[Doug64]

So no, instead they see it as most people in the USA do: as a perfectly fine way of punishing criminals.

Jail time isn't slavery.

What did the Congress think of immigration at the time the constitution was being written for the US?

Irrelevant to the question of whether Congress has the authority to set what immigration policies it chooses.

[Pants-of-dog]

Jail time isn't slavery.

I did bot argue that all jail time is slavery, but slavery is one punishment that is often added to doing time.

Irrelevant to the question of whether Congress has the authority to set what immigration policies it chooses.

Maybe, maybe not.

Since originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted", it makes sense to ask what the framers thought of immigration at the time the constitution was adopted.

[Doug64]

I did bot argue that all jail time is slavery, but slavery is one punishment that is often added to doing time.

Nope, punishment for committing crimes isn't slavery.

Maybe, maybe not.

Since originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted", it makes sense to ask what the framers thought of immigration at the time the constitution was adopted.

So please provide any quotes from Founders, court cases, anything, to indicate that the Congress of the time thought that it wasn't authorized by the Constitution to legislate on matters of immigration. It'll be a little tough, since in 1798 Congress passed two laws that allowed the government to deport non-citizens--the Alien Enemies Act (that permitted the government to arrest and deport all male citizens of an enemy country during a time of war), and the Alien Friends Act (that allowed the president to deport any non-citizen suspected of plotting against the government, even in peacetime). So far as I know no one questioned those laws' constitutionality, and while the latter was no longer in effect by 1802 the former remained on the books and was amended by Congress in 1918 to include women.

[Pants-of-dog]

Nope, punishment for committing crimes isn't slavery.

Again, sometimes it is.

Please read the 13th Amendment.

So please provide any quotes from Founders, court cases, anything, to indicate that the Congress of the time thought that it wasn't authorized by the Constitution to legislate on matters of immigration. It'll be a little tough, since in 1798 Congress passed two laws that allowed the government to deport non-citizens--the Alien Enemies Act (that permitted the government to arrest and deport all male citizens of an enemy country during a time of war), and the Alien Friends Act (that allowed the president to deport any non-citizen suspected of plotting against the government, even in peacetime). So far as I know no one questioned those laws' constitutionality, and while the latter was no longer in effect by 1802 the former remained on the books and was amended by Congress in 1918 to include women.

What did they think in 1776?

Prior to that date, it is clear from the behaviour of the founding fathers and other settlers that indigenous immigration law was not to be respected, nor did the Crown exercise any immigration law.

[Doug64]

Again, sometimes it is.

Please read the 13th Amendment.

Yes, involuntary servitude can be a condition of punishment for being convicted of a criminal act. But not slavery, the government doesn't own those it convicts of crimes any more than it owns those it drafts into the military during wartime.

What did they think in 1776?

The Constitution didn't exist until 1787, and wasn't ratified until 1789.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes, involuntary servitude can be a condition of punishment for being convicted of a criminal act. But not slavery, the government doesn't own those it convicts of crimes any more than it owns those it drafts into the military during wartime.

Yes, so as I said, they see slavery as a perfectly fine punishment for crime.

The Constitution didn't exist until 1787, and wasn't ratified until 1789.

Okay, so we see that at the time the constitution was consecrated, people thought that anyone who was not literally an enemy of the state could move there without papers.

So when the SCOTUS rules on immigration, they should set policy according to that idea of immigration.

[Rich]

Jail time isn't slavery.

Of course jail time is slavery for goodness sake its even recognised as such in the thirteenth amendment.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"

If American conservatives were serious about respecting the constitution instead of being the lying, dishonest, contemptible hypocrites that that they are, they wouldn't even support imprisoning people prior to conviction. But even allowing for holding people on remand there is no excuse for the torture and imprisonment of Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Look men like Adolph Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot I can have a certain respect for. None of them as far as I'm aware ever professed to believe in due process, free speech or individual rights, but how can you respect America's phoney constitutionalists.

I don't believe in absolute individual rights. Individual rights can not be absolute, they must be proportionate to the resources and prosperity of the society, They can not be created by UN resolutions. They can not be free of bias and there will always be inequities in their application. The wealthy and the powerful will always be more successful in the defence of their legal rights. But that does not mean they are not worth having. That does not mean that are worth paying a price. It does not mean that we should just flush them down the toilet at the first sign of difficulty or the first sniff of a crisis.

[Doug64]

And @Pants-of-dog once again demonstrates an inability to comprehend what he’s reading.

Of course jail time is slavery for goodness sake its even recognised as such in the thirteenth amendment.

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction"

To once again reiterate, I know of no time in the history of our country—or during the colonial period before, for that matter—that punishment for a crime was equated with the criminal being owned by the state, and there are situations where labor can be demanded without that ownership. That’s why the words “involuntary servitude” were added, and that there is an exception to that prohibition against “involuntary servitude” for punishment for crimes. No judge then or now is going to argue that slavery can be imposed as a criminal punishment.

And getting back to the general subject of the thread:

Dianne Feinstein's embrace of Lindsey Graham angers liberals

Liberal groups erupted in anger after Sen. Dianne Feinstein praised the way Republicans ran last week’s confirmation hearing for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett and demanded that the senator be ousted as Democrats’ top member on the Judiciary Committee.

Ms. Feinstein wasn’t the only Democrat to compliment Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican and committee chairman, but when she embraced him at the end of four days of hearings, it sent shock waves through the activist network that had spent weeks trying to gin up opposition to President Trump’s high court nominee.

Organizations such as NARAL Pro-Choice America and the feminist UltraViolet said Ms. Feinstein damaged those chances.

“Her embrace, both literal and rhetorical, of Lindsey Graham and Amy Coney Barrett after today’s hearings shows that she is simply not willing to stand up to the GOP’s depraved power grab that will upend the rights of women for decades to come,” UltraViolet co-founder Shaunna Thomas said after Thursday’s hearing-ending hug.

There is little Democrats can do to stop Judge Barrett, who appears headed for an affirmative vote in the committee this week and to confirmation by the full Senate next week.

But activists said they expected more resistance than Democrats mounted over two days of questions to the judge, which she handled deftly, rebuffing attempts to get her to preview rulings on potential upcoming cases involving the Affordable Care Act or Mr. Trump’s executive powers.

The criticism is also seen as jockeying for next year, when Democrats hope to have control of the Senate, House and White House and an appetite to pack the Supreme Court with justices more aligned with their ideology.

Any move to add seats would likely start in the Judiciary Committee.

Marge Baker, executive vice president of the People for the American Way, praised Ms. Feinstein’s performance last week and said Democrats overall did a good job of reminding voters what is at stake in filling the seat left vacant by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a liberal icon.

“We are actually delighted with how the hearings have gone,” Ms. Baker told The Washington Times on Friday. “We think the Democrats really, really used their time effectively in the questioning and at yesterday’s markup.”

She said she has been involved with judicial nominations for several years and this is one of the times the American people are most energized and informed.

Ms. Feinstein, who has been in office 28 years, survived a reelection challenge in the 2018 Democratic primaries but has increasingly been a target of liberal activists in California.

In the run-up to the Supreme Court hearings, even some fellow Democratic senators were quoted, anonymously, in news reports wondering whether Ms. Feinstein was the right person to lead the party’s opposition.

During the hearings, she struck the same notes as her colleagues, suggesting that Judge Barrett would be part of an effort to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 case giving women a national right to abortion, as well as to gut Obamacare.

But Ms. Feinstein closed the hearings by thanking Mr. Graham and calling them “one of the best set of hearings I have participated in.”

“I want to thank you for your fairness and the opportunity of going back and forth. It leaves one with a lot of hopes, a lot of questions and even some good ideas — perhaps some good bipartisan legislation we can put together to make this great country even better,” she added.

At the end of questions for Judge Barrett a day earlier, Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat, sounded a similar note.

“Thank you for your fairness in this hearing,” Mr. Durbin said, adding that he was speaking “on behalf of the Democratic side.”

“I heard no objection, nor will I, about the way you’ve conducted this,” he said.

He also apologized to the judge for the pain the nomination process can cause for families. Some liberal commentators have attacked Judge Barrett for adopting two children from Haiti.

Civility between the parties is rare on Capitol Hill with only three weeks before the Nov. 3 elections.

Though Democrats are angry that the Republican majority moved forward with Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court nominee weeks before the election, the hearing was conducted respectfully between both sides.

“That means a lot to me, and I know we have very different views about the judge and whether we should be doing all of that, but having said that my Democratic colleagues, you have challenged the judge, you have challenged us,” Mr. Graham told Ms. Feinstein. “I don’t think anybody crossed the line.”

The hearings contrasted sharply with the 2018 dust-up over Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who was brought back for a second round of questions after a woman came forward with accusations of sexual assault during a high school party decades ago.

Justice Kavanaugh vehemently denied Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations, which were contradicted by people who she said were witnesses, though many Democrats said they believed the accuser nonetheless.

More than 200 protesters were arrested during the Kavanaugh hearings, and hundreds more were arrested on the eve of his confirmation vote.

Just 29 protesters were arrested during the Barrett hearings, according to U.S. Capitol Police.

The COVID-19 pandemic, which closed the hearing room to the public, may have helped lower the temperature.

“People are really concerned about their own health and safety — wanting to be responsible, not doing large in-person gatherings,” Ms. Baker said.

Ms. Feinstein’s future may be wrapped up in other looming fights.

She brushed aside questions about court-packing in the run-up to the hearings and has said she is not a fan of eliminating the filibuster, the tool that has defined the Senate for a century.

Axing the filibuster is shaping up as a major goal for some Democrats if they take control of the chamber.

Fix Our Senate, a group dedicated to that cause, said Ms. Feinstein’s praise of the hearings last week showed she is not the right person to lead a key committee during that fight.

“Sen. Feinstein has said that the Senate works perfectly well and that she opposes eliminating the filibuster because ‘if it’s not broke, don’t fix it.’ These hearings and this confirmation process highlighted just how wrong she is and just how broken the Senate is,” said Eli Zupnick, a spokesman for the group. “It’s time for a change and for committee leaders who understand what’s at stake and how the Senate needs to be fixed.”

I do have to say that I have been pleasantly surprised by the civility demonstrated throughout this. Maybe the pandemic helped keep protesters from mobbing the capitol (though it certainly hasn’t prevented all sorts of rioting, looting, and arson over the summer), maybe the Leftist activists realized that the horror show of their assaults on Kavanaugh and his family didn’t help their cause, maybe they simply didn’t see the point in expending the political capital on a lost cause (the protests against Kavanaugh didn’t start until they saw that character assassination on unsubstantiated charges might prevent his confirmation, after all). For whatever reason, these hearings were remarkably drama-free. And, if they had any impact on the election polling numbers, were a at least a wash if not a net plus for President Trump. (The numbers for Barrett herself are positive, with pluralities both wanting her confirmed as soon as possible, and confirmed regardless of who wins the election.)

[Pants-of-dog]

And @Pants-of-dog once again demonstrates an inability to comprehend what he’s reading.


To once again reiterate, I know of no time in the history of our country—or during the colonial period before, for that matter—that punishment for a crime was equated with the criminal being owned by the state, and there are situations where labor can be demanded without that ownership. That’s why the words “involuntary servitude” were added, and that there is an exception to that prohibition against “involuntary servitude” for punishment for crimes. No judge then or now is going to argue that slavery can be imposed as a criminal punishment.

This is semantics. In both cases, they are forced to work for little or no pay, have no rights to say no, no privacy, and no control over their own lives.

More importantly, the constitution has no problem with this kind of forced labour. This is in keeping with its lack of recognition for bodily rights.

And getting back to the general subject of the thread:

Why do many conservatives think projecting emoti9ns onto progressives is an argument?

“Look, the liberals are pissed off, so our guy must be right!”

[Rich]

No judge then or now is going to argue that slavery can be imposed as a criminal punishment.

Life without Parole is life long slavery. Whether the government gets any useful work out of the prisoner is entirely secondary. The Nazis and the Bolsheviks may not have got useful work out of all their prisoners but they were still slaves. We may think that many people deserve imprisonment, but that doesn't make it any less slavery.

Slavery only seems so clear cut in modern western societies, because we have relatively well defined rights and relativity abundant opportunities for success if we are not imprisoned / enslaved. The British European settler colonies, the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and to a lesser extent the South African Cape had 2 huge advantages, superior English culture and oodles of land, huge amounts of natural resources to exploit. This meant they lacked the significant poor class that existed in Europe. This reduced inequality and allowed a much greater level of individual rights for adult male Europeans. Which has fed the belief among Americans that somehow prosperity is a God given entitlement available to any one willing to work hard.

[Doug64]

This is semantics. In both cases, they are forced to work for little or no pay, have no rights to say no, no privacy, and no control over their own lives.

No, it isn’t just semantics, though there was a certain amount of “just semantics” going on before the 13th Amendment with southern states instituting Black Codes in 1865 and 1866 that were slavery in all but name—hence the “involuntary servitude” included in the amendment, telling the southern states that they didn’t get to give slavery a fresh coat of paint and slap a different label on it.

More importantly, the constitution has no problem with this kind of forced labour. This is in keeping with its lack of recognition for bodily rights.

You actually got one thing right, there is no recognition of bodily autonomy in the Constitution (whatever judges might say with their “emanations” and “penumbras”). It wasn’t exactly a concern of the Founders, and no one’s tried to write it in since.

But convicts serving jail time also lose their freedom and their right to vote, do you oppose that as well? The simple truth is that fines are pointless if criminals don’t have the money to pay them or the wherewithal to raise it and jails are expensive, so I have no problem with requiring jailed criminals to help pay for their upkeep while in prison. Nor, I think, do most US citizens.

An alternative punishment I wouldn’t mind seeing reinstituted is giving lashes instead of jail time—after it’s over the criminal is free to get on with their life, and we don’t have to fork over millions of dollars to keep them incarcerated for years.

Why do many conservatives think projecting emoti9ns onto progressives is an argument?

“Look, the liberals are pissed off, so our guy must be right!”

Did either I or the article say that? It merely points out that a number of Leftists are very unhappy with the civility some Democratic senators have demonstrated during the hearings—especially Feinstein, because if the Democrats win the Senate she becomes the chair of the Judiciary Committee unless she is removed. They are afraid that she’d oppose eliminating the filibuster so they can pack the courts.

Life without Parole is life long slavery. Whether the government gets any useful work out of the prisoner is entirely secondary. The Nazis and the Bolsheviks may not have got useful work out of all their prisoners but they were still slaves. We may think that many people deserve imprisonment, but that doesn't make it any less slavery.

So to be clear, Europe’s abandonment of the death penalty for life in prison is the reinstitution of slavery? For that matter, why would a time limit on the punishment make a difference? Which would mean that any prison time at all is slavery.

Slavery only seems so clear cut in modern western societies, because we have relatively well defined rights and relativity abundant opportunities for success if we are not imprisoned / enslaved.

Slavery is clear cut—it is the ownership of human beings, whether by individuals or the state. But as the southern states proved after they lost the war, slavery isn’t the only form of involuntary servitude, which is why the Amenders made sure to include a prohibition of involuntary servitude except for punishment for crimes in the 13th Amendment. So no reinstituting serfdom.

[Rugoz]

So you’re saying that it isn’t the job of SCOTUS to step in when Congress oversteps its Constitutionally limited authority?

Sure it is, if it's unambiguous.

As for the 2nd Amendment, “well-regulated” means “properly regulated” which means Congress can’t use the authority to regulate state militias granted to it by the Constitution to disarm them—and the General Militia encompasses all males of military age that are or wish to be US citizens (with some exceptions) plus everyone in the Reserves of either sex, the Special Militia is the National Guard, and none of them can be disarmed by Congress. And that doesn’t take into account the situation on the ground at the time the 14th Amendment was ratified and what that means for Incorporating the 2nd Amendment against the state governments.

Now you just invented a well-regulated "General Militia" that encompasses all males of military age.

So point to where in the Constitution the government is prevented from regulating abortion, without referencing “emanations” or “penumbras” (fancy words for “we can’t find what we want in the Constitution, so we’re reading it in anyway”).

Nowhere. But AFAIK Row v. Wade prohibits states from banning abortion. Not the job of the SCOTUS, if you ask me.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, it isn’t just semantics,

Yes it is, and we can tell because you ignored my explanation of how it was just semantics.

though there was a certain amount of “just semantics” going on before the 13th Amendment with southern states instituting Black Codes in 1865 and 1866 that were slavery in all but name—hence the “involuntary servitude” included in the amendment, telling the southern states that they didn’t get to give slavery a fresh coat of paint and slap a different label on it.

But you guys did. That was what Jim Crow was and what certain aspects of the prison system are how.

You actually got one thing right, there is no recognition of bodily autonomy in the Constitution (whatever judges might say with their “emanations” and “penumbras”). It wasn’t exactly a concern of the Founders, and no one’s tried to write it in since.

I know.

This is why things like torture, rape, and banning abortion are all constitutional.

But convicts serving jail time also lose their freedom and their right to vote, do you oppose that as well? The simple truth is that fines are pointless if criminals don’t have the money to pay them or the wherewithal to raise it and jails are expensive, so I have no problem with requiring jailed criminals to help pay for their upkeep while in prison. Nor, I think, do most US citizens.

Yes, like I said, this judge is as just as accepting of slavery as most US citizens.

An alternative punishment I wouldn’t mind seeing reinstituted is giving lashes instead of jail time—after it’s over the criminal is free to get on with their life, and we don’t have to fork over millions of dollars to keep them incarcerated for years.

Your admiration of cruel and unusual punishment is noted as irrelevant.

Did either I or the article say that? It merely points out that a number of Leftists are very unhappy with the civility some Democratic senators have demonstrated during the hearings—especially Feinstein, because if the Democrats win the Senate she becomes the chair of the Judiciary Committee unless she is removed. They are afraid that she’d oppose eliminating the filibuster so they can pack the courts.

And here you are saying it again.

“Look the liberals are whining again! Yay!”

[Rich]

Which would mean that any prison time at all is slavery.

Absolutely. There are only a limited numbers of ways you can punish people.


If they've got wealth, property positions you can fine them, confiscate property and remove offices / positions of authority and status.
You can kill them
You can torture / injure them
You can enslave them.

Now of course in the past slavery was often inherited, where as today, at least outside of North Korea the convict's children are not normally imprisoned as well. But inherited status is not necessary for it to be slavery. in fact slavery was in places gradually abolished by setting free the children of slaves when they reached adulthood, but I think that most people would still consider the parent a slave, even if his status as a slave died with him.

[Drlee]

You actually got one thing right, there is no recognition of bodily autonomy in the Constitution (whatever judges might say with their “emanations” and “penumbras”). It wasn’t exactly a concern of the Founders, and no one’s tried to write it in since.

Actually the Supreme Court has found that it exists on 6 different occasions.

But convicts serving jail time also lose their freedom and their right to vote, do you oppose that as well?

Felons do.

The simple truth is that fines are pointless if criminals don’t have the money to pay them or the wherewithal to raise it and jails are expensive, so I have no problem with requiring jailed criminals to help pay for their upkeep while in prison. Nor, I think, do most US citizens.

The great liberal justice Earl Warren said that prisons should be factories behind walls.

A

n alternative punishment I wouldn’t mind seeing reinstituted is giving lashes instead of jail time—after it’s over the criminal is free to get on with their life, and we don’t have to fork over millions of dollars to keep them incarcerated for years.

[Stormsmith]

Seems to me prisons should have been replaced with ankle bracelets for all but violent criminals.

[Drlee]

I agree. with that Stormsmith. Sadly, the prison system in the US is a big business.

[Chad]

Seems to me prisons should have been replaced with ankle bracelets for all but violent criminals.

Criminls should be locked up in large bird cages and exposed to the elements. The stockades are a good idea but the Antifa rapists would be tempted too much. Imagine how BLM would feel seeing so many thugs of the Black community never wanting to do anything criminal again. The progression of so many wanting to earn their keep just to keep out of prison. In the days of Sir Walter Ralegh, Gibbeting was a great deterrent. In Massachusetts it was still practiced hundreds of years later. Biden is a career criminal Politician. Crooked Hillary is a career criminal Politician as well. Until all criminals are deterred from being criminals, they are going to be criminals. Thank God the Hawaiian Muslim Senator (Barack)Arabic origin got the apology tour going strong enough to piss off America's true Patriots. Barack was a no good senator that got elected twice. May Almighty God continue to Bless America's taxpaying legal citizens during President Trump's second term. The Clintons and the Bidons are political garbage. Never vote for an Antifa loving, BLM supporting, Police defunding, Leftist Commie Pinko Democrat this Century. God Bless President Trump. Jehovah Shalom

[Stormsmith]

Chad, dear...life is short. I don't read you

[Stormsmith]

Dr Lee

I read a review on British jails a few years ago. They had been government owned and operated. Then some privately owned ones were introduced. There was a marked increase in violence. Later, Micheal Moore looked a much more relaxed European prisons and noted a reduction of recidivism

But what moved me the most was when Moore travels to Norway and visits what they describe as maximum security prisons, places that seem to be run like hotels where prisoners and prison guards act in harmony with one another, as opposed to American prisons where a cat and dog mentality exists and prisoners are treated like dirt. For me, seeing this for the first time made me shake my head in disbelief, especially when the documentary showed that prisoners had rooms that contained their own showers. With further research I found out that Norway’s prison system is based on the concept of restorative justice, which repairs the harm caused by crime instead of punishing individuals. Prisoners are treated like human beings and live in a humane environment. Their prisons have no bars on their windows and their kitchens are fully equipped with what would be considered to be contraband objects in American prisons.

Prisoners in Norway live in environments that do not create systematic dependency. In sum, Norway focuses on rehabilitating prisoners instead of just warehousing them, enabling them to becoming better prepared to reenter society when released. This can be seen where Norway’s 20% recidivism rate is one of the lowest in the world, as compared to the United States where 76.6 % of prisoners are re-arrested within five years.

By adapting a less punitive approach, Norway’s prisons prepare prisoners to return to the real world, arming them with the skills needed to effectively reenter society. Even sentences for serious crimes are limited to a maximum sentence of 21 years. However, after serving the sentence if the prisoner is found not to be rehabilitated they can be served with indefinite five year terms.

[url]huffpost.com/entry/michael-moore-norway-prison_b_9267424[/url]