• posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from DokuDokuH »
    Quote from Jusstice »

    First, you can't just say "there's plenty of legal theory to back me up", when you're not even able to give a Cliff Notes version of the legal theory you're claming exists. You're just saying - "I believe such and such, and yeah, I'm sure there's legal theory to back me up because I believe that idea. I'm sure that whatever law exists that might go against my opinion isn't settled law, because my disagreement with it means it's not settled." Sorry, but having a contrary opinion does not entitle you to revisit issues that your betters (The Supreme Court) have already decided against you. The issue is in fact settled that constitutional protections apply to everyone physically present in the US, not just citizens.

    Wait, let me backtrack here a second - you're arguing that deporting illegals, who are committing a crime by entering the united states, are afforded some kind of constitutional protection that lets them avoid deportation? PLEASE articulate a legal theory that states that Joe Mexico who came here illegally has the right to stay here instead of getting kicked back to where he came from and made to wait in line like everyone that isnt breaking the rules. What I was talking about is that courts have given the government tremendous leeway with dealing with immigration law - hell, Obama JUST banned all venezuelan immigrants from entering the US, and there is no legal outrage about it. I've also articulated the legal theory behind all of these things in the past few comments - why should I restate and source it two comments later?


    Like I said quite clearly, the legal theory is the Equal Protections Clause of the Constitution. It guarantees equal protection of the law to all persons physically present in the US.

    I never said that an illegal immigrant now gets the right to stay here because of EP. But, they do have a right not to be singled out for deportation on the basis of their race, religion, national origin, or any other protected class. Next to the statements that Trump has made about Mexicans all being rapists, murderers, and so on, the suggested policy is to take action against people coming from Mexico on that basis alone. That’s discrimination, not the application of immigration law.

    Even on the level of each individual case, everyone has an equal right to due process of the law when it comes to deportation, incarceration, etc. You should make the distinction that “unlawful entry” is a crime, punishable by incarceration and criminal process, while “unlawful presence” is not, and can only be handled by civil process. On the criminal charge, criminal process requires the evidentiary standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”. Not just, Trump says you’re a criminal because lots of criminals come from your country. In the case of civil proceeding also, you can’t restrict someone’s liberty rights (freedom of movement, habeas corpus, property rights for funds transfers, etc) simply on that basis. So even if you can prove “unlawful presence”, that could never be a justification for what Trump proposes to do.

    As for policy banning immigration from Venezuela, first, immigrants that are yet to arrive here don't have the right to Equal Protections, while the President and Congress have plenary power to direct foreign policy and immigration policy respectively. Second, differentiating based on an immigrant's national origin does not necessarily trigger EP analysis (even though national origin is a protected class), as long as there is a rational basis for the policy. So I'm not saying it's invalid as a matter of law, but next to the statements Trump has made that Mexico is sending rapists, murderers, etc, I would leave it up to you to wonder how a court would weigh evidence in determining discriminatory intent. I would say that the coup in Venezuela would give the Obama administration more than enough grounds for a rational basis (if a challenge were even brought), but Trump's absurd policy statements would have no legs to stand on.

    It's possible that you might disagree with me on that question. But to believe that illegal immigrants have no rights because they are illegally present here is absolutely not correct. Only the truly uninformed TV/Radio talk show pundit would disagree with that. Here’s a link so you don’t have to take my word for it:

    http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/255281-yes-illegal-aliens-have-constitutional-rights

    While on the topic of the judiciary's place in government, I should mention that the proponent of a law does not get to decide what it's primary purpose is in terms of strict scrutiny analysis. You might think that the purpose of biased, pernicous laws are to prevent illegal immigration, and the legislation might even be supplemented with statements specifically to that effect. But, judges still get to decide what the actual compelling government interest behind a law is. Next to Trump's statements that "Mexico is sending us rapists, murderers, etc" it's a cake walk from there to determine what the intended purpose really is. If you're honestly interested to know, the judiciary will look at three things to assess discriminatory intent: 1) whether the impact is so "stark and dramatic" that a law is unexplainable on non-discriminatory grounds, 2) the historical background suggests discrimination, and 3) the administrative and legislative record show intent. I'll leave you to yourself to wonder how courts would view the historical backround of the statements Trump has made


    I don't need a rundown of how strict scrutiny works. I'd argue that for the VAST majority of these policies, strict scrutiny wouldn't even apply. But you're very incorrect in your statement here - If the government can make a case that there exists a compelling interest in protecting the border/national security/whatever, the judge then determines the validity of that interest. The judge does not get to pick what he believes the interest is. And to dismiss the leeway that the judiciary gives to the government in these kinds of situations shows a serious lack of how the branches of our government view and interact with one another.


    So, your understanding of our government is that the Legislative or Executive articulates a policy objective with each action, then that act "forces" the courts to evaluate the constitutional validity of the law against that objective alone?

    ???

    Where are you getting information? Honestly, I have no idea how someone would be able to conclude that unless they were just pulling it out of thin air.

    No, the court does get to determine what they believe the purpose of a law is. Statutory construction is the sole purview of the judiciary. Source? About the single most famous case that every High School history student will have heard of – Marbury v. Madison.

    But to begin with, Trump's policy proposals don't just touch on deportation and border control. I suppose that's a clever sidestep, but there's no way that's going to work. Trump promised to make Mexico pay for the wall by restricting cash transfers to Mexico (not part of immigration law), to deny services to the natural born offspring of illegal immigrants (not part of immigration law), and so on.

    So building a wall to keep illegals out somehow doesn't touch on border control - how? Again, see above - the transfers of money made by illegals to mexico can be regulated and stopped under the patriot act. Stop meshing several distinct legal issues together. As it is, the border wall, deportation of illegals and muslim ban and strictly immigration law, and the transfer ban is under the patriot act, as I've now stated at least four times.



    Maybe, and I’m going out on a limb here, the Patriot Act does not justify what the Trump campaign claims that it does?

    Even if it does, what you need to understand that is that this law will also be reviewed under the same constitutional analysis as the enforcement act itself. So even if the Patriot Act said on its face that “this allows the President to ban Muslims from entering the US”, that law is only as good as its ability to withstand constitutional challenge on Equal Protections grounds.

    So if you don’t feel I’ve addressed the Patriot Act, it’s because no meaningful distinction whatsoever exists in our constitutional rights due to that law. There is probably a law on the books that the administration would claim authorizes it nearly every single time a constitutional challenge is brought, but if that were the end of it, we essentially wouldn’t have any private rights the government couldn’t take away whenever it wanted.

    The simple principle is that the 14th amendment supersedes any law enacted by the Legislature.
    I will grant the fact that the plenary power doctrine in immigration law still has some relevance. It's in dispute, but still relevant. Basically, there are two competing views - the view that equal protections does apply to immigration law, and the view that the question is still undecided whether there are some cases that the plenary power doctrine applies instead. No one holds the view that Equal Protections unambiguously does not apply, because that view would be impossible next to the last 40-50 years of immigration cases in the Supreme Court, which has applied equal protections doctrines to immigration law.

    Some relevance? Courts have been hands-off with immigration law for nearly all of american history. In fact, up until recently, courts upheld things like complete deprivation of due process to illegals - something only activist courts have ignored, stare decisis be damned. Its only in the past 20 years that the courts have really moved to act on immigration decisions by the executive branch - and those decisions have been narrow 5-4's with serious dissents. When trump appoints a justice that supports his anti-illegal policies, is there really any doubt that the court will move back in a more reasonable direction?


    That’s the thing about stare decisis. The most recent decisions are the valid ones, notwithstanding the vote count or the dissent. You might as well claim that the government doesn’t have to obey the Civil Rights act, because it’s “only in the past 50 years that it has applied” and there were “serious dissents”.

    But in the first place, what case held that those illegally present in the US are to be deprived of Due Process? Honestly, I want to know where you’re getting this. That sounds like something that could only be pulled out of thin air on a “I think it’s fair, so it must be this way” basis.

    On the idea that those illegally present here do get rights, is James Madison early enough for you? Here’s a quote from him regarding the Alien and Sedition Acts:

    Quote from James Madison »
    “…it will not be disputed, that as they owe, on one hand, a temporary obedience, they are entitled in return to their protection and advantage. If aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they might not only be banished, but even capitally punished, without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. But so far has a contrary principle been carried, in every part of the United States, that except on charges of treason, an alien has, besides all the common privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of which one-half may be also aliens.”


    I could find a quote more on point to the 14th amendment, since it wasn’t even enacted at the time, but this just goes to show that it was always the founding intent to guarantee “common privileges” to illegals.

    There’s also a serious difference between “when Trump gets in power, nominates his own judges, etc” and saying that policies as proposed by his campaign in the now would be valid. As someone aspiring to the highest office, Trump should be able to commit to polices that are capable of being enacted without him assuming dictatorial powers. If he’s going to peddle “should’a could’a been’s”, then don’t you think he should make it clearer that this is what they are?

    Again, having an opinion on it doesn't require society to revisit things that have already been decided against you.

    Go and find any book on Constitutional Law. You will find that, no, a "value system based on European religion" is not a part of our governance, government respecting no establishment of religion means exactly that, and English fluency is not a prerequisite to the equal protection of the law. Also no, the willingness to assimilate is not a prerequisite for private rights either. You might might feel that they ought to be, but as a life lesson here, your sense of what ought to be doesn't make it so.

    It happens to be everyone else's view that "what makes America American" is in fact our freedoms under the constitution, our guaranteeing them to everyone regardless of status, and our welcoming of other cultures across the world (including European), regardless of their willingness to integrate. You're just wrong here.

    To deny that western religious values play a central role in the development of our government suggests a pitiful lack of understanding of how this country was founded. I'd suggest that you take your own advice - you may think that being american is limited to our freedoms granted by the founding documents, but willful ignorance of 200+ years of history won't change the fact that america has a culture that includes a language and a value system.

    There is a difference between playing a “central role” and playing an official role.

    Sure, American culture is influenced by Christianity, the English Language, the British Commonwealth, and Fish and Chips. It’s also influenced by reality TV, the Miss America Pageant and Trump University. But guess what? When it comes to deciding who gets their property rights restricted, who gets deported, and who can live in peace, those things don’t matter.

    What matters are the constitutional rights guaranteed to every person present in the territory, which Trump has shown entirely too much inclination to trample over as they apply to groups he doesn’t like.

    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    Quote from Sheldon »
    The RC quite literally would rather discourage those Spikey new players from EDH than deviate from their vision


    This is 100% correct, with no apologies.


    The problem with discarding the concerns of a subset of the player base is that you get to decide exactly which concerns come from that segment. Which is extremely easy to do on an arbitrary basis, since by your own admission above, you have no working definition of what it means to be "balanced for competitive play".

    It's just a magic wand that makes any dissent disappear. Someone doesn't agree with you? It must be because they're part of this "competitive" outgroup, because we don't have any problems over here. After all, what they're trying to do is improve the game, a necessary ingredient of which is the competition.

    At this point, it's a mystery why the RC continues to attempt to justify its decisions on any level, at all. It really is just your say so, and this rhetorical trick means that you don't have to answer to anybody. Why make the show of effort? All you evidently care about is how your own games play out.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    Quote from MRHblue »
    Quote from Prid3 »
    Isn't that the purpose of this thread? If I observe a strong, statistical correlation between a turn 1-3 Mystic Remora and game win % based on my hundreds of EDH games isn't it reasonable for me to question its role in the format?
    Not when you are a self-described cEDH player. That would invalidate the points you would make based on that data due to the known ban list criteria.


    We are down to the Ad Hominem again - "Your points about the health of the format must be invalid, because your experience as a self-styled 'competitive' is tainted."

    If you follow that precept, wouldn't you basically be able to invalidate any point anyone makes about the list, just by saying that you don't resonate with their experience?
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    Quote from bobthefunny »
    Quote from Jusstice »
    Yes, Cards Against Humanity is a competitive game. Note, someone's "feeling" of how hard they are trying to meet the game objective doesn't not factor into whether something is competitive or not. It's whether the activity has an objective that can only be met by a limited number of participants.

    Also, whether the experience matters more than winning has no bearing either on what defines a competitive activity. In fact, I can't recall a single game where the act of winning does matter more than the gameplay, such that playing the game is an utterly wasted experience unless you win. The only time I've seen that idea floated is when posters here have imputed that mentality to other people to whom they've assigned the label "competitive" themselves. It's actually not at all what it means.
    This really sounds like you're applying a different definition of "competitive" to what someone was saying, in order to take their post out of context. Regardless of your disagreement over the word choice/definition, the context of "competitive" as discussed to EDH tends to have a different connotation to what you're discussing here, and any posts referring to it should be read in the light that they are intended.

    That said, any casual vs. competitive discussion, and what defines one or the other really belong in the 'Casual' versus 'Competitive' Commander thread. I know it's been buried a long time, but this thread is for the banlist.



    The original context of this discussion was the ban list. Here's the original quote:

    Quote from Jusstice »
    Quote from JWK »

    The reality is, a very large amount of the disagreements about the banned list come down to competitive players not liking the current list because it doesn't really reflect their priorities. Some others reflect some players not liking certain strategies, usually more controlling ones such as MLD and stax. Most of the rest of the disagreements are about how powerful or annoying or ubiquitous something needs to be before it is considered for banning. The remainder - a very small percentage - tend to be self-serving ones like "Blood Moon should be banned because I want to run 3-5 color decks without having to worry about someone shutting down my greedy mana bases." I think if the competitive folk took their zeal and their well-reasoned understanding of the demands of competitive magic and applied that to making a competitive Commander format, this thread would probably see about 50% less traffic, and a lot of players - competitive and less-competitive alike - would probably be happier.


    The reality is that the word "competitive" has been misused and abused so many times that it's devoid of its real meaning. The only thing it indicates here is whether someone is for or against the status quo.

    Someone wants a card banned? It must be because they want more balance in their competitive games. Why don't they just get that they are the problem?

    Someone wants a card unbanned? The card is broken, bruh. Only competitive players want to abuse broken cards. Why don't they just get it?

    I'd suggest that everyone look up what the actual definition of the word "competitive" is. It's something that involves competition, or is suited for competition. Competition is defined as two or more groups vying for some objective at the expense of the other.

    So, EDH is a competitive game because it awards victory to the player that reaches the game objectives. I'd caution against dismissing someone's arguments, just because you feel they're only being made out of competitiveness. Competition is built into the game, and so if something provides for cleaner competition, it probably just improves the game in general.


    So, I'd appreciate it to have the entire context of the point in question reviewed before Mod Text is used.

    On that topic, I get that the word "competitive" is sometimes used to connote someone who has a particularly intense desire to win and compete, not necessarily the character of an activity that involves competition. I'm not trying to sidestep the first definition as a legitimate use of the word. But it's precisely my point that this feeds into a fallacy of equivocation, where one meaning of the term is used in one portion of the argument and the other is used in different portions. It goes like this:

    Person A: Banning or unbanning card X would make competition in this game more balanced, since people would stop getting blown out, so on.
    Person B: You don't get it. EDH isn't about competition, it's about having fun.

    These two people are talking past one another, because A is using one meaning and B is using an entirely different meaning. The danger is that someone proceeding under this confusion is going to be convinced that no effort to balance gameplay in EDH is fruitful, because that indicates that players are too invested in winning. As you can see, the fact of a game having competition is no indication of the other definition of "competitive", where players have an intense desire to win. The two not being the same thing at all is exactly my point.


    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    Quote from Mercury01 »
    Quote from Jusstice »
    I'd suggest that everyone look up what the actual definition of the word "competitive" is. It's something that involves competition, or is suited for competition. Competition is defined as two or more groups vying for some objective at the expense of the other.

    So, EDH is a competitive game because it awards victory to the player that reaches the game objectives. I'd caution against dismissing someone's arguments, just because you feel they're only being made out of competitiveness. Competition is built into the game, and so if something provides for cleaner competition, it probably just improves the game in general.


    By your definition, Cards Against Humanity is a competitive game. In actual practice, though, it's anything but. True, you can win the game, but the experience is what typically matters more than winning. The same goes for Commander.


    Yes, Cards Against Humanity is a competitive game. Note, someone's "feeling" of how hard they are trying to meet the game objective doesn't not factor into whether something is competitive or not. It's whether the activity has an objective that can only be met by a limited number of participants.

    Also, whether the experience matters more than winning has no bearing either on what defines a competitive activity. In fact, I can't recall a single game where the act of winning does matter more than the gameplay, such that playing the game is an utterly wasted experience unless you win. The only time I've seen that idea floated is when posters here have imputed that mentality to other people to whom they've assigned the label "competitive" themselves. It's actually not at all what it means.


    Case in point, if rules are added that make the objective of Cards Against Humanity more clear, then you probably just improved the game. If there were a problem with the competitve aspect of the game, such as a "death" card that immediately ends a round whenever it was presented without the other cards being read, awarding that player a win, then removing the "death" card probably just improved the game. If any other improvements you can think of to the competitive character of that game are made, likewise you probably just improved the game. The fact that adding "funnier" or "cooler" cards to the game arguably amounts to MORE of an improvement doesn't bear at all on the fact that it is a game with a competitive character. That element being one of those that characterizes the game, improving that element is an overall game improvement.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on What decks do you run that people have praised (and for what reason)? What about the opposite?
    People have complimented my Kalitas, Traitor of Ghet deck for being able to hold a lot of stuff at bay, while being a "fair" deck itself. TBH, I am not known widely for playing fair decks. And, people tend to appreciate it when somebody else's game-breaker has a response for it other than a counterspell.

    My Sek'Kuar Deathkeeper deck got a lot of compliments for a while, since it would end with "crazy" board states like no permanents on the field other than Ashenmoor Liege and a bunch of 5/3 graveborn tokens. But then, cards like Jokulhaups got a little more play, stopped being viewed as super-cool game end'ers, and Sek'Kuar gradually morphed into Kresh, which was a lot meaner. It was new and original while it lasted, but it didn't last.

    People have complimented my Marath, Will of the Wild and Aurelia, the Warleader decks for the same reason - "Goodness, I have tried a few times to get Sunforger to work for me, but it never did, and I see it's working for you here. What's the secret?" I suppose a lot of people haven't seen Brass Squire come out in a way where it's taken seriously. Marath has also gotten a few compliments for using Punishing Fire, for challenging the presumption that it's "bad in EDH".


    Negative Comments - I don't think any deck has drawn as much ire as Keranos, God of Storms. It doesn't have any graveyard exile, White control cards, or enchantment removal, but it still tended to create games where no one could do anything. Then, it didn't help that the only win condition for it was Reset-Reiterate. Hated for basically all of the reasons people hate Control decks. I eventually dismantled it and traded away Keranos. Currently working with Mizzix, though. I'm hopeless.
    Posted in: Commander (EDH)
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    Quote from JWK »

    The reality is, a very large amount of the disagreements about the banned list come down to competitive players not liking the current list because it doesn't really reflect their priorities. Some others reflect some players not liking certain strategies, usually more controlling ones such as MLD and stax. Most of the rest of the disagreements are about how powerful or annoying or ubiquitous something needs to be before it is considered for banning. The remainder - a very small percentage - tend to be self-serving ones like "Blood Moon should be banned because I want to run 3-5 color decks without having to worry about someone shutting down my greedy mana bases." I think if the competitive folk took their zeal and their well-reasoned understanding of the demands of competitive magic and applied that to making a competitive Commander format, this thread would probably see about 50% less traffic, and a lot of players - competitive and less-competitive alike - would probably be happier.


    The reality is that the word "competitive" has been misused and abused so many times that it's devoid of its real meaning. The only thing it indicates here is whether someone is for or against the status quo.

    Someone wants a card banned? It must be because they want more balance in their competitive games. Why don't they just get that they are the problem?

    Someone wants a card unbanned? The card is broken, bruh. Only competitive players want to abuse broken cards. Why don't they just get it?

    I'd suggest that everyone look up what the actual definition of the word "competitive" is. It's something that involves competition, or is suited for competition. Competition is defined as two or more groups vying for some objective at the expense of the other.

    So, EDH is a competitive game because it awards victory to the player that reaches the game objectives. I'd caution against dismissing someone's arguments, just because you feel they're only being made out of competitiveness. Competition is built into the game, and so if something provides for cleaner competition, it probably just improves the game in general.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from DokuDokuH »

    Quote from Jusstice »

    I don't think anyone's in a position in front of their keyboard to prove or disprove matters of fact. So for the sake of argument, let's say that these sources are all correct and that Mexicans are responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes. One thing that I can do from here is explain how policy designed to impact Mexicans still violates the Equal Protections clause of the US constitution.

    The federal government, in the form of Supreme Court cases and Civil Rights Statutes, has established a set of groups known as "protected classes". Among them are race, religion, and national origin. When a policy is undertaken that disproportionately impacts a protected class, the law can be found valid only if it passes a legal test known as "strict scrutiny". In that test, the law must be found to serve a compelling government interest by the use of narrowly tailored means. On that, let's presume that the prevention of crime is a sufficiently compelling government interest. You still have to show that the policy undertaken is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

    And, it is hard to show that deporting Mexians, disallowing funds transfers, walling off the border, etc, are narrowly tailored means of preventing crimes like child rape and drug trafficking. The idea is that you should punish criminals for being criminals, not for being Mexican. Punishing people for their national origin under the pretext of preventing certain things you fear them to be doing is a publicity trick that has hidden some of the worst human rights atrocities in world history.

    If you are in support of those policy prpopsals of Trump's, you are against the legal doctrines of the Equal Protections clause. If you support Equal Protections, then you are against these policies of Trump's. There's no way around that.

    Wait, WHAT?! The logical jump you have to make is immense here. First, the human rights issues I discussed are just a nice benefit of the policies, not its primary purpose. The primary purpose of these policies is to prevent illegal immigration.

    Second, Deporting illegal immigrants is a matter of immigration law, and you are entirely incorrect in trying to apply this legal theory to it, or are you suggesting that anything other than open borders is unconstitutional?
    The wall has no impact on people residing in the united states that existing laws don't already have, so unless you're going to argue that current laws are too limiting and also violate equal protection, you've got no case.
    Finally - you're missing an important point on the remittance withholding. It only applies to illegals within the states, and whether or not this is permissible isn't settled law. I strongly believe that illegals don't get the same protections as citizens, and there is plenty of legal theory to back me up on this.


    First, you can't just say "there's plenty of legal theory to back me up", when you're not even able to give a Cliff Notes version of the legal theory you're claming exists. You're just saying - "I believe such and such, and yeah, I'm sure there's legal theory to back me up because I believe that idea. I'm sure that whatever law exists that might go against my opinion isn't settled law, because my disagreement with it means it's not settled." Sorry, but having a contrary opinion does not entitle you to revisit issues that your betters (The Supreme Court) have already decided against you. The issue is in fact settled that constitutional protections apply to everyone physically present in the US, not just citizens.

    While on the topic of the judiciary's place in government, I should mention that the proponent of a law does not get to decide what it's primary purpose is in terms of strict scrutiny analysis. You might think that the purpose of biased, pernicous laws are to prevent illegal immigration, and the legislation might even be supplemented with statements specifically to that effect. But, judges still get to decide what the actual compelling government interest behind a law is. Next to Trump's statements that "Mexico is sending us rapists, murderers, etc" it's a cake walk from there to determine what the intended purpose really is. If you're honestly interested to know, the judiciary will look at three things to assess discriminatory intent: 1) whether the impact is so "stark and dramatic" that a law is unexplainable on non-discriminatory grounds, 2) the historical background suggests discrimination, and 3) the administrative and legislative record show intent. I'll leave you to yourself to wonder how courts would view the historical backround of the statements Trump has made.


    But to begin with, Trump's policy proposals don't just touch on deportation and border control. I suppose that's a clever sidestep, but there's no way that's going to work. Trump promised to make Mexico pay for the wall by restricting cash tranfers to Mexico (not part of immigration law), to deny services to the natural born offspring of illegal immigrants (not part of immigration law), and so on.


    But even if his proposed policies were limited to deportation, yes, deportation is a matter of immigration law. But no, you're wrong in saying that equal protections does not apply to immigration law.

    I will grant the fact that the plenary power doctrine in immigration law still has some relevance. It's in dispute, but still relevant. Basically, there are two competing views - the view that equal protections does apply to immigration law, and the view that the question is still undecided whether there are some cases that the plenary power doctrine applies instead. No one holds the view that Equal Protections unambiguously does not apply, because that view would be impossible next to the last 40-50 years of immigration cases in the Supreme Court, which has applied equal protections doctrines to immigration law.


    However, I would strongly caution that the idea of what constitutes "America" in the idea of "America First" is one that unfortunately happens to be extremely prone to abuse. A lot of people characterize America as White, when in fact it's a nation of no particular race. Likewise with religion, and with the English language. Those things have always been specifically disavowed as bearing on the central character of the United States. People who don't share them are no less American.

    On the point of the immigration issue, a lot of people would probably disagree with the idea that illegal immigrants from Mexico are part of "America". But, they are. The constitution guarantees certain rights to all people physically present in the US, while comparatively very few rights are conditioned on citizenship, or registration. You may not have a right to be in the US, but being here you do have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of your national origin. Because believe it or not, all of these groups make up "America". When authors above are writing about all of the alleged horrible things that are happening in the Latino community, they are talking about an American community.

    Sorry, but this is a bunch of anti-cultural sentiments wrapped up in patriotism, and what you really seem to be saying is that people that who want to deport illegals are racist. I fundamentally disagree with your first point - things like english and a value system derived from european religion is absolutely a central part of the States - which is why our constitution was written in english and why there are multiple references to "god" in our founding documents. Likewise, integration is also a fundamental part of our country. So when people show opposition to groups that refuse to assimilate, or ideologies that directly oppose our society and laws, or individuals that break those laws, they're protecting what makes america american. I don't think that being against communities isolating themselves, people advocating for sharia law, or illegals stealing money from the american people are bad things - and honestly, they have nothing to do with race at all.


    Again, having an opinion on it doesn't require society to revisit things that have already been decided against you.

    Go and find any book on Constitutional Law. You will find that, no, a "value system based on European religion" is not a part of our governance, government respecting no establishment of religion means exactly that, and English fluency is not a prerequisite to the equal protection of the law. Also no, the willingness to assimilate is not a prerequisite for private rights either. You might might feel that they ought to be, but as a life lesson here, your sense of what ought to be doesn't make it so.

    It happens to be everyone else's view that "what makes America American" is in fact our freedoms under the constitution, our guaranteeing them to everyone regardless of status, and our welcoming of other cultures across the world (including European), regardless of their willingness to integrate. You're just wrong here.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Donald Trump's Presidency
    Quote from DokuDokuH »

    Furthermore, rape is a very real issue on the border and with illegals.
    Rape is a part of latino culture.
    Those involved in the illegal process are pretty much all rapists.
    Thousands of rapists and child rapists are deported every year.
    Mexico is also responsible for TONS of drug trafficking, if you wanted to address the entire quote.

    As much as you'd like it to be true, facts are not racist. Illegals on the mexican border are disproportionately responsible for rape and drug offenses in this country, and that is a very real problem that the wall addresses (in addition to the base problem of illegal immigration). You're applying the label to issues you disagree with emotionally, and have no facts to back yourself up. You're wrong - either admit it and correct your position, or admit that you'll hold on to a completely fallacious opinion despite facts being entirely against you.


    I don't think anyone's in a position in front of their keyboard to prove or disprove matters of fact. So for the sake of argument, let's say that these sources are all correct and that Mexicans are responsible for a disproportionate number of crimes. One thing that I can do from here is explain how policy designed to impact Mexicans still violates the Equal Protections clause of the US constitution.

    The federal government, in the form of Supreme Court cases and Civil Rights Statutes, has established a set of groups known as "protected classes". Among them are race, religion, and national origin. When a policy is undertaken that disproportionately impacts a protected class, the law can be found valid only if it passes a legal test known as "strict scrutiny". In that test, the law must be found to serve a compelling government interest by the use of narrowly tailored means. On that, let's presume that the prevention of crime is a sufficiently compelling government interest. You still have to show that the policy undertaken is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.

    And, it is hard to show that deporting Mexians, disallowing funds transfers, walling off the border, etc, are narrowly tailored means of preventing crimes like child rape and drug trafficking. The idea is that you should punish criminals for being criminals, not for being Mexican. Punishing people for their national origin under the pretext of preventing certain things you fear them to be doing is a publicity trick that has hidden some of the worst human rights atrocities in world history.

    If you are in support of those policy prpopsals of Trump's, you are against the legal doctrines of the Equal Protections clause. If you support Equal Protections, then you are against these policies of Trump's. There's no way around that.

    Quote from DokuDokuH »
    See, HERE is where we come to the actual impasse. I'm very much for the 'america first' message - And I can see why you'd think the way you do if you had a more global perspective. I've got a few buddies that have this same disagreement with me, and there's literally no getting around it without discussing deeply philosophical stuff that has no place in the trump thread.
    Out of curiosity, are you from the states?


    On this issue, it's my opinion that there is nothing at all wrong with a nation advancing policy that serves its own interest over the interests of other nations. In fact, it's an idea that I support enthusiastically, and which a lot of the far left will disagree with. I have even heard while traveling abroad the idea that citizens of other countries should be able to participate on some level in the US elections process, which idea has offended me profoundly every time I've heard it. To me, the idea seems beyond absurd.

    However, I would strongly caution that the idea of what constitutes "America" in the idea of "America First" is one that unfortunately happens to be extremely prone to abuse. A lot of people characterize America as White, when in fact it's a nation of no particular race. Likewise with religion, and with the English language. Those things have always been specifically disavowed as bearing on the central character of the United States. People who don't share them are no less American.

    On the point of the immigration issue, a lot of people would probably disagree with the idea that illegal immigrants from Mexico are part of "America". But, they are. The constitution guarantees certain rights to all people physically present in the US, while comparatively very few rights are conditioned on citizenship, or registration. You may not have a right to be in the US, but being here you do have a right not to be discriminated against on the basis of your national origin. Because believe it or not, all of these groups make up "America". When authors above are writing about all of the alleged horrible things that are happening in the Latino community, they are talking about an American community.

    The question is, are we doing right for this "America" when we say things like "America First". I think when people say that, a lot of them really mean "my group first". Again, if you support the Equal Protections clause, you are against that idea. And if you are in support of that idea, you are against the Equal Protections clause. No way around it.

    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on [[Official]] General Discussion of the Official Multiplayer Banlist
    Quote from MRHblue »
    Quote from Jusstice »

    Whatever route you take, there is some sort of practiced Ad Hominem retort to discredit the person as being "competitive". And evidently, these competitives want to both abuse powerful cards and to have them banned so that they can abuse the next most powerful cards. Basically, if you notice any gameplay issue with any card whatsoever, then that fact itself is prima facie evidence that you are the problem, not the card.
    Can't the answer be in the middle? I know both sides want black and white, but is the real answer is in the middle? Like the stuff (all opinion by a single group) thats 'too broken' to play is banned, but the stuff thats 'mildly broken' is OK as long as people play nice. I get that no opinion where that line is would be right, but isnt the existence of the line good?


    Ok, it's possible that Necropotence-Bargain is just a bad example, since Bargain happens to be the more powerful card. Because the rationale isn't that Bargain is just too powerful of a card for the format, it's that it's "accidentally" too powerful in the hands of players with pure intent, while most of the time the player is the problem. So if it were just an issue of line-drawing, there wouldn't be so much dissonance. The problem is with drawing a line, then denying that any such line was drawn and labeling those who see a line as obtuse try-hards who have no sense of fun.

    In other words as above, the power-level difference between Necro and Bargain can't possibly be the difference why one is banned and the other isn't. The difference is marginal. If it were otherwise, there would probably not be so many people who voluntarily have decided not to play Necropotence. The difference is the "because I said so" factor. But anyone who points that out, either leaning on a ban of Necro or an unban of Bargain, is going to be first spoon fed the power-level difference, and then smacked on their bottom and sent on their way with admonitions that it's only "try-hards" who care about power-level.
    Posted in: Commander Rules Discussion Forum
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.