Can we talk about the progress of liberty without mentioning current politics?

[Guest]

I don't know. If a town did this, people would complain, but you can make the same argument.

 

If we really have the right to live where we want, so far as we aren't actually really anti-social and making others miserable or unsafe, to what extent can we demand that our neighbours live a certain way?

 

There have in various places been laws passed saying that HOAs are not allowed to restrict certain things, like demanding lawns where water is an issue, or banning clothes lines. To me the fact that there is a need to pass laws like that suggests those groups are over-stepping in a more general way.

It would seem like it, but HOAs are made up of people living in that neighborhood/community. So the people who want the neighborhood to remain a certain way "win" because people want to live there and agree to cooperate with the rules. One of my friends said, "...we would probably have chickens, but our HOA forbids it.." Which is kind of a hilarious statement because her DH built the community and I've got to imagine she had a fair amount of sway as to what the rules would be!

 

I can easily imagine a larger government having the authority to tell HOAs they cannot make rules requiring water use if there is water scarcity. (I live on the East coast and have no concept of water scarcity, lol, especially this week!) but I do know of HOAs that forbid, say, growing anything edible in the yard - God forbid you have basil and oregano in your porch planters! That might be too much like those weird Rednecks who grow their OWN FOOD! Don't they know grocery stores sell those things? ;)

 

With rules like this, my point is, those rules are made by people IN the community, who think this is perfectly readonable, because they want similar people in the neighborhood. This same friend I mentioned before was forever complaining about a person at the end of her street who built a small and in her opinion (mine too, actually) ugly house. The HOA was brow-beating these people to make alterations/additions to the house in order to bring it into unity with the others in the neighborhood. I feel for those people...you couldn't give me a house in a neighborhood of people like this. It is why I live in a scattered lot with really crappy internet. ;) At least nobody cares about my chickens or demands I build a two-car garage like theirs.

[FaithManor]

I'm sure it has, it is, and it will continue.  My question is why is it allowed?  How can there not be some kind of limit on how long a position can be left unfilled before it begins to impact the functioning of the country?  That seems like a no-brainer.

It is allowed because the people do not interest themselves in such aspects of their government. Simply put, we don't vote out the incumbents when this happens, and by that, both parties. We don't say, "If you are complicit in such actions that cripple our justice system, you will be out of a job." As a general rule, Americans don't get outraged to the point of getting involved very often. Vote out incumbents who take part in paralyzing the judicial system, take away their livelihood, their political clout, out them for the lousy excuse of elected officials that they are and some of this might change. 

 

It just doesn't happen. Back in the 90's, Carl Levin, senior senator of Michigan, had a year in which he missed 80% of all of the votes on the Hill. 80%. If the rest of us showed up only 20% of the time for our job, we'd be fired, run out of work on a rail! He got re-elected and that was after a couple of prominent newspapers printed his voting record. 

 

We, the voting public, allow them to get away with such nonsense. As Benjamin Franklin said, "A republic if you can keep it."

 

We don't do a good job of keeping it.

 

Honestly, as crazy as a freshman House of Representatives and Senate might be, I think I've reached the place that I'd be all for it just to get the lazy dog, collecting my $20,000 a speech, wined and dined to the max by lobbyists, establishment nothing ever changes politicians out. 

[TranquilMind]

So the system worked the way it should have, when someone's constitutional rights are infringed upon, showing us that legally, public school kids CAN express that they are Christian and think homosexuality is wrong.

 

Well, ultimately.  Only if you don't mind going through the hassle of reversing suspension and having teachers punish you for your views. 

 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

It goes both ways? Just because a group of folks thinks that someone else's rights are not being curtailed it doesn't necessarily mean that they are not.

 

Generally the burden is on the one saying their rights are being infringed upon to show why that is the case.  As a society, we have also determined that there are times when it is our best interest for some perceived rights not to be protected.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

True. At least with elected officials voters can vote them out of office. Not so with the non-elected regulators. Some do get appointed and will be replaced with the new elected official. But many are not appointed or elected. Its much harder to check that power.

 

Hhmmm...have to disagree.

 

If you are referring to regulators such as the EPA, the heads of those agencies are political appointees by the president.  The civil service employees under them cannot act willy nilly, and the regulations they pass should fit the current laws.  There is some room for interpretation/enforcement, but even then those regulations and decisions can be challenged in court (and yes, the EPA itself has been challenged and lost).  Note: the EPA has also been sued for NOT enforcing regulations passed by Congress under previous administrations.

 

The regulatory agencies also have their budgets approved by Congress and the President (well, at least when we are not operating under yet another CR), and Congress passes all laws that govern those agencies. 

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Well, ultimately.  Only if you don't mind going through the hassle of reversing suspension and having teachers punish you for your views. 

 

 

You mean like LBGQT students have had to do, over and over and over?

[JFSinIL]

Someone who wrote a song in 1930 has been dead a long time.

But shouldn't their heirs be able to benefit? I know Mark Twain thought about this : http://www.bpmlegal.com/cotwain.html

 

I don't see why a family that has inherited the rights to Great-grandpa's or grandma's literary output should lose them after a set period of time anymore than a family living off the fortunes made by their great-grandfolks should have it taken away after a period of time.

[Bluegoat]

Why should a farm or other business or a home stay in a family for generations? Do the following generations "deserve" to ride on the coattails of the earliest land/business owners who took the risk? One could say that the following generations are still doing the work of maintaining the business/property, but that is not always true. For example,sibling group of four could inherit a hardware store. One sibling decides s/he wants to run the business. The other three are content to let him/her do so and to retain the profits of his endeavors. At some point, s/he decides to sell it. The business still belongs to all four siblings and the profit must be divided accordingly. I don't think that's a super unusual situation. 

 

Just asking by way of thinking this through. 

 

One answer is that an idea is not the same thing as a physical object.  Remember, copyright isn't so much about the object, physically.  I can buy a copy, even a manuscript of a book, and I own the physical object.  I can do what I want with it, even destroy it.

 

Copyright is about the concept, the idea.  It applies in that sense to the original object, and also copies or new versions.  If I take a photo of a painting, the copyright still applies to my photo which is a completly different physical object.

 

The issue of whether all physical things should be subject to property rights is also a question that not everyone has the same view on.  There have been societies which did not really allow for the idea that individuals could own land, for example, or other basic resources.  (Though interestingly in some of those systems, people were actually less likely to lose access to the land they were born on.)  And even now we see some of this, in a greater or less complete way.  With many natural resources people can only buy rights to use them, not to own them.  And we even have way of trying to mitigate the inequalities that can be made more extreme through inheritance - things like death taxes for example.

[Bluegoat]

It would seem like it, but HOAs are made up of people living in that neighborhood/community. So the people who want the neighborhood to remain a certain way "win" because people want to live there and agree to cooperate with the rules. One of my friends said, "...we would probably have chickens, but our HOA forbids it.." Which is kind of a hilarious statement because her DH built the community and I've got to imagine she had a fair amount of sway as to what the rules would be!

 

I can easily imagine a larger government having the authority to tell HOAs they cannot make rules requiring water use if there is water scarcity. (I live on the East coast and have no concept of water scarcity, lol, especially this week!) but I do know of HOAs that forbid, say, growing anything edible in the yard - God forbid you have basil and oregano in your porch planters! That might be too much like those weird Rednecks who grow their OWN FOOD! Don't they know grocery stores sell those things? ;)

 

With rules like this, my point is, those rules are made by people IN the community, who think this is perfectly readonable, because they want similar people in the neighborhood. This same friend I mentioned before was forever complaining about a person at the end of her street who built a small and in her opinion (mine too, actually) ugly house. The HOA was brow-beating these people to make alterations/additions to the house in order to bring it into unity with the others in the neighborhood. I feel for those people...you couldn't give me a house in a neighborhood of people like this. It is why I live in a scattered lot with really crappy internet. ;) At least nobody cares about my chickens or demands I build a two-car garage like theirs.

 

If this were true I think there would be far fewer complaints about HOA rules by people living in them.  In reality I think what happens is that some hold the others hostage.

 

I mean - the HOA can make a stupid rule, why not the town, or for that matter the nation?  It is after all what the people there are agreeing to.

 

I would be willing to say that if these kinds of rules were only created by a consensus system, why not.  But it is a little different when it is just a majority rules, because then it so often is just people judging others in ways that simply aren't any of their business. They become a way to socially control other people.

[JumpyTheFrog]

If this were true I think there would be far fewer complaints about HOA rules by people living in them. In reality I think what happens is that some hold the others hostage.

 

We refused to buy a house in a neighborhood with an HOA. Although I have no direct experience, I imagine that like many organizations, the loudest, bossiet person gets their way because those who want to be left alone don't get involved.

[TechWife]

One answer is that an idea is not the same thing as a physical object.  Remember, copyright isn't so much about the object, physically.  I can buy a copy, even a manuscript of a book, and I own the physical object.  I can do what I want with it, even destroy it.

 

Copyright is about the concept, the idea.  It applies in that sense to the original object, and also copies or new versions.  If I take a photo of a painting, the copyright still applies to my photo which is a completly different physical object.

 

The issue of whether all physical things should be subject to property rights is also a question that not everyone has the same view on.  There have been societies which did not really allow for the idea that individuals could own land, for example, or other basic resources.  (Though interestingly in some of those systems, people were actually less likely to lose access to the land they were born on.)  And even now we see some of this, in a greater or less complete way.  With many natural resources people can only buy rights to use them, not to own them.  And we even have way of trying to mitigate the inequalities that can be made more extreme through inheritance - things like death taxes for example.

 

Interestingly enough, my husband holds patents on intellectual property - ideas. There aren't physical objects for most of his patents. He will get credit if someone uses his ideas for profit. In his situation, his company will make money. 

 

Thinking more - many people upthread are opposed to eminent domain for business ventures that generate tax revenue on the basis that it benefits society. Why, then, should ideas be appropriated by the public just because they are beneficial to society?  People should be able to protect their ideas for a reasonable amount of time - but at what point does the "need" of society outweigh the interests of the individual? It isn't as clearcut as a copyright on a book anymore.  Intellectual property is a very real thing that can now generate millions of dollars and benefit many, many people in the process. 

 

Disclosure, here: I think it's ridiculous that governments can seize land for commercial interests. The need for a subway station, hospital, highway improvements, etc. is vastly different than the perceived need for a big box retail store.

[JeanM]

re long run effects of stonewalling in a system in which the Presidency and the Congress are often not the same party:

 

 

Right.  Because two of the perfectly likely electoral possibilities come November is that once again (like now), the Presidency is held by one party and the Senate majority by the other.  And -- whichever party has which -- there's a real argument that the Senate -- whichever party holds the majority -- could (some posters here seem to be arguing should?) stonewall the *new* President's nomination.  

 

If the SCOTUS seat can stay vacant without even a hearing for over a year, why not two years (until the Senate might flip again?) or four (until another shot at the different party-President?)  Under the stonewallers-are-doing-their-job argument, shouldn't ANY Senate majority of the opposite-to-the-President party ALWAY stonewall ANY SCOTUS candidate?

 

And that leaves us....

 

 

 

(FTR, I actually think Roberts is doing everything in his power NOT to go down in the history books as the Chief whose tenure is mostly known for a slew of hung decisions that don't set precedent and have all to be re-heard.  A side of him seems to be emerging that I wouldn't have guessed was there.  This may well go down as his finest hour.  Still it's hard to watch the sausage being made.)

 

Interestingly the last time a  Supreme Court nominee from a Democrat President was approved by a Republican-controlled Senate was in 1895. There have been lots of Supreme Court nominees from Republican Presidents in recent years approved by a Democratic-controlled Senate.

 

[Pam in CT]

re historical outcomes of SCOTUS nominations when President was of one party while Senate was controlled by the other:

 

Interestingly the last time a  Supreme Court nominee from a Democrat President was approved by a Republican-controlled Senate was in 1895. There have been lots of Supreme Court nominees from Republican Presidents in recent years approved by a Democratic-controlled Senate.
 

 

 Thanks for this -- I hadn't seen it and it sent me off on a marvelous bunny hop...

 

 

For the curious, these are the SCOTUS "consent and approve" outcomes under the split President / Senate circumstances since 1895:

 

1895: (Dem) President Cleveland nominated Rufus W. Peckham; approved by Rep-controlled Senate

 

1957: (Rep) President Eisenhower nominated William J. Brennan, Jr.; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

1957: (Rep) President Eisenhower nominated Charles Evans Whittaker; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

1959: (Rep) President Eisenhower nominated Potter Stewart; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

 

1969: (Rep) President Nixon nominated Warren E. Burger; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

1969: (Rep) President Nixon nominated Clement Haynsworth; rejected by Dem-controlled Senate after hearing and vote

1970: (Rep) President Nixon nominated G. Harold Carswell; rejected by Dem-controlled Senate after hearing and vote

1970: (Rep) President Nixon nominated Harry Blackmun; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

1971: (Rep) President Nixon nominated Lewis F. Powell, Jr.; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

1971: (Rep) President Nixon nominated William Rehnquist; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

 

1975: (Rep) President Ford nominated John Paul Stevens; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

 

1987: (Rep) President Reagan nominated Robert Bork; rejected by Dem-controlled Senate after hearing and vote

1987: (Rep) President Reagan nominated Douglas H. Ginsburg; withdrawn 

1987: (Rep) President Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

 

1990: (Rep) President GHW Bush nominated David Souter; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

1991: (Rep) President GHW Bush nominated Clarence Thomas; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

 

2016: (Dem) President Obama nominated Merrick Garland; pending

 

 

A couple insights leap out at me from this, but the salient one is just how often it happens, that when a SCOTUS vacancy occurs, the President is of a different party than the Senate.  

 

If we paint ourselves into a corner that the seat remain empty until either the Presidency or the Senate flips over to the other party, irrespective of the nominee, we have in essence surrendered the ability of one of our government's branches to function as envisaged in the Constitution.

 

 

To bring it around to the OP: the decimation of the SCOTUS' ability to function in its role as mediator/arbiter of rights WILL, certainly, result in an erosion of rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ETA: 1895, not 1985!

 

Edited May 6, 2016 by Pam in CT

[Valley Girl]

Interestingly the last time a  Supreme Court nominee from a Democrat President was approved by a Republican-controlled Senate was in 1895. There have been lots of Supreme Court nominees from Republican Presidents in recent years approved by a Democratic-controlled Senate.

 

 

I'm not disagreeing that it's frustrating when things get stonewalled for partisan reasons. However, my gut says what you're referencing is more dependent on the timing of vacancies than anything else. It certainly sounds terrible to say Republicans haven't approved anyone since since 1895. However, have we even had an equal number of vacancies when there's been a Democrat president and a Republican Senate? I'd need to check that out before coming to any conclusion about who plays games more. Personally, I think both sides are guilty of such nonsense on a whole range of issues. Neither one gets to claim the high ground.

[JeanM]

I'm not disagreeing that it's frustrating when things get stonewalled for partisan reasons. However, my gut says what you're referencing is more dependent on the timing of vacancies than anything else. It certainly sounds terrible to say Republicans haven't approved anyone since since 1895. However, have we even had an equal number of vacancies when there's been a Democrat president and a Republican Senate? I'd need to check that out before coming to any conclusion about who plays games more. Personally, I think both sides are guilty of such nonsense on a whole range of issues. Neither one gets to claim the high ground.

 

Sorry, I was not trying to make the point that Republicans haven't approved anyone since 1895. I was trying to point out that it hasn't been an issue, so the senate as a whole has less experience with the circumstance. There are *no* current republican senators who can say, "well last time we did this...."

 

[creekland]

Well, ultimately.  Only if you don't mind going through the hassle of reversing suspension and having teachers punish you for your views. 

 

 

I hope you realize that the extreme examples you mention are just that - extreme examples.

 

I work in a totally average public high school, and yes, we have consent forms for health issues the nurse can take care of.  Fortunately, most parents sign them.  They're allowed to cross off anything they don't want and there's a section where they can add personal notes.

 

I feel sorry for the kids whose parents won't sign them and they end up having to suffer through a headache all day because the nurse isn't allowed to give them ibuprofen or tylenol.  I'll admit to not thinking very highly of those parents.

 

And yes, I rather like the influence I've been able to have on thousands of students over my 16 years working here (an average of 300+ per class year).  There's only so much kids are exposed to within a family.  Adding people to their influential circle can allow so much more.  Most kids are extremely happy to be exposed to more.  My whole goal is to get them to think.  This morning it was about trig functions and their use (IRL).  Other times it might be something less academic but still important (good nutrition, playing nicely with others, developing tact, being trustworthy, etc).  It's all important for life.  

 

Many times kids will listen more to me than they will their parents - even if we're saying the same thing.  It just seems to mean more from an outsider.  When I talk with parents, they often thank me for teaching junior.

 

I'm not against homeschooling at all (I homeschooled mine, after all), but not once did I feel the need to shelter them from opposing views or different people.  They grew up just fine anyway and have quite the variety of friends.

 

There can be significant issues in some public schools just like there can be anywhere else with anyone else, including homeschoolers, but IME, it's not the norm.  Most public schools, teachers, and nurses are trying to do their best for the next generation - just as we homeschoolers are.

[Pam in CT]

re: SCOTUS nomination outcomes when President is one party and Senate majority the other:

 

I'm not disagreeing that it's frustrating when things get stonewalled for partisan reasons. However, my gut says what you're referencing is more dependent on the timing of vacancies than anything else. It certainly sounds terrible to say Republicans haven't approved anyone since since 1895. However, have we even had an equal number of vacancies when there's been a Democrat president and a Republican Senate? I'd need to check that out before coming to any conclusion about who plays games more. Personally, I think both sides are guilty of such nonsense on a whole range of issues. Neither one gets to claim the high ground.

 

Right.  Turns out that although 11 other SCOTUS vacancies occurred during intervals in which the Presidency and Senate have been controlled by opposite parties between 1895-2016, each one of those instances occurred under a Republican president and a Democrat-controlled Senate (see above post).  So this vacancy is the first time since 1895 that there's been a vacancy under a Democrat presidency with a Republican-controlled Senate.  It's not as if the Republican party has been historically recalcitrant on this -- they haven't, at all -- the circumstances simply haven't come up.  Until now.

 

 

For me the critical issue is: in all those intervening years, every time a vacancy came up under a split Presidency/Senate, the respective parties worked it through.  The Presidents presumably made nomination choices knowing that the level of Senate scrutiny would be higher; I would expect this dynamic to pull in the directions of higher credentials and more centrist judicial approaches.  That IMO is healthy.

 

No one's arguing that Senate confirmation should be a rubber stamp process.  The Senate should carefully review nominees'  credentials and written record, and should retain the prerogative to vote nominees down when warranted.  Voting to reject a candidate is not stonewalling; that's advising and withholding consent, and legitimate within the process.

 

 

The refusal even to hold hearings and a vote -- that is stonewalling.  The announcement to do so before a nominee had even been named -- that IMO is unconscionable.  It sets a precedent for subsequent rounds of split Presidency/Senate control that will only worsen our polarization... and lays a dangerous principle, that we'll only be able to fill SCOTUS seats if the Presidency and Senate are of the same party -- which would both leave vacancies for years during split party intervals; and also drive much more extreme appointments in same party intervals... both of which would radically transform, and undermine the efficacy of, the Court.

[TranquilMind]

I hope you realize that the extreme examples you mention are just that - extreme examples.

 

I work in a totally average public high school, and yes, we have consent forms for health issues the nurse can take care of.  Fortunately, most parents sign them.  They're allowed to cross off anything they don't want and there's a section where they can add personal notes.

 

I feel sorry for the kids whose parents won't sign them and they end up having to suffer through a headache all day because the nurse isn't allowed to give them ibuprofen or tylenol.  I'll admit to not thinking very highly of those parents.

 

And yes, I rather like the influence I've been able to have on thousands of students over my 16 years working here (an average of 300+ per class year).  There's only so much kids are exposed to within a family.  Adding people to their influential circle can allow so much more.  Most kids are extremely happy to be exposed to more.  My whole goal is to get them to think.  This morning it was about trig functions and their use (IRL).  Other times it might be something less academic but still important (good nutrition, playing nicely with others, developing tact, being trustworthy, etc).  It's all important for life.  

 

Many times kids will listen more to me than they will their parents - even if we're saying the same thing.  It just seems to mean more from an outsider.  When I talk with parents, they often thank me for teaching junior.

 

I'm not against homeschooling at all (I homeschooled mine, after all), but not once did I feel the need to shelter them from opposing views or different people.  They grew up just fine anyway and have quite the variety of friends.

 

There can be significant issues in some public schools just like there can be anywhere else with anyone else, including homeschoolers, but IME, it's not the norm.  Most public schools, teachers, and nurses are trying to do their best for the next generation - just as we homeschoolers are.

 Well, then you wouldn't feel need to feel sorry for my kid because my kid wouldn't be suffering "through a headache all day", since I am a responsive parent and handle it, instead of dumping it on someone else.   That whopping two times all the way through high school that my kid needed something, I was there within minutes to go through the charade of handing it over, so there was no "headache all day".

If your forms are less invasive than the ones through this school-based clinic, great.  If they are equivalent, then your parents are not reading them or understanding just what consent they are actually giving. 

 

Nothing wrong with teachers teaching their subject, particularly if they have great expertise.  We found a lot of those at the better school (and one at the first one, who was amazing). It isn't their job to be quasi-parent though and those who understand their limited role had great influence.  The one I mention above still keeps in touch with some of those highly-esteemed teachers now, years later.     

 

Fortunately, we ditched that facility pretty quickly and this one transferred to a competitive school that recognized abilities at near-adulthood to properly consume their own OTC medicines and standard prescribed ones (so long as the school was notified).

 

It's pretty stupid that a high school kid needs to be handed an Advil by some nurse...but if she wants an abortion, hey, no problem.  Don't have to tell Mom and Dad about that!  (Yes, form permitted this, as well as state law - whether it happened or not, I don't know).

Edited May 6, 2016 by TranquilMind

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Someone who wrote a song in 1930 has been dead a long time.

Not necessarily. And then there is their family. Don't they have a right to pass on their work's profits to their heirs?

 

What I do disagree with is companies renewing copyright for their own profit when something does enter public domain. I think only the author or heirs should be able to renew copyright.

 

I also don't like how one pharmaceutical copyrighted a long acting version of guianefesin (mucinex) which has been around for about a 100 years I believe. They charge quite a bit of money for this drug :cursing:

Edited May 6, 2016 by NoPlaceLikeHome

[Bluegoat]

Interestingly enough, my husband holds patents on intellectual property - ideas. There aren't physical objects for most of his patents. He will get credit if someone uses his ideas for profit. In his situation, his company will make money. 

 

Thinking more - many people upthread are opposed to eminent domain for business ventures that generate tax revenue on the basis that it benefits society. Why, then, should ideas be appropriated by the public just because they are beneficial to society?  People should be able to protect their ideas for a reasonable amount of time - but at what point does the "need" of society outweigh the interests of the individual? It isn't as clearcut as a copyright on a book anymore.  Intellectual property is a very real thing that can now generate millions of dollars and benefit many, many people in the process. 

 

Disclosure, here: I think it's ridiculous that governments can seize land for commercial interests. The need for a subway station, hospital, highway improvements, etc. is vastly different than the perceived need for a big box retail store.

 

Who says they are being appropriated?  The point is that they never belong to individuals in the first place, that by their nature they are neither owned nor the product of individuals.  It really isn't anything like eminent domain.

 

How does a person own an idea?  We actually have to create totally artificial systems to allow this to work at all.

 

You and I can, totally independantly, have the same idea.  Or you can tell me about your idea, and now it is in fact part of me in my mind, just like it is still in your mind. 

 

Unlike property, ideas are not discrete.  My having the same idea does not take away your idea.  When you communicate your idea to me, you still have yours.   And I can use that idea to inspire my own idea, while still leaving yours entirely intact.

 

How can we own something that has no physical nature.  There is a real sense in which ideas exist outside of us.  We discern them, we don't really create them.  And the discernment is rarely if ever something that comes wholly from us - it is very much dependent on the ideas that are common in our culture, that we have from talking to or reading others thoughts.

 

This idea that we can or should create some kind of system where we can artificially track ideas and enforce payment for them is an invention, and a very recent one.  It isn't much like property theft, where it is fairly clear if Ed now has the cow that everyone agrees belonged to Steve - and of course Steve no longer has it.  It seems natural for us to an extent to think of ideas as property because we are used to it, and a lot of other ways of thinking have developed because we take it for granted, but it is a mistake to take it as obvious in itself.

[MSNative]

Hhmmm...have to disagree.

 

If you are referring to regulators such as the EPA, the heads of those agencies are political appointees by the president. The civil service employees under them cannot act willy nilly, and the regulations they pass should fit the current laws. There is some room for interpretation/enforcement, but even then those regulations and decisions can be challenged in court (and yes, the EPA itself has been challenged and lost). Note: the EPA has also been sued for NOT enforcing regulations passed by Congress under previous administrations.

 

The regulatory agencies also have their budgets approved by Congress and the President (well, at least when we are not operating under yet another CR), and Congress passes all laws that govern those agencies.

"Room for interpretation/enforcement" is huge and leaves plenty of space for misuse and abuse. . And yes things can be challenged but even when evidence shows that civil servants acted inappropriately they aren't sanctioned often. The IRS, EPA, VA, Corps of engineers have all made the news in the past few years. Few if any employees were sanctioned or fired- even when IGs and heads of agencies admit that employees behaved inappropriately.

 

OP asked if we were becoming less free. In 2015 over 81,000 pages of regulations were added. In 2014 ocer 77,000 pages were. The years prior - in administrations of both parties- are similar. There are so many regulations that many of us are unknowingly breaking rules. A recent example is the crackdown on lemonade stands. In some places your kid needs permits or run a lemonade stand. So yeah, I'd argue that our freedom is being limited by regulations.

This older article from The Economist gives some other examples and rightly blames both political parties.

http://www.economist.com/node/21547789

[Spy Car]

re historical outcomes of SCOTUS nominations when President was of one party while Senate was controlled by the other:

 

 

 Thanks for this -- I hadn't seen it and it sent me off on a marvelous bunny hop...

 

 

For the curious, these are the SCOTUS "consent and approve" outcomes under the split President / Senate circumstances since 1895:

 

1895: (Dem) President Cleveland nominated Rufus W. Peckham; approved by Rep-controlled Senate

 

1957: (Rep) President Eisenhower nominated William J. Brennan, Jr.; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

1957: (Rep) President Eisenhower nominated Charles Evans Whittaker; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

1959: (Rep) President Eisenhower nominated Potter Stewart; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

 

1969: (Rep) President Nixon nominated Warren E. Burger; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

1969: (Rep) President Nixon nominated Clement Haynsworth; rejected by Dem-controlled Senate after hearing and vote

1970: (Rep) President Nixon nominated G. Harold Carswell; rejected by Dem-controlled Senate after hearing and vote

1970: (Rep) President Nixon nominated Harry Blackmun; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

1971: (Rep) President Nixon nominated Lewis F. Powell, Jr.; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

1971: (Rep) President Nixon nominated William Rehnquist; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

 

1975: (Rep) President Ford nominated John Paul Stevens; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

 

1987: (Rep) President Reagan nominated Robert Bork; rejected by Dem-controlled Senate after hearing and vote

1987: (Rep) President Reagan nominated Douglas H. Ginsburg; withdrawn 

1987: (Rep) President Reagan nominated Anthony Kennedy; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

 

1990: (Rep) President GHW Bush nominated David Souter; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

1991: (Rep) President GHW Bush nominated Clarence Thomas; approved by Dem-controlled Senate

 

2016: (Dem) President Obama nominated Merrick Garland; pending

 

 

A couple insights leap out at me from this, but the salient one is just how often it happens, that when a SCOTUS vacancy occurs, the President is of a different party than the Senate.  

 

If we paint ourselves into a corner that the seat remain empty until either the Presidency or the Senate flips over to the other party, irrespective of the nominee, we have in essence surrendered the ability of one of our government's branches to function as envisaged in the Constitution.

 

 

To bring it around to the OP: the decimation of the SCOTUS' ability to function in its role as mediator/arbiter of rights WILL, certainly, result in an erosion of rights.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ETA: 1895, not 1985!

 

With one obvious exception, that's a pretty good list of the Senate doing it's job well.

 

Bill

Edited May 6, 2016 by Spy Car

[Murphy101]

I think their work should still be attributed to them. But why do their descendents deserve money in perpetuity for it? Copyright used to be for a much shorter time period. I heard Disney got it changed, but I haven't verified that.

I would argue the descendants have more right to make money off it that the random public does from using it.

 

Why not?

 

If I start a business I can pass that business into my children. They might even be nothing more than passive stock holders who don't actually run it.

 

But if I write a book, music, invent a new whatever, I'm not entitled to want to pass that inheritance on to them? Why? Because other people just want it themselves? What give them that right over me or my descendants?

[Murphy101]

I think when we talk about the erosion of rights, a lot of it relates to increased power for those kinds of "private entities."

Correct. Because usually it's not just that rights are eroded - it's that they are displaced.

 

The taking of rights from one entity so that another can have more power.

[Murphy101]

There's a really interesting article by Andrew Sullivan( on May 1) that concerns a statement from Plato's Republic. It would be excellent discussion for high schoolers here, IMO. " tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy", I think. Anyway, he makes some astute observations. I won't link it for political rules here, but it's easy to google.

I can see that.

After all, Hindenburg was freely elected and appointed Hitler chancellor.

 

Sometimes people freely choose to vote for really stupid crap. And those votes can have disastrous affects.

[Murphy101]

Off topic some... Does anyone watch House of Cards? Kevin Spacy is amazing in the underwood character.

 

I find myself fascinated bc the man is a vicious pitbull but his bills that he fights for are great. And the mess he has to deal with to legally get any dadblum thing done is just ridiculous. It's like NOTHING can be accomplished unless you are are an evil maniacal bastard. The way it portrays politics comes across as maybe disturbingly too accurate for comfort.

 

(Disclaimer/NSFK: The show is almost too adult graphic for me. But it's not an all episode or every episode issue. )

[Lady Florida.]

There's a really interesting article by Andrew Sullivan( on May 1) that concerns a statement from Plato's Republic. It would be excellent discussion for high schoolers here, IMO. " tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy", I think. Anyway, he makes some astute observations. I won't link it for political rules here, but it's easy to google.

 

They interviewed him on NPR's Here and Now today and it made me want to go read the entire piece. I'm not generally a fan of his, but he made excellent points.

[Pam in CT]

re Andrew Sullivan's riff on Plato, inequality, democracy, tyranny and today:

They interviewed him on NPR's Here and Now today and it made me want to go read the entire piece. I'm not generally a fan of his, but he made excellent points.

 

 

Really it's very good.  Go for it.

[Murphy101]

I think being able to copyright or patent natural substances is nuts.

 

I don't think tomato seeds should be protected for example.

 

Or aloe plants or whatever.

[creekland]

It isn't their job to be quasi-parent though 

 

We can agree to disagree, but I do see that as part of my job - a really fun part (for the most part).  I'm also glad my ps son had quasi-parents influencing him via school, church, and a youth organization he belonged to.  They had a great influence on his life - more in sum than we parents could have done by ourselves.

 

Yesterday I even had to discipline a couple of young lads... that's very rare in my classes - so rare yesterday was the first time this school year that I had to do it.  Today both were much better citizens and I 100% know that will carry over beyond today for me and others.

 

Our society benefits from that more than it will benefit from the Geometry lessons they were supposed to be learning.

 

I teach people skills, life skills, tact (part of both listed) and introduce kids to the joys of travel, different thoughts/opinions, college/trade school options, oh, and along the way we try to learn some science and/or math.  That latter bit... it's not really the most important when it comes to life.  It's just a segment - just as it was in our homeschool.  ;)

 

I honestly can't recall the last time a student was disappointed to find out I was in for their class on any given day.  Many openly express enthusiasm.  It certainly isn't because we ignore the subject at hand.  It's because I add so much more to it (when I can).  I integrate learning with life.  That's what parents do too, so yes, I see myself as a quasi parent - totally unafraid to correct a student when necessary (without discipline when I can) and totally trying to open their minds and get them to think.

 

Off my rabbit trail...

[Bluegoat]

I would argue the descendants have more right to make money off it that the random public does from using it.

 

Why not?

 

If I start a business I can pass that business into my children. They might even be nothing more than passive stock holders who don't actually run it.

 

But if I write a book, music, invent a new whatever, I'm not entitled to want to pass that inheritance on to them? Why? Because other people just want it themselves? What give them that right over me or my descendants?

 

Well, you can pass a book you write on to your kids, or a widget.  PLus any money you manage to make from those things.

[Bluegoat]

Off topic some... Does anyone watch House of Cards? Kevin Spacy is amazing in the underwood character.

 

I find myself fascinated bc the man is a vicious pitbull but his bills that he fights for are great. And the mess he has to deal with to legally get any dadblum thing done is just ridiculous. It's like NOTHING can be accomplished unless you are are an evil maniacal bastard. The way it portrays politics comes across as maybe disturbingly too accurate for comfort.

 

(Disclaimer/NSFK: The show is almost too adult graphic for me. But it's not an all episode or every episode issue. )

 

have you watched the original version?  You might find it less graphic.  Also - since it was more a miniseries format, I think it was a lot tighter.  Long series sometimes have too much padding, which is I think why the newer version can seem a bit depressing.

[Murphy101]

have you watched the original version? You might find it less graphic. Also - since it was more a miniseries format, I think it was a lot tighter. Long series sometimes have too much padding, which is I think why the newer version can seem a bit depressing.

Has no idea there was any other version.

[Bluegoat]

Has no idea there was any other version.

 

It's almost 20 years old now I think, Ian Richardson is the lead actor.  I am pretty sure it is on Netflix.

[MaeFlowers]

re Andrew Sullivan's riff on Plato, inequality, democracy, tyranny and today:

 

 

Really it's very good. Go for it.

Does anyone else find it ironic that, in a thread about one's frustration over political fear-mongering, a article is linked that is essentially more fear-mongering?

[Guest]

Does anyone else find it ironic that, in a thread about one's frustration over political fear-mongering, a article is linked that is essentially more fear-mongering?

You have a point. That is an astute article, though.

[Lady Florida.]

Off topic some... Does anyone watch House of Cards? Kevin Spacy is amazing in the underwood character.

 

I find myself fascinated bc the man is a vicious pitbull but his bills that he fights for are great. And the mess he has to deal with to legally get any dadblum thing done is just ridiculous. It's like NOTHING can be accomplished unless you are are an evil maniacal bastard. The way it portrays politics comes across as maybe disturbingly too accurate for comfort.

 

(Disclaimer/NSFK: The show is almost too adult graphic for me. But it's not an all episode or every episode issue. )

 

 

have you watched the original version?  You might find it less graphic.  Also - since it was more a miniseries format, I think it was a lot tighter.  Long series sometimes have too much padding, which is I think why the newer version can seem a bit depressing.

 

It makes great tv to think politics are really like that, but the U.S. House of Cards is a fictional series which is based on a UK fictional series (takes place in Parliament) which is based on a fictional book. 

 

I love the series (well the first season was great but it went downhill after that) but Kevin Spacey's plantation era southern accent drives me batty. 

[Amy in NH]

It isn't their job to be quasi-parent though...

Um, actually... have you never heard of in loco parentis?

[MaeFlowers]

You have a point. That is an astute article, though.

Perhaps. I initially thought through his introduction, he was going to argue how we are headed toward tyrany in a more general sense. But, a few paragraphs in, he took a hard turn. I would have enjoyed the article so much more (and think it would have better served his original premise) had the made a case against both front runners.

[Reefgazer]

Sorry you don't think highly of me.  But I was willing and able to hustle my kiester down to the local elementary school in less than 5 minutes flat to deliver what my kid needed or to sign her out of school if she was sick.  She had a phone to text me for things she considered urgent.  That's faster than the nurse would get her rear in gear to attend to my kid.  Parents who do this should have provisions in place to meet their child's needs, and I did.  When DD got old enough, she privately carried her own asthma and pain meds and took them as needed in the privacy of the bathroom.

I hope you realize that the extreme examples you mention are just that - extreme examples.

 

I work in a totally average public high school, and yes, we have consent forms for health issues the nurse can take care of.  Fortunately, most parents sign them.  They're allowed to cross off anything they don't want and there's a section where they can add personal notes.

 

I feel sorry for the kids whose parents won't sign them and they end up having to suffer through a headache all day because the nurse isn't allowed to give them ibuprofen or tylenol.  I'll admit to not thinking very highly of those parents.

 

And yes, I rather like the influence I've been able to have on thousands of students over my 16 years working here (an average of 300+ per class year).  There's only so much kids are exposed to within a family.  Adding people to their influential circle can allow so much more.  Most kids are extremely happy to be exposed to more.  My whole goal is to get them to think.  This morning it was about trig functions and their use (IRL).  Other times it might be something less academic but still important (good nutrition, playing nicely with others, developing tact, being trustworthy, etc).  It's all important for life.  

 

Many times kids will listen more to me than they will their parents - even if we're saying the same thing.  It just seems to mean more from an outsider.  When I talk with parents, they often thank me for teaching junior.

 

I'm not against homeschooling at all (I homeschooled mine, after all), but not once did I feel the need to shelter them from opposing views or different people.  They grew up just fine anyway and have quite the variety of friends.

 

There can be significant issues in some public schools just like there can be anywhere else with anyone else, including homeschoolers, but IME, it's not the norm.  Most public schools, teachers, and nurses are trying to do their best for the next generation - just as we homeschoolers are.

 

Edited May 7, 2016 by reefgazer

[Bluegoat]

Does anyone else find it ironic that, in a thread about one's frustration over political fear-mongering, a article is linked that is essentially more fear-mongering?

 

Is saying something is a problem to be worried about the same as fear mongering?

 

Saying "If you vote for X and the world will end" is in most cases completely untrue.

 

Saying that there is a significant problem in governance which requires attention, and making a rational argument to that effect, seems a little different. 

[creekland]

Sorry you don't think highly of me.  But I was willing and able to hustle my kiester down to the local elementary school in less than 5 minutes flat to deliver what my kid needed or to sign her out of school if she was sick.  She had a phone to text me for things she considered urgent.  That's faster than the nurse would get her rear in gear to attend to my kid.  Parents who do this should have provisions in place to meet their child's needs, and I did.  When DD got old enough, she privately carried her own asthma and pain meds and took them as needed in the privacy of the bathroom stall.

 

I think both you and TM missed the "and" in that statement you bolded.

[Reefgazer]

Definition from the all-knowing Wikipedia:  "The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent"^[1] refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent" 

 

I've bolded the word "some", which, considering we are discussing a school, could be reasonably be interpreted to mean academics and not medical care, moral or political positions, or other personal functions.

Um, actually... have you never heard of in loco parentis?

 

Edited May 7, 2016 by reefgazer

[Reefgazer]

Yes, I did miss it and I apologize for that; I appreciate the disclaimer.  Perhaps I missed it because read the post as implying that parents who wouldn't sign the form were neglectful in general.  But a parent can have a hard time meeting those obligations to their kid and still feel that the school over-reaches in asking them to sign for such broad powers.  The solution is simple enough - tailor the consent form more narrowly so that the parent is not forced to choose between handing over so much authority and ensuring their kids get adequate and appropriate care.

I think both you and TM missed the "and" in that statement you bolded.

 

Edited May 7, 2016 by reefgazer

[TechWife]

Yes, I did miss it and I apologize for that; I appreciate the disclaimer.  Perhaps I missed it because read the post as implying that parents who wouldn't sign the form were neglectful in general.  But a parent can have a hard time meeting those obligations to their kid and still feel that the school over-reaches in asking them to sign for such broad powers.  The solution is simple enough - tailor the consent form more narrowly so that the parent is not forced to choose between handing over so much authority and ensuring their kids get adequate and appropriate care.

 

When my son went to camp with our church group, they had a form that allowed parents to check off what we did/didn't want the camp nurse to give our child. We could also request that they call before and/or after giving any meds. Our choices were things like Tylenol, Advil, Pepto Bismol, etc.. I think that's a bit different though than being in town and being available for your child. In my case it wouldn't have been a big deal to run over and give my son some Advil, either. 

 

As a side note, it's pretty sad that we have come to a place where kids aren't allowed to carry their own medicine with them. Yet, when they go to college, one of the chief complaints is that kids don't know how to take care of themselves. In many aspects, they haven't been allowed to take care of themselves, so they are just getting their feet under them with managing their own health care. 

[creekland]

Definition from the all-knowing Wikipedia:  "The term in loco parentis, Latin for "in the place of a parent"^[1] refers to the legal responsibility of a person or organization to take on some of the functions and responsibilities of a parent" 

 

I've bolded the word "some", which, considering we are discussing a school, could be reasonably  interpreted to mean academics and not medical care, moral or political positions, or other personal functions.

 

Well... I'm certainly not paying for their college personally (though we donate to general scholarship funds).   :lol:

 

But in all seriousness, the vast, vast majority of parents/kids I know IRL see us (teachers, nurses) as partners, not enemies.  We work together to try to do our best for junior in all aspects of life.  Meeting parents is usually very rewarding, though there are a couple of exceptions that come to mind - some I've even vented about on here occasionally. Some kids draw a bad straw in the birth lottery.

 

It's also true that not every teacher is ideal, but none of us parents (or homeschoolers) are perfect either.

 

Homeschooling is definitely an option for those who see things differently.

 

It just bugs me when public schools are painted with a broad (incorrect) brush.  It's very akin to stereotyping homeschoolers.  I argue against that in ps too.

 

Extremes happen, but certainly aren't the norm.

[creekland]

The solution is simple enough - tailor the consent form more narrowly so that the parent is not forced to choose between handing over so much authority and ensuring their kids get adequate and appropriate care.

 

Our forms allow for this - encourage it even.  Some still will not sign, nor will they help their kids in person.  Caring parents will do one or the other TBH.

 

When my son went to camp with our church group, they had a form that allowed parents to check off what we did/didn't want the camp nurse to give our child. We could also request that they call before and/or after giving any meds. Our choices were things like Tylenol, Advil, Pepto Bismol, etc.. I think that's a bit different though than being in town and being available for your child. In my case it wouldn't have been a big deal to run over and give my son some Advil, either. 

 

As a side note, it's pretty sad that we have come to a place where kids aren't allowed to carry their own medicine with them. Yet, when they go to college, one of the chief complaints is that kids don't know how to take care of themselves. In many aspects, they haven't been allowed to take care of themselves, so they are just getting their feet under them with managing their own health care. 

 

Our forms sound like yours for camp.

 

While it's sad that kids can't keep their own meds, there honestly would be way too much abuse.  If mom A isn't pleased with the nurse giving ibuprofen, how is she going to feel when Sally gave it to her child instead?  The school would be responsible because we really are "the parents" when the kids are with us.  It's amazing what schools can get sued for.

 

Then there are the meds stronger than ibuprofen.

 

If everyone were mature and lived their roles as they should, there wouldn't be a problem, but between touchy parents (Sally gave my daughter ibuprofen!!!  How could you let that happen???) and not so mature teens (Hey, this prescription painkiller does much better on headaches, try it!) it's honestly better if the nurse's office handles these things.  It's cheaper for the taxpayer than a lawsuit anyway.

 

Our school relaxed a wee bit this year.  Teachers can give school supplied cough drops now (but only if we ask the student every single time if they're allergic to them).  Before it was solely bandaids.

[Caroline]

Here, students in middle and high school are allowed to have OTC painkillers with them. They aren't allowed to share them with other students, but they can take them themselves. Students in elementary school and up are allowed to have their epipens and inhalers with them as long as they have a signed form from the doctor and the medicine cannot be out of date. With a signed note, they can also have other meds on them. For example, they can have migraine medicine with them. They are not allowed to carry any narcotics with them, or any medicine containing alcohol.

[Reefgazer]

You know, we had a really good experience in public school up through about fourth grade, and then the place seemingly went nuts.  I'm not sure what happened to elicit the changes that occurred, but after that I just soured on the school/district and we left to homeschool.  Up until that point, I viewed the school as a partner, but after that...not so much.  A few teachers treated DD's class poorly and the administration turned a blind eye.  I became very cautious after that.

Well... I'm certainly not paying for their college personally (though we donate to general scholarship funds).   :lol:

 

But in all seriousness, the vast, vast majority of parents/kids I know IRL see us (teachers, nurses) as partners, not enemies.  We work together to try to do our best for junior in all aspects of life.  Meeting parents is usually very rewarding, though there are a couple of exceptions that come to mind - some I've even vented about on here occasionally. Some kids draw a bad straw in the birth lottery.

 

It's also true that not every teacher is ideal, but none of us parents (or homeschoolers) are perfect either.

 

Homeschooling is definitely an option for those who see things differently.

 

It just bugs me when public schools are painted with a broad (incorrect) brush.  It's very akin to stereotyping homeschoolers.  I argue against that in ps too.

 

Extremes happen, but certainly aren't the norm.

 

[creekland]

Here, students in middle and high school are allowed to have OTC painkillers with them. They aren't allowed to share them with other students, but they can take them themselves. Students in elementary school and up are allowed to have their epipens and inhalers with them as long as they have a signed form from the doctor and the medicine cannot be out of date. With a signed note, they can also have other meds on them. For example, they can have migraine medicine with them. They are not allowed to carry any narcotics with them, or any medicine containing alcohol.

 

Our epipen and inhaler kids keep those on them.  I suspect they're far less likely to share either.

 

Who knows, if other schools have good luck with other OTC meds, ours might follow suit.  Time will tell.  I don't think anything awful has occurred by letting teachers offer cough drops.  (Kids can have their own cough drops too, but aren't supposed to share.  They do.)