethality is the entire point of these rifles. I’m not one to bring up crap weaselly terms like “modern sporting rifles” or terms as meaningless as “assault weapon”. To put it another way, “weapons of war” in the hands of the general public are the entire point of the 2A.

Part of his argument is based on a flawed statistical interpretation of the dangers that these weapons have the potential to cause.

Laws are built on the semantics of the words that create them. The only way they are useful is by having a shared and clear definition of the terms. Isn’t the reason why precedent is so important?

Part of the problem with the way the 2A was written is that the syntax of “well regulated militia” and “shall not be infringed” is vague. It’s the Legal system’s job to outline what those mean, with rulings and precedent.

 

[Chucktshoes]

Part of his argument is based on a flawed statistical interpretation of the dangers that these weapons have the potential to cause.

Laws are built on the semantics of the words that create them. The only way they are useful is by having a shared and clear definition of the terms. Isn’t the reason why precedent is so important?

Part of the problem with the way the 2A was written is that the syntax of “well regulated militia” and “shall not be infringed” is vague. It’s the Legal system’s job to outline what those mean, with rulings and precedent.

I disagree that the language is vague. It may seem so to us due to changing language, but at the time of its writing, the meaning was quite clear. That can be easily understood by reading other primary source texts from the era.

 

[Dtknuckles]

I disagree that the language is vague. It may seem so to us due to changing language, but at the time of its writing, the meaning was quite clear. That can be easily understood by reading other primary source texts from the era.

Well it seems that you view takes the position that 2A allows people to possess armaments to the fullest extent possible, or it is within your legal right to organize a private army that does not fall under the jurisdiction of the US government. That is at least how I interpret the conclusions of your last statement. However this judge draws that line closer to even possessing a bazoka or RPG using precedent. By doing this he recognized the importance of the phrase “well regulated”. It’s the courts business to make these distinctions and interpret the law.

At the time 2A was written weapons of war and weapons that used as tools were much closer. To say the people who wrote it understood the implications is just not true. It stands that with each generation of weapons precedent has to be applied and changed based on what society accepts as appropriate. In our society we give the courts that power. The judge recognizes this in his ruling. He is saying that the “assault weapon” category is not solely a weapon of war and therefore it’s unconstitutional to regulate it.

 

[Dtknuckles]

When your representative blames the illegal pot grows on the Biden border crisis, but the plants they take pictures of when seizing them are older than the Biden Administration

 

[Chucktshoes]

Well it seems that you view takes the position that 2A allows people to possess armaments to the fullest extent possible, or it is within your legal right to organize a private army that does not fall under the jurisdiction of the US government. That is at least how I interpret the conclusions of your last statement. However this judge draws that line closer to even possessing a bazoka or RPG using precedent. By doing this he recognized the importance of the phrase “well regulated”. It’s the courts business to make these distinctions and interpret the law.

At the time 2A was written weapons of war and weapons that used as tools were much closer. To say the people who wrote it understood the implications is just not true. It stands that with each generation of weapons precedent has to be applied and changed based on what society accepts as appropriate. In our society we give the courts that power. The judge recognizes this in his ruling. He is saying that the “assault weapon” category is not solely a weapon of war and therefore it’s unconstitutional to regulate it.

I would disagree with this assertion. At the time of the constitution the idea of true weapons intended explicitly for the making of war existing in the hands of private individuals was taken as a given. Many cannon used in the revolution were privately held. To echo an argument often used by gun control advocates “you ain’t hunting deer with a cannon.” In addition Congress is granted the authority in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Letters of Marque and Reprisal allow Congress to hire private folks to engage in warfare for commercial gain. This means that the idea of private entities having warships was taken for granted and not in question.

 

[Dtknuckles]

I would disagree with this assertion. At the time of the constitution the idea of true weapons intended explicitly for the making of war existing in the hands of private individuals was taken as a given. Many cannon used in the revolution were privately held. To echo an argument often used by gun control advocates “you ain’t hunting deer with a cannon.” In addition Congress is granted the authority in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11

There is a huge difference in the musket to the cannon vs the Ar-15 to modern military field artillery. Even the current ruling acknowledges this.

Letters of Marque and Reprisal allow Congress to hire private folks to engage in warfare for commercial gain. This means that the idea of private entities having warships was taken for granted and not in question.

Yes they may have approved of this given the context that they were encountering at the time, but even this current ruling acknowledges the need to carve out specific armaments based on the current context. He just draws a different line than the law, because what is a flawed use of statistics.

 

[Chucktshoes]

There is a huge difference in the musket to the cannon vs the Ar-15 to modern military field artillery. Even the current ruling acknowledges this.



Yes they may have approved of this given the context that they were encountering at the time, but even this current ruling acknowledges the need to carve out specific armaments based on the current context. He just draws a different line than the law, because what is a flawed use of statistics.

I’m gonna have continue to disagree with your consistent attribution to the misuse of the statistic. Judge Benitez has presided over multiple challenges to CA gun control laws and consistently ruled against the state. He has a very consistent legal philosophy that is very much in line with the view I hold on the matter.