Yeah, the idea that people are going move, en mass, to a state where they don’t have a job and there is little prospect for getting one is rather ludicrous. But, if they are moving to state where their job prospects are better than where they are, isn’t that a good thing??? Right now, the economy where I live is booming like crazy. If you’ve got the skill that are needed, get your ass over here!!
You would think that. But there are numerous threads where pointing this out gets one chastised with posts like “Poor people can’t just move” and “It’s not easy to move where the jobs are!”
Well, I certainly wasn’t one of those doing that chastising. Are you saying k9befriender is? Because this is looking suspiciously like “you liberals are hypocrites” forgetting that people are individuals.
That said, I think it’s arguable that moving to save your life and avoid a $500 000 medical bill might be more incentive to move than getting a shit shoveling job somewhere.
Truly poor people can move; they just need a bus ticket. It’s the poor-but-not-destitute people who can’t. A moving truck costs money (or buying new furniture when you get there costs even more). A security deposit on a new place to live costs money. Flying or driving to the state you’re moving to so you can find a place to live costs money. Getting all your paperwork changed (driver’s license, auto insurance, etc.) costs money. Finding someone to take care of your kids - having just moved away from whatever support network you had - costs money.
My wife and I have no kids and live in a relatively small (1200 sq. ft.) house. We’re comfortably off and we live well below our means - but I’m not sure we could afford to move to another state without saving up for a considerable period of time.
It might cost you, say, $500.00 just to go to another state. But that’s just one tiny fraction of the cost of relocating permanently.
I mentioned no names, only that I’ve read that in other threads. I can find them and link to direct posts if you’d like. And I don’t stoop to sweeping generalizations of groups of people. Nor am I a conservative in the first place.
Yes I agree. However, nobody, including you, said “Yeah, moving to a different state is hard. However, more people would try to overcome this hardship if there was free healthcare in the other state”
Instead, it was “It’s easy to move to another state”
Well, I disagree for reasons previously stated, and I hope to be able to return that card to you in the future. 
However, I don’t understand your attitude about the confirmation process. Are us on the right to just unilaterally disarm? We watch while Gorsuch is filibustered and a qualified nominee like Bork is voted down, only because of his conservative credentials, but we have to rise above it and confirm liberal justices? Those liberal justices who will not interpret the Constitution, but use their own subjective believes as bald policy declarations?
I know I get involved in the same sex marriage debates a lot, because I always believed that it was sort of a benchmark about judicial belief. I understand the arguments that people made, and that you even made, about why same sex marriage should now be legal. Like Roberts said in dissent, those are quality arguments, and perhaps in 2017, there really isn’t a good reason to prevent someone from marrying a person they choose.
But where I draw the line is for a judge to look at the Constitution and somehow decide that its text requires that result. It is beyond debate that James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, or Thaddeus Stevens would have laughed and then subsequently cried if they knew that their words would be used to require that two men be allowed to “marry” one another. They would have quickly written into the Constitution that they did not mean that.
For a judge to see such a right is, in my mind, not simply wrong, but dangerous to the idea of representative democracy. Anything that is “Constitutionalized” without any historical support robs the people of their right to rule themselves. So, I don’t know why we should give judges who have this type of philosophy a free pass to get on the Supreme Court just because a Democrat is President.
I’m not the one who said it was easy.
Gorsuch was filibustered because Garland was ignored. If the vote against Bork was purely partisan, there wouldn’t have been Republicans joining the vote against him.
Oh and Scalia had an incredible ability to twist his interpretation of the Constitution to fit his beliefs. It’s not solely a liberal technique.
Jefferson and Stevens weren’t involved in the Constitution at all. Obergefell was decided on the Fourteenth Amendment - long after any of those men died. You’ve done a far greater job putting words in their mouths however, especially given that the reasoning behind banning SSM (religious influences on government) was something Thomas Jefferson specifically condemned.
All /snips are mine.
Yeah, I didn’t say that because I actually don’t think it’s that hard. Most especially if you have a job waiting for you. More hassle than hard. And certainly speaking legally it is easy compared to moving countries. The law is pretty clear on citizens moving within the country.
But hey, I’ll know better soon. I’m switching states in a couple of months. I have trouble imagining it will be as difficult as when I moved to the U.S.
Do you have an example of Scalia doing that? I can’t find a single opinion where he placed his subjective belief over that of the law. Not once.
Jefferson didn’t, but Stevens was a principal drafter of the Fourteenth Amendment. Was married to a black woman and hated racism, probably more so than any man of his day. Do you really dispute the idea that if a time traveller brought back the Obergefell opinion to the House and Senate in 1867, that they would have unanimously agreed that this is not what we voted for?
And while Jefferson did not write the Constitution, as those on the left are for some reason eager to point out, his ideas of self-government in the DOI still remain as our founding principles. Of course he hated established religion, but it doesn’t follow that any Judeo-Christian ethic cannot be found in law. Jefferson wrote a Virginia statute that provided castration for sodomy! I doubt that he had such a progressive view as yours.
Fair enough. Good luck with the move (no snark).
Does your state provide good healthcare?
If you aren’t worried about a job where you end up, then it is easy. If you are not worried about where your children will go to school, then it is easy. If you are not worried about leaving behind your support network, then it is easy.
Now, if you go through those thread, I believe you will find me on record as thinking that people should move to where the jobs are, but at the same time, I did recognize the difficulties involved, and that some relocation assistance would be beneficial.
Well, it is easy to move to another state.
It may be hard to get a job, and find a good school for your kids, and to settle in to the community, and all the other things involved in uprooting yourself to a new life.
But the moving part, that part is easy. And if all you have to do is live within the borders of the state in order to receive free healthcare, people will be moving.
Put it this way, you have no kids, no major social ties to your area, and a job that pays $20k a year. You find that you are sick, and it’s going to be hundreds of thousands of dollars to get treatment to get well.
Which is easier, raising the hundreds of thousands of dollars to get treatment, or moving a few hundred miles with your most precious possessions?
My state provides good healthcare. And there are plenty of jobs.
That’s cool. I feel the same way.
I consider all that part of “moving”
This is rhetorical right?
I consider all of that as relocating, not of moving.
If you are moving somewhere with the intent of building a new life for yourself with the available resources and opportunities in this new environment, that’s a completely different thing than hopping on a bus with a suitcase, and renting the cheapest apartment you can find.
I would think so, but there do seem to be many on this thread that think that they would stay where they are, and either die or go bankrupt, rather than spending the fairly small resources needed to get across the border of a state that will save them.
I consider those the same, so maybe we are talking about different things.
I don’t understand how this would work. They just crawl along I-10 until they cross the border of a state that would theoretically have UHC, and then they are granted full healthcare for life? I don’t think it would work that way.
Considering when discussing the Fourteenth Amendment, the originalist claim is that it was strictly to extend legal rights to black men - not women, gays, or other groups. I can’t find anything that says that in the amendment. Let’s not get into how he argued the 14th prevented Florida from recounting votes - that just don’t make sense. He tried to claim both originalist and textualist readings, depending on which suited his views at the time.
Jefferson would have been appalled that we allow “those blacks” to live free, let alone vote. I agree that his views are most likely nowhere near mine, on a number of things. Equality, power of the federal government, and the role of the Supreme Court quickly come to mind. That you should not impose on other people because of your beliefs is something we happen to agree on.
Thou shall not murder is a Judeo-Christian ethic found in law - not BECAUSE it’s a religious idea, but [DEL]in spite of it[/DEL] because we have agreed as a society that killing people is bad. There’s a number of other similar ideals - the fact that something is in the Bible shouldn’t give it any particular weight in regards to our laws. That’s one of the points of the 1st.
I pointed out Jefferson didn’t write the Constitution because it’s a fact. I don’t understand how that’s a partisan issue. He was a Democrat, after all.
If we took Obergefell back to the 19th Century, it would be laughed at. It’s not the 19th century any more. Equal protection under the law had different effects then than it does now, but it’s still rooted in solid philosophy.
You would need an address and maybe a driver’s license but someone already posted a link to the Supreme Court decision that struck down any time of residency test for receiving benefits.
I’ll give you Bush v. Gore. I agree that every single vote in that opinion was a travesty. Scalia and Thomas talking about how the 14th amendment gets involved in an election between two rich white men, and listening to Stevens and Breyer, of all people, talk about states’ rights! That decision will likely go down in history as the worst, second probably only to Dred Scott or Lochner.
So, you admit that the drafters of the 14th amendment did not intend a right of same sex marriage? Isn’t that the end of it? Or do we read a right into the Constitution that you admit wasn’t intended just because it is the cause du jour of the left?
I mean, there’s an amendment process. If we think that same sex marriage, or abortion, or anything like it has become a fundamental right because of some new understanding, we can amend the Constitution. The fact that you don’t even have a majority support of the states for it suggests that we have not progressed into that new society.
And at the end of the day, who rules us? Five lawyers in Washington who tell us that they know better? Yes, if they overturn a law against free speech or gun possession, they can point to the plain text of the Constitution and say that in 1789 we took this issue away from majority rule. When did the majority lose its right to regulate marriage? In 1868? 2001? 2012? Certainly 2015.
I believe you. I never stated a time of residency requirement. But there should be a residency requirement. And just crossing the state line does not make a person a resident. Well, maybe it does, but it seems like a good idea to require proof of said residency.
Only if you take a strict originalist reading. Should we start overturning Brown v. Board of Education, Powell v. Alabama, Gitlow v. New York, Loving v. Virginia, and McDonald v. Chicago? None of those are related to the “originalist” enfranchisement of black men either, but on a textual reading of the 14th. Fuck it, let’s go back to the Jim Crow South, that was AWESOME!
As long as marriage carries certain privileges guaranteed by the government, how can it be anything other than 1868, by the text of the 14th? That it’s taken 150 years to reach this point is a reflection of our society, not the Constitution. Restricting the 14th to a very specific case - as you seem to argue - requires a new amendment, not the inverse.