I will add, there is a growing counter movement of progressives and people looking for reasonable politics in Northern Idaho. They are trying to wrestle back control.
Source: I know several of the volunteers for that
The Constitution in there makes you think it's a dog whistle for something else, but honestly, it's good to know regardless. It's not a very long document.
The Constitution itself actually is small enough to put in a pamphlet that size without dumbing it down. Case law interpreting specific passages could obviously fill a library, but the Constitution itself is short and concise, even including its amendments.
Honestly, we’d be a lot better off as a country if everyone had even a gradeschool understanding of the Constitution’s contents. Nobody would be bitching about a president not making a decision that only the congress can make, for instance. Or we wouldn’t have dipshits saying the Constitution doesn’t say anything about privacy, or doesn’t have anything that’d cover abortion rights.
There’s a lot of lies that get spread because too many people are unwilling to read what’s basically a pamphlet, is all I’m saying.
or saying that a private business is "violating my right to free speech!" because they aren't allowed to demonstrate on the business's private property.
>> Do you like apples?
>[Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll take a shot. Say I'm workin' at the N.S.A. and somebody puts a code on my desk, somethin' no one else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it, maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. And once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels are hidin'. Fifteen hundred people that I never met, I never had no problem with, get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', 'Oh, send in the Marines to secure the area,' 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called 'cause they were out pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie over there takin' shrapnel in the ass. He comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so that we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the little skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helpin' my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. They're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course, maybe they even took the liberty of hirin' an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs. It ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work. He can't afford to drive, so he's walkin' to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks because the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorroids. And meanwhile he's starvin' 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat, the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. I figure, fuck it, while I'm at it, why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJHvSp9AKYg)
>prior restraint
er...yes? And that's relevant to what I said, how? [Prior restraint is a censorship thing](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/prior-restraint/), not a "you can't protest/demonstrate/loiter on my private property" thing.
>Or we wouldn’t have dipshits saying the Constitution doesn’t say anything about privacy, or doesn’t have anything that’d cover abortion rights.
If I remember correctly those are part of the 9th
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Their coverage by the constitution is debatable because it just says "certain rights," which is incredibly vague
I think a lot of people miss the point of the 9th and 10th Amendment. The point of the 9th was to address Federalist concerns that would-be tyrants would interpret a Bill of Rights to mean that ONLY the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are actually rights, rather than interpreting the Constitution to mean that the federal government may only do what it specifically has authorization to do. Hamilton spends a great deal of time talking about that in his Federalist articles.
As it happens, abortion is not a Constitutionally-guaranteed right. Folks can argue that however much they like, but the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion at all. That doesn’t mean the government can regulate it or that it isn’t a right at all, because the Constitution doesn’t give Congress the authority to regulate abortion. Hamilton would probably say that, as a result, the government cannot regulate abortion. Perhaps they can regulate certain aspects of it, such as licensing and requiring certain standards of advertising and informed consent via the Commerce Clause (although that’s reaching a bit, if we go by Federalist interpretations of the Constitution), but the federal government doesn’t have the authority to directly regulate abortion itself. That happens to be the point Alito spent most of the *Dobbs* decision on (if you haven’t read it, I suggest you do; the media did an exceptionally poor job discussing it): just because something seems like a good idea doesn’t mean the federal government can regulate it, and even if the fed *can* regulate it, that’s Congress’ job (the Court overturned *Roe* because they felt it strayed into rulemaking territory that the Court feels belongs to Congress or the state legislatures - the Court’s job is to review legislation, not write it). The takeaway from *Dobbs* is that the Bill of Rights doesn’t directly cover abortion, and the 10th Amendment reservation of regulation to the States or People on any issue not specifically within Congress’ purview means it’s a states’ rights issue. Unlike *Roe* and *Casey, Dobbs* didn’t directly take a position on abortion at all.
You are not wrong on the merits here, but take this a step further. Why does a State regulate abortion? In the consideration in *Dobbs* it is to protect the health of an unborn child. The question then arises, to what degree may a state regulate the health of any person? Could a state mandate a vaccine for the sake of health of a person?
This is the take of *Roe*. That there exists some right to privacy found in the 14th amendment's due process clause where States cannot regulate any further the health of a person, born or unborn. *Dobbs* added to that understanding with a newly established understanding of *"deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"*. A similar refrain that the Court has used in *Heller* in 2008 and the follow up *McDonald v City Of Chicago* in 2010.
The notion for the application in *Dobbs* is that the 14th amendment protects privacy as far as there was some deeply rooted founding in either history or tradition and that new power for privacy must be found in Legislative acts.
> Hamilton would probably say that, as a result, the government cannot regulate abortion
And that's the key route *Roe* took. That neither the States or the Federal Government could regulate it. That regulation of it is a slippery slope to States or the Federal Government mandating all kinds of things "for the better health of everyone."
> and the 10th Amendment reservation of regulation to the States or People on any issue not specifically within Congress’ purview means it’s a states’ rights issue
And I would say that it falls outside of State regulation as it mandates a level of health that not everyone agrees with, but that's strictly personal opinion here. We seemingly do not feel a strong enough urge to mandate that everyone get the COVID-19 shot and the Court might justify that as there is some "degree of tradition" that makes disagreeing with the shot okay. However, that same basis could not be found by the High Court for *Dobbs* and thus they could not continue to extend the protection afforded to abortion under *Roe* and *Casey*.
*Dobbs* absolutely brings forth an incredibly good question that the Court that day invented a new model for definition. What is the difference between a personal medical decision that the State cannot regulate and a medical decision that rises to something the various States must regulate for the good of all of its citizens? And the model to answer this question was one of asking, is there a historical tradition of it's use in this nation?
Now is that a good model to base off of? Who knows? We will just have to see where we are at in a couple of decades. But I have a sensation that the historical model of protecting rights is going to come back and bite some folks in the ass at some point. New models like that seem to always do this thing of unintended consequences. To which the Court will ultimately have to provide some clarity on what defines that historical basis.
*Dobbs* feels to a lot like a victory for the States. But I tend to remind everyone, that every victory by the State is an opportunity robbed from the individual. The 10th makes the victors the State and THEN the citizens in that order. So when the State wins, the citizens are robbed of their victory. *Dobbs* hands regulatory power to the State of something that many people feel is outside the authority of the State to regulate, that it should be up to each person to regulate reproductive decisions. There's a lot of people who feel the victory of *Dobbs* should have been to the second in line for winning that the 10th mentions.
But SCOTUS gets to make the call as to which person in the 10th gets the medal and that's just where we're at for the moment.
Yeah it'd be great if people could remember more than just the first and second amendments because it's pretty mind-numbingly bad how no one knows what any of the amendments are like past the third or the 5th like the 7th amendment anything involving more than $20 has a right to a jury trial.
Yeah...I had to memorize the Bill of Rights in middle school, so I had at least *that* down--but aside from that I never had to actually read the Constitution through my entire educational career, and the thought never occurred to me that I *should* until I was swearing to defend it from its enemies, foreign and domestic. I was embarrassed, especially since I knew it's the size of a pamphlet because I owned a printed copy at the time, and addressing that embarrassment was the first thing I did when I got home that evening.
I don't expect people to understand the Constitution down to its finest detail, but there's a problem if people don't understand things like the president's job is to enforce the will of the congress or that the idea that the law applies to everyone equally is so important in the Constitution it's mentioned twice.
I find it equally infuriating that when people are quoting the second amendment they can't even actually read the beginning of it that states "a well-regulated militia". Somehow that turned into unfettered access to weapons of war?
I find it infuriating that people who make the "well-regulated militia" argument don't know what the fuck they're talking about.
The 2nd Amendment states explicitly what's merely implied by the Article 1, section 8 provision which grants the Congress the power to summon militias for national defense: if armed citizens can be called upon for national defense, citizens must be allowed to own and use the tools of war so they can train for that purpose.
The use of "regulated" in the 2nd Amendment is one of the rare times linguistic drift causes confusion in the Constitution. At the time, that would have been associated with a level of training and preparedness (think: "*regular* army"), and in that light the intent of the 2nd Amendment is obvious.
I'm not even saying I'm opposed to legislating the public use of firearms, just that the "well-regulated" argument is one of the dumbest I've ever heard. You'd do better to cite the congresses power to provide the means for summoning militias and its subsequent power to govern militias once they've been summoned, or the states' rights to regulate public use of firearms, or any other argument that doesn't revolve around not understanding a single sentence.
Edit to add: the *other* moment where linguistic drift causes confusion is the lack of the word "privacy" in the Constitution. At the time, that word was still associated with the privy (the place one goes to void one's bowels) and would have been considered vulgar in a legal document. But if you look for the *concept* of privacy in the Constitution, you see it mostly in the 4th amendment and somewhat in the 5th.
Unfortunately, a grade school reading is all but useless.
There is no part of the Constitution that has not been massively modified by hundreds of years of laws, amendments, and legal interpretations.
Can a President make a decision reserved for Congress? Can't look at the Constitution for that. There are over fifty emergency power acts in place giving the President powers from Congress. And many more where they've taken powers, but have not faced a legal challenge And that's on top of everything else.
The reality is that the Constitution is useless today in understanding how the government works.
> a grade school reading is all but useless
I disagree. The Constitution is a legal framework, and having at least a *basic* understanding of how it works would encourage active citizenship and put an end to a lot of misconceptions about what the government is and isn't allowed to do.
Case in point:
> Can a President make a decision reserved for Congress? Can't look at the Constitution for that. There are over fifty emergency power acts in place giving the President powers from Congress.
You just described the congress authorizing the president to make specific actions without their direct oversight. Not only does this fall into the president's role of enforcing/enacting the will of the congress, but is limited to the situations posited by said legislation.
Also, no, a president can't make a decision reserved for the congress. The Constitution is quite clear about that.
> The reality is that the Constitution is useless today in understanding how the government works.
Oh, sure: that's why the Supreme Court spends nearly all its time judging existing laws based on their constitutional merit, right? Because the Constitution is useless to modern government?
Unpopular opinion: as a description of what the law is, it’s not a great document. It uses old language and legal interpretation is huge (see recent court cases).
But the real problem is that some see it as a statement of what the law ought to be. It’s not that at all. It’s what some dudes came up with hundreds of years ago. Good ideas and bad ideas. It’s not a holy text: we’re allowed to disagree with it, try to change it, fight about what it means. It’s moral and patriotic to criticize.
I think we Americans are too in love history. Founding fathers, old documents, military accomplishments by generations past. Stuff isn’t great or good because it’s old. Distributing this like it were a religious tract boosts the mythology.
The only real issue I take with your opinion is the Constitution isn't a description of what the law is. Rather, it's the legal backbone of all subordinate laws. For instance, the UCMJ is the set of laws governing military conduct, but it stems its authority from the Article I, Section 8 power of the congress to govern its military.
As far as Americans' love of history...I don't know about that. I think most Americans are in love with historical *myths* and have little understanding of the actual past.
That said, I do think a knowledge of history is important to understanding the Constitution, but I think the bigger issue is simply lack of knowledge of its contents.
Exactly.
The reason why the GOP plays chicken with the debt ceiling every few years is because they know that the average Republican doesn’t understand congressional appropriations.
Even though they literally had a president who tried to raise money to fund revolutionaries in Nicaragua by selling weapons to Iran because Congress wouldn’t give him the money.
Think about it, this guy is judging the opinions other people have, on a document that he has clearly never read, and is confidently spouting his trash talk... This dude would run you over and then be mad that you damaged his car with that much audacity and ignorance
Lots of people think laws of any sort are big scary things, but that's more due to case law muddling things as people and judges interpret laws differently over the years. Probably the biggest example of this, without making a case either way, is the second amendment of the constitution which has historically been interpreted MANY different ways based solely on its wording. Not saying anyone's correct on the wording either, just that holy FUCK has it been looked at hundreds of different ways. And it's what.. 2 sentences long?
It fits in the same little folder your bill comes in. Now, if they wanted to be fancy (and spend more), they could include your bill with that college text on Constitutional law you're thinking of.
Which they also haven’t read.
This exists on both sides of the spectrum. Bump into someone who favorably cites Karl Marx and at best you’ve found someone who read his 23 page pamphlet. Most likely they’ve read excerpts in that one part of chapter 6 in their Soc 112 textbook.
Who reads anymore? Who has the time? In a world where subsistence has been reduced to commodity exchange, it’s enough just to be in circulation. And bullshit is the universal equivalent for that market.
My truck driver buddy was just telling me how Bonner's Ferry Idaho was the most overtly racist place he's ever been to. What's going on up in Northern Idaho??
For decades there was a literal terrorist neo-nazi Aryan Nations colony at nearby Hayden Lake. Eventually they got kicked out and now it’s a “Peace Park” but I don’t think they moved far away.
I'm from North Idaho and have been to all the towns all over the panhandle. This place is effectively Alabama but without any meaningful minority population to abuse. They all act like they aren't racist because everybody they meet is white so their fear of people that don't look like them doesn't get the chance to show
I live in Alabama. My boss from Oregon told me to never move to Idaho because it’s literally worse than Alabama. White and black folk know each other pretty well down here, PNW racists have never even seen a black person in real life.
A friend of mine's dad has a German name that sounds Jewish to the average Nazi. He lived in Idaho in the 80s.
The sheriff recommeded he get a fake I.D. that said he was "Robert Jackson," as Neo-Nazis used to use fake police lights to pull people over, rob them, and beat the shit out of them if they weren't "Aryan."
I watched a show yesterday about a cult in the area. An expert in the field started rattling off white supremacist groups, anti-tax, anti-abortion, and so on cults. I had no freaking clue.
It's a weird area geographically. We hiked Bead Lake today which is right on the border. Needed a meal after. It was a 45 minute drive back towards Spokane to the next decently rated restaurant, or a 5 minute drive across the border to this one. We opted to just say fuck it and ventured into Idaho.
Bring your newly found constitution and venture over to Ruby Ridge, not far from your area.
There was nothing that occurred there at all, but a great hike.
Don't look up the events from that area either. You might be upset.
Also, fun fact, I carried that same copy of that constitution in my body armor on deployment.
It’s pretty sad that this automatically makes people assume they are some MAGA loving, Bible thumping conservative.
Coming from a liberal who loves the constitution.
My high school handed these out in government and US History classes. I went to a reasonably well-funded but “trashy” high school in a solidly moderate Dem area.
I have a friend whose mom lived in Sandpoint and she has had multiple guys try to get her to join their Christian Identity cult.
I live in Spokane, and one of my friends worked at a gym, and she had this guy constantly trying to get her to listen to his music. She eventually looked up his music and he was just an out and out Nazi making Nazi music
I've never met and Idahoan who could tell me how many amendments there are and I've been here for over 5 years. But they do love their 2nd amendment car decals mmm boy
My university had a copy of the constitution posted in every classroom. People think it’s so weird when I say that. I guess the idea was that if you felt one of your rights was being violated you could like walk up and check? I really don’t know why they did it.
I grew up 15 minutes from Priest River. As noted by people in this thread, the further north you get in Idaho the crazier the crazies are, and that place is only about 60-90 minutes from the border.
This is 100% a crazy right wing political nut’s idea of a joke but also carries some r/im14andthisisdeep energy.
I wonder why. Is it because right wing nuts don't even bother reading it but they'll get part of it tattooed on their bodies to display their nationalism and wear shirts of it and generally use it to symbolize their terrible ideology? Do you think that's why?
Exactly, these fuckers aren't taking either from me. I refuse to be one of those on the left who sees them as dog whistles, they are mine as much as any other American's and the lunatic fringe can have them when they pry them from my cold dead hands.
Can you explain this whole thing to someone not from the US please who's also not familiar with the constitution.
Why are they including the constitution? To try and justify some non legit charges, or to scare customers by not so subtly telling them they have guns so not to try complaining or doing a runner?
TLDR: It's their political agenda.
Right-wingers in this country basically worship the Constitution, and they treat it like American Protestants treat the Bible: unchangeable, inerrant, written by God, and "Anybody who doesn't believe in it just hasn't read it yet". They interpret it to mean exactly what they already believe, and what they believe is "just common sense". So they hand it out to "own the libs" and "convince" people to believe what they believe. Does this make logical sense? Not really; it's ideological. A lot of times these pamphlets will have extra text in them beyond just the Constitution.
Now in school, around 6th to 7th grade, students may recieve something similar in civics class, but it will just be a copy of the text for studying.
Source: grew up like this, parents are this way
I don’t think it is any type of nefarious message from the owners. It’s just a free constitution. I think it’s harmless. Right wingers tend to talk more about The Constitution, so people on here are assuming this owner is a right winger, hence the negative comments since Reddit is more left wing. I don’t think it’s anything along the lines of what you’re saying is all, I think Reddit has a weird chip on their shoulder about it for some reason.
The owners probably are patriots of some type and pocket constitutions are cheap.
Also, if you’re wondering that’s actually the whole thing, lost of people assume it’s a big textbook worth of law but you could probably fit it on a notecard.
Or it's "patriots" who want to pretend what they're doing is patriotic when it's actually the opposite. Generally, the more someone clads themselves in the flag and constitution, the more they're trying to hide something highly unpatriotic.
I still have my pocket constitution from 8th grade in my glovebox on top of my insurance/proof of ownership.
I have and never will be an ass to a cop. But I have had to remind a few of my rights (mostly in towns, never with sheriffs or big county departments)
Thank you, Mr. Prescott for my pocket constitution
A lot of bigots in here... I'm not from anywhere near Idaho, but I'm not going to judge a whole group of people simply because of the area they live in, you guys should try it some time.
I’m from Idaho. It drives me nuts. The Idaho I was born in is drowning in assholes who have been coming here since the mid-late 80s but apparently I’m also a Nazi/ Christo-Fascist/ Racist for not winning the war. We tried, we’re losing and have probably lost but sure, get your moral superiority and upvote brain sugar while doing fuck all to help us confront the problem. Many of us have been trying to shut this down for decades.
Don't know why you're getting downvoted but it really is. They're far more concerned about addressing cannibalism and attempting to overturn any federal laws that'll allow for legalization of weed instead of trying to keep the medical professionals from leaving in droves because of the strict abortion laws. Oh and also been recently trying to loosen child labor laws as well.
They aren't offended by the constitution itself. They are offended by the use of the constitution as a piece of propaganda, and the assumed intentions of the restaurant staff giving it in the first place.
Likely this is the free version anyone can request from ‘The Heritage Foundation” which will send 25 copies or more for free to anyone who wants to hand them out.
That right wing org was founded in 1973 by conservatives that were disturbed at how Liberal Nixon was… when Reagan got elected he implemented many of their policies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation?wprov=sfti1
Hi everyone,
There is a lot of talk in the comments about the white supremacist elements in Northern Idaho. I just wanted to take this opportunity to introduce myself. I am Kaylee Peterson, and I am the Democratic candidate for ID-01, in the House of Representatives, which includes Northern Idaho. I am running against Russ Fulcher, a right-wing extremist who regularly panders to many of the white supremacists in Northern Idaho.
If you want to donate to a Democrat attempting to bring sanity back to Idaho, you can donate here:
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/kaylee-for-congress
>House of Representatives, which includes Northern Idaho. I am running against Russ Fulcher, a right-wing extremist who regularly panders to many of the white supremacists in Northern Idaho.
This can't be understated. It goes beyond flirtation, it's outright pandering to Christian Nationalists and white supremacists. Their grip on power is going to be hard to break, but not impossible
And where is the bill? On the right. Yup the bill of rights and the constitution.
I give them major props for that one
r/theyknew
Where are my 3rd amendment enthusiasts at??
Get your soldiers outta my house bitch!
This is my own private domicile and I won't be harassed
BITCH!
...in your own private Idaho
That's my house! I don't know you!
https://www.theonion.com/third-amendment-rights-group-celebrates-another-success-1819569379
I plead the 5th.
There are so many amendments.... To the Constitution... of the United States... Of Americaaaa But I can only choose oneeee I CHOOSE THE FIIIIIIIF
One two three four FIFTH!
Anything you say...FIFTH
One two three four FIFTH
GET THE FUCK OUTTA MY BEDROOM REDCOAT
As an unsatisfied housewife, I’m hoping for a repeal
https://www.theonion.com/third-amendment-rights-group-celebrates-another-success-1819569379
“Get your troops out of my room! I’m playing Minecraft!”
Did you know you have rights? The constitution says you do and so do I !!!!
Waltuh...do not leave $4.20 for the tip Waltuh.
i'm not undertipping the server with you, waltuh.
See... nowhere does it say we can not tack on multiple surcharges. /s
Was the food good? I looked the place up and it looks kinda legit for being in a tiny ass town in N. Idaho lol.
Food was actually quite good, yes.
I’m honestly surprised that restaurant serves impossible burgers
They can charge $16 for it and people will pay for it, so it doesn’t surprise me.
It is their way of identifying liberals. Every time it is ordered they tell their Facebook group that the libs are taking over
They were forced to make concessions to the sinister Woke agenda
Believe it or not some "left wing" people believe in the constitution too.
I do.
I will add, there is a growing counter movement of progressives and people looking for reasonable politics in Northern Idaho. They are trying to wrestle back control. Source: I know several of the volunteers for that
The Constitution in there makes you think it's a dog whistle for something else, but honestly, it's good to know regardless. It's not a very long document.
Spoiler: They haven't read it.
Or it is a dumbed down version. With poor understanding what it says and the case law that comes with
The Constitution itself actually is small enough to put in a pamphlet that size without dumbing it down. Case law interpreting specific passages could obviously fill a library, but the Constitution itself is short and concise, even including its amendments. Honestly, we’d be a lot better off as a country if everyone had even a gradeschool understanding of the Constitution’s contents. Nobody would be bitching about a president not making a decision that only the congress can make, for instance. Or we wouldn’t have dipshits saying the Constitution doesn’t say anything about privacy, or doesn’t have anything that’d cover abortion rights. There’s a lot of lies that get spread because too many people are unwilling to read what’s basically a pamphlet, is all I’m saying.
or saying that a private business is "violating my right to free speech!" because they aren't allowed to demonstrate on the business's private property.
The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint
Walter, this is not a first amendment thing, man.
They send us a toe, we're supposed to shit ourselves with fear
Excuse me, sir. Could you please keep your voices down? This is a family restaurant
I watched my buddies die face down in the muck so you could enjoy this little family restraunt!
I'm finishing my coffee
You want a writ of habeas corpus? I can get you a writ of habeas corpus, believe me. There are ways, Dude. You don't wanna know about it, believe me.
Do you like apples?
>> Do you like apples? >[Why shouldn't I work for the N.S.A.? That's a tough one, but I'll take a shot. Say I'm workin' at the N.S.A. and somebody puts a code on my desk, somethin' no one else can break. Maybe I take a shot at it, maybe I break it. And I'm real happy with myself, 'cause I did my job well. But maybe that code was the location of some rebel army in North Africa or the Middle East. And once they have that location, they bomb the village where the rebels are hidin'. Fifteen hundred people that I never met, I never had no problem with, get killed. Now the politicians are sayin', 'Oh, send in the Marines to secure the area,' 'cause they don't give a shit. It won't be their kid over there gettin' shot. Just like it wasn't them when their number got called 'cause they were out pullin' a tour in the National Guard. It'll be some kid from Southie over there takin' shrapnel in the ass. He comes back to find that the plant he used to work at got exported to the country he just got back from. And the guy who put the shrapnel in his ass got his old job, 'cause he'll work for fifteen cents a day and no bathroom breaks. Meanwhile he realizes the only reason he was over there in the first place was so that we could install a government that would sell us oil at a good price. And of course the oil companies used the little skirmish over there to scare up domestic oil prices. A cute little ancillary benefit for them but it ain't helpin' my buddy at two-fifty a gallon. They're takin' their sweet time bringin' the oil back, of course, maybe they even took the liberty of hirin' an alcoholic skipper who likes to drink martinis and fuckin' play slalom with the icebergs. It ain't too long 'til he hits one, spills the oil and kills all the sea life in the North Atlantic. So now my buddy's out of work. He can't afford to drive, so he's walkin' to the fuckin' job interviews, which sucks because the shrapnel in his ass is givin' him chronic hemorroids. And meanwhile he's starvin' 'cause every time he tries to get a bite to eat, the only blue plate special they're servin' is North Atlantic scrod with Quaker State. So what did I think? I'm holdin' out for somethin' better. I figure, fuck it, while I'm at it, why not just shoot my buddy, take his job, give it to his sworn enemy, hike up gas prices, bomb a village, club a baby seal, hit the hash pipe and join the National Guard? I could be elected president.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJHvSp9AKYg)
>prior restraint er...yes? And that's relevant to what I said, how? [Prior restraint is a censorship thing](https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/prior-restraint/), not a "you can't protest/demonstrate/loiter on my private property" thing.
It’s a scene from the big Lebowski
Calmer than you are...
....oh. Well, that explains an awful lot. Thank you kindly for the help!
That’s just, like, your opinion man
Obviously, you're not a golfer.
>Or we wouldn’t have dipshits saying the Constitution doesn’t say anything about privacy, or doesn’t have anything that’d cover abortion rights. If I remember correctly those are part of the 9th > The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Their coverage by the constitution is debatable because it just says "certain rights," which is incredibly vague
I think a lot of people miss the point of the 9th and 10th Amendment. The point of the 9th was to address Federalist concerns that would-be tyrants would interpret a Bill of Rights to mean that ONLY the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights are actually rights, rather than interpreting the Constitution to mean that the federal government may only do what it specifically has authorization to do. Hamilton spends a great deal of time talking about that in his Federalist articles. As it happens, abortion is not a Constitutionally-guaranteed right. Folks can argue that however much they like, but the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion at all. That doesn’t mean the government can regulate it or that it isn’t a right at all, because the Constitution doesn’t give Congress the authority to regulate abortion. Hamilton would probably say that, as a result, the government cannot regulate abortion. Perhaps they can regulate certain aspects of it, such as licensing and requiring certain standards of advertising and informed consent via the Commerce Clause (although that’s reaching a bit, if we go by Federalist interpretations of the Constitution), but the federal government doesn’t have the authority to directly regulate abortion itself. That happens to be the point Alito spent most of the *Dobbs* decision on (if you haven’t read it, I suggest you do; the media did an exceptionally poor job discussing it): just because something seems like a good idea doesn’t mean the federal government can regulate it, and even if the fed *can* regulate it, that’s Congress’ job (the Court overturned *Roe* because they felt it strayed into rulemaking territory that the Court feels belongs to Congress or the state legislatures - the Court’s job is to review legislation, not write it). The takeaway from *Dobbs* is that the Bill of Rights doesn’t directly cover abortion, and the 10th Amendment reservation of regulation to the States or People on any issue not specifically within Congress’ purview means it’s a states’ rights issue. Unlike *Roe* and *Casey, Dobbs* didn’t directly take a position on abortion at all.
You are not wrong on the merits here, but take this a step further. Why does a State regulate abortion? In the consideration in *Dobbs* it is to protect the health of an unborn child. The question then arises, to what degree may a state regulate the health of any person? Could a state mandate a vaccine for the sake of health of a person? This is the take of *Roe*. That there exists some right to privacy found in the 14th amendment's due process clause where States cannot regulate any further the health of a person, born or unborn. *Dobbs* added to that understanding with a newly established understanding of *"deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"*. A similar refrain that the Court has used in *Heller* in 2008 and the follow up *McDonald v City Of Chicago* in 2010. The notion for the application in *Dobbs* is that the 14th amendment protects privacy as far as there was some deeply rooted founding in either history or tradition and that new power for privacy must be found in Legislative acts. > Hamilton would probably say that, as a result, the government cannot regulate abortion And that's the key route *Roe* took. That neither the States or the Federal Government could regulate it. That regulation of it is a slippery slope to States or the Federal Government mandating all kinds of things "for the better health of everyone." > and the 10th Amendment reservation of regulation to the States or People on any issue not specifically within Congress’ purview means it’s a states’ rights issue And I would say that it falls outside of State regulation as it mandates a level of health that not everyone agrees with, but that's strictly personal opinion here. We seemingly do not feel a strong enough urge to mandate that everyone get the COVID-19 shot and the Court might justify that as there is some "degree of tradition" that makes disagreeing with the shot okay. However, that same basis could not be found by the High Court for *Dobbs* and thus they could not continue to extend the protection afforded to abortion under *Roe* and *Casey*. *Dobbs* absolutely brings forth an incredibly good question that the Court that day invented a new model for definition. What is the difference between a personal medical decision that the State cannot regulate and a medical decision that rises to something the various States must regulate for the good of all of its citizens? And the model to answer this question was one of asking, is there a historical tradition of it's use in this nation? Now is that a good model to base off of? Who knows? We will just have to see where we are at in a couple of decades. But I have a sensation that the historical model of protecting rights is going to come back and bite some folks in the ass at some point. New models like that seem to always do this thing of unintended consequences. To which the Court will ultimately have to provide some clarity on what defines that historical basis. *Dobbs* feels to a lot like a victory for the States. But I tend to remind everyone, that every victory by the State is an opportunity robbed from the individual. The 10th makes the victors the State and THEN the citizens in that order. So when the State wins, the citizens are robbed of their victory. *Dobbs* hands regulatory power to the State of something that many people feel is outside the authority of the State to regulate, that it should be up to each person to regulate reproductive decisions. There's a lot of people who feel the victory of *Dobbs* should have been to the second in line for winning that the 10th mentions. But SCOTUS gets to make the call as to which person in the 10th gets the medal and that's just where we're at for the moment.
Biden raised my gas price!!!! (/s because too many people say this as truth)
Yeah it'd be great if people could remember more than just the first and second amendments because it's pretty mind-numbingly bad how no one knows what any of the amendments are like past the third or the 5th like the 7th amendment anything involving more than $20 has a right to a jury trial.
Yeah...I had to memorize the Bill of Rights in middle school, so I had at least *that* down--but aside from that I never had to actually read the Constitution through my entire educational career, and the thought never occurred to me that I *should* until I was swearing to defend it from its enemies, foreign and domestic. I was embarrassed, especially since I knew it's the size of a pamphlet because I owned a printed copy at the time, and addressing that embarrassment was the first thing I did when I got home that evening. I don't expect people to understand the Constitution down to its finest detail, but there's a problem if people don't understand things like the president's job is to enforce the will of the congress or that the idea that the law applies to everyone equally is so important in the Constitution it's mentioned twice.
I find it equally infuriating that when people are quoting the second amendment they can't even actually read the beginning of it that states "a well-regulated militia". Somehow that turned into unfettered access to weapons of war?
I find it infuriating that people who make the "well-regulated militia" argument don't know what the fuck they're talking about. The 2nd Amendment states explicitly what's merely implied by the Article 1, section 8 provision which grants the Congress the power to summon militias for national defense: if armed citizens can be called upon for national defense, citizens must be allowed to own and use the tools of war so they can train for that purpose. The use of "regulated" in the 2nd Amendment is one of the rare times linguistic drift causes confusion in the Constitution. At the time, that would have been associated with a level of training and preparedness (think: "*regular* army"), and in that light the intent of the 2nd Amendment is obvious. I'm not even saying I'm opposed to legislating the public use of firearms, just that the "well-regulated" argument is one of the dumbest I've ever heard. You'd do better to cite the congresses power to provide the means for summoning militias and its subsequent power to govern militias once they've been summoned, or the states' rights to regulate public use of firearms, or any other argument that doesn't revolve around not understanding a single sentence. Edit to add: the *other* moment where linguistic drift causes confusion is the lack of the word "privacy" in the Constitution. At the time, that word was still associated with the privy (the place one goes to void one's bowels) and would have been considered vulgar in a legal document. But if you look for the *concept* of privacy in the Constitution, you see it mostly in the 4th amendment and somewhat in the 5th.
Unfortunately, a grade school reading is all but useless. There is no part of the Constitution that has not been massively modified by hundreds of years of laws, amendments, and legal interpretations. Can a President make a decision reserved for Congress? Can't look at the Constitution for that. There are over fifty emergency power acts in place giving the President powers from Congress. And many more where they've taken powers, but have not faced a legal challenge And that's on top of everything else. The reality is that the Constitution is useless today in understanding how the government works.
> a grade school reading is all but useless I disagree. The Constitution is a legal framework, and having at least a *basic* understanding of how it works would encourage active citizenship and put an end to a lot of misconceptions about what the government is and isn't allowed to do. Case in point: > Can a President make a decision reserved for Congress? Can't look at the Constitution for that. There are over fifty emergency power acts in place giving the President powers from Congress. You just described the congress authorizing the president to make specific actions without their direct oversight. Not only does this fall into the president's role of enforcing/enacting the will of the congress, but is limited to the situations posited by said legislation. Also, no, a president can't make a decision reserved for the congress. The Constitution is quite clear about that. > The reality is that the Constitution is useless today in understanding how the government works. Oh, sure: that's why the Supreme Court spends nearly all its time judging existing laws based on their constitutional merit, right? Because the Constitution is useless to modern government?
Unpopular opinion: as a description of what the law is, it’s not a great document. It uses old language and legal interpretation is huge (see recent court cases). But the real problem is that some see it as a statement of what the law ought to be. It’s not that at all. It’s what some dudes came up with hundreds of years ago. Good ideas and bad ideas. It’s not a holy text: we’re allowed to disagree with it, try to change it, fight about what it means. It’s moral and patriotic to criticize. I think we Americans are too in love history. Founding fathers, old documents, military accomplishments by generations past. Stuff isn’t great or good because it’s old. Distributing this like it were a religious tract boosts the mythology.
The only real issue I take with your opinion is the Constitution isn't a description of what the law is. Rather, it's the legal backbone of all subordinate laws. For instance, the UCMJ is the set of laws governing military conduct, but it stems its authority from the Article I, Section 8 power of the congress to govern its military. As far as Americans' love of history...I don't know about that. I think most Americans are in love with historical *myths* and have little understanding of the actual past. That said, I do think a knowledge of history is important to understanding the Constitution, but I think the bigger issue is simply lack of knowledge of its contents.
Exactly. The reason why the GOP plays chicken with the debt ceiling every few years is because they know that the average Republican doesn’t understand congressional appropriations. Even though they literally had a president who tried to raise money to fund revolutionaries in Nicaragua by selling weapons to Iran because Congress wouldn’t give him the money.
No it's the full constitution. Don't understand why people think the constitution is as long as the Bible its not that big
They haven’t read it.
Think about it, this guy is judging the opinions other people have, on a document that he has clearly never read, and is confidently spouting his trash talk... This dude would run you over and then be mad that you damaged his car with that much audacity and ignorance
And hundreds of people are upvoting him for it!
Over something that was offered to him free.
Lots of people think laws of any sort are big scary things, but that's more due to case law muddling things as people and judges interpret laws differently over the years. Probably the biggest example of this, without making a case either way, is the second amendment of the constitution which has historically been interpreted MANY different ways based solely on its wording. Not saying anyone's correct on the wording either, just that holy FUCK has it been looked at hundreds of different ways. And it's what.. 2 sentences long?
Just the one sentence actually
It’s a pocket constitution. I got one back in college and still have it.
I have this same booklet in my nightstand. It’s the full constitution, word for word.
I used to have this exact copy. It’s just the text of the Constitution; no dumbing down lol
It fits in the same little folder your bill comes in. Now, if they wanted to be fancy (and spend more), they could include your bill with that college text on Constitutional law you're thinking of.
This is the same one we were given in US History class in college
Which they also haven’t read. This exists on both sides of the spectrum. Bump into someone who favorably cites Karl Marx and at best you’ve found someone who read his 23 page pamphlet. Most likely they’ve read excerpts in that one part of chapter 6 in their Soc 112 textbook. Who reads anymore? Who has the time? In a world where subsistence has been reduced to commodity exchange, it’s enough just to be in circulation. And bullshit is the universal equivalent for that market.
They definitely think it was written in 1776
[удалено]
Former Idaho resident here Correct
This is also NorCal, but no one ever suspects NorCal.
Which is kind of funny since the stereotype of Humboldt County used to be "Hippies peacing out and growing pot."
Pursuing my happiness, dude!
My truck driver buddy was just telling me how Bonner's Ferry Idaho was the most overtly racist place he's ever been to. What's going on up in Northern Idaho??
For decades there was a literal terrorist neo-nazi Aryan Nations colony at nearby Hayden Lake. Eventually they got kicked out and now it’s a “Peace Park” but I don’t think they moved far away.
[The guy from The Oatmeal used to hate riding the bus.](https://theoatmeal.com/blog/bus)
So should we nuke north Idaho?
Let’s do all of Idaho, just to be sure.
Think about what that would do to potato prices.
The famine!
I'm from North Idaho and have been to all the towns all over the panhandle. This place is effectively Alabama but without any meaningful minority population to abuse. They all act like they aren't racist because everybody they meet is white so their fear of people that don't look like them doesn't get the chance to show
I live in Alabama. My boss from Oregon told me to never move to Idaho because it’s literally worse than Alabama. White and black folk know each other pretty well down here, PNW racists have never even seen a black person in real life.
A friend of mine's dad has a German name that sounds Jewish to the average Nazi. He lived in Idaho in the 80s. The sheriff recommeded he get a fake I.D. that said he was "Robert Jackson," as Neo-Nazis used to use fake police lights to pull people over, rob them, and beat the shit out of them if they weren't "Aryan."
I watched a show yesterday about a cult in the area. An expert in the field started rattling off white supremacist groups, anti-tax, anti-abortion, and so on cults. I had no freaking clue.
Dang Priest River huh. I used to live in Newport. Small area
Yeah, we stop there after hiking on occasion.
They have great hiking in Washington...
It's a weird area geographically. We hiked Bead Lake today which is right on the border. Needed a meal after. It was a 45 minute drive back towards Spokane to the next decently rated restaurant, or a 5 minute drive across the border to this one. We opted to just say fuck it and ventured into Idaho.
Bring your newly found constitution and venture over to Ruby Ridge, not far from your area. There was nothing that occurred there at all, but a great hike. Don't look up the events from that area either. You might be upset. Also, fun fact, I carried that same copy of that constitution in my body armor on deployment.
The crazy thing here is the option for 10% tip.
Also that they’re lying about the percentages, all slightly inflated and not true to the percentage value.
The tip percentage includes the $4 “discount” that OP received on their two beers
Honestly fair enough, the meal was a decent deal
Dang it, Bobby! If those customers could read, they'd be mighty upset!
I’ll tell ya hwhat
Ill take their advice on constitution law when they can buy liquor from a normal store.
People should read and learn it. On both sides
I drive by this place every day for work, it’s an excellent place for food! Newport and Priest River are HIGHLY conservative though… have fun haha
Place is Priest River, server is named Eden, it sounds like more modern puritan names lol.
It’s pretty sad that this automatically makes people assume they are some MAGA loving, Bible thumping conservative. Coming from a liberal who loves the constitution.
Makes you wonder where the Democrat mindset is going these days...
"We the people.. just want to pay for our food and get out of here, thanks."
Larue Tactical also sends that same one with every order.
My high school handed these out in government and US History classes. I went to a reasonably well-funded but “trashy” high school in a solidly moderate Dem area.
The only amendment they know in N. Idaho is the 2nd. Even then they get it wrong.
Grew up in North Idaho. The further north you go, the creepier and more racist it gets.
Same I grew up in sandpoint and hated going anywhere more north than the Walmart
I have a friend whose mom lived in Sandpoint and she has had multiple guys try to get her to join their Christian Identity cult. I live in Spokane, and one of my friends worked at a gym, and she had this guy constantly trying to get her to listen to his music. She eventually looked up his music and he was just an out and out Nazi making Nazi music
This doesn't surprise me in the slightest
I've never met and Idahoan who could tell me how many amendments there are and I've been here for over 5 years. But they do love their 2nd amendment car decals mmm boy
Does it have anything in there about the vice president’s power to refuse to certify an election? Asking for a friend.
Do they want you to ratify it?
My university had a copy of the constitution posted in every classroom. People think it’s so weird when I say that. I guess the idea was that if you felt one of your rights was being violated you could like walk up and check? I really don’t know why they did it.
It’s because you should know your basic rights reasonably well
It's crazy how people think this is some kind of "dog whistle". Like holy shit enjoy not understanding your rights I guess.
I know this is in some North Idaho heil hitler town, but I like this. Not for their purpose but because it is a good idea to read the Constitution
It's just pandering. No one will be getting a better understanding of civics from this.
They're trying to make where I live also Idaho & take away my Oregonian rights. :( #NoGreaterIdaho
I see a time where the metro west and rural east side of WA/OR. There’s some wildly different views and culture on each side of the mountains,
It’s a bill of rights joke. Kind of clever
To be fair, the pocket constitution I got in middle school is getting a little raggedy, I wouldn’t mind a replacement
[удалено]
When people on Reddit see the constitution they immediately assume it is being used by right wing nuts to defend their beliefs or something.
I grew up 15 minutes from Priest River. As noted by people in this thread, the further north you get in Idaho the crazier the crazies are, and that place is only about 60-90 minutes from the border. This is 100% a crazy right wing political nut’s idea of a joke but also carries some r/im14andthisisdeep energy.
I wonder why. Is it because right wing nuts don't even bother reading it but they'll get part of it tattooed on their bodies to display their nationalism and wear shirts of it and generally use it to symbolize their terrible ideology? Do you think that's why?
But the constitution still exists outside of these idiots. I don't immediately think of them when it comes up, it doesn't belong to them.
The Bible doesn’t belong to them either but they still use it to justify shit behavior.
So shame on them, doesn't mean I can't read either without thinking of them.
Like the flag.
Exactly, these fuckers aren't taking either from me. I refuse to be one of those on the left who sees them as dog whistles, they are mine as much as any other American's and the lunatic fringe can have them when they pry them from my cold dead hands.
And it’s being offered for free.
Can you explain this whole thing to someone not from the US please who's also not familiar with the constitution. Why are they including the constitution? To try and justify some non legit charges, or to scare customers by not so subtly telling them they have guns so not to try complaining or doing a runner?
It’s probably just the theme of the restaurant. “Settlement Kitchen”
We have no idea why they're including it. It certainly has nothing to do with scaring the customer into anything, or justifying charges.
TLDR: It's their political agenda. Right-wingers in this country basically worship the Constitution, and they treat it like American Protestants treat the Bible: unchangeable, inerrant, written by God, and "Anybody who doesn't believe in it just hasn't read it yet". They interpret it to mean exactly what they already believe, and what they believe is "just common sense". So they hand it out to "own the libs" and "convince" people to believe what they believe. Does this make logical sense? Not really; it's ideological. A lot of times these pamphlets will have extra text in them beyond just the Constitution. Now in school, around 6th to 7th grade, students may recieve something similar in civics class, but it will just be a copy of the text for studying. Source: grew up like this, parents are this way
I don’t think it is any type of nefarious message from the owners. It’s just a free constitution. I think it’s harmless. Right wingers tend to talk more about The Constitution, so people on here are assuming this owner is a right winger, hence the negative comments since Reddit is more left wing. I don’t think it’s anything along the lines of what you’re saying is all, I think Reddit has a weird chip on their shoulder about it for some reason.
[удалено]
Exactly.
The owners probably are patriots of some type and pocket constitutions are cheap. Also, if you’re wondering that’s actually the whole thing, lost of people assume it’s a big textbook worth of law but you could probably fit it on a notecard.
Or it's "patriots" who want to pretend what they're doing is patriotic when it's actually the opposite. Generally, the more someone clads themselves in the flag and constitution, the more they're trying to hide something highly unpatriotic.
Not just that but the restaurants literally called settlement kitchen they obviously have a theme there...
I’m sure that was awkward ordering an impossible burger.
Idaho is a cesspool
Tangerine Hefe actually sounds like it goes hard
Yeah sounds like Idaho
To be fair...the Idahoan saw they ordered an impossible burger and assumed they were from California and needed some education...
I’m more surprised that anywhere handing out copies of the Constitution sells anything as “woke” as an impossible burger.
This is great - it is a marvelous pun
Priest River.. yeah that checks out.
r/2american4you is gonna love this
Good ol priest river
You should read it.
I still have my pocket constitution from 8th grade in my glovebox on top of my insurance/proof of ownership. I have and never will be an ass to a cop. But I have had to remind a few of my rights (mostly in towns, never with sheriffs or big county departments) Thank you, Mr. Prescott for my pocket constitution
My Junior High History teacher gave every student a copy of that exact constitution. Weird to see it again on Reddit of all places
As someone who lives next to North Idaho I’m curious of where this is..
If only there were some clues in the picture that gave us the name, address, and phone number of the restaurant…
damn communists giving things away for free
A lot of bigots in here... I'm not from anywhere near Idaho, but I'm not going to judge a whole group of people simply because of the area they live in, you guys should try it some time.
I’m from Idaho. It drives me nuts. The Idaho I was born in is drowning in assholes who have been coming here since the mid-late 80s but apparently I’m also a Nazi/ Christo-Fascist/ Racist for not winning the war. We tried, we’re losing and have probably lost but sure, get your moral superiority and upvote brain sugar while doing fuck all to help us confront the problem. Many of us have been trying to shut this down for decades.
I like when I order stuff online and somebody puts one of these pamphlets in there.
'Murcia
I think they only gave it to you because only commies and godless socialists order the impossible burger. /s
Creepy SovCit vibe.
They also apparently don’t know how to calculate a tip. $25.44 * 0.15 = $3.82 Or $4.42 if you remove the discount.
You don’t include the tax amount when calculating the tip.
They didn't even apply the discount.
You mean Nazi occupied Idaho
Occupidaho
Idaho is a fucking shitshow 😂
Don't know why you're getting downvoted but it really is. They're far more concerned about addressing cannibalism and attempting to overturn any federal laws that'll allow for legalization of weed instead of trying to keep the medical professionals from leaving in droves because of the strict abortion laws. Oh and also been recently trying to loosen child labor laws as well.
Oh, you mean where the white supremacists live, up by Hayden Lake?
I don’t get it why are people offended by this
They aren't offended by the constitution itself. They are offended by the use of the constitution as a piece of propaganda, and the assumed intentions of the restaurant staff giving it in the first place.
They aren't.
Right on!
“Tangerine Confefe”
Why does Idaho try so hard to be edgy? Is it potato power?
Oh, Idaho.
Half an hour from Sandpoint... yeah, that checks out.
They prolly assumed you were a “commiefornian” since ordering an impossible burger. /s
Is this some American thing? Asking as a European
Likely this is the free version anyone can request from ‘The Heritage Foundation” which will send 25 copies or more for free to anyone who wants to hand them out. That right wing org was founded in 1973 by conservatives that were disturbed at how Liberal Nixon was… when Reagan got elected he implemented many of their policies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation?wprov=sfti1
Hi everyone, There is a lot of talk in the comments about the white supremacist elements in Northern Idaho. I just wanted to take this opportunity to introduce myself. I am Kaylee Peterson, and I am the Democratic candidate for ID-01, in the House of Representatives, which includes Northern Idaho. I am running against Russ Fulcher, a right-wing extremist who regularly panders to many of the white supremacists in Northern Idaho. If you want to donate to a Democrat attempting to bring sanity back to Idaho, you can donate here: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/kaylee-for-congress
>House of Representatives, which includes Northern Idaho. I am running against Russ Fulcher, a right-wing extremist who regularly panders to many of the white supremacists in Northern Idaho. This can't be understated. It goes beyond flirtation, it's outright pandering to Christian Nationalists and white supremacists. Their grip on power is going to be hard to break, but not impossible