TimTurner/Punxsutawney Phil 30,000 posts AMA

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

This OP is my 30,000th post.
To mark this occasion, I'm opening an AMA thread.
Ask away.

[Pedocon Theory is not a theory]

When are you going to get a job and move out of the basement?

-Love, Mom

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

When are you going to get a job and move out of the basement?

-Love, Mom

I already have a job. I work professionally as an author, after hobby-writing for almost a decade. I appreciate your concern though.

[MarkD]

It's your turn now. I have drafted a proposal for a constitutional amendment and would like your reaction, as you've probably seen me ask several others. Would you support or oppose this?

Below is a summary of the proposal, not the full draft. My proposal has a Preamble and four sections. The Preamble begins with a two-paragraph-long quotation from Justice James Iredell in the 1798 case of Calder v. Bull, then the Preamble concludes: "The purpose of this article of the US Constitution is to give three previous amendments greater clarity and precision. The United States government and the respective states should have clear and precise guidelines about their legislative powers. This article will clarify two amendments that are binding on the United States, and it replaces a part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is binding on the states."

Section 1: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment shall henceforth be understood to only mean procedural due process, not substantive due process. In other words, government must not punish anyone without affording that person fair procedures, but the courts are not to second-guess the merits of the laws being enforced. But the federal government does have to treat everyone equally, the same way the states have to according to Section 3(b) of my proposal.
Section 2: The Ninth Amendment is only binding on the federal government, not on the states. The purpose of the Ninth was and is parallel to the Tenth Amendment.
Section 3: The second sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and that sentence will be replaced with a new set of rules designed to be narrower and clearer.
3(a) The states have to obey enumerated rights in the first eight amendments, but the only unenumerated right that states have to obey is the right to interstate travel. The Supreme Court has twice said "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, ..." but my proposal tells the Court, and the rest of the country, that statement was completely incorrect. The federal judiciary has neither an obligation nor a prerogative to define liberty. The judiciary's obligation is to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution, not to expand them. The federal judiciary is instructed to stop declaring that states have to obey "fundamental rights" and "basic civil rights" that are not in the Constitution (again, with the one exception being the right to interstate travel). Therefore the Court's decisions about contraceptives, sodomy, and any other libertarian ideas not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, no matter how controversial or uncontroversial, will all be overturned.
3(b) The states are not allowed to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability status (and because of Section 1 above, the same will go for the federal government). Other than those six kinds of discrimination, all other kinds of discrimination are allowed. The rulings made by federal courts in 2013-2015 about same-sex marriage will be preserved. There will be no such thing as a "fundamental right to marry," but bans on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage will still be unconstitutional.
3(c) The states still have to respect voting rights as established in nearly all precedents the Supreme Court has laid down on that subject so far. In order to prevent gerrymandering of congressional or state legislative districts, redistricting must be done by independent redistricting commissions.
Section 4: Bush v. Gore was the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever rendered, and nothing like it must ever occur again.

(Thanks to an intriguing conversation I had a while ago with user Big Abraham, I thought of another way to accomplish the same goal with a different kind of structure. I could say, in Section 3, that only the Equal Protection Clause of Section 1 of the 14th is repealed; I could leave the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Due Process Clause as they are. I would insert the DP Clause of the 14th into Section 1 where I discussed giving the first DP Clause a meaning that is more limited than the way the Court actually interprets the two clauses. I could say, in Section 3(a), that the Privileges or Immunities Clause has always been interpreted by the Court correctly thus far, but that the meaning of P/I should never be expanded. The net result of those changes would still give me the exact same goal as I was aiming for in my first draft. Going with either draft for this proposal is, for me, six of one, half dozen of another.)

Here is a way I have thought of explaining the potential political appeal of my proposal. I carefully designed my proposal to be a compromise between liberal and conservative points of view. Some specific elements will be appealing to conservatives but very much unappealing to liberals, while other elements will be appealing to liberals but very much unappealing to conservatives. Both sides will be giving up something important that they don't want to give up, but will get something else important in return.

Specific elements appealing to conservatives but repulsive to liberals.
 – Keep the McDonald v. City of Chicago precedent
 – Prevent Roe v. Wade and/or Planned Parenthood v. Casey from ever being reinstated
 – Overturn Plyler v. Doe
 – Prevent the federal courts from expanding the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause in any way other than what is enumerated in this proposal

Specific elements appealing to liberals but repulsive to conservatives.
 - Disallow government to discriminate on the basis on sex, in other words, the same principle as the ERA (this shall not mean, however, any effective revival of the right to abortion)
 – Disallow government to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and with this rule, preserve Obergefell v. Hodges
 – Disallow government to discriminate on the basis of gender identity (applying the Intermediate Scrutiny standard, which will also be applied for sex and sexual orientation, above)
 – Condemn the Bush v. Gore decision

Agreeable to both conservatives and liberals.
 – Continue imposing the Bill of Rights on the states
 – Continue protecting the equal right of all citizens to vote
 – Continue prohibiting government discrimination based on race and national origin
 – Start prohibiting government discrimination based on disability status (using J. P. Stevens' balancing test as the guiding method of legal analysis)
 – Require redistricting to be done by independent commissions

If you have any questions about the details in my proposal, I'd be happy to answer them.
So, are you interested in supporting this?

[Mr. Smith]

Ты понимаешь?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Ты понимаешь?

Не смог это прочитать и понять. Пришлось пользоваться переводчиком. (グーグル翻訳)

[Technocracy Timmy]

30,000 jesus

[Liminal Trans Girl]

When are you going to be paying your taxes?

-The IRS

[Ferguson97]

It's your turn now. I have drafted a proposal for a constitutional amendment and would like your reaction, as you've probably seen me ask several others. Would you support or oppose this?

Below is a summary of the proposal, not the full draft. My proposal has a Preamble and four sections. The Preamble begins with a two-paragraph-long quotation from Justice James Iredell in the 1798 case of Calder v. Bull, then the Preamble concludes: "The purpose of this article of the US Constitution is to give three previous amendments greater clarity and precision. The United States government and the respective states should have clear and precise guidelines about their legislative powers. This article will clarify two amendments that are binding on the United States, and it replaces a part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is binding on the states."

Section 1: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment shall henceforth be understood to only mean procedural due process, not substantive due process. In other words, government must not punish anyone without affording that person fair procedures, but the courts are not to second-guess the merits of the laws being enforced. But the federal government does have to treat everyone equally, the same way the states have to according to Section 3(b) of my proposal.
Section 2: The Ninth Amendment is only binding on the federal government, not on the states. The purpose of the Ninth was and is parallel to the Tenth Amendment.
Section 3: The second sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and that sentence will be replaced with a new set of rules designed to be narrower and clearer.
3(a) The states have to obey enumerated rights in the first eight amendments, but the only unenumerated right that states have to obey is the right to interstate travel. The Supreme Court has twice said "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, ..." but my proposal tells the Court, and the rest of the country, that statement was completely incorrect. The federal judiciary has neither an obligation nor a prerogative to define liberty. The judiciary's obligation is to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution, not to expand them. The federal judiciary is instructed to stop declaring that states have to obey "fundamental rights" and "basic civil rights" that are not in the Constitution (again, with the one exception being the right to interstate travel). Therefore the Court's decisions about contraceptives, sodomy, and any other libertarian ideas not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, no matter how controversial or uncontroversial, will all be overturned.
3(b) The states are not allowed to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability status (and because of Section 1 above, the same will go for the federal government). Other than those six kinds of discrimination, all other kinds of discrimination are allowed. The rulings made by federal courts in 2013-2015 about same-sex marriage will be preserved. There will be no such thing as a "fundamental right to marry," but bans on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage will still be unconstitutional.
3(c) The states still have to respect voting rights as established in nearly all precedents the Supreme Court has laid down on that subject so far. In order to prevent gerrymandering of congressional or state legislative districts, redistricting must be done by independent redistricting commissions.
Section 4: Bush v. Gore was the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever rendered, and nothing like it must ever occur again.

(Thanks to an intriguing conversation I had a while ago with user Big Abraham, I thought of another way to accomplish the same goal with a different kind of structure. I could say, in Section 3, that only the Equal Protection Clause of Section 1 of the 14th is repealed; I could leave the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the Due Process Clause as they are. I would insert the DP Clause of the 14th into Section 1 where I discussed giving the first DP Clause a meaning that is more limited than the way the Court actually interprets the two clauses. I could say, in Section 3(a), that the Privileges or Immunities Clause has always been interpreted by the Court correctly thus far, but that the meaning of P/I should never be expanded. The net result of those changes would still give me the exact same goal as I was aiming for in my first draft. Going with either draft for this proposal is, for me, six of one, half dozen of another.)

Here is a way I have thought of explaining the potential political appeal of my proposal. I carefully designed my proposal to be a compromise between liberal and conservative points of view. Some specific elements will be appealing to conservatives but very much unappealing to liberals, while other elements will be appealing to liberals but very much unappealing to conservatives. Both sides will be giving up something important that they don't want to give up, but will get something else important in return.

Specific elements appealing to conservatives but repulsive to liberals.
 – Keep the McDonald v. City of Chicago precedent
 – Prevent Roe v. Wade and/or Planned Parenthood v. Casey from ever being reinstated
 – Overturn Plyler v. Doe
 – Prevent the federal courts from expanding the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause in any way other than what is enumerated in this proposal

Specific elements appealing to liberals but repulsive to conservatives.
 - Disallow government to discriminate on the basis on sex, in other words, the same principle as the ERA (this shall not mean, however, any effective revival of the right to abortion)
 – Disallow government to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and with this rule, preserve Obergefell v. Hodges
 – Disallow government to discriminate on the basis of gender identity (applying the Intermediate Scrutiny standard, which will also be applied for sex and sexual orientation, above)
 – Condemn the Bush v. Gore decision

Agreeable to both conservatives and liberals.
 – Continue imposing the Bill of Rights on the states
 – Continue protecting the equal right of all citizens to vote
 – Continue prohibiting government discrimination based on race and national origin
 – Start prohibiting government discrimination based on disability status (using J. P. Stevens' balancing test as the guiding method of legal analysis)
 – Require redistricting to be done by independent commissions

If you have any questions about the details in my proposal, I'd be happy to answer them.
So, are you interested in supporting this?

Sir this is a Wendy’s

[MarkD]

I take it, Tim, that you're not interested?
_____

Would you support or oppose this?
~~~~~~~
So, are you interested in supporting this?

Sir this is a Wendy’s

So now you're aspiring to be another Badger? (And a comma goes after "Sir," ....)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I take it, Tim, that you're not interested?
_____

Would you support or oppose this?
~~~~~~~
So, are you interested in supporting this?

Sir this is a Wendy’s

So now you're aspiring to be another Badger? (And a comma goes after "Sir," ....)

I plan on giving a reply, but I've been very distracted with mapping stuff.
I promise to answer your question at some point.

[Alben Barkley]

What's your favorite drink?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What's your favorite drink?

I am a teetolar for religious reasons (though I very much see the appeal in alcohol for most people).
I've always liked orange juice, and cherry juice I like it even more though it's harder to get. I like most juices, though I vastly prefer those with higher juice content (preferably 100%).
Milk is great, and I love skim in particular. Skim is far better than whole or half-and-half particularly when you are working with chocolate or strawberry powder.
I also like cold water, regardless of the time of the year. During the winter snowstorm last year, I generally avoided it, but that was a rare exception.

[MarkD]

Are you still "distracted with mapping stuff"?

[Mr. Reactionary]

What are your most rightwing and leftwing opinions.

[President Johnson]

Do you have any relation to Prussia or Germany, or why is that avatar? Have you ever been to Germany?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I was planning to bump this when I reached my 32,000 post and answer all the questions within short order then (including MarkD's). It seems this thread has been busier than anticipated! I will answer all these either today or tomorrow. Keep the questions coming! Cheers. Danke. ありがとう。Etc.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

snip

So I'm in favor of ditching "substantiative due process" and I like that part (with the understanding that it was an unnecessary legal innovation).
I'm not in favor of forcing redistricting to be done by independent commissions, but if we are adopting a new framework, I'm not opposed to explicitly forcing states to respect voting rights decisions.
In general I'm more concerned with liberty is being sustainably protected than how that is done.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

What are your most rightwing and leftwing opinions.

Most right-wing (to use a conventional usage of the term I don't really agree with): my stances on some historical issues (you know which ones), as well as my lack of clear opposition to some things that can be considered "traditional" once upon a time.

Most left-wing: Attitude towards to the poor. Let's just say that Reaganite rhetoric about people on welfare has no appeal to me at all...

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Do you have any relation to Prussia or Germany, or why is that avatar? Have you ever been to Germany?

I like Prussian military songs and Germany more generally and find the history of Prussia interesting. When Virginia added a Prussia avatar back in 2019, I and Lumine both took it up.

I've never been to Germany myself. That's somewhere on my to-do-list of things to do before I die. I know about 100 or so German words (a good chunk of it from songs) so I'd have some ability to speak to Germans in their native language, though I would still be reliant on English skills I think...

[MarkD]

snip

So I'm in favor of ditching "substantiative due process" and I like that part (with the understanding that it was an unnecessary legal innovation).
I'm not in favor of forcing redistricting to be done by independent commissions, but if we are adopting a new framework, I'm not opposed to explicitly forcing states to respect voting rights decisions.
In general I'm more concerned with liberty is being sustainably protected than how that is done.

You seem ambivalent. Can you give me a simple yes or no answer -- yes, you would overcome your misgivings and support this proposal, or no, you object to it too much?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

snip

So I'm in favor of ditching "substantiative due process" and I like that part (with the understanding that it was an unnecessary legal innovation).
I'm not in favor of forcing redistricting to be done by independent commissions, but if we are adopting a new framework, I'm not opposed to explicitly forcing states to respect voting rights decisions.
In general I'm more concerned with liberty is being sustainably protected than how that is done.

You seem ambivalent. Can you give me a simple yes or no answer -- yes, you would overcome your misgivings and support this proposal, or no, you object to it too much?

I seek to be a man of my word. For me to give you a simple yes or no to something I am this  indecisive about would veer too close to lying.

[MarkD]

So be it. I'll mark you down as one of the posters who didn't answer per se. Have a splendiferous day!

[tik 🪀✨]

When are you going to get a job and move out of the basement?

-Love, Mom

I plan on giving a reply, but I've been very distracted with mapping stuff.
I promise to answer your question at some point.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

When are you going to get a job and move out of the basement?

-Love, Mom

I plan on giving a reply, but I've been very distracted with mapping stuff.
I promise to answer your question at some point.

Oh, tik. Nice to see you! Long time, no see.
This author career thing is probably going to be more successful for me than mining was for Chinese migrants in 1850s Victoria, considering I've been doing this as a hobby for about ten years before I got professional.