Poll Taxes and their Merits

[The Parkus Empire]

On the logic of this is my ideology so that's what it means now. :^)

So authoritarianism then.

Decisionism

[Petrolheadia]

It does not say what arms, and how to keep it.

In fact, it does not even say if the arms are supposed to be loaded.

But unless you're a strict constructionist that hardly matters

Well, you want the letter of the constitution to be followed.

[The Parkus Empire]

But unless you're a strict constructionist that hardly matters

Well, you want the letter of the constitution to be followed.

I want the purpose of the Constitution followed. The interpretation according to the Constitution itself includes equity

[Petrolheadia]

Well, you want the letter of the constitution to be followed.

I want the purpose of the Constitution followed.

A.K.A. living document.

[Vassenor]

Well, you want the letter of the constitution to be followed.

I want the purpose of the Constitution followed. The interpretation according to the Constitution itself includes equity

And the purpose of the twenty-fourth amendment to the constitution is to prevent exactly what you are proposing.

[Albrenia]

I want the purpose of the Constitution followed.

A.K.A. living document.

I believe that's what they are getting at, yes.

[The South Falls]

Poll Taxes, if they are even implemented, should be low enough that anyone can pay. However, high enough to at least make a little money. The problem with poll taxes in the past was that people would not have enough money to pay, and if they did, then the money would be driven up to where they could not pay. If this is avoided, then Poll Taxes could be an alright way to make revenue for money-starved states.

[The Parkus Empire]

I want the purpose of the Constitution followed.

A.K.A. living document.

William Blackstone's jurisprudence (which was accepted by all legal proponents of the American Revolution, and which was what the U.S. Constitution presumes), when judging equity ("equity" means what is not covered by the letter of the law) a law is to be interpreted according to *the reason it was made*. This is referred to as "Originalism" (contrary to popular belief, "Originalism" does not mean "only covering situations existing at the time the law was written", and Blackstone stresses this: the reason the law was made, is what allows it to be applied to unforseen developments; Originalism is a method for judging equity). Progressives by contrast adhere to what in the United States is called, "Living Document" theory, which says that the reason for a law can change. Living Document theory grew out of the Darwinist craze, which tried to apply Darwin from everything to society and eugenics and art, to law.

[The Parkus Empire]

I want the purpose of the Constitution followed. The interpretation according to the Constitution itself includes equity

And the purpose of the twenty-fourth amendment to the constitution is to prevent exactly what you are proposing.

That's correct, but Living Document means the purpose is irrelevant. The judge can determine a new purpose

[Petrolheadia]

A.K.A. living document.

William Blackstone's jurisprudence (which was accepted by all legal proponents of the American Revolution, and which was what the U.S. Constitution presumes), when judging equity ("equity" means what is not covered by the letter of the law) a law is to be interpreted according to *the reason it was made*. This is referred to as "Originalism" (contrary to popular belief, "Originalism" does not mean "only covering situations existing at the time the law was written", and Blackstone stresses this: the reason the law was made, is what allows it to be applied to unforseen developments; Originalism is a method for judging equity). Progressives by contrast adhere to what in the United States is called, "Living Document" theory, which says that the reason for a law can change. Living Document theory grew out of the Darwinist craze, which tried to apply Darwin from everything to society and eugenics and art, to law.

In other words, both get to the idea that the law needs to change to accomodate historical changes.

[Petrolheadia]

And the purpose of the twenty-fourth amendment to the constitution is to prevent exactly what you are proposing.

That's correct, but Living Document means the purpose is irrelevant. The judge can determine a new purpose

You might wanna apply an exthunguisher to your pants.

[The Parkus Empire]

William Blackstone's jurisprudence (which was accepted by all legal proponents of the American Revolution, and which was what the U.S. Constitution presumes), when judging equity ("equity" means what is not covered by the letter of the law) a law is to be interpreted according to *the reason it was made*. This is referred to as "Originalism" (contrary to popular belief, "Originalism" does not mean "only covering situations existing at the time the law was written", and Blackstone stresses this: the reason the law was made, is what allows it to be applied to unforseen developments; Originalism is a method for judging equity). Progressives by contrast adhere to what in the United States is called, "Living Document" theory, which says that the reason for a law can change. Living Document theory grew out of the Darwinist craze, which tried to apply Darwin from everything to society and eugenics and art, to law.

In other words, both get to the idea that the law needs to change to accomodate historical changes.

Er, no. Equity in the Constitution is not about changing the law, hence why the Constitution distinguishes equity from law.

[The Parkus Empire]

That's correct, but Living Document means the purpose is irrelevant. The judge can determine a new purpose

You might wanna apply an exthunguisher to your pants.

To give an example, the article against unreasonable search and seizure was not meant to prohibit outlawing abortion (which of course was outlawed back then). That was not its purpose. It is a new purpose assigned to it much, much later

[Vassenor]

And the purpose of the twenty-fourth amendment to the constitution is to prevent exactly what you are proposing.

That's correct, but Living Document means the purpose is irrelevant. The judge can determine a new purpose

You want the purpose followed but the purpose is irrelevant. I am not sure I follow.

[Conserative Morality]

You might wanna apply an exthunguisher to your pants.

To give an example, the article against unreasonable search and seizure was not meant to prohibit outlawing abortion (which of course was outlawed back then). That was not its purpose. It is a new purpose assigned to it much, much later

>> tfw abortion wasn't banned until the 1820s

For such a 'dedicated' traditionalist, you don't seem to know the traditions of what you supposedly defend.

[The Tomerlands]

Mentally competent tests are stupid as well and was another thing that was used to keep African Americans from voting.

In this case mental competence basically means you are aware enough of your surroundings to make your wishes known. Only the seriously mentally handicapped (such as one person I have known) would ever fall under that umbrella.

Oh, okay then.

[The Parkus Empire]

That's correct, but Living Document means the purpose is irrelevant. The judge can determine a new purpose

You want the purpose followed but the purpose is irrelevant. I am not sure I follow.

I am being facetious of course. Conservatives in America tend to reject a living document approach because it's shitting on the Constitution

[The Parkus Empire]

To give an example, the article against unreasonable search and seizure was not meant to prohibit outlawing abortion (which of course was outlawed back then). That was not its purpose. It is a new purpose assigned to it much, much later

>> tfw abortion wasn't banned until the 1820s

For such a 'dedicated' traditionalist, you don't seem to know the traditions of what you supposedly defend.

Abortion is a crime in Blackstone, he says it's misdemeanor homicide, but in earlier days it was treated as murder

[Conserative Morality]

Abortion is a crime in Blackstone, he says it's misdemeanor homicide, but in earlier days it was treated as murder

TIL tradition is one man's opinion contradicting English law and, more relevantly, fucking American law, which is what's being discussed. Best part is, the claim made by Blackstone is that it should be misdemeanor homicide - AFTER quickening. Before that, it's not homicide. He admits, furthermore, that such a conclusion regarding post-quickening abortions as misdemeanor homicide was not supported by contemporary English law.

But hey, anything to fuel your fantasies of a past that never existed, right? Who needs facts when you have bald-faced lies?

[The Parkus Empire]

Mentally competent tests are stupid as well and was another thing that was used to keep African Americans from voting.

In this case mental competence basically means you are aware enough of your surroundings to make your wishes known. Only the seriously mentally handicapped (such as one person I have known) would ever fall under that umbrella.

So why shouldn't a fifteen year old be able to vote?

[Conserative Morality]

Tell me, Parkus, do you believe your own lies, or do you cynically spread your bullshit like a farmer fertilizing his fields?

[The Parkus Empire]

Abortion is a crime in Blackstone, he says it's misdemeanor homicide, but in earlier days it was treated as murder

TIL tradition is one man's opinion contradicting English law and, more relevantly, fucking American law, which is what's being discussed. Best part is, the claim made by Blackstone is that it should be misdemeanor homicide - AFTER quickening. Before that, it's not murder. He admits, furthermore, that such a conclusion regarding post-quickening abortions as misdemeanor murder was not supported by contemporary English law.

But hey, anything to fuel your fantasies of a past that never existed, right? Who needs facts when you have bald-faced lies?

"But the modern law doth not look on this offense in quite so attrocious a light, but merely as a heinous misdemeanor."

[Conserative Morality]

"But the modern law doth not look on this offense in quite so attrocious a light, but merely as a heinous misdemeanor."

Life... begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter.

In context it doesn't support your views. What a surprise.

[Petrolheadia]

You want the purpose followed but the purpose is irrelevant. I am not sure I follow.

Conservatives in America tend to reject a living document approach because it's shitting on the Constitution

And I guess my grandpa is shitting on GM, because he recently had a tuneup in his car.

[The Parkus Empire]

"But the modern law doth not look on this offense in quite so attrocious a light, but merely as a heinous misdemeanor."

Life... begins in contemplation of law as soon as an infant is able to stir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwise, killeth it in her womb; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and she is delivered of a dead child; this, though not murder, was by the ancient law homicide or manslaughter.

In context it doesn't support your views. What a surprise.

I never said it supported my religious views about the soul, I said abortion was a misdemeanor. The law did not recognize the fetus was alive prior to then (as your quote shows--and "quick" then meant alive, e.g. "the quick and the dead"). Abortion became outlawed from conception in the next century due to advances in medical science making it clear that it was erroneous to think a fetus only lived from sensible movement. As it were, legal "quickening" (to come alive) was pushed back. You are incorrectly looking at this as women being entitled to kill a fetus in the past: they were not, it was very much a crime. The only reason a pregnancy could be terminated earlier is because it was presumed the fetus was not alive, and therefore was not being killed.