Robert Black
@hurricanexyz.bsky.social
Constitutional scholar, general law nerd, Izzet mage, bear lover, Mets fan.
Trans rights are constitutional rights!
Uphold Yang Wenli Thought
He/him
https://www.eveningconstitutional.net
History
54%
Political science
16%
Pinned
Introducing: Constitutional Perspectives!
Announcing a new project here at The Evening Constitutional!
As I wrote shortly after last November's election, one of my ambitions for this site is to create a library of materials explaining Americ...
eveningconstitutional.net
I have an announcement!!
Introducing a new project at The Evening Constitutional: Constitutional Perspectives!
This is a series of explanatory essays aiming to be of use for readers with any level of prior knowledge of constitutional law
eveningconstitutional.net/introducing-...
Introducing a new project at The Evening Constitutional: Constitutional Perspectives!
This is a series of explanatory essays aiming to be of use for readers with any level of prior knowledge of constitutional law
eveningconstitutional.net/introducing-...
Paine didn't really show up on political theory syllabi!
I have definitely read On Liberty lol
Well, you know, first things first
I would like to live in a society that is overflowing with kindness, please!
what I mean by this is almost literally the "we're evolving into Star Trek" thing, but like, I think it could be divorced and was in many cases from the "space frontier" idea
like, just the notion that society is Going Somewhere and where it is going is partially full of moral abundance
like, just the notion that society is Going Somewhere and where it is going is partially full of moral abundance
I am immediately in love with the idea of moral abundance
Yes and no
Reposted by Robert Black
what I mean by this is almost literally the "we're evolving into Star Trek" thing, but like, I think it could be divorced and was in many cases from the "space frontier" idea
like, just the notion that society is Going Somewhere and where it is going is partially full of moral abundance
like, just the notion that society is Going Somewhere and where it is going is partially full of moral abundance
This is the way
It's why he doesn't kill his enemies, on some level! He knows that they COULD be better, and he wants that more than anything
(Most acutely with the Master, of course. The Daleks are the only real exception)
(Most acutely with the Master, of course. The Daleks are the only real exception)
Mmmmhmm
What terrifies them is the moral law which is freestanding and available to all
They need someone to come along and relieve them of their obligation to comply with that natural moral law, by fiat
So they need a Pope and he has to be evil
They need someone to come along and relieve them of their obligation to comply with that natural moral law, by fiat
So they need a Pope and he has to be evil
A few weeks back there was a discussion about this and we all came up with the idea that what they really, really want is for someone to tell them, with what amounts to the voice of God, that their own moral failings (of which they are acutely aware) are Good, Actually
I think they love the idea of having a pope, of having that kind of authority exist. They just, y'know, get upset when he doesn't agree with them about everything
(So you might say they're actually ambivalent on the matter)
(So you might say they're actually ambivalent on the matter)
"C'mon, you can't seriously expect Trump to confess his crimes and resign??" Well, no, I'm hardly surprised when he doesn't. But it is morally incumbent on him to do this! "Oh but he's Trump" is not an excuse
Or, to put it another way, Macbeth is wrong
Or, to put it another way, Macbeth is wrong
The reason I'm so insistent on this, which is something I think the books do a great job illustrating, is that, since you always CAN come again unto the Light, you always SHOULD do this
Whatever you were yesterday, being a bad person TODAY is a NEW choice you're making, and it's newly culpable
Whatever you were yesterday, being a bad person TODAY is a NEW choice you're making, and it's newly culpable
Yeah. Notably, wanting to be SEEN as not a bad person is NOT the same thing
Which I'm pretty sure he's said point blank, also
Yeah. You have to want to. For real. As our man Ingtar demonstrates, that comes with a cost, and you have to be truly willing to pay it
That the epilogue is by Jordan, totally untouched, tells you that the story is absolutely Jordan's right to the end
Yes lol, Androl is *such* a Sanderson character
No it actually does apply! It applies even to Trump, I believe this very strongly
If he woke up one day possessed of a genuine desire to be a good person instead of a bad person, there are things he could do to act on that desire! (Resigning, confessing his crimes, things of that nature)
If he woke up one day possessed of a genuine desire to be a good person instead of a bad person, there are things he could do to act on that desire! (Resigning, confessing his crimes, things of that nature)
Yes, although it's not as though the other branches have no ability to check Congress. They rather famously do!
Our system is not like that, and in that way, the branches are coequal
Equal in that they are each formed by the People, directly, through the Constitution: no one of the branches creates any of the others
Equal in that they are each formed by the People, directly, through the Constitution: no one of the branches creates any of the others
Like you can imagine if you just didn't have Articles II or III at all
We would still have an executive and we would still have courts
But they would be wholly creatures of Congress, created by statute and susceptible to being remade by Congress at will
We would still have an executive and we would still have courts
But they would be wholly creatures of Congress, created by statute and susceptible to being remade by Congress at will
Not dependent as in the president isn't a prime minister
Right this is the thing. Its powers are superior in their very nature?
Without laws enacted by Congress, the other branches just have nothing to do
Without laws enacted by Congress, the other branches just have nothing to do
What "coequal" really means here is just that no one branch is meant to be *dependent* on the others
Not that they are strictly equal in their quantity of power
Not that they are strictly equal in their quantity of power
Yeah, I've always hated this saying, as it comes up in constitutional law contexts
The branches have what powers they have! That is meant to create a system of mutual checks, for sure. But there's no warrant to fudge the scheme to keep the branches "equal"
The branches have what powers they have! That is meant to create a system of mutual checks, for sure. But there's no warrant to fudge the scheme to keep the branches "equal"
Just Vice President things