IT FUCKING LITERALLY IS LIKE THAT YOU FUCKING IMBECILE
LAW IS NOT FUCKING PHYSICS, YOU DIPSHIT, IT'S JUST THE PEOPLE IN POWER WRITING THE RULES
The absolute funniest bit is acting like the American constitution is unalterable, like...it can be amended, and in fact has been many times since it's creation lmao.
You can even indirectly nullify/remove amendments via the passage of another amendment, it is completely mutable and beholden to political machinations
And the power of amendments is unlimited - you could pass one that says "this document is know defunct"
I mean, unless you just make the Amendment nullify that language.
Shit even when the constitution was written is wasn't intended to stick around for more then a couple decades. It was supposed to be entirely rewritten on a quasi regular basis, it was never intended to a holy document.
Stupid fuckin liberals
The "eNduRing vaLue oF tHe AmErIcan cOnstitUtional orDer" is called slavery you brain-dead legalist, right there in the 13th amendment, eat my poo
where does she think these values come from and how are they enforced
Back in the day people would have just been honest that they thought this stuff came down from some kind of divine entity.
When you strip the religious aspect out, it just stops making sense. You're reduced to making vague arguments about "natural" law or tradition. They're talking about "enduring" values here, so I guess the angle is some kind of legal darwinism - the values have survived so far so they must be good and representative of what the people actually want. Because, as we all know, values get to just compete in the free marketplace of ideas and the best ones win out, there's never been a case of a political elite working to maintain the values that benefit them and crush the ones that don't.
She's smart enough to figure out what the law really is, but too idealist to accept the obvious conclusion. Slavery was legal, the holocaust was legal, segregation was legal. Poverty is legal, war is legal, capitalism is legal. Legality and morality are two completely separate concepts.
By the way these tweets illustrates my theory that all public references to "values" are complete bullshit.
all public references to “values” are complete bullshit.
:astronaut-2: :astronaut-1:
no you don't get it, slavery is one of those doctrinal values they're talking about, for the american system it has always been the aim to limit rights to minorities to the strict minimum unless under maximum pressure, see for example the definition of cruel and unusual punishments
Sometimes I like to imagine the look on these peoples' faces if I got to tell them I believe the constitution is illegitimate and should be abolished.
well it was written to run a slave-driven genocidal settler colonialist expansion and extraction project with power concentrated in the hands of a select few Anglo-Saxon oligarch nonces. it shouldn't only be abolished, the 1776 constitution should be treated as a guideline on how not to organize the successor state to the US.
Honestly the first sentence in the last tweet is pretty close to getting it. It's coincidentally also the reasoning used by the Federalist Society whenever they get pressed about one of their blatantly corrupt decisions.
This is why I was always so vehemently anarchist. Laws, in liberal socieities, are not much different than they were in predecessor systems like feudalism, the powerful expressing their will on the powerless. I finally read State and Rev, though, and the kind Vladimir Il'ych set me right.
How can law be anything other than patterns of enforcement?
At some point if you get far enough up your own ass about the law as a scholar subject you enter these really weird dominions where it just becomes philosophy again, except it masquerades as a hard science. I'm not kidding about this, once you get on the meta-level of stuff there's just loads and loads of law scholars arguing to and fro about what laws there should be, pointing out "loopholes" for a lack of a better term that should be fixed by whatever legislative body you have and writing recommendations based on law scholarship and not, say, any sort of beliefs or values you might hold.
It puts forth pretty much exactly what this clown is arguing, that there's some set of correct laws and some set of not-correct ones. To anyone who is not overeducated to the point of becoming a useless moron trying to decipher a religion you make up, this is obviously nonsense.
If it is anything else, who gives a shit about law when it’s patterns of enforcement that affect people and shape society?
Much like many landmark architectural works are designed for architects, by architects, this is the same.
values are much more like the slant of laws given by the constitution, of course the us consitution there is loud by its unequal treatment of its population and foudational discrimination and racism
Damn, if this is the bar no wonder blood-drinking monsters like Bush torture lawyer John Yoo can just walk into cushy professorships; basic acknowledgment of reality must be a rare asset.
