Thank you for your response, MrWookie.

So, is it your understanding that the Tenth Amendment (which grants rights to the states) was included in the Constitution with the designed intent of producing "a racist outcome?"

And, if so, do you favor the repeal of the tenth amendment?

The 10th Amendment is not something that "grants rights to states." It is a tautology, "The federal government doesn't have the power to do the things it doesn't have the power to do." As such, it's basically meaningless in practice, so I'm completely indifferent as to whether it stands or is repealed, but I guess I lean letting it stand, because repealing it would have non-negligible cost for no benefit.

My great state of California has discussed the possibility of invoking it's right as a state to become a "Sanctuary State." Do you oppose this movement?

Of course not. I support it because it's a a good policy. Policies are not good or bad because of the size of the land area or the imagined tier of prefecture to which they apply.

The Tenth Amendment is not a tautology.

If was a tautology, it would be literally impossible for any federal, state or local law to violate it.

Edit:Has the SC ever struck down a law because it violated the 10th Amendment?

I just checked. The SC has struck down laws citing the tenth amendment.

None of the Amendments "grant" things, that's a very common misconception.

I stand corrected. The actual word is "reserved."

I don't have any comment on the 10th amendment per se, but rather on your loosey goosey logic there.

If something is a tautology, it means redundant as far as formal logic is concerned.

For example, if a > b, and b > c, saying a > c would be a tautology.

We can come up with any number of values for a, b and c that violate all three of those inequalities, but showing that a specific set of values (e.g. a= 5, b = 4, c= 6) violate the third condition would be sufficient to demonstrate that they also violate at least one of the other two conditions. However, if they meet both initial conditions, they must also meet the third condition. Ergo, the third condition is a tautology - the two initial conditions are both necessary and sufficient to establish it.

As far as this transaltes to the present discussion, I believe that what Wookie is saying is that the 10th amendment is a useful shortcut for arguing principles that are already established in law elsewhere.

err no it isn't.

Sorry for the nitpick but you need more to make it a tautology.

Ok - I stand corrected I guess, can you elaborate?

Sure, but that doesn't change the tautological nature of the 10th amendment. That the 10th was cited rather than the fact that the Constitution is enumerated powers is a stylistic choice.

depends on the domain of a,b,c and the ordering

There's a classic all in preflop texas holdem example where a>b, b>c and c>a

I'm also dubious about the law point because not all laws are equal. A law that seems to add nothing can make it harder to change the laws in a contradictory way and so can in fact add something. That's why we might want a human rights law even if all the laws currently observe those human rights. That might not apply here - dunno

Domain is reals, or integers, or naturals if you like. Thought that was obvious...

It's because I enjoy not playing your idiotic and childish yes/no question game.

Pretty sure it's because you don't want to admit that you have bog-standard Republican views on healthcare just like your views on the minimum wage and almost every other policy seem to be in line with basic Republican orthodoxy. And yet you still claim your politics are from the left.

But hey, WN thinks you're admirably forthright about your views.

You asked me if I supported Sanders' MFA plan and I asked you if you honestly thought I was familiar with any of the details. Or if you really think my concerns have anything to do with healthcare.
You've responded back by asking me to answer "yes/no". Try to not be such a dishonest liar though.
For the record my official position on healthcare is: try to not have policies that enrich the already rich and powerful. Like I said earlier. I suggest you move on to a different topic that interests me more if you want to catch me out for being on the right.

So.........

do you support Sanders's MFA plan?

Will it help people or hurt people?

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...&postcount=319
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...&postcount=324

WN, did you edit "Hahahahahahaha" out of my post (compare the quote vs. original) while leaving, for example, "autistic and ******ed"? I'm certainly not complaining about the moderation since that's not appropriate for this thread, but I think we could all use some enlightenment on your interpretation of the rules so that we can all post better going forward. Thanks!

Where do we complain about moderation? I have the sads that my thread got locked. I spent at least like 13.5 minutes on that OP and ****.

I was a little sad too as I didn't get a chance to post there. The issue is that "lefties" are definitely smarter but the problem is they eat too much of their own poo.

lol, why would you ever invest that much time on a post when **** gets inexplicably ninja-deleted on the reg?

Well, I had never made a thread in this forum before. Although I knew on the balance of probabilities it would get locked, I still wanted to take my time with the thread cherry.

Ah, who are we kidding, I was drunk and had 4 tables. Can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Anyway, it's still there, not deleted, just locked.

Just read the locked thread.

Good decision, WN! In my opinion, of course.

By the way, I used to TEACH Logic 101.

Another edit:This post is #3000 in this thread.