On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 12:33:47 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:

> The American Constitution will never be amended again. It is what it
> will be until the republic falls.

Under current circumstances, I admit that any new Constitutional amendments
are unlikely.

However, I am hesitant to claim that current political problems will still beset us
3,000 years into the future, let alone, say, 100,000,000 years into the future.

John Savard

On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 10:02:05 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 05 May 2022 09:08:56 -0700, Paul S Person
> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 4 May 2022 20:32:23 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 6:59:00 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> >>> On 5/4/2022 2:18 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
> >>
> >>> > If we are discussing this coming court decision,
> >>> > please satisfy my curiosity: what would be the position
> >>> > now, Wednesday, if half of the justices had been shot
> >>> > dead on Tuesday?
> >>
> >>> John Grisham wrote a book about that. The outcome was not good.
> >>>
> >>> I'll give you a hint, "The Pelican Brief". You can even watch a movie
> >>> about it.
> >>
> >>I don't think that anything like that is likely to happen.
> >>
> >>But two people hold the power to ensure it won't happen.
> >>
> >>Manchin and Sinema. They just have to get out of the way, so that Biden
> >>_can_ enlarge the Supreme Court.
> >
> >Enlarging the Court isn't the answer.
> >
> >Two of the Justices appear to have testified, under oath, that they
> >would respect and not try to overturn Roe v Wade. If they do, they can
> >be impeached for moral turpitude.
> >
> >Two more recent Justices appear to have lied to /Republicans/ about
> >respecting Roe v Wade. Since they were not under oath, this would be
> >harder, but they, also, could be impeached and convicted for moral
> >turpitude.
> >
> >But I don't think it's gonna happen. Even it Roe v Wade falls.
> Impeach away. What makes you think it will any more effective when
> applied to a Supreme Court justice than it did when applied to Trump.
> To get them out of office you don't just have to impeach them, you
> have to _convict_ them which requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate
> that you do not have.
>
> Oh, and lying under oath is called "perjury", not "moral turpitude".

This is the text that can be construed to match Paul P's MT standard:

[quote]

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such
inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges,
both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,
and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be
diminished during their Continuance in Office.

[/quote] - {Constitution, Article III, section 1}

AThe commentator continues:

[quote]

.... The applicability of the Good Behavior Clause to the removal of federal judges has
been the subject of debate; in particular, whether the phrase elucidates a distinct standard
for removal apart from the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard applicable to the
impeachment of other federal officers.

[/quote]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-1/good-behavior-clause-overview

Judges and Justices don't usually get removed by the Senate for
vague charges under the "Good Behaviour" clause. There's usua lly
an underlying "high crime" and/or "misdemeanor, " but not always.

[quote]

The United States Senate has removed judges from office for substantial questionable
conduct, even if no crime was committed. For example, Judge Robert Wodrow Archbald
was impeached and removed from office for improper business relationships with litigants.
One reason for this may be the life tenure bestowed upon federal judges and the Congress'
place in upholding the good behavior of judges.

.....

Fifteen federal judges have been impeached. Of those fifteen: eight were convicted by the
Senate, four were acquitted by the Senate, and three resigned before an outcome at trial.

[/quote] https://ballotpedia.org/Impeachment_of_federal_judges

That's in over 200 years.

One might argue that a nominee that made a declaration
on how he or she would rule on a theoretical case that
challenged existing precedent was lying to Congress,
when he or she voted contrary to any such declaration.
Two problems with that: the first is that the nominees
make e very sort of verbal contortion to _not_ promise
to rule on way or another, frequently dodging the Senator's
question. Then the next solon in line asks the same damned
thing, so that each lawmaker's home state TV and radio
stations can have a clip to run on the local news.

The other problem is that justices who are counted by
pundits, Senators, administration staffers et al as
in the bag for one side or the other have been known
to change their minds.

Eisenhower is reported to have called nominating Earl Warren
“the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made..."

https://www.lawweekly.org/col/2018/10/17/ikes-mistake-the-accidental-creation-of-the-warren-court

_Roe_ was a 7-2 decision. Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote
for the majority, was a conservative, as was Chief Justice Berger.
Only 2 conservatives dissented: Rehnquist and White.

--
Kevin R

On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:33:59 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-05-06 2:39 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:

> > The Supreme Court certainly held that. And at the time it _was_ the
> > law of the land. Where is the lie?

> In saying he accepted it.

That, of course, depends on which meaning of the word "accepted" that you use.

After all, Neil Gorsuch never participated in demonstrations outside abortion
clinics, for example.

John Savard

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 2:02:17 AM UTC-6, Kevrob wrote:

> Eisenhower is reported to have called nominating Earl Warren
> “the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made..."

That may be, but he may also have lived long enough to realilze
that it was a "mistake" that future generations would thank him
for.

John Savard

On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:38:42 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2022-05-05 7:57 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 May 2022 09:06:31 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 05 May 2022 01:24:15 -0400, J. Clarke
>>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 4 May 2022 20:32:23 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 6:59:00 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/4/2022 2:18 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we are discussing this coming court decision,
>>>>>>> please satisfy my curiosity: what would be the position
>>>>>>> now, Wednesday, if half of the justices had been shot
>>>>>>> dead on Tuesday?
>>>>>
>>>>>> John Grisham wrote a book about that. The outcome was not good.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'll give you a hint, "The Pelican Brief". You can even watch a movie
>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think that anything like that is likely to happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> But two people hold the power to ensure it won't happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Manchin and Sinema. They just have to get out of the way, so that Biden
>>>>> _can_ enlarge the Supreme Court.
>>>>
>>>> And then at the next election it gets enlarged again and the ruling
>>>> gets reversed again.
>>>>
>>>> The right way to do this is to amend the Constitution, but that
>>>> requires a consensus that Democrats are too incompetent and lazy and
>>>> impatient to build.
>>>
>>> They don't have the votes now, and aren't likely to have them after
>>> next November, no matter what happens.
>>>
>>> For one thing, they would need 3/4 of the States to ratify it.
>>
>> And that is exactly the problem. "We want our rights and we don't
>> care _how_, we want our rev-o-lu-tion NOW!". It will take a very logn
>> time, decades, of concerted effort to establish that consensus.
>
>Oh bullshit. It's just impossible. One party is not going to cooperate
>with another to give that party a policy win.

That only applies if both parties go on forever.

The Ancients believed that everything went on as it always had, and
always would, albeit getting slowly worse.

One reason evolution (ie, change) is fundamental to Science is
precisely because it is in opposition to that attitude. That is,
Science (as an attitude) believes things have always been /changing/,
not that things have always been the same.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 26 May 2022 01:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:

>On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 10:02:05 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>> On Thu, 05 May 2022 09:08:56 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 4 May 2022 20:32:23 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>> >wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 6:59:00 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> >>> On 5/4/2022 2:18 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> > If we are discussing this coming court decision,
>> >>> > please satisfy my curiosity: what would be the position
>> >>> > now, Wednesday, if half of the justices had been shot
>> >>> > dead on Tuesday?
>> >>
>> >>> John Grisham wrote a book about that. The outcome was not good.
>> >>>
>> >>> I'll give you a hint, "The Pelican Brief". You can even watch a movie
>> >>> about it.
>> >>
>> >>I don't think that anything like that is likely to happen.
>> >>
>> >>But two people hold the power to ensure it won't happen.
>> >>
>> >>Manchin and Sinema. They just have to get out of the way, so that Biden
>> >>_can_ enlarge the Supreme Court.
>> >
>> >Enlarging the Court isn't the answer.
>> >
>> >Two of the Justices appear to have testified, under oath, that they
>> >would respect and not try to overturn Roe v Wade. If they do, they can
>> >be impeached for moral turpitude.
>> >
>> >Two more recent Justices appear to have lied to /Republicans/ about
>> >respecting Roe v Wade. Since they were not under oath, this would be
>> >harder, but they, also, could be impeached and convicted for moral
>> >turpitude.
>> >
>> >But I don't think it's gonna happen. Even it Roe v Wade falls.
>> Impeach away. What makes you think it will any more effective when
>> applied to a Supreme Court justice than it did when applied to Trump.
>> To get them out of office you don't just have to impeach them, you
>> have to _convict_ them which requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate
>> that you do not have.
>>
>> Oh, and lying under oath is called "perjury", not "moral turpitude".
>
>This is the text that can be construed to match Paul P's MT standard:
>
>[quote]
>
>The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such
>inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges,
>both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,
>and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be
>diminished during their Continuance in Office.
>
>[/quote] - {Constitution, Article III, section 1}
>
>AThe commentator continues:
>
>[quote]
>
>... The applicability of the Good Behavior Clause to the removal of federal judges has
>been the subject of debate; in particular, whether the phrase elucidates a distinct standard
>for removal apart from the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard applicable to the
>impeachment of other federal officers.
>
>[/quote]
>
>https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-1/good-behavior-clause-overview
>
>Judges and Justices don't usually get removed by the Senate for
>vague charges under the "Good Behaviour" clause. There's usua lly
>an underlying "high crime" and/or "misdemeanor, " but not always.
>
>[quote]
>
>The United States Senate has removed judges from office for substantial questionable
>conduct, even if no crime was committed. For example, Judge Robert Wodrow Archbald
>was impeached and removed from office for improper business relationships with litigants.
>One reason for this may be the life tenure bestowed upon federal judges and the Congress'
>place in upholding the good behavior of judges.
>
>....
>
>Fifteen federal judges have been impeached. Of those fifteen: eight were convicted by the
>Senate, four were acquitted by the Senate, and three resigned before an outcome at trial.
>
>[/quote] https://ballotpedia.org/Impeachment_of_federal_judges
>
>That's in over 200 years.
>
>One might argue that a nominee that made a declaration
>on how he or she would rule on a theoretical case that
>challenged existing precedent was lying to Congress,
>when he or she voted contrary to any such declaration.
>Two problems with that: the first is that the nominees
>make e very sort of verbal contortion to _not_ promise
>to rule on way or another, frequently dodging the Senator's
>question. Then the next solon in line asks the same damned
>thing, so that each lawmaker's home state TV and radio
>stations can have a clip to run on the local news.
>
>The other problem is that justices who are counted by
>pundits, Senators, administration staffers et al as
>in the bag for one side or the other have been known
>to change their minds.

That is because they fail to distinguish between a /social/
conservative and a /judicial/ conservative.

>Eisenhower is reported to have called nominating Earl Warren
>“the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made..."
>
>https://www.lawweekly.org/col/2018/10/17/ikes-mistake-the-accidental-creation-of-the-warren-court
>
>_Roe_ was a 7-2 decision. Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote
>for the majority, was a conservative, as was Chief Justice Berger.
>Only 2 conservatives dissented: Rehnquist and White.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Thu, 26 May 2022 01:04:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:33:59 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2022-05-06 2:39 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> > The Supreme Court certainly held that. And at the time it _was_ the
>> > law of the land. Where is the lie?
>
>> In saying he accepted it.
>
>That, of course, depends on which meaning of the word "accepted" that you use.
>
>After all, Neil Gorsuch never participated in demonstrations outside abortion
>clinics, for example.

What is he supposed to do, deny it? Black people in the South in the
1850s accepted that slavery was the law of the land. Does that mean
that they liked it or approved of it or wouldn't change it if they
could?

On Thu, 26 May 2022 09:14:35 -0700, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 26 May 2022 01:02:15 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thursday, May 5, 2022 at 10:02:05 PM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 May 2022 09:08:56 -0700, Paul S Person
>>> <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>> >On Wed, 4 May 2022 20:32:23 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca>
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 6:59:00 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> >>> On 5/4/2022 2:18 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> > If we are discussing this coming court decision,
>>> >>> > please satisfy my curiosity: what would be the position
>>> >>> > now, Wednesday, if half of the justices had been shot
>>> >>> > dead on Tuesday?
>>> >>
>>> >>> John Grisham wrote a book about that. The outcome was not good.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I'll give you a hint, "The Pelican Brief". You can even watch a movie
>>> >>> about it.
>>> >>
>>> >>I don't think that anything like that is likely to happen.
>>> >>
>>> >>But two people hold the power to ensure it won't happen.
>>> >>
>>> >>Manchin and Sinema. They just have to get out of the way, so that Biden
>>> >>_can_ enlarge the Supreme Court.
>>> >
>>> >Enlarging the Court isn't the answer.
>>> >
>>> >Two of the Justices appear to have testified, under oath, that they
>>> >would respect and not try to overturn Roe v Wade. If they do, they can
>>> >be impeached for moral turpitude.
>>> >
>>> >Two more recent Justices appear to have lied to /Republicans/ about
>>> >respecting Roe v Wade. Since they were not under oath, this would be
>>> >harder, but they, also, could be impeached and convicted for moral
>>> >turpitude.
>>> >
>>> >But I don't think it's gonna happen. Even it Roe v Wade falls.
>>> Impeach away. What makes you think it will any more effective when
>>> applied to a Supreme Court justice than it did when applied to Trump.
>>> To get them out of office you don't just have to impeach them, you
>>> have to _convict_ them which requires a 2/3 majority in the Senate
>>> that you do not have.
>>>
>>> Oh, and lying under oath is called "perjury", not "moral turpitude".
>>
>>This is the text that can be construed to match Paul P's MT standard:
>>
>>[quote]
>>
>>The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such
>>inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges,
>>both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour,
>>and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be
>>diminished during their Continuance in Office.
>>
>>[/quote] - {Constitution, Article III, section 1}
>>
>>AThe commentator continues:
>>
>>[quote]
>>
>>... The applicability of the Good Behavior Clause to the removal of federal judges has
>>been the subject of debate; in particular, whether the phrase elucidates a distinct standard
>>for removal apart from the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard applicable to the
>>impeachment of other federal officers.
>>
>>[/quote]
>>
>>https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-3/section-1/good-behavior-clause-overview
>>
>>Judges and Justices don't usually get removed by the Senate for
>>vague charges under the "Good Behaviour" clause. There's usua lly
>>an underlying "high crime" and/or "misdemeanor, " but not always.
>>
>>[quote]
>>
>>The United States Senate has removed judges from office for substantial questionable
>>conduct, even if no crime was committed. For example, Judge Robert Wodrow Archbald
>>was impeached and removed from office for improper business relationships with litigants.
>>One reason for this may be the life tenure bestowed upon federal judges and the Congress'
>>place in upholding the good behavior of judges.
>>
>>....
>>
>>Fifteen federal judges have been impeached. Of those fifteen: eight were convicted by the
>>Senate, four were acquitted by the Senate, and three resigned before an outcome at trial.
>>
>>[/quote] https://ballotpedia.org/Impeachment_of_federal_judges
>>
>>That's in over 200 years.
>>
>>One might argue that a nominee that made a declaration
>>on how he or she would rule on a theoretical case that
>>challenged existing precedent was lying to Congress,
>>when he or she voted contrary to any such declaration.
>>Two problems with that: the first is that the nominees
>>make e very sort of verbal contortion to _not_ promise
>>to rule on way or another, frequently dodging the Senator's
>>question. Then the next solon in line asks the same damned
>>thing, so that each lawmaker's home state TV and radio
>>stations can have a clip to run on the local news.
>>
>>The other problem is that justices who are counted by
>>pundits, Senators, administration staffers et al as
>>in the bag for one side or the other have been known
>>to change their minds.
>
>That is because they fail to distinguish between a /social/
>conservative and a /judicial/ conservative.

Or they just plain don't understand the law game.

>>Eisenhower is reported to have called nominating Earl Warren
>>“the biggest damn-fool mistake I ever made..."
>>
>>https://www.lawweekly.org/col/2018/10/17/ikes-mistake-the-accidental-creation-of-the-warren-court
>>
>>_Roe_ was a 7-2 decision. Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote
>>for the majority, was a conservative, as was Chief Justice Berger.
>>Only 2 conservatives dissented: Rehnquist and White.

On 2022-05-26 10:10 a.m., Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2022 12:38:42 -0600, David Johnston
> <davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2022-05-05 7:57 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
>>> On Thu, 05 May 2022 09:06:31 -0700, Paul S Person
>>> <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 05 May 2022 01:24:15 -0400, J. Clarke
>>>> <jclarke.873638@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 4 May 2022 20:32:23 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 6:59:00 PM UTC-6, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/4/2022 2:18 PM, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we are discussing this coming court decision,
>>>>>>>> please satisfy my curiosity: what would be the position
>>>>>>>> now, Wednesday, if half of the justices had been shot
>>>>>>>> dead on Tuesday?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Grisham wrote a book about that. The outcome was not good.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'll give you a hint, "The Pelican Brief". You can even watch a movie
>>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think that anything like that is likely to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But two people hold the power to ensure it won't happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Manchin and Sinema. They just have to get out of the way, so that Biden
>>>>>> _can_ enlarge the Supreme Court.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then at the next election it gets enlarged again and the ruling
>>>>> gets reversed again.
>>>>>
>>>>> The right way to do this is to amend the Constitution, but that
>>>>> requires a consensus that Democrats are too incompetent and lazy and
>>>>> impatient to build.
>>>>
>>>> They don't have the votes now, and aren't likely to have them after
>>>> next November, no matter what happens.
>>>>
>>>> For one thing, they would need 3/4 of the States to ratify it.
>>>
>>> And that is exactly the problem. "We want our rights and we don't
>>> care _how_, we want our rev-o-lu-tion NOW!". It will take a very logn
>>> time, decades, of concerted effort to establish that consensus.
>>
>> Oh bullshit. It's just impossible. One party is not going to cooperate
>> with another to give that party a policy win.
>
> That only applies if both parties go on forever.

Not forever. It stops when the United States collapses and takes the
United States Constitution with it. That the United States can no
longer amend its constitution is one of the signs that such a thing
seems likely in the next century or two.

In Nora Roberts (J.D. Robb) Eve Dallas series, bullet firing weapons are
now functionally illegal and there are two reasons for that. The first
is that an improbable "stunner" technology has been developed and is
being used even by the cops. The second is that the American government
collapsed or as good as collapsed in what she calls "The Urban Wars" and
was replaced by a new one.

Of course that's a case of science fiction being outdated by the march
of real time. The time frame of the Urban Wars is already past. That's
the problem with continuing the same series for 20 years.

On 2022-05-26 1:59 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 12:33:47 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>
>> The American Constitution will never be amended again. It is what it
>> will be until the republic falls.
>
> Under current circumstances, I admit that any new Constitutional amendments
> are unlikely.
>
> However, I am hesitant to claim that current political problems will still beset us
> 3,000 years into the future, let alone, say, 100,000,000 years into the future.

The idea that the American republic will last 3,000 years into the
future is pretty silly. It's a brave science fiction author who has it
last 300 years into the future.

On 2022-05-26 10:26 a.m., J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 01:04:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:33:59 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-06 2:39 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>> The Supreme Court certainly held that. And at the time it _was_ the
>>>> law of the land. Where is the lie?
>>
>>> In saying he accepted it.
>>
>> That, of course, depends on which meaning of the word "accepted" that you use.
>>
>> After all, Neil Gorsuch never participated in demonstrations outside abortion
>> clinics, for example.
>
> What is he supposed to do, deny it? Black people in the South in the
> 1850s accepted that slavery was the law of the land.

Ah-ah-ah. You are rephrasing. What Gorsuch said in this context was "I
accept the law of the land".

Does that mean
> that they liked it or approved of it or wouldn't change it if they
> could?

If a black person in the 1850s said "I accept the law of the land" in
the context of slavery, then yes, that would be disavowing an intent to
change it. Now an argument can be made that that he'd only be doing
that because he didn't expect to ever have an opportunity to change it
and that was what he really accepted. After all it took luckily timed
mortality and dodgy legislative antics to create the anti-abortion majority.

On 5/26/2022 4:42 PM, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-05-26 1:59 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 12:33:47 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>>
>>> The American Constitution will never be amended again. It is what it
>>> will be until the republic falls.
>>
>> Under current circumstances, I admit that any new Constitutional
>> amendments
>> are unlikely.
>>
>> However, I am hesitant to claim that current political problems will
>> still beset us
>> 3,000 years into the future, let alone, say, 100,000,000 years into
>> the future.
>
> The idea that the American republic will last 3,000 years into the
> future is pretty silly.  It's a brave science fiction author who has it
> last 300 years into the future.

Travis Taylor has the USA last at least three hundred years more with
over two hundred states including colonies on Mars and the Moon. And
FTL space ships.
https://www.amazon.com/One-Day-Mars-Ceti-Agenda/dp/1416591575/

"One Day on Mars (2007) is the first SF novel in the Tau Ceti Agenda
series. In 2383 AD, the United States of America has expanded to
include all nations on Earth and almost all inhabited parts of the Solar
System. Colonies have also been planted on four extrasolar planets."

Lynn

On 2022-05-26 9:26 a.m., J. Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 01:04:28 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 1:33:59 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-06 2:39 p.m., J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>>> The Supreme Court certainly held that. And at the time it _was_ the
>>>> law of the land. Where is the lie?
>>
>>> In saying he accepted it.
>>
>> That, of course, depends on which meaning of the word "accepted" that you use.
>>
>> After all, Neil Gorsuch never participated in demonstrations outside abortion
>> clinics, for example.
>
> What is he supposed to do, deny it? Black people in the South in the
> 1850s accepted that slavery was the law of the land. Does that mean
> that they liked it or approved of it or wouldn't change it if they
> could?

They "accepted" it, did they?

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 3:42:11 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-05-26 1:59 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 12:33:47 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
> >
> >> The American Constitution will never be amended again. It is what it
> >> will be until the republic falls.
> >
> > Under current circumstances, I admit that any new Constitutional amendments
> > are unlikely.
> >
> > However, I am hesitant to claim that current political problems will still beset us
> > 3,000 years into the future, let alone, say, 100,000,000 years into the future.

> The idea that the American republic will last 3,000 years into the
> future is pretty silly. It's a brave science fiction author who has it
> last 300 years into the future.

Oh, I do agree that it is silly to claim that the United States will definitely still be here
300 years from now, but I also think it's silly to claim that it definitely _won't_ be here
even 3,000 years from now either.

Now, it may happen that 3,000 years from now, the United States will simply be a
member nation of the World Union, and its voters will elect representatives to the
World Parliament - rather than being fully sovereign. So people from Mexico wouldn't
need permission to come to the United States to take jobs, as both countries - as well
as many others - would then be part of the Schengen Area.

John Savard

On 2022-05-26 7:50 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 3:42:11 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>> On 2022-05-26 1:59 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 12:33:47 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>>>
>>>> The American Constitution will never be amended again. It is what it
>>>> will be until the republic falls.
>>>
>>> Under current circumstances, I admit that any new Constitutional amendments
>>> are unlikely.
>>>
>>> However, I am hesitant to claim that current political problems will still beset us
>>> 3,000 years into the future, let alone, say, 100,000,000 years into the future.
>
>> The idea that the American republic will last 3,000 years into the
>> future is pretty silly. It's a brave science fiction author who has it
>> last 300 years into the future.
>
> Oh, I do agree that it is silly to claim that the United States will definitely still be here
> 300 years from now, but I also think it's silly to claim that it definitely _won't_ be here
> even 3,000 years from now either.

I am over 99% sure that it won't.

>
> Now, it may happen that 3,000 years from now, the United States will simply be a
> member nation of the World Union, and its voters will elect representatives to the
> World Parliament -

If that happened then the American republic would no longer exist. It
would also no longer exist if it became a dictatorship. Even if that
dictatorship was overthrown and a new American republic was founded that
claimed to restore it. That would really be a second American republic

rather than being fully sovereign. So people from Mexico wouldn't
> need permission to come to the United States to take jobs, as both countries - as well
> as many others - would then be part of the Schengen Area.
>
> John Savard

On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 8:13:52 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
> On 2022-05-26 7:50 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:

> > Now, it may happen that 3,000 years from now, the United States will simply be a
> > member nation of the World Union, and its voters will elect representatives to the
> > World Parliament -

> If that happened then the American republic would no longer exist.

Zut alors! Les citoyens du France serait etonée qu'ils aurait que
le Republique Française n'existe pas!

Oh, my! The people of France will be astonished when they hear
that the French Republic no longer exists.

France is a member nation of the European Union, although I don't know
if its representatives in the European Parliament are elected directly or
merely appointed.

John Savard

On Thu, 26 May 2022 20:13:46 -0600, David Johnston
<davidjohnston29@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On 2022-05-26 7:50 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 3:42:11 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>>> On 2022-05-26 1:59 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 12:33:47 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The American Constitution will never be amended again. It is what it
>>>>> will be until the republic falls.
>>>>
>>>> Under current circumstances, I admit that any new Constitutional amendments
>>>> are unlikely.
>>>>
>>>> However, I am hesitant to claim that current political problems will still beset us
>>>> 3,000 years into the future, let alone, say, 100,000,000 years into the future.
>>
>>> The idea that the American republic will last 3,000 years into the
>>> future is pretty silly. It's a brave science fiction author who has it
>>> last 300 years into the future.
>>
>> Oh, I do agree that it is silly to claim that the United States will definitely still be here
>> 300 years from now, but I also think it's silly to claim that it definitely _won't_ be here
>> even 3,000 years from now either.
>
>I am over 99% sure that it won't.
>
>>
>> Now, it may happen that 3,000 years from now, the United States will simply be a
>> member nation of the World Union, and its voters will elect representatives to the
>> World Parliament -
>
>If that happened then the American republic would no longer exist. It
>would also no longer exist if it became a dictatorship. Even if that
>dictatorship was overthrown and a new American republic was founded that
>claimed to restore it. That would really be a second American republic

France is currently on its 5th Republic (also, what, two Empires and a
Restored Monarchy) sinced the Revolution, yet it is still ...
Republican France.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."

On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:33:02 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Thu, 26 May 2022 20:13:46 -0600, David Johnston
> <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On 2022-05-26 7:50 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> >> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 3:42:11 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
> >>> On 2022-05-26 1:59 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 12:33:47 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> The American Constitution will never be amended again. It is what it
> >>>>> will be until the republic falls.
> >>>>
> >>>> Under current circumstances, I admit that any new Constitutional amendments
> >>>> are unlikely.
> >>>>
> >>>> However, I am hesitant to claim that current political problems will still beset us
> >>>> 3,000 years into the future, let alone, say, 100,000,000 years into the future.
> >>
> >>> The idea that the American republic will last 3,000 years into the
> >>> future is pretty silly. It's a brave science fiction author who has it
> >>> last 300 years into the future.
> >>
> >> Oh, I do agree that it is silly to claim that the United States will definitely still be here
> >> 300 years from now, but I also think it's silly to claim that it definitely _won't_ be here
> >> even 3,000 years from now either.
> >
> >I am over 99% sure that it won't.
> >
> >>
> >> Now, it may happen that 3,000 years from now, the United States will simply be a
> >> member nation of the World Union, and its voters will elect representatives to the
> >> World Parliament -
> >
> >If that happened then the American republic would no longer exist. It
> >would also no longer exist if it became a dictatorship. Even if that
> >dictatorship was overthrown and a new American republic was founded that
> >claimed to restore it. That would really be a second American republic
> France is currently on its 5th Republic (also, what, two Empires and a
> Restored Monarchy) sinced the Revolution, yet it is still ...
> Republican France.
> --

When a member of an alliance, treaty organization or confederation
ceases to be truly sovereign and becomes a province of a larger polity
is a problem as old as the Delian League .

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delian_League

I have sometimes replied to those who complain "That's ancient history!"
that they should perhaps learn some.

--
Kevin R

On Sunday, June 5, 2022 at 2:28:20 PM UTC-4, Kevrob wrote:
> On Friday, May 27, 2022 at 11:33:02 AM UTC-4, Paul S Person wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 May 2022 20:13:46 -0600, David Johnston
> > <davidjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On 2022-05-26 7:50 p.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, May 26, 2022 at 3:42:11 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
> > >>> On 2022-05-26 1:59 a.m., Quadibloc wrote:
> > >>>> On Wednesday, May 25, 2022 at 12:33:47 PM UTC-6, David Johnston wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> The American Constitution will never be amended again. It is what it
> > >>>>> will be until the republic falls.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Under current circumstances, I admit that any new Constitutional amendments
> > >>>> are unlikely.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> However, I am hesitant to claim that current political problems will still beset us
> > >>>> 3,000 years into the future, let alone, say, 100,000,000 years into the future.
> > >>
> > >>> The idea that the American republic will last 3,000 years into the
> > >>> future is pretty silly. It's a brave science fiction author who has it
> > >>> last 300 years into the future.
> > >>
> > >> Oh, I do agree that it is silly to claim that the United States will definitely still be here
> > >> 300 years from now, but I also think it's silly to claim that it definitely _won't_ be here
> > >> even 3,000 years from now either.
> > >
> > >I am over 99% sure that it won't.
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Now, it may happen that 3,000 years from now, the United States will simply be a
> > >> member nation of the World Union, and its voters will elect representatives to the
> > >> World Parliament -
> > >
> > >If that happened then the American republic would no longer exist. It
> > >would also no longer exist if it became a dictatorship. Even if that
> > >dictatorship was overthrown and a new American republic was founded that
> > >claimed to restore it. That would really be a second American republic
> > France is currently on its 5th Republic (also, what, two Empires and a
> > Restored Monarchy) sinced the Revolution, yet it is still ...
> > Republican France.
> > --
> When a member of an alliance, treaty organization or confederation
> ceases to be truly sovereign and becomes a province of a larger polity
> is a problem as old as the Delian League .
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delian_League
>
> I have sometimes replied to those who complain "That's ancient history!"
> that they should perhaps learn some.

The founders of our various systems of government were all deeply read in
ancient Greek history and drew lessons therefrom. If you want to understand
the founders you have to understand their intellectual world. I rather suspect that
if you asked Jefferson or Melbourne about the Delian league, they could go on
for hours.

It's not terribly relevant as he was a modifier, not a founder, but Gladstone opined
that if the bible (and he was a devout Christian) and all such references were
lost, we could do just as well basing our moral code on Homer.

I can't see that myself, perhaps because I am very ignorant of Homer. But I do know
that it has almost as much violence as the Bible, so there's that.

William Hyde