The Political Thread

[Carol the Dabbler]

18 minutes ago, Van Buren Supernova said:

... depends on majority and beliefs of that said state. Isn't it scary?

Seems to me that in general it's a good thing for a law to represent the beliefs of the populace.  Of course not everyone agrees, so "majority rules" is probably the best we can do.

Otherwise, who is it that gets to decide what the laws will be, and gets to impose them on everyone else?

My point regarding the EU was that it's about the same size as the US.  Of course our states don't differ as much as the European countries do, but there are definitely regional differences here, so of course the laws will differ.

[Arcadia]

Also, it's not always as easy as it might seem to just go to another state. Say you want an abortion, but you have to go to another state to get it … can you afford to get there? Can you get enough time off from work to travel? Etc. It's a big country, especially out west. 

But yes, regional differences can end up being discriminatory … as recently as the late '70's, it was still illegal for persons of different races to be married in North Carolina. I remember, because I had a bit of a crush on a black friend (I'm white) and someone made a point of telling me this …  because she disapproved of my crush. I frankly didn't see any reason for her prejudice, no matter how widely it was shared by the general population of that state, to dictate who I could or couldn't marry. So in that sense, yes, it can be scary when the laws represent the beliefs of the local population. 

By that time, however, the population was becoming more accepting of mixed-race marriages, so the law wasn't enforced any more. But does that make it okay that it was law in the first place? Not to my way of thinking. And it took the federal courts to break up a lot of that kind of thing. Which is why we have them.

[Fantasy Lover]

Going back to the abortion topic, isn't Alabama going to make travelling to another state to get an abortion illegal?

[Carol the Dabbler]

7 hours ago, Arcadia said:

... as recently as the late '70's, it was still illegal for persons of different races to be married in North Carolina.  [....]

By that time, however, the population was becoming more accepting of mixed-race marriages, so the law wasn't enforced any more. But does that make it okay that it was law in the first place? Not to my way of thinking. And it took the federal courts to break up a lot of that kind of thing. Which is why we have them.

I have no idea when the NC law stopped being enforced, but it was invalidated by the US Supreme Court in 1967, on the grounds that it violated two separate sections of the US Constitution.  So not only was it no longer being enforced in the late 70's, it could not have been enforced then.

I have no quarrel with state or local laws being overturned if they are in conflict with the US Constitution.  As you say, that's why the federal courts exist.

It's worth noting, however, that an earlier (1883) Supreme Court decision had ruled that such laws were permissible, based on exactly the same Constitution.  What had changed in the meantime was public opinion.  It's presumably no coincidence that by the 1960's, interracial marriage was not only becoming more acceptable to Americans in general (about 20%), it was by then approved of by about half of American blacks [source].

[Carol the Dabbler]

4 hours ago, Fantasy Lover said:

Going back to the abortion topic, isn't Alabama going to make travelling to another state to get an abortion illegal?

I'm not sure how they could enforce that, unless the other state (where such abortions are legal) were to cooperate, which I seriously doubt that they would do.  Nor am I sure that the Supreme Court would uphold such a law.  If the state legislature passes that bill, it may take a while to see how it fares in actual use.

[Arcadia]

3 hours ago, Carol the Dabbler said:

I have no idea when the NC law stopped being enforced, but it was invalidated by the US Supreme Court in 1967, on the grounds that it violated two separate sections of the US Constitution.  So not only was it no longer being enforced in the late 70's, it could not have been enforced then.

I have no quarrel with state or local laws being overturned if they are in conflict with the US Constitution.  As you say, that's why the federal courts exist.

It's worth noting, however, that an earlier (1883) Supreme Court decision had ruled that such laws were permissible, based on exactly the same Constitution.  What had changed in the meantime was public opinion.  It's presumably no coincidence that by the 1960's, interracial marriage was not only becoming more acceptable to Americans in general (about 20%), it was by then approved of by about half of American blacks [source].

This is evidently what the person who told me it was still law was thinking of:

(The 1875 interracial marriage ban remained part of our state charter until a new constitution was adopted in 1971; though the U.S. Supreme Court famously invalidated anti-miscegenation laws in the 1967 decision, Loving v. Virginia.) source

The amendment one referred to in that article was evidently N.C.'s attempt to ban same sex marriage (also approved by the majority of its voting citizens) … also overturned by the federal courts. Wonder if they've learned anything yet....  

Speaking of Loving v. Virginia … wasn't there a movie about that recently? Or coming out soon? Seems like I saw an ad for one not too long ago. Or maybe it was a TV movie (do they still make such things?) Something....

[Carol the Dabbler]

That Wikipedia page mentioned some dramatic adaptations of the Loving story, but that's all I know.  Have not seen any of them.

[Carol the Dabbler]

OK, the main movie seems to be Loving, which came out in late 2016.  It was well received and highly rated.  Should be worth watching.

[Arcadia]

Huh. I could have sworn the ad I saw was more recent than that. Time flies, I guess.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Here's the scoop from Wikipedia:

The story of the Lovings became the basis of several films:

• The first, Mr. and Mrs. Loving (1996), was written and directed by Richard Friedenberg and starred Lela Rochon, Timothy Hutton, and Ruby Dee.^[67] According to Mildred Loving, "not much of it was very true. The only part of it right was I had three children."^[68][69]
• The second film, Nancy Buirski's documentary The Loving Story, premiered on HBO in February 2012^[70][71] and won a Peabody Award that year.^[72]
• A third film, Loving, was released in 2016, directed by Jeff Nichols and starring Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton as the Lovings. The film is based on Buirski's documentary. Negga received an Academy Award nomination for her performance.
• A four-part film, The Loving Generation, premiered on Topic.com in February 2018. Directed and produced by Lacey Schwartz and Mehret Mandefro, it explores the lives of biracial children born after the Loving decision.^[73][74][75]

You may be thinking of last year's four-parter.

[Arcadia]

I don't think so, the third one sounds more like what I'm thinking of. I think time's just gotten away from me.  

[Van Buren Supernova]

I can't think of anything else that is more gender specific than abortion actually. I know it had been brought up about how inappropriate that men decide about this matter for women, although it is eventually approved by a woman as well (sorry the tittle, committee or whatever escape me, and I don't bother to find out).

What do you guys think? I know there are a lot of laws decided by 'others'. Ah well, I'm just curious. This could be way too dangerous to discuss.

[Fantasy Lover]

I'm not sure how they could enforce that, unless the other state (where such abortions are legal) were to cooperate, which I seriously doubt that they would do.  Nor am I sure that the Supreme Court would uphold such a law.  If the state legislature passes that bill, it may take a while to see how it fares in actual use.

Wouldn't it also violate doctor patient confidently?

I can't think of anything else that is more gender specific than abortion actually. I know it had been brought up about how inappropriate that men decide about this matter for women, although it is eventually approved by a woman as well (sorry the tittle, committee or whatever escape me, and I don't bother to find out). What do you guys think? I know there are a lot of laws decided by 'others'. Ah well, I'm just curious. This could be way too dangerous to discuss.

I think it was governor Kay Ivey who signed the bill. As for your question, I agree with that the fact that it is inappropriate for men to make decisions about reproductive rights of women.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Yes I think so too.

Sigh, news are grim, aren't they?

To lighten up, I actually read an article in science-based news that scientists actually comparing the growth in godzilla size to real life situation. It's weird, but I actually think they have a point!

Also, why can't countries have 'peaceful' dispute just like Canada and Denmark over Hans Island, where each side come every couple of months, plant its flag and leave some booze for the other side. Hopefully nothing has changed.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I had never heard of Hans Island before, but the flag and booze story seems to be more or less true.  It's in that Wikipedia article just above the photo in History and Border Dispute.  (See also Google Fight a bit further down.)

[Fantasy Lover]

So I didn't have time yet to post something about it, but now I do. So without further ado, I wish to express my deepest sympathies to the UK for having Boris Johnson as prime minister.

[Carol the Dabbler]

But on the bright side, if his party hadn't won the election, he wouldn't be PM -- so presumably a large number of UK voters are fairly happy right now.

[Caya]

Not according to the polls:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-prime-minister-brexit-administration-government-conservatives-a9034701.html

[besleybean]

Indeed.

The Coronation of Boris was only a matter of time.

We will never get rid of The Tories.

I live in Scotland and I despair in humanity!

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Dunno how it is in the UK, but over here, half the population despairs if the Democrats win, and the other half despairs if the Republicans win.

You just can't win!

 

[besleybean]

I get that and I realise you also have a federal system.

I was trying to make a couple of points, one of which I don't have the time or inclination to go in to, right now. Except I will say that people need to be careful what they wish for.

But it should be noted that Scotland voted to remain within the EU and yet are being taken out against our wishes and we never vote the Tories in and yet once again, England inflicts them upon us...and I speak as an Englishwoman!

Alos, Scotland favours the PPR voting system, which I prefer to FPTP.

[Carol the Dabbler]

9 hours ago, besleybean said:

people need to be careful what they wish for.

Ain't it the truth!!!

9 hours ago, besleybean said:

Scotland voted to remain within the EU and yet are being taken out against our wishes and we never vote the Tories in and yet once again, England inflicts them upon us

That sort of thing happens here too, with the big cities (especially on both coasts) voting one way, and the middle of the country (especially in rural areas) voting the other -- but we tend to alternate, because people get fed up with whatever's happening in government, so a lot of incumbents get voted out.  That often happens in the UK too, though, doesn't it?

9 hours ago, besleybean said:

Scotland favours the PPR voting system, which I prefer to FPTP.

I had to look up both of those terms.  Apparently FPTP stands for "First Past the Post," which we call "winner take all."  I assume that PPR stands for some sort of proportional representation, but I haven't been able to find many references online, nor any good concise descriptions.  Does it sometimes go by another name?  In any case, could you fill us in? 

Another voting system I'd like to see tried here goes by a number of names:  Instant Runoff Election, Ranked Choice Voting, Preferential Voting, etc.  For each office, a voter ranks the candidates as first choice, second choice, etc.  Then if no one gets a clear majority, the lowest candidate is dropped and their votes go to their voters' second choices, and so on.  As with proportional representation, this would tend to weaken the current two-party duopoly.

[Arcadia]

I'm not sure I want to defend the two-party system, but it does have the advantage of whoever being elected also being the one that the more than half of the country voted for. Usually. I'm sure Ms. Clinton would beg to differ.  

Don't systems with more than two parties have to form coalitions in order to govern? In other words, don't they sort of become one big party, and the opposition sort of clumps together like another, smaller party? I don't think the two-party system is really responsible for the way things get done so much as that's just how people are … they tend to form self-reaffirming groups in order to shut out anyone they don't agree with. I'm not sure there's a solution to that. (I've always believed that "better education" is the solution to just about any problem, but I find that theory isn't very popular … requires too much work on the part of the voters...……... )

[Carol the Dabbler]

13 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

... the two-party system, but it does have the advantage of whoever being elected also being the one that the more than half of the country voted for.

Not so sure about that -- nowadays many people seem to vote *against* the candidate they dislike the most.

16 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

Don't systems with more than two parties have to form coalitions in order to govern? In other words, don't they sort of become one big party, and the opposition sort of clumps together like another, smaller party?

I believe so, but those coalitions tend to be temporary.  When the next election comes along, the parties may regroup into something quite different (or at least a little different).

18 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

... that's just how people are … they tend to form self-reaffirming groups in order to shut out anyone they don't agree with.

Dear me, yes!  I suspect that's either the cause or a direct effect of the current polarization in US politics.  A dismaying number of people seem to believe that if you disagree with them, you're ipso facto a bad person.

22 minutes ago, Arcadia said:

I've always believed that "better education" is the solution to just about any problem, but I find that theory isn't very popular … requires too much work on the part of the voters...……...

Or maybe it's unpopular because people wonder just who will decide on the curriculum?  Nowadays it often seems like the only choice we have is between "politically correct" and "scripturally sound."

Of course it's probably always been the current in-group who decides what "education" will consist of, and it just took me a few decades to become skeptical enough to notice.

[besleybean]

Yes, which is a worrying aspect of the modern world.