u/BlockAffectionate413

Stuff like Civil Rigts Act of 1964, 1968 banned discrimantion in housing, one passed by Nixon during 70s and later the ADA by Bush further expanded it to disability. Really first major Civil Rights Law was Civil Rights Act of 1866 that banned racial discrimnation in public adomation, contracts and many other things, but the Supreme Court later gutted it in Civil Rights cases over powerful, now canonical dissent by John Marshall Harlan, but later Warren/Burger court overulled those cases and restored and expended those laws. Today that has expended well beoynd race and deals with discrimantion based on sex, religion, country of origin, and disability. What do you think about that and would you support adding discrimantion based on poltiical views as well there?

Not everyone to be sure, but I have seen some focus too much on is crime violent or not. As a categorical rule, it seems ridiculous. Bernie Madoff might have been nonviolent; that does not mean his crime was not a big deal, he ruined countless people with his scheme. To be sure, some petty, nonviolent offenses might not be that serious, and likewise some violent stuff, like two 16 year olds pushing each other, might not be that serious, and even teenagers fighting in a school is certainly not inherently worse than someone scamming elderly people on internet, so line is not merely if it is " violent" or not, would you agree?

Chief Justice John Roberts said that Marshall has had more influence on the current US than most presidents. Indeed, Marshall, more than anybody, is to credit for US not developing as a loose union of powerful states but as a country with very powerful federal government. He established judicial review.   Marshall settled meaning of "necessary and proper clause" as very broad, reading "necessary" as" convinenet" to uphold the power of Congress to create national bank . Which some libertarians do not like. Here is Madison reacting to McCulloch:

>" In the great system of political economy, having for its general object, the national welfare, every thing is related immediately or remotely to every other thing; and consequently, a power over any one thing, if not limited by some obvious & precise affinity, may amount to a power over every other. Is there a Legislative power, in fact, not expressly prohibited by the Constitution, which might not, according to the doctrine of the Court, be exercised as a means of carrying into effect some specified power?”

In Gibbons he established that commerce clause is broad:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v._Ogden

Yet without Marshall, the US would not look like it does today or be superpower, what do you think?

Obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment, the Supreme Court has ruled that many times, as Justice Grosuch said:

>Of course, with almost any rule comes exceptions. And this Court has recognized a “few historic and traditional categories of expression long familiar to the bar” where content-based restrictions on speech will not automatically trigger strict scrutiny

Supreme Court has made Miller test of what counts as obscene:

• Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
• Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable law
• Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

So for those who of you who are actually conservative rather than libertine, sould Blanche enforce federal obscdnity laws more against, say, OnlyFans creators? I really dont get why we do not do so more.

For example, Vance's policy to give money to married couples to raise kids, you have some conservatives going like" oh since when do we support welfare? SoCiAliSM! We should abolish welfare state!", which is entirely unrealistic and menaigless posture. Welfare state will never be abolished. You will never, ever, unwind Helvering v. Davis historic setlement and social security/medicare. Screaming at sky about it does nothing. So instead surely it is better to use that welfare state to icentivize more productive things than current system that in some ways incentivizes single parents, rather than marriage and family. What do you think?

Peter Thiel has made good point, that in many fields, like Medicine, we have stagnated for a long time, not literally, but to a substantial extent. Maybe in roder to achive truly fast progress in those areas, we need to minimize human element. Make powerful AI, what Dario Amoedi calls country of geniuses in data center, tens of millions super smart AI agents working together non stop, automate large labs for them to run 24/7 , and then get hell out of the way and let them cook. I am optimistic about that. Progress in math is alredy becoming evident for example. What do you think?

Mandus lol, sorry for typo. After he became conviced of horrors of 20th century, and killed his sons to spare them fate he saw, he became monster and did countless crimes, so what finally made him snap out of it, why only in late December, after everything?

They were passed only few years after first amendment was ratified. One of 2 political blocks during the founding generation thought they were constitutional: federalists. John Adams famously arrested people who called him fat and bald. Hamilton and John Marshall himself also never claimed act was not constituional to my knowledge, indeed I really wonder how would Marshall rule if act was not repelled and chellenged while he was chief justice, but unfortuantly we dont know that. Now the Madison/Jefferson block did argue it is not constituional, but they were one block. So should act be taken as evidence of original meaning and limit of first amendment?