Horse 3382 - I Read Quadrant Magazine So You Don't Have To

This is Quadrant magazine.

The chances are that you probably have not heard of Quadrant magazine. As far as the Four G's of magazines go (Grin mags, Grot mags, Grunt mags, Grumble mags), Quadrant is a Grumble mag which styles itself as having a bias "towards cultural freedom, anti-totalitarianism, and classical liberalism". In reality though the magazine under the editorship of Keith Windschuttle, actively pursued an editorial bias of colonial imperialism which often flirted with white supremacy, advocated for the power of the state to enforce same, and took the editorial stance that anything which didn't conform to Keith's increasingly narrow view of the world was simply never published. If the magazine's own tagline of its bias was supposed to be a mission statement, then I can only assume that as time went on that it became more like a Newspeak metaphor, where two plus two equalled five.

I used to read Quadrant sufficiently enough that I saw its internal shift from what was late 90s neoliberalism to something which was more at home in "Bulldog" magazine of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Bulldog was the magazine of what was the British National Front; which one can only assume was started in the wake of the demise of the British Union of Fascists. Quadrant magazine was never as blatant or open as Bulldog but under Windschuttle's editorship, it certainly pointed the pulse as if it wanted the ship to steer in that direction. So toxic had Quadrant become, that even I couldn't bring myself to be bothered to read it anymore. The question of why I of all people would be reading Quadrant in the first, can be easily answered that if you consider that The Australian is the doyenne of News Corp and Rupert's little princess, then Quadrant was the intellectual darling of the right that The Australian looked up to.  

So when I found out that Windschuttle stood down as editor and Rebecca Weisser replaced him, I was interested to see if the magazine had shifted in tone. It had not all that much. This latest edition though, is a rollicking ran through The Australian's reject list of contributors. The July-August 2024 edition of Quadrant, is the literary equivalent of Red Bull's Flugtag but instead of there being water below, it is just a concrete runway. 

Tony Abbott's piece tries to make the case that there is too much American Liberalism in Australian courts. It manages to be an amazing piece that actually makes no reference to any court case; even though there should have been an open goal with Giggle v Tickle before the courts when this went to publication. The piece is peppered with short, sharp, scattergun, sentences; which are very much of the kind that you will find in Abbott's book "Battlelines", which was a more coherent read than whatever this is supposed to be. I suppose that if you are putting a book out for publication, that the process of having an editor would tend to force someone to think and rethink about what they have written. Tony's piece is borderline unreadable.

But wait, for the low low price of $15 (which to be fair is actually pretty good value for longform journalism (?)) you get the words of TWO ex-Prime Ministers for the price of one. John Howard has written a very very longwinded and deliberate piece which, on the face of it appears to be making the general case that anthropomorphic climate change either isn't real and/or that there is nothing that we can do about it, and then pivots to a kind of puff-piece for nuclear energy. 

It was Howard's Government which put the kibosh on nuclear energy generation in Australia and while this might be a case of an opinion changing due to someone having better information, this is not even hiding in plain sight that this piece has a very narrow target audience; specifically of a group of 227 souls whose workplace is a house, in a hill, with a flag on top, and a roundabout going around. This is the hymn sheet from which Blue Ties are expected to sing from. 

As for the rest of what is in here: we have Gerard Henderson writing an apology piece for George Pell, Tim Blair actively demonstrating that the right is unfunny and why people like him deserve to be made fun of by "leftist" comedians, the latest hit piece in the more than sixty-part installment on Bruce Pascoe, yet another piece denying that racism exists, while another 

In short, Rebecca Weisser's replacement of Keith Windschuttle looks as if you had taken a nap in August 2004, or August 1954, and woken up, and nothing had changed at all. It looks as though Quadrant is still the same Grumble mag that it always was but someone has just changed the lightbulb.

I hate Quadrant magazine. 

No really. 

My late mother quite wisely said that you shouldn't hate something unless you want it dead. Quite frankly if Quadrant magazine died, then not many would mourn its passing and maybe even some iota of public discourse would improve slightly.

Having said that, Quadrant magazine is a textbook case of one thing and one thing only fitting into an exact hole in the market. There is no competitor because the market would never absorb it; which is hilariously ironic given that classical liberalism (which Quadrant pretends to promote) likes the idea of the competition of ideas in the marketplace.

How does this small thing fit into its perfectly sized niche? Well, if there are 50 newsagencies the country who sell 20 magazines per issue, which over two months is not that hard to do, then that is a circulation of 1000 copies at a time. 1000 copies at $15 is $15,000. $15,000 on a bi-monthly basis is six times per year, which is $90,000 per year. Now obviously I have no idea of exactly how many copies are sold per month but as I am just chucking rocks into a pond here, that's good enough.

Quadrant magazine is a tidy little earner for exactly one person full-time, is probably bankrolled by some right-wing benefactor, and likely pays its contributors in nothing more than artisanal garlic bread and pot pourri. I have only ever seen Quadrant magazine in a few select newsagent in Mosman, Double Bay, at Sydney Airport, and in the newsagency in Parliament House in Canberra. That says to me that the niche which Quadrant magazine fits exactly into, consists of the few right-wing intellectuals that actually exist in Australia, and the wives of the members of ASX200 boards. 

Horse 3381 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - 2A

Amendment II.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

-

No other piece of legislation is as infamous or brings out visible hypocrisy in people than this.  

To get ahead of the discussion and address the first point of order which is always brought up by 2A advocates, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms was not invented by this Amendment to the Constitution. All of the original thirteen states have various statutes of reception which received English Common Law and the cases and decisions therein, as precedent; which formed the corpus of their own law. 

This means that 2A did not under any circumstances give rise to the ability to overthrow the British; nor was it handed down by God on high; nor is the right innate. In fact, 2A is similar in construction to Section 7 of the Bill of Rights Act 1688.

http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/bor16881wams2c2306/s7.html

Subjects' arms

That the subjects which are protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.

- Section 7, Bill of Rights Act (1688)

It should be apparent at this point that the text of the 1688 legislation and the 1791 legislation are materially different. The 1688 legislation contains that general principle that law generally should be about the regulation, standardisation, and protection of society. The material difference here between "allowed by law" and "shall not be infringed", is the unshackling of law from those ideals, to a place where the law itself is monstrous.

Now owing to the right that SCOTUS took for itself in Marbury v Madison (1803) in which "what the law is", this means that 2A has been allowed to become even more monstrous because as a result of Heller v DC (2008), SCOTUS has functionally struck off the entire first half of this amendment. The key part of the text of the ruling from Heller v DC (2008) reads:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

"the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." 

- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

The summary of this is that SCOTUS has held that private citizens have the right under the 2A to possess an ordinary type of weapon and use it for lawful, historically established situations such as self-defense in a home, even when there is no relationship to a local militia. If the right exists even when there is relationship to a local militia, then the whole first half of 2A serves no purpose whatsoever.

Defenders of 2A now must arrive at a series of internal lies in order to maintain the argument for 2A's fitness of purpose. The best test for the fitness of purpose of legislation and indeed for internal contradictions, is to test the document against itself and see how it is supposed to address the aims of the document. If you remember all the way back to the beginning of the United States Constitution, the Preamble states that in "order to form a more perfect Union" that certain criteria must be met. We can use the Preamble as the yardstick against everything which follows thereafter. 

Does 2A establish Justice? No. We have to conclude that as murder rates in the United States due to firearms are absolutely hideous, then it does not. On the contrary. Justice implies that people get just rewards for their actions; which in the positive are payments and benefits and privileges, in the negative are punishments and the moral obligation to make good for injury. 2A eliminates justice by taking any and all deliberation process in disputes away from courts and placing them into the hands of an idiot who can pull a trigger, to play judge , jury and executioner all at once.

Does 2A insure domestic Tranquility? No. Again, hideous homicide rates due to firearms is the exact opposite of domestic Tranquility. Even in the worst case scenario, the homicide rates due to firearms is greater than fifteen times that of the per capita rate in my country. For calendar year 2023, the comparison was more than fifty times greater. Is a 5000% greater homicide rate per capita "domestic Tranquility"?

Does 2A provide for the common defence? No. Not only has Heller v DC (2008) functionally struck off the entire first half of this Amendment, but various other clauses such as the ones found in Article 1, Section 8, which give the Federal Government the authority and power to "To raise and support Armies" and "To provide and maintain a Navy", and which have given rise to easily the most expensive military force on the face of the planet, not only renders the need to call for a militia obsolete but makes a complete mockery of this amendment.

Does 2A promote the general Welfare? No. It might be due to lack of imagination on my part but I honestly fail to see how more murder, more violence, and an attitude of increased aggression in any way promotes "the general Welfare". 

Does 2A secure the Blessings of Liberty? No. In fact, 2A not only doesn't secure the Blessings of Liberty, it shoots Liberty in the face, then urinates all over it. How can you hold any truth to be self-evident that there are unalienable rights, of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, when by operation of law, 2A destroys all three in an instant.

2A fails at every objective that the Preamble lays out. 0% is not even a passing mark. If 2A was a child in school and got 0% on a report card, you would quite rightly hold it back a year.

2A even fails at the fantasy that people put forward that they need to keep and bear Arms for personal defence. You can even test this with real world data because insurance companies, whose job it is to professionally play the gamble of calculated risk, already know that someone with a firearm is more likely to either kill themselves or be killed by someone in their own immediate family than anyone else, by at least two orders of magnitude.

The central lie at the heart of the fantasy that people need to keep and bear Arms for personal defence, is that firearms are not defensive pieces and at any rate, you can not sensibly defend yourself against people from within your own household or inside your own head. In fact, if someone with a firearm is more likely to either kill themselves or be killed by someone in their own immediate family, then the only 'defense' against this is that wives must kill their husbands, husbands must kill their wives, children must kill their parents in their god for this is right. 

The argument that 2A somehow defends against tyranny, is itself spurious. Not only is waging war against the United States illegal, but actually trying to wage war against a military force with a budget of $916,000,000,000 in 2023, is a stupid fantasy. The same kinds of people who in one breath think that they can beat the US Military, are also the same people likely to have "Support Our Troops" on the back of their pickup truck. Often cited is the war of Independence from 1775-1783 but as the US Civil War proved, what might have been possible in 1775 against a military fighting a war from the other side of an ocean, is a very different prospect to fighting a war within your own borders. This fantasy needs to end. 

2A especially proves that hard positions on rights conceptions are awful because if Law generally should be about the regulation, standardisation, and protection of society, then actively endangering people is in direct opposition to that telos. The 1688 Act which read "suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law" actually put sensible restraints upon the right because the awful awful truth that defenders of 2A always deny, is that Liberty in whatever conception that you might like to put forward, is utterly useless and pointless if you are dead.

The 1688 Act also assumes within the text that the right itself is not hard. The phrase "suitable to their conditions" acknowledges that it might very well be suitable and perhaps even necessary that someone in the country might need arms for things like pest control, and for facing the challenges of dangerous animals like wolves, lions, tigers, and bears (oh my), but someone in an urban environment is never going to need arms for anything, ever. The only reason that someone in any urban environment wants firearms, is to kill other people.

I also reject the notion that registering firearms is unfair as the only people who don't follow the law are criminals. On the contrary, it has been proven time and time again that having a register of firearms, means that it is far easier to find out who criminals due to forensic evidence. I note that in the United States, the 'solve rate' for homicide has been steadily falling since 1983; which should also tell us that as the number of firearms in society has increased, we have to assume that literally everyone is a criminal. In my country an assault rifle will cost more than $30,000 on the black market; which means that market forces also limit access.

This means that we can actually answer Hamilton's two key questions from Federalist No.29:

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens?

- Hamilton, Fed 29, 10th Jan 1788

There is not end to your fears. 

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. BAM. YOU'RE DEAD. BAM BAM BAM. SO IS YOUR FAMILY. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?

- Hamilton, Fed 29, 10th Jan 1788

There are no stories told in a vacuum. There is no prophecy lighting your way. There is just a lot of darkness to be afraid of; so you need to be very very very afraid. There is no Superman in that phone booth. There is no rewarding your faith. There is no one who can save you; so it's a good thing you can not be saved.

Life?

Liberty?

Happiness?

We hold these truths to be self-evident. Everyone who thinks that 2A needs to be on the books, thinks that your life is worthless.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. BAM. YOU'RE DEAD. BAM BAM BAM. SO IS YOUR FAMILY. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen? Very, lots, rather, real, and present, danger.

Death, Hades, Sheol, Abaddon: feeding time is all the time.

Horse 3380 - Some People Think That Curry Isn't British... WELL IT IS NOW!

There is this pervasive stereotype which persists that British food is bad. Partly this is because it is played up for laughs and partly because what is seen as stereotypical British food is not regarded as highly as fine French or Italian food, or as diverse as what is found in other places. The truth actually lies somewhere both in the middle and nowhere near this at all. 

The internet is very much to blame for this current reinforcement of the stereotype; which isn't helped by insular American pundits who genuinely don't have a clue what British people eat, or what they like. Instead, there is this weird projection of what midwestern white people in America eat, onto a nation on the other side of the Atlantic, whose most popular cuisine by far is what is found in curry houses. I have even seen people on the interwebs say they would make a fortune by opening a proper Southern food restaurant in the UK but that presumes the British palette is similar to what is found in the United States. 

There is even the allegation that what exists now in Britain's curry houses isn't British; even though a lot of what you will find in Britain bears no resemblance to what exists in India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, et cetera. This in itself displays a certain level of racism, because British South Asians have lived in Britain for ten generations in some cases and are just as every bit as British as the stereotypical white folk.

How is this remotely Indian any more?

The whole reason for empire in the first place when all reduced to tin tacks, was at its naked beating heart, purely about the pursuit of profits. The whole raison d'etre for every empire in the history of the world has always been about profits. Whether it is Roman Imperial Power smashing Europe, Mongol horsey horsepower starting and winning land wars in Asia, the Spanish Conquistadors and their discovery of the New World and the people and the stuff to be exploited, or the British stealing countries with the cunning use of flags, empire has always chased after gold and money - LOADSAMONEY! Specifically, the curious case of the British in India, started because the British East India Company wanted to spin a profit by the spice trade. If we anonymise this sentence, then a Company looking to do a Trade for Profits, is not particularly all that difficult to understand.

The whole point of the British being in India at all, was initially to buy and trade spices. It seems illogical that if the British East India Company arrived in India to buy and trade spices that literally none of those spices would find their way to Britain. Also when you consider native sauces like Horseradish, HP, Daddy's Favourite, and Hot English Mustard which is considerably hotter and madder than French Mustard, the arrival of spice in Britain seems like a natural extension. The fact that curries like Rogan Josh and Vindaloo which are sometimes hotter and madder than what you will find on the subcontinent, means that curry houses and spices generally, just like everything else that the British stole, are British now. The only difference between curry and  everything else that the British stole is that you can not put curry in the British Museum. Of course this does beg the question of whether or not South Asian food being made in Britain, make the food British. YES IT DOES. Is South Asian food being made in Britain, British? YES IT IS.

This general question of whether or not something which was foreign and has now been absorbed into the adoptive culture, is surely a matter of time and evolution. The idea that you would put chips and curry in the same box is likely an affront to the nation of India but in Britain, got for it.

The pizza as most of us know it today, has its progenitor at a restaurant called "Lombardi's" in New York City in 1905. Granted that in 1905 those mad Italian lads probably did use al their skill and prowess which they had gained from their Mamma Mia as little bambinos but as best as I can determine, they were using ingredients which they could find in the immediate area; which included German sausage.

If you run the clock way way forward in time, the invention of a "Hawaiian" pizza by a Greek man in Toronto, which then memetically found its way everywhere, is also very much not Italian. If you think that a Domino's Hawaiian pizza is Italian, you need your head examined. I would argue that even if you had a pizza made in Italy, by Italians, and all of the ingredients were sourced locally, then a Domino's Pizza is still not Italian food. Pizza has had so long of a time to be American that there are even sub-variants within America. New York Style, Chicago Deep Dish, Philly Style... The pizza as most people know it, the Hot Dog as most people know it, and the Hamburger as most people know it, are not Italian and German but as American as Apple Pie (which itself is not British).

Do people think that THIS is Italian?

Consider the Spring Roll or the Chiko Roll in Australia. This particular iteration of the Spring Roll was first invented in Melbourne in the 1950s, when someone came up with the idea of deep frying a way more doughy version than you will ever find in China, as a thing which could be held by people in one hand when they were watching Australian Rules Football. 

The same people who want to make the point that a Curry must be Indian, or that a Pizza must be Italian, have also tried to convince me that a Spring Roll must be Chinese. To them I put forward the question, in what world would any self-respecting Chinese person claim that this glorious abomination, is in any way Chinese? These things are likely going to be sold in the same places that will do Fish And Chips, or a Hamburger with beetroot and egg on it, and apart from the fact that they are a golden brown fried pipe of dubious and unknown ingredients, they in no way resemble their cousins from China. If this iteration of a Spring Roll, is sold only in Australia; is it still Chinese?

Tang Sanzang: Dismayed that the Land of the South knows only hedonism, promiscuity, and sins

Likewise I would argue that the Halal Snack Pack (HSP), while it once upon a time might have been claimed by as many countries as Greece, Türkiye, Syria, Lebabnon, Palestine, and maybe Egypt, if it is not already then it is very much on its way to being claimed by us in Australia. Quite frankly the only people who object to the HSP, are those white people cosplaying as rural farmers and who are offended at mayonnaise for being too spicy, or those people from the richer parts of the cities who don't do any real work other than move the giant pile of money around and claim that there's too many immigrants but are happy to collect dividends and rents. My prediction is that by 2050, HSP will join the unholy Australian canon with Meat Pies, Spring Rolls, and the Flat White.

In fact, to close the loop here, a client of ours who had recently been to Egypt to see the things that one does on a stereotypical holiday in Egypt (the Pyramids, the Valley of the Kings, the Sphinx, et cetera), said that they found something on sale in Cairo at a street-food shop called the "Australia Box", which is our old friend the HSP. This is the world come to us, wrangled and remanufactured, before being transformed and sent back into the world again. 

I have no way to quantify this but I will suggest that the time it takes for a thing to be absorbed and actually become part of the country which it now finds itself in, is likely about 50 years. That's just enough time for the first of a generation to become grandparents and for the children of children to grow up in a world which they only know as the country they find themselves in. They do not have an adoptive country. They are not the children of immigrants. They ARE the current cutting edge of culture generally. 

A British Curry is British... and a Vindaloo? It's very very English. How English? This English:

Me and me Mum and me Dad and me Gran,

We're off to Waterloo.

Me and me Mum and me Dad and me Gran,

And a bucket of Vindaloo.

VINDALOO, VINDALOO, VINDALOO, VINDALOO, nah nah.

VINDALOO, VINDALOO, VINDALOO, VINDALOO, nah nah.

VINDALOO, VINDALOO, and we all like Vindaloo. (We're Eng-er-land)

We're gonna score one more than you - ENGLAND!

Horse 3379 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - The Next Preamble and 1A

Preamble to the Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March,

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses

concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

(Note: The first 10 amendments to the Constitution were ratified December 15, 1791, and form what is known as the “Bill of Rights.”)

- 

The spirit of disunity which was initially caused by Rhode Island refusing to ratify the Constitution until the remaining 12 of 13 states threatened with with trade embargoes, is the climate by which the Bill of Rights was formed. It is very much worth remembering the words of Thomas Jefferson, as the crystallisation of these rights and not of others, and the disability of the Constitution to change fluidly with what is and is not decent or just, serves to act as a permanent tombstone upon the republic for whom they stand. 

Even Thomas Jefferson who was the Trade Commissioner to the Kingdom of France, and then the Minister to France, in correspondence with James Madison (who is largely considered the "Father of the Constitution") wrote:

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, & what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, & consequently may govern them as they please. But persons & property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course, with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, & no longer. Every constitution then, & every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, & not of right. 

It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be indeed if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly & without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal & vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interests of their constituents: and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal."

- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 6th Sep 1789.

While Madison was on the floor of the House, he basically had every kind of objection and complaint about the deficiencies of the Constitution directed at him by the Anti-Federalist factions who had been elected. In response, the "Bill of Rights" which aren't even called that within the legislation, are "further declaratory and restrictive clauses" which should be seen as corrective rather than expansionary. 

Although Congress did approve twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789, they do not really express any desire to "expand justice" or "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, or promote the general Welfare" at all. Indeed, while I have previously written about all ten of what is commonly known as the "Bill of Rights", I shall cover this ground again because while there are good aspects to most systems of rights conceptions, the flaws therein are not immediately obvious.

For the next 27 Amendments to the US Constitution, I shall adopt the common convention of referring to the numbered Amendments as 1A, 2A, 3A, et cetera.

Amendment I.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

-

Freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof is a good idea. However, "religion" is a set of practices which result from a belief set; which needs further examination.

Everyone without exception has some core belief set. It is impossible to live in the kosmos unless you have at least some abstract set of beliefs about how the kosmos works. Religion is nominally an ordered set of practices, sometimes derived from scripture and sometimes not, in which the object of one's worship, is shown loyalty, fealty, affection, devotion, exultation, et cetera. 

There could very well be a set of practices which are intolerable to society at large and an anathema to things like Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, Liberty and whatnot, as stated in the Preamble's aims as to what the Constitution at large is designed to do. What happens if for instance, that some religious sect thought that sacrificing people on an altar was necessary to appease their gods? Here we have already run into the problem of why a very hard conception of what rights are, is bad law. To test law, we need to find the limits and see where the goodness and fitness of the law breaks.

Advocates of hard rights in the extreme position, would have to acquiesce that child sacrifice is a logical end to the operation of 1A. Why is that a good thing? This is always the difficulty with hard rights positions. I think that generally speaking, if the operation of law, which includes the exercising of rights, leads to harm and/or death, the it is bad law. 

The general test which you will find in Westminster traditions of law, is the reasonableness test. The reasonableness test says that equity and outcomes should be evaluated according to what a reasonable person of ordinary faculties would conceive of as reasonable. In English law they are personified as "the Man on the Clapham Omnibus" and I have heard of the expression "Billy Brown of Sydney Town" also as the personification of the reasonable and ordinary person. 

Would a reasonable and ordinary person be fine with child sacrifice? No. I think that a reasonable and ordinary person would be horrified as this offends common decency and the rights of the person being sacrificed, to an ordinary and boring life. Clearly this part of 1A does have limits but if "Congress shall make no law" "prohibiting the free exercise thereof", then this is equally horrifying.

Likewise a hard position on "abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" is equally horrifying. A hard position would suggest that things like racism or sedition or defamation, in which other people are actively harmed, is acceptable. Yet again, I come back to the words of 

https://www.jade.io/article/269619

A good draftsman would realize that the mere generality of the word must compel limitation in its interpretation. “ Free ” in itself is vague and indeterminate. It must take its colour from the context. Compare, for instance, its use in free speech, free love, free dinner and free trade. Free speech does not mean free speech ; it means speech hedged in by all the laws against defamation, blasphemy, sedition and so forth ; it means freedom governed by law as was pointed out in McArthur's Case.

- James v Commonwealth (1936) 55CLR1

The hardest of hard positions would have to conclude that all expressions of the free exercise of religion, or that all cases of speech or anything published in the press should be free and unfettered. I think that this is stupid. I would ask why people who think that there should be no limits to liberty, when the unfettered exercise therein will cause harm and death to people, are being deliberately stupid. 

"If everyone is tolerant of every idea, then intolerant ideas will emerge. Tolerant people will tolerate this intolerance, and the intolerant people will not tolerate the tolerant people. Eventually, the intolerant people will take over and create a society of intolerance. Therefore, Popper said, to maintain a society of tolerance, the tolerant must be intolerant of intolerance."

- Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)

It was the repeated free exercise of speech which led to the rise of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party and with the unfettered free exercise of speech, followed the spillover of mere ideas to action; resulting eventually in the extermination of Jews. 

This says to me that a tolerant society must defend itself against onslaught of the intolerant, because if not, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. Unfettered free speech which preaches and propagandises intolerance as a mode of operation can and should be placed beyond the limits of the law; which is why in my country, things like the Racial Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act place the reasonableness test front and centre; because that reasonable and ordinary person deserves an ordinary and boring life.

This is why I think that hard positions on rights conceptions are awful. Law generally should be about the regulation, standardisation, and protection of society. Incitement to intolerance, incitement to violence, and incitement to harm, in no way should be protected by law. Society when looked at under a microscope, is in reality made up of individual granular people who themselves are far more valuable and fragile and precious than we might care to think. 

You should however, still be allowed to yell "Theatre!" in a crowded fire.

Horse 3378 - Gadigal Station Is A Good Name

If you want to run a litmus test to find out who your racist friends are, then simply ask them what they think of the name "Gadigal" as a railway station. If they like it, then they might be sympathetic to the cause of first peoples. If they object with open racism, then believe them. If on the other hand, they come up with some half-baked semi-excuse such as "they don't know where Gadigal is", then they might be a quiet racist who fears what other people think and so remain quiet.

The usual objection to the name Gadigal by quietly racist people is that they prefer some other name which is ill-thought out but sounds nice to their ears. Consider the name "Pitt Street". While it is true that the station does have a station front at Pitt Street, unlike Martin Place which is also in the city, it is not short. In fact, Martin Place is so short that you can stand at one end of it and look up or down the hill to see the other end. Pitt Street though, is many kilometres long and that name might be equally valid for a station near Circular Quay, or in the older sandstone government building district, or near King Street, or under the mall where the department stores are near, or where it currently is, or further down towards the Masonic Centre. Calling the station Pitt Street would mean that the name fails at its only function; to tell you where it is. Before I explain why Gadigal is a better name though, I am going to take you on a metaphorical journey.

Yes, it is true that Gadigal is not a suburb. For a thing to be named as a suburb, it must go through the process of being gazetted by the Geographical Names Board. Even then, some places such as Golden Grove, Balmoral Beach, and Spit Junction still aren't suburbs but localities. For instance, Spit Junction is a locality with a Post Office and even postal addresses but even then, those postal addresses extend only as far as the post boxes which are in the Post Office itself. Spit Junction is a final header destination on buses and even has a bus station which is labelled at Spit Junction. Spit Junction is not a suburb. Spit Junction is in Mosman. 

As for Gadigal Station, it is named not after a suburb or a locality but rather, the traditional Eora name for the region. Not that that matters as naming railway stations after things that are not suburbs is not without precedent. There are in fact quite a few stations in Sydney where the name of the station is not named after the suburb but the locality and in some cases, not even the locality. 

Circular Quay Station is named after Circular Quay; which long before there was a railway station, was the name given to the place from where ships and ferries came and went. During the planning stages for the Sydney Electric Underground Railway, the usual name for the station was not Circular Quay but merely Quay as if was on the head boards for tram services. 

Speaking of tram services, Wynyard Station which was conceived as an eight platform underground through terminal, is not named for the area at all. The park on top of the station was originally called Barrack Square, sometimes Quartermaster Square, and only really gained the name of Wynyard when the park was being redeveloped. The statue for John Wynyard at the northern end of the park, kind of cemented the idea of the locality in people's minds after the fact.

Central Station is even weirder. The suburb with Central Station is in is Strawberry Hills. There is no Strawberry Hills Station though.  The grand terminal which faces Eddy Avenue and Railway Square, is Sydney Terminal. I do not think that you will find the official name anywhere on any of the signage but you might hear it occasionally over the tannoy when announcements are being made on long distance services. Sydney Station used to be where the historic mortuary platform is; and was moved in 1916. The extra platforms to the south which are numbered 16-23 (24-25 and 26-27) come much later) were originally called and signposted as Central Electric. The last vestiges that this was ever the case, used to be a lightbox which had the old L7 logo, at street level near the round doric columned enterance across the street from the Dental Hospital. It is long gone.

A more recent entry to this list of stations not being named for suburbs, is Tallawong. In the planning documents as far back ago as 2011, that station was called Cudgewong Road after the proposed site for the railway station. When the station was moved a few hundred metres to the south, the name Tallawong was picked after the next road that the railway line crossed, Tallawong Road. The suburb of Tallawong, which as eventually carved out of both Schofields and Rouse Hill is named after the station which was named after the road. The station itself when it was opened, was actually in the suburb of Rouse Hill. 

So while Barangaroo might be named after the development, and Victoria Cross named after an intersection, St James being named after a church, and Museum after the museum, Gadigal is a bit like Wynyard in that it was named deliberately and the area then took on the name of the station as the local flair. Here's the thing though, you never ever ever hear anyone complaining about where Wynyard is supposed to be, even though it is the suburb of Sydney. People seemingly have no problem with naming a railway station after some guy that they have never even heard of.

In that respect it is identical to Wynyard, or Central and maybe even eventually Tallawong. There is no suburb called Wynyard. There is no suburb called Central. There was no suburb called Tallawong but there is now; after the fact. If you say to people that you will meet them at Wynyard or Central, do they care what the name of the suburb is? No. If you say to people that you will meet them at St James or Museum, are they even aware of the church or the museum? Mostly, no. 

Your quietly racist friend who fears what other people think might quietly seethe inside about the name Gadigal but in the year 2074, they will likely be dead and with them their quietly racist fears about what other people think will have evaporated along with them. The children of tomorrow will know exactly where Gadigal is because it will be where it is. The fun thing about any kind of name is that as soon as it is normalised, it will become boring. The beauty of the word is that in most people's minds, it carries exactly zero expectations about where it is. This means that the name Gadigal serves a different function as a place name. It doesn't describe the destination. It IS the destination.

Horse 3377 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Articles 6 & 7

Article. VI.

Clause 1

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation

-

By way of background, I will now tell you what was said in the room where it happened (kind of).

We do know that there was a conflict about where the United States Capital was supposed to be put; this resulted in a square shaped thing being set aside, which only some of which exists as a cut-out of Maryland today. That was one of the bargaining chips in play to explain the adoption of this clause. The other bargaining chip was to do with the assumption of state debts by the new Federal Government as part of the Adoption of this Constitution.

At the heart of the general theory of the epistemology of money, is the notion that that money is backed by legal force. Taxation which comes from the Latin "I pay" is coupled with the threat from the central government to throw people into prison or other punishment for failing to pay. 

So what does this have to do with this clause? The previous government formed under the Articles of Confederation, really only had the power to half-heartedly claim minor taxation for the services of the Army and to direct that same Army. It worked excellently when it came to the problem of fighting a war of independence but was utterly rubbish at doing literally anything else. The Articles of Confederation Government, was so rubbish at being a government, that that is what prompted the series of Constitutional Conventions to hack out a new Constitution and invent a proper federal government that was actually capable of doing governing.

That proper federal government could only properly operate if it had power over the Army, the laws of the Land, and the money supply. So in the room where it happened (the room where it happened), we absolutely know that the New York Delegate which included Hamilton, fought for the right for the Central Bank to be headquartered in New York City as that was obviously where the biggest trade centre was. The master stroke was having the new proper federal government assume the $75,000,000 in debts that the states had accumulated in fighting the war of independence and with those debts, the authority and ability to collect and enforce the collection of those debts through taxation. 

As far as any of the United States Constitution goes, this might possibly be one of the few sections which I not only approve of but which I think is utterly essential and vital to the running of a proper federal government.

Clause 2

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

-

We again find another utterly essential and vital clause in the United States Constitution. This clause also demonstrates the paradox operating at the heart of every constitution. 

A constitution in principle is the set of rules by which you make other rules. In most theories of law, the existence of some kind of constitution, whether written or unwritten, is the thing which gives rise to that new body corporate (nations, states, companies, churches, associations, clubs, et cetera) as a separate and distinct legal person which has the ability to act at law in their own right. 

The very azimuth kernel of the paradox is that the constitution has to give itself the power to give itself power. The reason why This Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land is because this clause in particular gave itself the legal power to be the supreme Law of the Land.

The other side of the paradox though is that as the Laws, all Treaties made, and the Judges in every State, are bound by This Constitution, if the Constitution itself is bad, then resulting law must contain some central element of badness which is just waiting to bite. In that respect, the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom, which exists purely as the current sets of conventions is the best constitution of all as it lasts exactly as long as the current sets of conventions last. An unwritten constitution is obviously more subject to being pushed about by the whims of the people who want to push it about, but it is by nature infinitely more dynamic and responsive to the need of a constitution to change as times change,

Clause 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

-

This clause makes me wonder about the naivety of the framers of the Constitution. Did they really thing that an Oath or Affirmation to support this Constitution would be enough to keep nefarious and dangerous people out? Having invented an impeachment process which very clearly and repeatedly does not work, did they ever dream about people like Buchanan, Jackson, Harding, Nixon, or Trump, assuming office? 

Oaths work well when you have people who are sensible and broadly reasonable. When you have people who are unreasonable and who genuinely do not care about the consequences of their actions, then Oaths are useless. If someone is as good as their word but their word is in bad faith, then holding them to an Oath which they think only exists to serve pomp, circumstance, and ceremony, is a waste of time.

Also, I find the inclusion that no religious Test shall ever be required, as quite frankly bizarre. As accepted in 1788 there is no mention of religion anywhere else in the document. As this was written and agreed to before the Bill of Rights was tacked onto the end as an afterthought, then this part of this clause is trying to solve a problem which honestly didn't exist. When you consider that the colonies were started by a combination of Puritans, Anglicans, Lutherans, Baptists, Catholics, Orthodox, Jews, Muslims, and animists and non-conformists, and that they were already a swirling maelstrom of pluralism, then this inclusion seems unnecessary. Perhaps they were worried about one faction or another gaining influence and stealing away power for themselves? The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers both gloss over this.

Article. VII.

The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

- 

Article VII states that there shall only be needed 9 of 13 states to Establish of this Constitution. I note that this then goes on to state that there were delegates from 12 states present; and that Rhode Island is missing. What I find weird about this is that while needing 9 of 12 is consistent with the requirement for three-quarters of the states needed to change the Constitution per Article V, why you wouldn't need all 13 at inception seems odd to me.

That one hold out was Rhode Island, who wouldn't ratify the Constitution until 1790, and even then it only happened after the other 12 States unanimously threatened a trade embargo against Rhode Island for non-compliance.

Rhode Island, to give it its full name at the time Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, wanted to retain the power to issue its own currency because that give it the power to enact its own monetary policy. Remember, whoever owns the debt has the power to collect that same debt and Rhode Island very much wanted to keep that power for itself.

It was their hold out and the agitation by the southern states who wanted to ensure that they retained the power to keep, maintain, and kill escaping slaves, which is why the Bill of Rights ended up being tack onto the end. Even in context, the Bill of Rights was never about ensuring rights for common folk but keeping and maintaining power by the rich and powerful. 

Addenda:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names:

(list of names)

In Convention Monday September 17th, 1787. Present

The States of:

New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Mr. Hamilton from New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

<><>

Resolved,

That the preceeding Constitution be laid before the United States in Congress assembled, and that it is the Opinion of this Convention, that it should afterwards be submitted to a Convention of Delegates, chosen in each State by the People thereof, under the Recommendation of its Legislature, for their Assent and Ratification; and that each Convention assenting to, and ratifying the Same, should give Notice thereof to the United States in Congress assembled. Resolved, That it is the Opinion of this Convention, that as soon as the Conventions of nine States shall have ratified this Constitution, the United States in Congress assembled should fix a Day on which Electors should be appointed by the States which shall have ratified the same, and a Day on which the Electors should assemble to vote for the President, and the Time and Place for commencing Proceedings under this Constitution

That after such Publication the Electors should be appointed, and the Senators and Representatives elected: That the Electors should meet on the Day fixed for the Election of the President, and should transmit their Votes certified, signed, sealed and directed, as the Constitution requires, to the Secretary of the United States in Congress assembled, that the Senators and Representatives should convene at the Time and Place assigned; that the Senators should appoint a President of the Senate, for the sole Purpose of receiving, opening and counting the Votes for President; and, that after he shall be chosen, the Congress, together with the President, should, without Delay, proceed to execute this Constitution. 

By the unanimous Order of the Convention.

-

From Monday September 17th, 1787, the wheels are already set in motion to begin the practical outworking of the badness of this Constitution. 

It should be noted that there is no prescription on how the States are to conduct their elections for their members to the House of Representatives and Senate, nor a prescription on how the States are to conduct their processes for deciding who the electors are, and in 1787 no limits on whom the States are allowed to deny the franchise to. The very notion of democracy in 1787 was seen as dangerous, with Hamilton writing in the Federalist Papers about his concerns and animosity to it, on the basis that the emotions of the People run hot and that allowing them the franchise would subject politics to the winds of popular fanaticism. Of course we know this to be true but the general opinion was that the franchise should only be extended to those people with skill and standing. The People, as agreed to by most of these delegates, are idiots.

I note that in these list of names, George Washington is already the President of the Convention and it is likely assumed that he would go on to be the first President of the United States in this new form of Government. In the subsequent elections, he would in fact go on unopposed; which already says that there was nobody else in the several states who loomed quite as large in the public opinion. I also note that both Hamilton and Madison who both wrote the bulk of the Federalist Papers as propaganda pieces for this Constitution, are present; as is everyone's favourite serial philanderer, bounder, cad, and bohemian, Ben Franklin. From what I can determine, I think his only contributions to the Conventions was a series of bon mots and tepid asides.

Horse 3376 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Article 5

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

-

Either:

- a supermajority of both houses; or

- a supermajority of the States.

call a Convention for a proposed Amendment.

Then, 

Upon ratification of three-quarters of the State Legislatures, the Amendment is passed.

There are so many horribly stupid things wrong with this that this Article demanded its own post, as opposed to Articles 3 & 4 which could Be posted as a single post.

Firstly, unless a proposed Amendment is so amazingly urgent that even the Members of the Congress know that they will lose their jobs if they do not pass it, proposed Amendments either get defeated before they can be approved, or languish for so long that they then get unmade.

The Equal Rights Amendment which was proposed in 1920, which would have and should have given women equal rights under the Constitution, was passed and ratified by enough states to pass but then was unmade before it came to be added, due to states unratifying it and other states being admitted to the Union. Ladies, as it stands under the United States Constitution, we hold this truth to be legally evident, that you are not created equal and are not endowed by the United States Constitution with those same inalienable rights as men.

Secondly, even if a proposed Amendment is unequivocally just, due to the nature of the Members of the Congress being self-interested and selfish and at times actually evil, then it will not pass.

Justice is not a measure by which Amendments are made to the United States Constitution. It is for this reason why Slavery is still technically on the books. It is for this reason that there is still no explicit right to vote and can be denied or abridged on grounds other than the ones prescribed by the various Amendments. There is no right to Life under the United States Constitution. There is no right to Healthcare under the United States Constitution. There is no right to Education under the United States Constitution. Not even FDR with his suggested Second Bill of Rights could force Congress's hand. As far as the United States Constitution, American citizens are functionally garbage who do not have the right to life, liberty, or happiness, or the conditions which promote or allow it. 

Thirdly, even if a proposed Amendment is necessary, due to the nature of the Members of the Congress being self-interested and selfish and at times actually evil, then it will not pass.

An Amendment needs either a supermajority of both houses or a supermajority of the States to call for a Convention and then ratification of three-quarters of the State Legislatures. Anyone who has seen C-SPAN knows that the only things that you can actually get Congress to agree to as a supermajority, are gibberish pieces of nonsense such as renaming Post Offices or Highways and the like; the kinds of things that have no actual impact to people's lives.

When you have people crying out in the streets, Congress can and will argue and refuse to agree to even the most petty of things. It someone proposed that Congress were to make a hero sandwich, then I am sure that Congress would fail to agree to pass the sandwich. Some on the touchy-feely libertarian left would want alfalfa and cress, while those on the gun-totin' all shootin' authoritarian right want raw elephant meat with the blood still dripping down the sides. The boring sensible centre-right who just want roast beef and the equally boring centre left who want tomato and cheese, have to sit around and wait while every position becomes an extreme version of itself; where the opposition is worse than Hitler, or worse than Stalin, and where everyone is pro-anti-super-crypto-based-cringe-psyop-identikitist.

Fourthly, assuming that you do manage to cobble together some kind of coalition of the willing, the method of Ratification is still dependent upon the approval of the Congress. We have already seen in those first three objections that the self-interest by the Members of Congress is antithetic to the approval process. Article 5 then empowers that antithesis by placing the power to change the decision for the method of Ratification into those same self-interested persons.'

My objection here is that the Constitution here, embeds a conflict of interest. From any kind of logical perspective, that is just bad law. Worse, that is bad law which sits as the central plank of the rule of law in the nation. 

Fifthly, the fact that the method of changing the Constitution is so arcane and labyrinthine, it means that things which should not be rights, such as the right to bear arms, stay on the books and then become the object of idol worship because they are in the Constitution. 

If you have a thing which actively endangers domestic Tranquility, the common defence, the general Welfare, and slashes and burns the Blessings of Liberty, then I do not care whether or not it is a right because the Constitution says so. Both the people defending something that gives rise to death, and the right itself are objectively evil. 

Sixthly, is the undemocratic mode of operation of this Article. Unlike a referendum in Australia which is the way that the Australian Constitution is changed, there is not referral to the People of the United States if the United States Constitution is to be changed. The requirement that there be a majority of voters and in a majority of states in Australia looks similar, but that supermajority of both houses, and the supermajority of the States is not any kind of referral to the people at all.

It seems pretty fundamental to me, that the supreme law of the land and the prime rule by which all the other rules must stand by, should be referred to the people who have to live under it. Yet again I refer to the Declaration of Independence in which Jefferson stated that governments only justly derive their power from the "consent of the governed". Article 5 makes no attempt to confer with the people whatsoever; so I have no idea why it pretends to have the "consent of the governed".

One objection is a check light. Two objections is a waving red flag. Three objections is red lights and sirens time. SIX objections aught to be enough to let someone inside the house know that the house is on fire.

Horse 3375 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Articles 3 And 4

Article. III.

SECTION. 1

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

-

The United States Constitution, unlike the condition by which Members of the House or Senate are appointed, and unlike the offices of the President, imposes no such boundary upon any kind of term limit or any other bound limit upon Supreme Court Justices. A Justice of the Supreme Court, appointed by the President in cahoots with a Senate which whom they must be cartelled with now by newly established convention, has the position for life. 

For a nation which had just fought a war over what it asserted was arbitrary power being imposed with no restraint, to then hand arbitrary power with no restraint to someone who has no mechanism for removal other than impeachment which itself is a political process, is stupid. 

SECTION. 2

Clause 1

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;

- to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;

- to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;

- to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;

- to Controversies between two or more States;

- [between a State and Citizens of another State;-]* between Citizens of different States,

- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof;- and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.]*

-

As the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then the judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in this Supreme Court by Clause 1, which has judicial power which extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, is original judicial law. SCOTUS itself has claimed that power for itself, then confirmed that power for itself; to change that position would require SCOTUS to rule against itself in a similar situation to the 1921 Queensland Legislative Council which at law abolished itself. 

All of the sub-clauses here which basically involve stating cases where the United States has standing, or where the States as parties have standing, is a functional statement that yes, SCOTUS is a court.

Clause 2

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

-

Generally speaking when rights cases are decided, the usual course of events to hand original Jurisdiction (that is the right to invent the law without the legislature), they are fought between some Joe Public and a State. This is purely legal trickery making use of the legal fictions in place but there you go. It is what it is.

Otherwise SCOTUS exists as the top appellate court in the United States; which usually only happens if an aggrieved party can make a case that the law itself was applied incorrectly or that there was some fault within the legislation itself; not as an appeal on the grounds of a dispute of facts.

Clause 3

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

-

This clause has been taken to mean the crimes that are the purview of the Federal Government and not crimes which are committed under the various State laws. Thus, for most cases where a crime has been committed, the relevant law and courts under which the crime is tried and tested are State laws and State courts.

The right to a Trial By Jury which is often claimed by people, thinking that they have some 7th Amendment right, even according to the words of this clause and the words of that amendment is not an absolute right. For there to be a right to be claimed, there has to be a Crime under a US Title and/or a common law suit where the value is more than twenty dollars; when you consider that the vast majority of crimes are in fact torts against property and person, then the alleged criminals are not charged under common law but statute law. 

SECTION. 3

Clauses 1 & 2

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

-

Now obviously treason is a serious act which requires the full force of the law but this limits the scope of what the definition of treason is to the point of practical irrelevance in Clause 1, and then assigns a phrase which is nonsensical. The phrase "no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood" has been argued about in the Supreme Court and mostly has come to the conclusion that nobody really knows what the jinkies "Corruption of Blood" is supposed to mean.

In my country the Acts Interpretation Act says that words have their usual meaning, or a meaning that can be derived from a dictionary in common usage, with reference to the context that those words are being used in. Words mean what you think that they should mean. In this clause though "Corruption of Blood" is capitalised, which means that you are likely supposed to know that this is a formally defined thing; then the clause fails to formally define the thing. This is horrendously stupid.

Article. IV.

SECTION. 1

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

-

Before this Section starts to cloud the others below it, reading it by itself seems reasonable and just. The Acts, Records, and Judicial Proceedings should be given Full Faith and Credit in other states because if the states do not trust each other's rule of law, then the whole project of the Union breaks at the seams.

One of the unspoken things about the rule of law is that faith and credit in the law although it is ultimately backed by who can control the most swords, is still essentially a fiduciary agreement. Money, Law, Government, Institutions, are all faeries and if you don't believe in faeries, they all die. The various Laws, public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings, are like the sticks in the game of Kerplunk. If you start removing the little sticks, the marble falls and you lose. 

SECTION. 2

Clause 1

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

-

Some Citizens of various States were absolutely not entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in those States. If they were, the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th Amendments would have never needed to be passed. The phrase "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of" or variations thereof exists five times in the Amendments. I do not know how in one clause the Constitution can state that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given" when in the very next clause, the Constitution openly demonstrates bad faith. In practice, this clause was a lie from the outset.

Ever since the beginning of the world, it is the rich and powerful who have ruled and dictated what kinds of rights and privileges have been deigned to be afforded to common folk. Rights and privileges have never been given away freely but have always been won by people working together to win those rights and privileges with collective power. 

This is yet another clause in the United States Constitution to which my initial reaction was a cuss.

Clause 2

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

-

Sometimes the United States Constitution contains something which is reasonable but in practice is awful and terrible. If you read this clause with the one that comes next, the colour of this clause changes.

It makes sense that the various states should work together to ensure that justice is done, right? What if Justice itself is not blind, and sees the world through very racist coloured glasses? In practice this clause allowed magistrates to charge black people, slaves, native people, et cetera, in absentia, then use this clause to have those same people who rightly feared for their lives and the very real possibility of being lynched and being dangled as strange fruit, to be captured and then returned to the state that they came from.

Who is a another state jurisdiction going to believe? The words of someone who they are ambivalent to, or the law officers of another state? Remember, taken in conjunction with Article IV, Section 1, that other state is bound by the United States Constitution to believe that other state and the officers of the law therein.

Clause 3

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.]*

-

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? 

Clause 3 spits in the face of the Creator, makes a mockery of certain inalienable rights, and then takes one glorious case of highly liquid diahorrea on the notion that all men are created equal. Not only did this Clause tacitly endorse slavery (by dancing around the word so that it didn't have to mention it) but it then binds the state to return a slave back to the the Party to whom such Service or Labour was claimed.

Fundamentally this clause states that even if a slave were to run away to another state where slavery wasn't a thing, that that state not only would not discharge the condition of slavery but was forced to return them back to the Slavemaster. 

Most of the action of this clause was rendered null and void by the Thirteenth Amendment in 1865, but it still took 77 years and the payment of blood on the battlefield to undo this stupidity. I hate this clause and everything it stands for. My first reaction upon reading this was also a single silent cuss.

SECTION. 3

Clause 1

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

-

When wee little America was but a mere 13 little colonies and states in the top right hand corner of the map, she knew that she had space to Manifest Destiny her way across the land. After tying up her sisters Columbia and Liberty, she then got some help from her Uncle Sam, to give native peoples fast moving lead poisoning; all the while inventing new States along the way, in the space not yet claimed by Canada or Mexico. 

No, this clause does not give rise to the often imagined suggestion that Texas unilaterally has the power to break itself into five because four of those new entities would need the consent of Congress to be admitted into the Union. And no, this clause also does not give rise to the idea that California could do likewise.

Also, thanks to the Insular Cases decided by SCOTUS, it doesn't matter how many times Puerto Rico, District of Columbia, Guam, or American Samoa vote, they still won't be admitted by the Congress into this Union as states, unless Congress which is self interested, decides to. 

On that note, I have real doubts whether the proper judicial process was followed when admitting West Virginia as a State into the Union. The haterations and hollerations of the Confederacy and then Virginia itself, makes this particular admission look highly dubious. Still, West Virginia is not very likely to want to rejoin Virginia as that would mean that it loses autonomy; so that's that.

Clause 2

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

-

In relation to National Parks, unincorporated territories such as Sad Coconut Island(TM) Palmyra Atoll, and Indian Reservations with asterisks all the way down, the extent of what "needful Rules and Regulations" need to be made or allowed to be made by the Congress are so arcane, chimeral, and labyrinthine, that not even the great Sherlock Holmes could work his way out of this.

This clause is the small rocky outcrop upon which the Guano Islands Act sits upon. This strange skerrick of the US Title Code meant that the United States unilaterally declared that all islands in the world that were not owned by anyone (that is terra nullius) were now the property of the United States, provided that they had bird guano on them. The cover story for this was that the United States wanted to go phosphate mining for fertiliser but really this was about empire building.

SECTION. 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

- 

The first part of this section is abject nonsense because it is undefined beyond not being a monarchy. The word "republic" is derived from the Latin "res public" and implies that the thing is a public thing. Of itself that it utterly useless in defining what a "Republican Form of Government" is, or why it is important.

The second part of this states that The United States as the super collective of the States in the Union, at very least (and at most) promises to protect them against invasion. Given that the first duty of government is the defence of the realm, it makes little sense to me why this would need to be stated. Is this some kind of clause which was inserted because the various states were hesitant to sign up for the project of the Union? 

That this clause is likely written with the propaganda of the Declaration of Independence ringing slowly in the background. People like Hamilton wanted to install George Washington as King; which would have been somewhat ironic given that the war which had just recently ended was popularly assigned to be the fault of another King named George, when in practice it was Lord North's Government who practiced executive power. This is also ironic given that government truly was not even close to being a "res public" until the franchise was extended to most men by 1824, wasn't extended to some people who had been barred from voting upon the basis of race until 1868, wasn't extended to women until 1920, and then there were still residual cases existing until the Civil Rights Act 1965 was passed. So much for a "Republican Form of Government".

Horse 3374 - This Zoo Is Not Wild 2: Electric Boogaloo

https://www.southerncrossaustereo.com.au/media/media-releases/1041-2dayfm-announces-final-hughesy-ed-erin-breakfast-show/

Sydney’s 104.1 2DayFM today confirmed that the Hughesy, Ed & Erin Breakfast show has ended.

Hughsey, Ed and Erin said: “We’ve loved our time together on 2DayFM Breakfast, however, due to some of our families living in different cities we are unable to commit to 2025, so with a heavy heart we are moving aside so 2DayFM can find the team to take them forward in Breakfast. We are so grateful to Sydney for their support, and to double the number of listeners in three years is something we are immensely proud of, and we will miss each and every one of them.”

SCA thanks Dave Hughes, Erin Molan and Ed Kavalee for their passion and commitment to the 2DayFM Sydney Breakfast show over the past three and a half years.

- Southern Cross Austereo, 8th Aug 2024

This is where people would expect me to say "I hate to say I told you so" but the truth is that I love it.

https://rollo75.blogspot.com/2023/05/horse-3177-this-zoo-is-not-wild.html

Together, the Hughesy, Ed and Erin on 2Day-FM is a show which is less than the sum of its parts. This is a pity for 2Day-FM as I think that Southern Cross Austereo looked around at the biggest names that were available and they could slot into a morning zoo type program and hoped that it would work. It does not.

...

It really is like trying to capture lightning in a bottle and even then it has a maximum shelf life of about 5 years. 

- Horse 3177, 10th May 2023

Although Southern Cross Austereo has tried to spin this to make it sound like the reason for this show's axing was to do host Dave Hughes' unwillingness to move interstate permanently, and didn't want to continue commuting from Melbourne to Sydney, there is a far more obvious reason why this show is being axed. It's bad.

The audience has finally confirmed what I already knew, with the ratings on a month by month basis continuing to circle the drain. For the month of July, the Hughesy, Ed & Erin Breakfast show achieved a paltry 3.6% rating of the market but trying to throw Hughesy under the bus for his reasonable decision not to move to Sydney, just looks churlish. In comparison. 2Day FM's rivals at KIIS with Kyle and Jackie O and at WS-FM with Jonesy and Amanda scored 14.1% and 8.1% respectively.

What's really scummy about this was that Southern Cross Austereo’s Chief Content Officer, Dave Cameron (as opposed to former British PM David Cameron) told Hughesy, Ed and Erin after Wednesday morning’s show, in a lightning strike of a meeting, that the show would be cancelled. Quite rightly the trio after having been effectively fired, walked out; which meant that other hosts had to be called in for Thursday and Friday.

What went wrong? I think that I correctly identified this 15 months ago. Namely, that the show simply didn't work.

Ed Kavalee is simply too nice a person to bat things back at Dave Hughes. Dave Hughes who can be really quite acerbic at times, found that he had no obvious object to play with as a comedy punching bag. Erin Molan who usually has a hosting role on Sky News Australia where she plays the role of inane company spokesperson, neither has the comedy chops to be able to play the role in the morning zoo, nor was forceful enough to deliberately get rises out of Hughesy or Ed. The whole show often felt directionless at times; which is not want you want from an FM radio breakfast show.

An FM radio breakfast show ideally needs an established set of radio DJs or some kind of comedy duo or trio (or zoo). Comedy Duos generally have Dagger and Shield players like Southern Cross Austereo’s rivals at KIIS and WS-FM have. Comedy Trios have the Big, the Bounce, and the Boo-Hoo, like Clarkson, Hammond, and May. Functionally Hughesy wants to play Boohoo and while Ed can play Big, Erin can't do Bounce. Erin as Big, simply doesn't hand out enough comedy rope for the other two to hang themselves with. 

Basically Southern Cross Austereo’s problem is that they haven't hit the radio behemoth dominance ratings of Peter Moon and Wendy Harmer, or Kyle and Jackie O. 2Day FM would really like to be the commercial equivalent of BBC Radio 1 but to do that, it would actually have to go out and find fresh young talent but its commercial outlook means that it doesn't want to risk commercial failure (except here it has done exactly that).

If I was 2DayFM then I'd look through the ranks of the Melbourne International Comedy Festival and then select from the talent pool. People like Jimmy Rees, Danielle Walker, Nina Oyama etc. Find those people in Sydney and pick from them but make sure that they can play off of each other but don't attempt to build a morning zoo from components that simply do not work.

Horse 3373 - Toronto Clown Riot

Our story takes places in Toronto in the summer of 1855. Toronto at that time was a newish Canadian pioneer town which could best be described as rough. Very rough. Toronto was a town of about 40,000 people, created from the clash of many migrants from all over the world, and to service those 40,000 people, there were 152 public houses and a further 203 licenced premises. This means that for every 113 people, there was either a pub or a off-licence.

In addition to the liquor stores that were seemingly everywhere, there were brothels; lots of brothels. Owing to the fact that the oldest profession was still illegal in the Province of Canada, it is difficult to know how many brothels there were but we do know that there were a lot of them.

In July of 1855, S.B.Howes' Star Troupe Menagerie & Circus arrived in town for five days' of circus shows. S.B.Howes' was a proper old-fashioned circus with acrobats, high-wire performers, trick horse riders, as well as lion tamers and their lions, some elephants, and even a giraffe. For sleepy little Toronto, the arrival of the circus was a big draw-card. 

On the evening of Thursday, 12 July 1855, after the circus had performed its matinee and evening shows, and after the circus had closed for the day, a group of clowns having the rest of the evening off, decided to take advantage of the local nightlife. By local nightlife, we actually mean visit a brothel. The brothel that they happened to choose was "The Bordello of one Mary Ann Armstrong" on the corner of King Street & John Street; so they decided to settle in for the night and have some fun. Their night would not go as planned.

These were clowns that you would not want to pick a fight with. However, they picked the wrong brothel. What they found that that this was the hangout of the local private fire brigade, The Hook & Ladder Firefighting Company. These were firefighters whom you would also not want to pick a fight with either, for they already had a reputation for being involved in public violence and affray.

In 1855 there was no public fire service. Fire-brigades were owned by private fire companies who would either be contracted to put out fires in buildings that had contracted them through private insurance, or when a fire broke out, the private companies who were nearby would all rush to the scene of the fire with  their horse-drawn fire engines to see who would get there first; to then call dibs on who would get to put out the fire and thus, send out an invoice to the building owners.

However The Hook & Ladder Firefighting Company had been involved in an incident a few weeks earlier, when they arrived at a fire on Church Street at the same time as another fire brigade. As neither company would back down, this quickly turned into a flash point and a fight broke out then as well. As the building on Church Street burned to the ground, some of the firefighters from both brigades while both the fire and the fight were burning, then decided to loot and pillage the buildings that they were supposed to be saving. When the local police force arrived, they were also drawn into the ongoing brawl and when some kind of order was restored, a number of firefighters from both companies were charged with battery and assault. This incident was already known in Toronto as the "Firemen’s Riot"; which meant that the The Hook & Ladder Firefighting Company had already gained a reputation for violence but a group of outsiders such as clowns from a travelling circus would not have known that. 

The Toronto General Advertiser seems to have no idea about how the fight at Mary Ann Armstrong's Bordello began. One account blames a particularly "large and loud-mouthed clown". One account says that the clowns jumped the queue for service. One account says that a clown knocked the hat off a firefighter’s head. 

However it started, and whatever happened, we know this one thing. Do not mess with clowns. In the question of who would win the fight of "Clowns versus Firefighters", we know the answer. It is Clowns. At least two firefighters were seriously injured and/or dragged out of the brothel to safety as the Hook & Ladder company retreated; leaving the clowns in peace to drink the place dry and... do clown things.

The story does not end here however. 

Those firemen had friends, a lot of friends. In those days, Toronto was still pretty much entirely run by a small group of Protestant, Tory elites. They were all members of the Orange Order, they hung out together at the Orange Lodge, and they made sure that other Orangemen got all the important jobs in the city. The police were pretty much all Orangemen. And the firefighters were pretty much all Orangemen too. Usually, they focused on beating up Catholics, but here they were willing to make an occasional exception.

The fight at the brothel came on the day of the big annual Orange parade, July 12. And the next day — a Friday the 13th, no less — a crowd began to gather around S.B. Howes’ Star Troupe Menagerie & Circus. An angry, Orange crowd. The troupe had pitched their tents at the Fair Green, a big grassy space on the waterfront, just a few blocks east of the St. Lawrence Market; which the south-east corner of Front & Berkeley Sts. The farmers and merchants who had set up stalls nearby were told to clear out. There was trouble brewing.

They say word reached the police before violence broke out. But of course the Chief of Police, Samuel Sherwood, was an Orangeman. That’s how he got to be Chief of Police. In fact, years earlier he’d helped to organize a conservative Tory attack on a liberal Reform Party parade. One of the Reformers had been shot and killed. So when Chief Sherwood heard about the trouble down at the Fair Green, he dragged his feet for as long as he could. And then, eventually, he sent a few men to check it out.

By the time they got there, it had started. People were throwing stones. While the circus performers and the carnies were apparently able to hold the mob off for a while, it couldn’t last. Eventually, the crowd overwhelmed them. And when the Hook & Ladders arrived, all hell broke loose. They stormed the circus with pikes and axes, overturned wagons, pulled down the tents and the Big Top and set fire to them. They beat clowns to a pulp. Circus folk ran for their lives. Some dove into the lake for safety. It was mayhem.

It took the Mayor to settle things down. He came to the Fair Green in person, is said to have kept a firefighter from killing a clown with an axe by grabbing it out of his hands, and called in the militia to take control of the situation. Once things had calmed down, the circus performers came back for their belongings and then ran like hell.

The police had done pretty much nothing. They just watched. Even Chief Sherwood himself had eventually shown up, but could only claim to have stopped the rioters from setting fire to the cages of the animals. Of the 17 people who were charged in the riot, only one was ever convicted. All of the police who were at the scene claimed they couldn’t remember any of the Orangemen who had been there. Just like they had a few weeks earlier, after the Fireman’s Riot on Church.

That, as far as most people were concerned, was a cover up. And they would keep on coming. A few years later, there was another Protestant vs. Catholic riot — and Chief Sherwood’s memory was again suspiciously fuzzy as far as Orangemen were concerned. A few months after that, he was under fire again after freeing a suspect who had been accused of robbing a bank.

It was a turning point. City council called for deep reforms to the way Toronto’s police force was run. The provincial government agreed. An inquest was launched, and given a boost when a Reform Party candidate was elected mayor for the first time in more than 20 years. In the end, the whole old system was overthrown. Every single police officer in the city was fired and a new force was created from scratch. Nearly half of the old constables would end up being re-hired; it took nearly 100 years before the Orange stranglehold on power in Toronto was finally broken but the foundations of a current, sensible, secular, and modern police force had finally been laid...

...thanks to a bunch of Clowns.

Horse 3372 - The Badness Of The US Constitution - Article 2 (continued)

SECTION. 2

Clause 1

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

-

As SCOTUS has now ruled that the President is immune from prosecution, which means that the President is now more God-like than the King of England whom they originally hated, we must assume that the President does in fact have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States which they themselves have committed. If you want to pretend that checks and balances exist here, then you are either delusional or deliberately nefariously stupid. There are no other options any more. The President is officially and legally above the law now. 

That makes the opening part of this clause all the more scary. As the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, and as someone with the metaphorical finger on the nuclear button, what we have is unrestrained power with the full force of the military behind them. 

Clause 2

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

- 

Especially at the end of Obama's term, we have seen that the "Advice and Consent of the Senate" is a weaponised piece of stupidity. It is now normative that the Congress, if it does not like the President's choice, can and withhold consent; including denying vacancies to be filled until they get their own stooge in the White House.

Can we also stop pretending that there are any checks and balances when it comes to the appointment of Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States? The game was successfully played at the end of Obama's term, principally by Mitch McConnell, to deny Obama the chance to make appointment of Judges of the Supreme Court; to leave the incoming President Trump to rubber stamp whom the Republican Party had already picked.

The Supreme Court, which by the way as the result of Madison v Marbury (1803) gave itself the power to say "what the law is", as a purely political body, was always unfit for the purpose of administering justice. This is probably the result of Hamilton wanting to appoint George Washington as King of the United States in everything but name, and then people like Madison and Jefferson who were highly interested in making factional plays to deliberately ruin the courts before they began. 

Clause 3

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session

-

If you had a particularly nasty President, which must happen eventually, then this clause which gifts the power to grant Commissions in the space between the times when the Senate is supposed to sit, then they could go fully-ham and make loads of Midnight Madness appointments. Pack the Court. Get SCOTUS to functionally strike off all kinds of clauses of the Constitution. The thing is that all of this is now perfectly allowed because the President is immune from prosecution. 

SECTION. 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

-

The State Of The Union address has been ceremonialised to be an official thing that happens once per year, except for those years where there is a handover of administrations. I think that the intent of this is by weight of force of law, to make the Congress sit at least once per year, though the phrase "from time to time" offers no such direction.

Just like the power of the Governor or the Governor-General in Westminster Parliaments, the President is handed the power to convene, dissolve and prorogue the Congress. In practice though, this is for extraordinary Occasions which virtually never happen, except in times of total war. 

I think it interesting that the President has the power to call a joint sitting of the chambers in cases where they cannot get their stuff together. 

SECTION. 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

-

Given that impeachment of Presidents has happened on a number of occasions, and also given that the Civil War itself proved not to be sufficient grounds for the Senate to act upon the grounds of impeachment, it can be argued that this section by demonstrated operation is almost functionally useless. Once upon a time when the party machines weren't quite so partisan and driven by the patrons who give them funding, perhaps this may have been a useful Section but not any more.