Have you surveyed them? I think his idea is dumb and unconstitutional, but that’s my view, and I don’t feel the need to invent data.
Just when I started to think you weren’t an insufferable asshole, you prove me wrong.
Zaphod spun round, wild-eyed.
‘Ford,’ he said, ‘how many escape capsules are there?’
‘None,’ said Ford.
Zaphod gibbered.
‘Did you count them?’ he yelled.
‘Twice,’ said Ford.
(Just trying to lighten the mood.)
Maybe that’s just you.
I actually did survey them. They all said you were dumb.
@Timex’s stock-in-trade is handwaving data away for anything he thinks is obviously dumb. @ShivaX backs him up with articles by Charles Cooke–who when I last checked did not have a law degree–and… RedState? Woah, there’s a reputable source. I think the idea is pretty dumb and totally impracticable too, but I’m just a schmo. The main effect of the article has been to give cause for a few know-nothing conservative pundits to jeer. No one else has bothered to comment or respond to it. So sure, here’s a liberal saying something that might maybe be kind of dumb but that no one with any expertise has bothered to refute?
Again, I wish this thread was about mainstream liberal policies that are dumb and why, rather than individual liberals who say dumb things. But if that’s what you’ve got, that’s what you’ve got.
Because his idea is so incredibly bad that it doesn’t even merit a serious rebuttal. It’s obviously wrong on its face.
Do you seriously not understand why it’s obviously wrong?
I wonder what some legal scholars thought about this.
I once had occasion—long ago, at a reception after a speech by Justice Anthony Scalia—to ask Justice Scalia what would happen if an amendment changing the composition of the Senate were ever passed. He replied that, offhand, he didn’t see how the Supreme Court could declare a properly proposed and ratified Constitutional amendment unconstitutional.
That said, it’s not like he just threw the idea out there as it came off his head. He’s provided significant legal and textual support for it. I’m not qualified to judge whether it is legitimate or not and, unless you are a Constitutional law expert, neither are you. Neither is Charles Cooke (I’d wager that my understanding of Constitutional law, minimal as it is, is better than Cooke’s. He’s been an American citizen for all of 10 months.) Orts is an expert. That doesn’t mean he’s right, but that, and the level of support he’s provided, do suggest they’re worth more consideration than a handwaving dismissal.
No, he’s not.
He is not a constitutional law scholar.
And really, you say you think “it’s pretty dumb”. But it’s more than that. It’s obviously wrong, on its face. It makes no logical sense.
You understand why this is the case, right?
Jesus. No. And neither do you, though you can continue to ask condescending leading questions to pretend like you do all day if you want.
To me–and maybe I’m full of shit–one major mark of a curious intellect is a cautious skepticism for conventional wisdom and a willingness to entertain novel ideas. The principles of modern physics are obviously wrong–they contradict ordinary experience in almost every conceivable way. More apropos, it’s obvious to me based on a literal reading that the Second Amendment concerns itself with militias and does not preclude firearm regulation, nor guarantee an individual civilian’s right to bear arms. And yet Heller.
Does this argument ever work for you? I try to imagine the dialog.
Person 1: I argue X.
Timex: That’s obviously wrong.
Person 1: Oh, right.
What…
Well, quantum physics.
Does not contradict ordinary experience… unless your ordinary experience involves you somehow observing subatomic interactions?
Is this unwillingness to consider ideas that fall outside the Conservative-Industrial Orthodoxy why Republicans are usually so bad at policy?
Yes dude, I absolutely do. I do in fact understand that his argument is obviously false on its face, because you don’t need to be a supreme court justice to recognize obviously absurd logical flaws.
Article 5 of the constitution, explicitly, states that you cannot make an amendment to deprive a state of equal suffrage in the Senate without their agreement.
There is some, minor, legal argument about whether you could in fact make such an amendment… but that’s not even the argument he’s making.
He’s saying that you do could such a thing without even bothering to amend the Constitution. This makes no logical sense. If that were the case, then why would they have explicitly stated that you can’t even do it with an amendment, given that any amendment would be much harder to put in place than a simple law?
It just doesn’t make any sense, Matt.
This guy is just some random professor of corporate law at Wharton. He’s not some great, respected constitutional scholar. His opinion is not beyond reproach. This idea of, “Oh, well he’s a big fancy city lawyer! He wrote a paper! Clearly that means his idea has merit!” is nonsense.
Beyond all that, why do you keep trying to take the position of, “well I’m not defending this but…” and then proceed to try and defend it?
You think his idea is dumb. Why is that not the end of it? Why go further and try to make it seem less dumb? It’s dumb Matt. You yourself think so. The fact that this guy is some progressive dude seems to make you feel obligated to defend his nonsense out of tribalism. That’s bad, dude. That’s what the far right wingers do. Defend stuff that they don’t even believe because “their team” thought it up. Like acknowledging this guy’s fringe nonsense idea is bad will somehow give your enemies the upper hand.
No man, linking yourself to dumb ideas that you know are dumb is what gives your opponents the upper hand.
No man, failing to consider creative ideas from within your own camp because you let your opponents set the terms of debate is how you give them the upper hand. Here’s what I would say: I’ve read Ort’s argument, and I’m not convinced by it. Any implementation of it would require some political buy-in, and I don’t think there’s enough meat in the argument to ever get that. I can’t really evaluate the legal legitimacy of it, because I’m not an expert and I know that the law is often interpreted and used in non-obvious ways. It is similar to the trillion dollar coin: an idea that may or may not be legally dubious, but that faces a steep uphill battle gaining political legitimacy. That said, some ideas are worth climbing that hill for. Heller is an exemplar of this idea: it succeeded even though the plain meaning of the words and centuries of precedence contradicted it. Obergefell is another. Even Roe v Wade rests on non-obvious interpretations of the Constitution. What I don’t do is reject ideas out of hand because they sound ridiculous. I entertain them, evaluate them, and make a considered response. What pushes my buttons about your responses is that you seem to suggest that unconventional ideas are like a cliff that if you walk near pose a danger and it’s dumb to even take the risk. Dude no. Chill. A definition feature of progressive ideology is a penchant for tinkering with shit, which means being curious and brainstorming and synthesizing and talking out loud. It’s clear your tolerance for that is pretty low, but that’s how we work.
Why, indeed?
Do you have an answer that isn’t a personal attack?
Timex’s mom would want us to let Timex be Timex. We all know his self-righteous dismissiveness and absolute unwavering certainty is part of his charm. It’s what we fell in love with in the first place.