What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Tonitrus]

I was about to post...good that is upheld, very alarming that it was close.  Even some of the tidbits of Roger's opinion that I've seen have me concerned that his thinking on it is wrong-headed, even if it he sided on upholding it.

[Tonitrus]

I was about to post...good that is upheld, very alarming that it was close.  Even some of the tidbits of Roger's opinion that I've seen have me concerned that his thinking on it is wrong-headed, even if it he sided on upholding it.

An example is the statement in his opinion "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights...".  Perhaps I am too much of a romantic in thinking that the Founders idea was that rights were universal...not constrained to citizenship. 

[crazy canuck]

I was about to post...good that is upheld, very alarming that it was close.  Even some of the tidbits of Roger's opinion that I've seen have me concerned that his thinking on it is wrong-headed, even if it he sided on upholding it.

An example is the statement in his opinion "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights...".  Perhaps I am too much of a romantic in thinking that the Founders idea was that rights were universal...not constrained to citizenship. 

Not only is that a romantic sentiment it is also untrue. Your republic did not have universal rights until perhaps the civil rights movement, but even then it's questionable.

[Tonitrus]

The fact that the holding on birth citizenship was only 5-4 really tells you about the extent of the rot.  It would be like having a supposed expert body of mathematicians ruling on addition problems, with 5 of them saying 1+1=2 and the other 4 saying 1+1=frog

And one of the five (Kavanaugh) states in his dissent that the problem with Trump's executive order is not the Constitution, but the law...and states that Congress can change the law and achieve the intended aims of the EO...without it being in contravention of the 14th Amendment.

[HVC]

I was about to post...good that is upheld, very alarming that it was close.  Even some of the tidbits of Roger's opinion that I've seen have me concerned that his thinking on it is wrong-headed, even if it he sided on upholding it.

An example is the statement in his opinion "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights...".  Perhaps I am too much of a romantic in thinking that the Founders idea was that rights were universal...not constrained to citizenship. 

Unless you were black, Asian, a woman, or landless

[Tonitrus]

I was about to post...good that is upheld, very alarming that it was close.  Even some of the tidbits of Roger's opinion that I've seen have me concerned that his thinking on it is wrong-headed, even if it he sided on upholding it.

An example is the statement in his opinion "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights...".  Perhaps I am too much of a romantic in thinking that the Founders idea was that rights were universal...not constrained to citizenship. 

Unless you were black, Asian, a woman, or landless

Fair...I would have done better leaving the Founders out of it and sticking to the universalist idea. 

That said, the same could be applied to most of the world until at least the early/mid 20th century.

[Valmy]

I was about to post...good that is upheld, very alarming that it was close.  Even some of the tidbits of Roger's opinion that I've seen have me concerned that his thinking on it is wrong-headed, even if it he sided on upholding it.

An example is the statement in his opinion "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights...".  Perhaps I am too much of a romantic in thinking that the Founders idea was that rights were universal...not constrained to citizenship. 

Unless you were black, Asian, a woman, or landless

Sure. But they did say the other thing, about that all men are created equal and have rights that are inalienable. And that has been a big force for progressive thought in this country ever since. Like most pro-slavery literature prior to 1865 (and I guess after 1865) had to take the time to explain what Thomas Jefferson REALLY meant. It was an idea they had to deal with.

The notion that human rights are only for American citizens is, in my mind, a complete betrayal to what this country is supposed to be about. Or at least the only purpose that makes it worthwhile at all. I know recently we are being sold this thing about ethnic americans or some sacred culture and some sacred soil. But I find all of that rather uninspiring. If I did think about things that way it would really only be about central Texas. That's my home, the rocky limestone caves and little scraggly trees and the vaguely hippy-redneck-techbro-nerd combination that my region represents.The idea that that the soil of fucking Houston or Dallas is sacred to me is laughable, much less Boise Idaho or Portalnd Maine places I have never been to and have only vague ideas about. Especially now as the universal American monoculture is breaking down.

[crazy canuck]

I was about to post...good that is upheld, very alarming that it was close.  Even some of the tidbits of Roger's opinion that I've seen have me concerned that his thinking on it is wrong-headed, even if it he sided on upholding it.

An example is the statement in his opinion "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights...".  Perhaps I am too much of a romantic in thinking that the Founders idea was that rights were universal...not constrained to citizenship. 

Unless you were black, Asian, a woman, or landless

Fair...I would have done better leaving the Founders out of it and sticking to the universalist idea. 

That said, the same could be applied to most of the world until at least the early/mid 20th century.

Yes, but it is the United States who claims that it is the country of the universal rights but of course that is ridiculous

[Sheilbh]

Fair...I would have done better leaving the Founders out of it and sticking to the universalist idea. 

That said, the same could be applied to most of the world until at least the early/mid 20th century.

Genuine question but was the US founding/thinking behind it universalist - or particular to those colonies becoming states? Or possibly a hemispheric concept?

But all concepts of rights are historically and socially contingent. The same could be applied today and will be true tomorrow too.

[HVC]

I was about to post...good that is upheld, very alarming that it was close.  Even some of the tidbits of Roger's opinion that I've seen have me concerned that his thinking on it is wrong-headed, even if it he sided on upholding it.

An example is the statement in his opinion "Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights...".  Perhaps I am too much of a romantic in thinking that the Founders idea was that rights were universal...not constrained to citizenship. 

Unless you were black, Asian, a woman, or landless

Fair...I would have done better leaving the Founders out of it and sticking to the universalist idea. 

That said, the same could be applied to most of the world until at least the early/mid 20th century.

And while yes, that same discrimination applied to other countries (and this goes to valmy's point as well) America has a rose tinted view of their past. And sure, some of those views breed idealism that can propel greatness, America has often fell short. Sure, so have other countries, but I think that idealism also harms as much as it hurts. It causes people to ignore wrongs, both past and present, because it's the land of the free and just. You're free to be poor and sick. Boot straps baby. Your country no longer welcomes " the tired, poor, or huddled masses yearning to breathe free" (paraphrase) because you have your own home grown versions now .

And yes, every country sucks, but yours yells the loudest that it doesn't

[Valmy]

Genuine question but was the US founding/thinking behind it universalist - or particular to those colonies becoming states?

They said it was. That was the whole justification for leaving the British Empire, that our rights had been violated and it was the responsibility of every state to uphold these universal rights.

It stemmed from a debate where we started whining that our rights as freeborn British subjects were being violated the British pointing out that tons of us were Germans or Scots-Irish so what were we talking about? But oh guess what Brits? Our rights are universal! It doesn't matter whether we are Germans or even *gasp* Scots-Irish.

The idea that that extended to Africans or Asians or whatever was probably not intended (well maybe Jefferson meant it that way but it wasn't necessarily understood that way by everybody) but it is hard not to read it that way once it was stated.

[crazy canuck]

Genuine question but was the US founding/thinking behind it universalist - or particular to those colonies becoming states?

They said it was. That was the whole justification for leaving the British Empire, that our rights had been violated and it was the responsibility of every state to uphold these universal rights.

It stemmed from a debate where we started whining that our rights as freeborn British subjects were being violated the British pointing out that tons of us were Germans or Scots-Irish so what were we talking about? But oh guess what Brits? Our rights are universal! It doesn't matter whether we are Germans or even *gasp* Scots-Irish.

The idea that that extended to Africans or Asians or whatever was probably not intended (well maybe Jefferson meant it that way but it wasn't necessarily understood that way by everybody) but it is hard not to read it that was once stated.

Well, universal for the property owner owners who would benefit from the uprising.

If the colonies had just waited a few more years, you could've had parliamentary democracy, universal healthcare, and constitutions that emphasized peace order in good governance.

[Valmy]

Genuine question but was the US founding/thinking behind it universalist - or particular to those colonies becoming states?

They said it was. That was the whole justification for leaving the British Empire, that our rights had been violated and it was the responsibility of every state to uphold these universal rights.

It stemmed from a debate where we started whining that our rights as freeborn British subjects were being violated the British pointing out that tons of us were Germans or Scots-Irish so what were we talking about? But oh guess what Brits? Our rights are universal! It doesn't matter whether we are Germans or even *gasp* Scots-Irish.

The idea that that extended to Africans or Asians or whatever was probably not intended (well maybe Jefferson meant it that way but it wasn't necessarily understood that way by everybody) but it is hard not to read it that was once stated.

Well, universal for the property owner owners who would benefit from the uprising.

If the colonies had just waited a few more years, you could've had parliamentary democracy, universal healthcare, and constitutions that emphasized peace order in good governance.

Maybe. I like to think our revolution helped the British rule their settler colonies in a wiser way moving forward.

[The Minsky Moment]

Genuine question but was the US founding/thinking behind it universalist - or particular to those colonies becoming states?

Yes.

Thinking about rights and political principles was universalist.  Application of those principles to the context of the American colonies was particular.

[crazy canuck]

Genuine question but was the US founding/thinking behind it universalist - or particular to those colonies becoming states?

They said it was. That was the whole justification for leaving the British Empire, that our rights had been violated and it was the responsibility of every state to uphold these universal rights.

It stemmed from a debate where we started whining that our rights as freeborn British subjects were being violated the British pointing out that tons of us were Germans or Scots-Irish so what were we talking about? But oh guess what Brits? Our rights are universal! It doesn't matter whether we are Germans or even *gasp* Scots-Irish.

The idea that that extended to Africans or Asians or whatever was probably not intended (well maybe Jefferson meant it that way but it wasn't necessarily understood that way by everybody) but it is hard not to read it that was once stated.

Well, universal for the property owner owners who would benefit from the uprising.

If the colonies had just waited a few more years, you could've had parliamentary democracy, universal healthcare, and constitutions that emphasized peace order in good governance.

Maybe. I like to think our revolution helped the British rule their settler colonies in a wiser way moving forward.

How?