@RichardJMurphy Where the Republicans go the Tories follow. We take the right to abortion, contraception, gay rights and same-sex marriage for granted now. We shouldn't. Very soon Tory think tanks will have their sights on all of them. Fascism is on the march.
Clearly a case of too many tweets make a twat
PBers may have noted that I'm not the greatest fan of this ghastly Conservative administration and the poisonous Jabba the Hutt that heads it but the idea that Boris and his think tanks are on the march towards fascism is so far off the mark as to suggest that Priti Patel is also a sleeper agent for the Rwanda Tourist Board.
Well, we are twelves years into yet another long period of Tory government, so what does she expect.
There's a problem, though.
In the mid 1990's, a lot of the country (especially the state funded bits) was crumbly, tatty and clearly staggering on the goodwill of too many underpaid staff. But it was also the case that the economy was trotting on very nicely, thank you. There was money to be shifted into making the public realm better.
In the mid 2020's, things are also crumbly, tatty and clearly staggering. But heaven only knows where the money is going to come from to fix it.
Most of the nation's wealth is stored in property. Find a way to cream some more of that off, and you've got your answer.
That's so obviously true (just imagine if all that wealth had gone into something productive) that it's scary. But I don't really see how a government does anything about it and gets relected afterwards.
Maybe what we need is a government who know and accept that they are toast, but want to leave the stage secure in the knowledge that they've done the right thing. Who will be happy that history will look on them favourably.
(And then I woke up...)
Or get in on a stupid wet manifesto then, day 1, rip it up and get serious.
Yep, find some equivalent of the Liam Byrne memo revelation to illustrate how spectacularly the Tories have mismanaged the public finances, then produce an emergency budget and bring in the necessary new taxes. The primary target should be land value taxes on all residential property: based on a recent estimate of £9.2tn for the market value of the entire national housing stock, a 0.5% levy would raise £46bn, and you can add on another couple of billion for sumptuary rates on very high value properties and second homes. Substantial additional sums could then be generated by raising rates of CGT on securities and other assets, and expanding death duties to cover a much larger percentage of estates. Happy days.
That's the country I want to live in.
Does it not cause some internal reflection that, without any mention of those who might benefit from such tax increases, the mere idea of the state legislating to take a bigger share of peoples' money than it does now evokes such a positive response from you?
Slapping £500 to several thousand tax bill on every home owner and indirectly taxing renters because every landlord will cover tax with rises in the teeth of a CoL crisis before shafting their pension pots and then inevitably raiding their other savings when the first thieving doesnt cut it would be an interesting way to be out on their ear and unelectable ever again in living memory of the robbed.
I just find it odd that someone would get all misty-eyed, not over kids getting operations or above inflation pay rises for lollipop ladies, but by the mere fact of people being allowed to keep less of their own money.
Some enterprising producer should get her together with Marjorie Taylor Greene on a convenient rock (isn't South Georgia nice this time of year) for a "Whose More Stupid?" TV special.
One issue around tipping (sorry to bring this up) is that I am generally not allowed to tip on my expenses policy. That means if I tip in the US I'm out of pocket. There is a "local custom" policy knocking around somewhere I believe but I can only imagine the arseache I'd have to put up with on that. I'd rather the restaurant included a service charge in the bill that went straight to the server rather than outsourcing paying their staff properly to the clientele, but I'm aware the US is a foreign country where they do things differently.
@RichardJMurphy Where the Republicans go the Tories follow. We take the right to abortion, contraception, gay rights and same-sex marriage for granted now. We shouldn't. Very soon Tory think tanks will have their sights on all of them. Fascism is on the march.
Clearly a case of too many tweets make a twat
PBers may have noted that I'm not the greatest fan of this ghastly Conservative administration and the poisonous Jabba the Hutt that heads it but the idea that Boris and his think tanks are on the march towards fascism is so far off the mark as to suggest that Priti Patel is also a sleeper agent for the Rwanda Tourist Board.
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
I cannot see the SCOTUS permitting that. It’s insane
I know America seems nuts but there is a vast moral gulf between upholding the right of elected state legislatures to rule on abortion, and allowing edicts against interracial marriage. The second is surely an obvious infringement of the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is fundamentally unAmerican.
Also there aren’t any extant laws forbidding interracial marriage? So the individual states would have to create them and pass them. Not going to happen
There is enough toxin in the American body politic right now without adding imaginary poisons
Well I have just discovered that I can buy Advances for my rare commuting journey to and from Leeds. Catching the same trains I was going to catch anyway but saving a couple of quid.
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
Surely that is something that would have to be illegal?
Based on our research, the claim that tipping became popularized by restaurant owners who didn't want to pay Black workers after the passage of the 15th Amendment is generally TRUE, though more context is helpful.”
Degler (1959), revised editions 1970 and 1984, is the most authoritative source.
What about factoids cited by wiki article?
Not that I'm claiming IT is exactly authoritative. But doubt they just made it up.
Again, you don't seem to have read what you actually linked.
You mean this?
"Some have argued that "The original workers that were not paid anything by their employers were newly freed slaves" and that "This whole concept of not paying them anything and letting them live on tips carried over from slavery."[18][19][20] The anti-tipping movement spread to Europe with the support of the labour movement, which led to the eventual abolition of customary tipping in most European countries."
That is SMALL section of a LONG article, which among other things states (immediately before above passage) that
The practice of tipping began in Tudor England. In medieval times, tipping was a master-serf custom wherein a servant would receive extra money for having performed superbly well.[15] By the 17th century, it was expected that overnight guests to private homes would provide sums of money, known as vails, to the host's servants. Soon afterwards, customers began tipping in London coffeehouses and other commercial establishments".
The practice was imported from Europe to America in the 1850s and 1860s by Americans who wanted to seem aristocratic. However, until the early 20th century, Americans viewed tipping as inconsistent with the values of an egalitarian, democratic society, as the origins of tipping were premised upon noblesse oblige, which promoted tipping as a means to establish social status to inferiors. Six American states passed laws that made tipping illegal. Enforcement of anti-tipping laws was problematic. The earliest of these laws was passed in 1909 (Washington), and the last of these laws was repealed in 1926 (Mississippi)"
Which somewhat undermines your argument (as I recall it) that tipping ORIGINATED in post-Emancipation America.
I already made clear that I was referring not the first instance of someone paying extra, but the practice of deliberately underpaying someone and expecting the customers to make a decent wage by paying extra. That latter is peculiarly American and very respected American academics have traced it back to the abolition of slavery.
Seriously doubt the concept of underpaying employees is "peculiarly" American, and your caveat was less than crystal clear. Even IF it holds water.
Though am slight encouraged that you feel that at least SOME Americans are entitled to your respect.
Well, we are twelves years into yet another long period of Tory government, so what does she expect.
There's a problem, though.
In the mid 1990's, a lot of the country (especially the state funded bits) was crumbly, tatty and clearly staggering on the goodwill of too many underpaid staff. But it was also the case that the economy was trotting on very nicely, thank you. There was money to be shifted into making the public realm better.
In the mid 2020's, things are also crumbly, tatty and clearly staggering. But heaven only knows where the money is going to come from to fix it.
Most of the nation's wealth is stored in property. Find a way to cream some more of that off, and you've got your answer.
That's so obviously true (just imagine if all that wealth had gone into something productive) that it's scary. But I don't really see how a government does anything about it and gets relected afterwards.
Maybe what we need is a government who know and accept that they are toast, but want to leave the stage secure in the knowledge that they've done the right thing. Who will be happy that history will look on them favourably.
(And then I woke up...)
Or get in on a stupid wet manifesto then, day 1, rip it up and get serious.
Yep, find some equivalent of the Liam Byrne memo revelation to illustrate how spectacularly the Tories have mismanaged the public finances, then produce an emergency budget and bring in the necessary new taxes. The primary target should be land value taxes on all residential property: based on a recent estimate of £9.2tn for the market value of the entire national housing stock, a 0.5% levy would raise £46bn, and you can add on another couple of billion for sumptuary rates on very high value properties and second homes. Substantial additional sums could then be generated by raising rates of CGT on securities and other assets, and expanding death duties to cover a much larger percentage of estates. Happy days.
That's the country I want to live in.
Does it not cause some internal reflection that, without any mention of those who might benefit from such tax increases, the mere idea of the state legislating to take a bigger share of peoples' money than it does now evokes such a positive response from you?
Slapping £500 to several thousand tax bill on every home owner and indirectly taxing renters because every landlord will cover tax with rises in the teeth of a CoL crisis before shafting their pension pots and then inevitably raiding their other savings when the first thieving doesnt cut it would be an interesting way to be out on their ear and unelectable ever again in living memory of the robbed.
I just find it odd that someone would get all misty-eyed, not over kids getting operations or above inflation pay rises for lollipop ladies, but by the mere fact of people being allowed to keep less of their own money.
Doing the most possible with the least posdible tax take would seem ideal
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
I cannot see the SCOTUS permitting that. It’s insane
I know America seems nuts but there is a vast moral gulf between upholding the right of elected state legislatures to rule on abortion, and allowing edicts against interracial marriage. The second is surely an obvious infringement of the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is fundamentally unAmerican.
Also there aren’t any extant laws forbidding interracial marriage? So the individual states would have to create them and pass them. Not going to happen
There is enough toxin in the American body politic right now without adding imaginary poisons
Oh you sweet innocent child.
State legislatures regularly restrict the voting rights of black voters, restricting their ability marry will be no biggie.
Well, we are twelves years into yet another long period of Tory government, so what does she expect.
There's a problem, though.
In the mid 1990's, a lot of the country (especially the state funded bits) was crumbly, tatty and clearly staggering on the goodwill of too many underpaid staff. But it was also the case that the economy was trotting on very nicely, thank you. There was money to be shifted into making the public realm better.
In the mid 2020's, things are also crumbly, tatty and clearly staggering. But heaven only knows where the money is going to come from to fix it.
Most of the nation's wealth is stored in property. Find a way to cream some more of that off, and you've got your answer.
That's so obviously true (just imagine if all that wealth had gone into something productive) that it's scary. But I don't really see how a government does anything about it and gets relected afterwards.
Maybe what we need is a government who know and accept that they are toast, but want to leave the stage secure in the knowledge that they've done the right thing. Who will be happy that history will look on them favourably.
(And then I woke up...)
Or get in on a stupid wet manifesto then, day 1, rip it up and get serious.
Yep, find some equivalent of the Liam Byrne memo revelation to illustrate how spectacularly the Tories have mismanaged the public finances, then produce an emergency budget and bring in the necessary new taxes. The primary target should be land value taxes on all residential property: based on a recent estimate of £9.2tn for the market value of the entire national housing stock, a 0.5% levy would raise £46bn, and you can add on another couple of billion for sumptuary rates on very high value properties and second homes. Substantial additional sums could then be generated by raising rates of CGT on securities and other assets, and expanding death duties to cover a much larger percentage of estates. Happy days.
That's the country I want to live in.
Does it not cause some internal reflection that, without any mention of those who might benefit from such tax increases, the mere idea of the state legislating to take a bigger share of peoples' money than it does now evokes such a positive response from you?
Not really. I like taxes. And it's not the people's money it's the government's money. What's left after tax is the people's. But of course you do have to get the balance right and I'm no fan of waste - either by the government or the people.
Well I have just discovered that I can buy Advances for my rare commuting journey to and from Leeds. Catching the same trains I was going to catch anyway but saving a couple of quid.
Thank you Northern!
There is more Good News! They'll probably cancel them...
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
Surely that is something that would have to be illegal?
Which are the states where it was illegal?
In 1967, 17 Southern states plus Oklahoma still enforced laws prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites.
Loving v Virginia made these laws unconstitutional.
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Indeed, I'm in a mixed race marriage myself and under these rules my wife would have probably been brought in for questioning a few times after her miscarriages had we been living in certain parts of the US.
It's such a huge backwards step and now Biden and the Dems need to get serious about a constitutional amendment to enshrine these rights because they are absolutely fundamental.
Impossible. Wouldn't get anywhere close to passing through Congress (and if, hypothetically, it were to do so, it would be struck down by the states.)
As I remarked earlier today, if the United States is going to hold together as a single polity (and I think it will, incidentally,) then Americans are going to end up as a much looser federation - think something a bit like the Eurozone, but with an overarching sovereign personality incorporating a common external policy and defence forces. Within that framework, there will be a much wider divergence on socio-economic policy (crudely put, the blue states are likely to become more like Canada and the red states to go the way of the Religious Right.) This will be deeply distasteful to the more liberal fraction of the American population, but the Constitution denies them the votes they need to impose their will on the rest of a deeply divided country.
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
I cannot see the SCOTUS permitting that. It’s insane
I know America seems nuts but there is a vast moral gulf between upholding the right of elected state legislatures to rule on abortion, and allowing edicts against interracial marriage. The second is surely an obvious infringement of the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is fundamentally unAmerican.
Also there aren’t any extant laws forbidding interracial marriage? So the individual states would have to create them and pass them. Not going to happen
There is enough toxin in the American body politic right now without adding imaginary poisons
Oh you sweet innocent child.
State legislatures regularly restrict the voting rights of black voters, restricting their ability marry will be no biggie.
Go on then. Frame a law that Alabama or Mississippi or Florida or Texas might pass, outlawing mixed race marriages
I’ve been to these places. There is racism, and plenty of it, but no way would they ever pass a law with this explicit purpose. And I cannot see how you could do it by subterfuge. Nor can I see any lawmakers, outside extreme Klan nutters, wanting to do so
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
I cannot see the SCOTUS permitting that. It’s insane
I know America seems nuts but there is a vast moral gulf between upholding the right of elected state legislatures to rule on abortion, and allowing edicts against interracial marriage. The second is surely an obvious infringement of the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is fundamentally unAmerican.
Also there aren’t any extant laws forbidding interracial marriage? So the individual states would have to create them and pass them. Not going to happen
There is enough toxin in the American body politic right now without adding imaginary poisons
Indeed, plus of course black Pentecostal evangelicals are more pro life than secular white liberals so it would divide the new Conservative pro life coalition in the South and border states
@RichardJMurphy Where the Republicans go the Tories follow. We take the right to abortion, contraception, gay rights and same-sex marriage for granted now. We shouldn't. Very soon Tory think tanks will have their sights on all of them. Fascism is on the march.
Clearly a case of too many tweets make a twat
PBers may have noted that I'm not the greatest fan of this ghastly Conservative administration and the poisonous Jabba the Hutt that heads it but the idea that Boris and his think tanks are on the march towards fascism is so far off the mark as to suggest that Priti Patel is also a sleeper agent for the Rwanda Tourist Board.
If there were British votes in being militantly anti-abortion, it would take Boris five seconds to convince himself it was a good and noble cause. But hardly anyone goes to church, and fewer people care, so that's that/
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
Surely that is something that would have to be illegal?
Which are the states where it was illegal?
In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws (also known as miscegenation laws) were laws passed by most states that prohibited interracial marriage, and in some cases also prohibited interracial sexual relations. Some such laws predate the establishment of the United States, some dating to the later 17th or early 18th century, a century or more after the complete racialization of slavery.
Most states had repealed such laws by 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that such laws were unconstitutional (via the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868) in the remaining 16 states.
The term miscegenation was first used in 1863, during the American Civil War, by journalists to discredit the abolitionist movement by stirring up debate over the prospect of interracial marriage after the abolition of slavery.
Jesus, did I sleep through World Wars 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10? And SHE’s still alive like a platinum blonde cockroach?
I can't do these box sets, and never finish them. What more was there to say after part 2?
(Incedentally, is there something wrong with the numbering? The Seven Years War was worldwide, or was that just the pilot series?)
You are getting it all mixed up with Game of Thrones season six which takes place after the seven years war and before world war 2 but it’s sequel Top Gun 2 is a nod to the prequel “the 7 samurai”. Easy to get confused.
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
I cannot see the SCOTUS permitting that. It’s insane
I know America seems nuts but there is a vast moral gulf between upholding the right of elected state legislatures to rule on abortion, and allowing edicts against interracial marriage. The second is surely an obvious infringement of the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is fundamentally unAmerican.
Also there aren’t any extant laws forbidding interracial marriage? So the individual states would have to create them and pass them. Not going to happen
There is enough toxin in the American body politic right now without adding imaginary poisons
Indeed, plus of course black Pentecostal evangelicals are more pro life than secular white liberals so it would divide the new Conservative pro life coalition in the South and border states
@RichardJMurphy Where the Republicans go the Tories follow. We take the right to abortion, contraception, gay rights and same-sex marriage for granted now. We shouldn't. Very soon Tory think tanks will have their sights on all of them. Fascism is on the march.
Clearly a case of too many tweets make a twat
PBers may have noted that I'm not the greatest fan of this ghastly Conservative administration and the poisonous Jabba the Hutt that heads it but the idea that Boris and his think tanks are on the march towards fascism is so far off the mark as to suggest that Priti Patel is also a sleeper agent for the Rwanda Tourist Board.
Last proposition might NOT be too far off the mark?
Considering tendency of Boris Johnson & Co toward crony-capitalism (and -socialism also -anarchism) writ large?
After all, a pound is still a pound the world around.
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
I cannot see the SCOTUS permitting that. It’s insane
I know America seems nuts but there is a vast moral gulf between upholding the right of elected state legislatures to rule on abortion, and allowing edicts against interracial marriage. The second is surely an obvious infringement of the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is fundamentally unAmerican.
Also there aren’t any extant laws forbidding interracial marriage? So the individual states would have to create them and pass them. Not going to happen
There is enough toxin in the American body politic right now without adding imaginary poisons
Oh you sweet innocent child.
State legislatures regularly restrict the voting rights of black voters, restricting their ability marry will be no biggie.
Go on then. Frame a law that Alabama or Mississippi or Florida or Texas might pass, outlawing mixed race marriages
I’ve been to these places. There is racism, and plenty of it, but no way would they ever pass a law with this explicit purpose. And I cannot see how you could do it by subterfuge. Nor can I see any lawmakers, outside extreme Klan nutters, wanting to do so
Oh, no state would introduce one. I'm not sure if any of the laws are still on the statute books though and not enforced (the old Welshman on a Bridge problem). Arguably you could end up with most states moving rapidly to dispose of those laws if an SC decision invalidated Loving, but you might end up with some really bad outcome like one state refusing to provide legislative time or some bollockry like that.
EDIT: Never mind, I see where you were coming from. I think they're all off the statute books now.
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Indeed, I'm in a mixed race marriage myself and under these rules my wife would have probably been brought in for questioning a few times after her miscarriages had we been living in certain parts of the US.
It's such a huge backwards step and now Biden and the Dems need to get serious about a constitutional amendment to enshrine these rights because they are absolutely fundamental.
Impossible. Wouldn't get anywhere close to passing through Congress (and if, hypothetically, it were to do so, it would be struck down by the states.)
As I remarked earlier today, if the United States is going to hold together as a single polity (and I think it will, incidentally,) then Americans are going to end up as a much looser federation - think something a bit like the Eurozone, but with an overarching sovereign personality incorporating a common external policy and defence forces. Within that framework, there will be a much wider divergence on socio-economic policy (crudely put, the blue states are likely to become more like Canada and the red states to go the way of the Religious Right.) This will be deeply distasteful to the more liberal fraction of the American population, but the Constitution denies them the votes they need to impose their will on the rest of a deeply divided country.
Basically, it's either that or dissolution.
Indeed, never forget Roe v Wade imposed abortion, effectively on demand across the whole USA and on pro life states like Mississippi and Kentucky and Utah and Tennessee.
Today's SC ruling does NOT impose a ban on abortion US wide and states with Democrat governors and/or state legislatures like California, New York, Washington and Illinois and Massachusetts will effectively still have abortion on demand. Just liberals can no longer impose abortion on demand on pro life states with GOP governors and legislatures
Not for nothing, but #SupremeCourt justices can be #impeached with a simple majority in the #House.
Relevant because at least 4 of them appear to have lied under oath in their confirmation hearings, and one was party to a violent coup attempt to overthrow the 2020 election. https://twitter.com/Seiurus/status/1540373576997429248
Do we know what the lies were?
The testified, for example, that they regarded Roe as "settled law".
It was settled law.
I wonder how far some of these Justices want to go back? How many would like to go back to Dredd Scott?
Don't effing joke.
Alito actually referenced Taney's opinion in Dredd Scott in his recent gun rights decision.
Pungent PB Pundit Alert - Dread Scott
Dred Scott
I think you might have misunderstood SeaShanty's pun ?
Not impossible
I have just watched some entirely graphic footage of a minotaur being masturbated to ejaculation in an alley by a trio of birds (avian) and thought Yeah boring filler, get on with the story. Perhaps this new bloke has a point about desensitization.
Teletubbies is not what it was.
Did they get banned in UK due to one of the TTs being gay, allegedly? The one with the triangle?
USA, was it not? (not a dig at you - I really can't remember, but it was the US where BBC childrens' programmes used to be suspected as hippy druggie dropout propaganda).
Magic Roundabout innit. Dilyn the stoned rabbit and Dougal with his coke/sugar habit
Dylan, on a point of PBpedantry; Dilyn is the Johnson canid.
But the TTs also got AAA fire from the Moral Majority, I am sure.
Cyclefree may -- or may not -- find the story of George Bush of interest: "George Bush was born in Pennsylvania around 1779. An only child, he was raised as a Quaker and educated in Philadelphia.[2] Bush's African American father, Matthew Bush, was born in India.[1] Matthew Bush worked for a wealthy English merchant named Stevenson for most of his life. At Stevenson's home in Philadelphia, Matthew Bush met his wife, an Irish maid who also worked for Stevenson, and they married in 1778. Pennsylvania did not repeal its anti-miscegenation law until 1780, suggesting that Matthew Bush was either not considered black, or he was married under the care of Germantown Friends meeting in violation of the law. George's parents served Stevenson until his death. Stevenson had no other family and so left the Bushes a substantial fortune."
Bush moved, in a series of steps to what is now Washington state: "The Oregon Treaty of 1846 ended the joint administration north of the Columbia, placing Bush Prairie firmly in the United States. By staking an American claim to the area, Bush and his party had also brought Oregon's black American exclusion laws, clouding the title to their land; these laws would not have applied if the territory were under the British Empire. When the Washington Territory was formed in 1853, one of the first actions of the Territorial Legislature in Olympia was to ask Congress to give the Bushes unambiguous ownership of their land, which it did in 1855.[1][9][16][17] Bush was thus among the first African-American landowners in Washington State." source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bush_(pioneer)
He appears, by all accounts, to have been a wonderful man.
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
I cannot see the SCOTUS permitting that. It’s insane
I know America seems nuts but there is a vast moral gulf between upholding the right of elected state legislatures to rule on abortion, and allowing edicts against interracial marriage. The second is surely an obvious infringement of the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is fundamentally unAmerican.
Also there aren’t any extant laws forbidding interracial marriage? So the individual states would have to create them and pass them. Not going to happen
There is enough toxin in the American body politic right now without adding imaginary poisons
Indeed, plus of course black Pentecostal evangelicals are more pro life than secular white liberals so it would divide the new Conservative pro life coalition in the South and border states
Miscarriages are abortions carried out by God!
Believe in God, and you believe in abortion!
Would Mary have had an abortion - Roe v Wade came a bit late for her to have choice.
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
Surely that is something that would have to be illegal?
Which are the states where it was illegal?
In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws (also known as miscegenation laws) were laws passed by most states that prohibited interracial marriage, and in some cases also prohibited interracial sexual relations. Some such laws predate the establishment of the United States, some dating to the later 17th or early 18th century, a century or more after the complete racialization of slavery.
Most states had repealed such laws by 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that such laws were unconstitutional (via the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868) in the remaining 16 states.
The term miscegenation was first used in 1863, during the American Civil War, by journalists to discredit the abolitionist movement by stirring up debate over the prospect of interracial marriage after the abolition of slavery.
So would it automatically revert to being illegal?
I'm actually a bit less worried about this. Republicans restrict the voting opportunities for blacks because it serves their interests to do so. I'm not sure what miscegenation laws does for them. Would there really still be a majority in favour of it?
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
Surely that is something that would have to be illegal?
Which are the states where it was illegal?
In 1967, 17 Southern states plus Oklahoma still enforced laws prohibiting marriage between whites and non-whites.
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
I cannot see the SCOTUS permitting that. It’s insane
I know America seems nuts but there is a vast moral gulf between upholding the right of elected state legislatures to rule on abortion, and allowing edicts against interracial marriage. The second is surely an obvious infringement of the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is fundamentally unAmerican.
Also there aren’t any extant laws forbidding interracial marriage? So the individual states would have to create them and pass them. Not going to happen
There is enough toxin in the American body politic right now without adding imaginary poisons
Oh you sweet innocent child.
State legislatures regularly restrict the voting rights of black voters, restricting their ability marry will be no biggie.
Go on then. Frame a law that Alabama or Mississippi or Florida or Texas might pass, outlawing mixed race marriages
I’ve been to these places. There is racism, and plenty of it, but no way would they ever pass a law with this explicit purpose. And I cannot see how you could do it by subterfuge. Nor can I see any lawmakers, outside extreme Klan nutters, wanting to do so
And yet they all had them and enforced them within my lifetime.
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
I cannot see the SCOTUS permitting that. It’s insane
I know America seems nuts but there is a vast moral gulf between upholding the right of elected state legislatures to rule on abortion, and allowing edicts against interracial marriage. The second is surely an obvious infringement of the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is fundamentally unAmerican.
Also there aren’t any extant laws forbidding interracial marriage? So the individual states would have to create them and pass them. Not going to happen
There is enough toxin in the American body politic right now without adding imaginary poisons
Oh you sweet innocent child.
State legislatures regularly restrict the voting rights of black voters, restricting their ability marry will be no biggie.
Go on then. Frame a law that Alabama or Mississippi or Florida or Texas might pass, outlawing mixed race marriages
I’ve been to these places. There is racism, and plenty of it, but no way would they ever pass a law with this explicit purpose. And I cannot see how you could do it by subterfuge. Nor can I see any lawmakers, outside extreme Klan nutters, wanting to do so
Oh, no state would introduce one. I'm not sure if any of the laws are still on the statute books though and not enforced (the old Welshman on a Bridge problem). Arguably you could end up with most states moving rapidly to dispose of those laws if an SC decision invalidated Loving, but you might end up with some really bad outcome like one state refusing to provide legislative time or some bollockry like that.
EDIT: Never mind, I see where you were coming from. I think they're all off the statute books now.
Of course they are. And any American lawmaker that tried to introduce such a clearly repulsive law would be howled down and driven out of town, ASAFP
@SeaShantyIrish2 has a point. This site can lapse all too easily into anti-Americanism. It is not pretty. Yes America is having a brutal, intense and sometimes ugly debate about abortion - but this is a fundamental moral difficulty. Where does life begin? When do we begin to protect it? This is not a small matter, and they take it more seriously than us
Just because they are having this terrifically thorny debate does not mean that Americans - 99% of whom are decent kind honest people - are about to accept laws banning marriage between different races. It’s nuts
@RichardJMurphy Where the Republicans go the Tories follow. We take the right to abortion, contraception, gay rights and same-sex marriage for granted now. We shouldn't. Very soon Tory think tanks will have their sights on all of them. Fascism is on the march.
Clearly a case of too many tweets make a twat
PBers may have noted that I'm not the greatest fan of this ghastly Conservative administration and the poisonous Jabba the Hutt that heads it but the idea that Boris and his think tanks are on the march towards fascism is so far off the mark as to suggest that Priti Patel is also a sleeper agent for the Rwanda Tourist Board.
If there were British votes in being militantly anti-abortion, it would take Boris five seconds to convince himself it was a good and noble cause. But hardly anyone goes to church, and fewer people care, so that's that/
In theory, the Prime Minister's statement re: Roe v Wade repeal could (possibly) bar him from receiving communion at mass in the Roman Catholic Church.
Assuming that Boris Johnson actually attends mass?
The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.
They were arrested.in their own bedroom.
On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pled guilty to "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth". They were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended on condition that the couple leave Virginia and not return together for at least 25 years. After their conviction, the couple moved to the District of Columbia.
Based on our research, the claim that tipping became popularized by restaurant owners who didn't want to pay Black workers after the passage of the 15th Amendment is generally TRUE, though more context is helpful.”
Degler (1959), revised editions 1970 and 1984, is the most authoritative source.
What about factoids cited by wiki article?
Not that I'm claiming IT is exactly authoritative. But doubt they just made it up.
Again, you don't seem to have read what you actually linked.
You mean this?
"Some have argued that "The original workers that were not paid anything by their employers were newly freed slaves" and that "This whole concept of not paying them anything and letting them live on tips carried over from slavery."[18][19][20] The anti-tipping movement spread to Europe with the support of the labour movement, which led to the eventual abolition of customary tipping in most European countries."
That is SMALL section of a LONG article, which among other things states (immediately before above passage) that
The practice of tipping began in Tudor England. In medieval times, tipping was a master-serf custom wherein a servant would receive extra money for having performed superbly well.[15] By the 17th century, it was expected that overnight guests to private homes would provide sums of money, known as vails, to the host's servants. Soon afterwards, customers began tipping in London coffeehouses and other commercial establishments".
The practice was imported from Europe to America in the 1850s and 1860s by Americans who wanted to seem aristocratic. However, until the early 20th century, Americans viewed tipping as inconsistent with the values of an egalitarian, democratic society, as the origins of tipping were premised upon noblesse oblige, which promoted tipping as a means to establish social status to inferiors. Six American states passed laws that made tipping illegal. Enforcement of anti-tipping laws was problematic. The earliest of these laws was passed in 1909 (Washington), and the last of these laws was repealed in 1926 (Mississippi)"
Which somewhat undermines your argument (as I recall it) that tipping ORIGINATED in post-Emancipation America.
I already made clear that I was referring not the first instance of someone paying extra, but the practice of deliberately underpaying someone and expecting the customers to make a decent wage by paying extra. That latter is peculiarly American and very respected American academics have traced it back to the abolition of slavery.
Seriously doubt the concept of underpaying employees is "peculiarly" American, and your caveat was less than crystal clear. Even IF it holds water.
Though am slight encouraged that you feel that at least SOME Americans are entitled to your respect.
Visit America and it’s easy to return with lots of respect for Americans (provided one doesn’t tune in to talk radio)
It’s bumping into some of them in Europe that sometimes makes it more difficult.
Let's see, just off the top of my head: Clarence Thomas is married to a white woman. Mitch McConnell is married to a Chinese woman. Jeb Bush is married to a Mexican woman. William Cohen (Republican from Maine) is married to a black woman. Larry Hogan's wife is Korean. And it doesn't seem to have hurt any of their political careers.
(What does? It is a delicate subject, but some black Democratic men are married to white women, and those women generally stay in the background.)
Well, we are twelves years into yet another long period of Tory government, so what does she expect.
There's a problem, though.
In the mid 1990's, a lot of the country (especially the state funded bits) was crumbly, tatty and clearly staggering on the goodwill of too many underpaid staff. But it was also the case that the economy was trotting on very nicely, thank you. There was money to be shifted into making the public realm better.
In the mid 2020's, things are also crumbly, tatty and clearly staggering. But heaven only knows where the money is going to come from to fix it.
Most of the nation's wealth is stored in property. Find a way to cream some more of that off, and you've got your answer.
That's so obviously true (just imagine if all that wealth had gone into something productive) that it's scary. But I don't really see how a government does anything about it and gets relected afterwards.
Maybe what we need is a government who know and accept that they are toast, but want to leave the stage secure in the knowledge that they've done the right thing. Who will be happy that history will look on them favourably.
(And then I woke up...)
Or get in on a stupid wet manifesto then, day 1, rip it up and get serious.
Yep, find some equivalent of the Liam Byrne memo revelation to illustrate how spectacularly the Tories have mismanaged the public finances, then produce an emergency budget and bring in the necessary new taxes. The primary target should be land value taxes on all residential property: based on a recent estimate of £9.2tn for the market value of the entire national housing stock, a 0.5% levy would raise £46bn, and you can add on another couple of billion for sumptuary rates on very high value properties and second homes. Substantial additional sums could then be generated by raising rates of CGT on securities and other assets, and expanding death duties to cover a much larger percentage of estates. Happy days.
That's the country I want to live in.
Does it not cause some internal reflection that, without any mention of those who might benefit from such tax increases, the mere idea of the state legislating to take a bigger share of peoples' money than it does now evokes such a positive response from you?
Not really. I like taxes. And it's not the people's money it's the government's money. What's left after tax is the people's. But of course you do have to get the balance right and I'm no fan of waste - either by the government or the people.
Besides, what is the alternative?
We are often reminded that the tax burden is at its highest since the 1950s. What nobody mentions is the country is absolutely full of sick, disabled and very elderly people who would have had a much curtailed life expectancy back then, or would simply not have survived. Average life expectancy has gone up by over a decade in that time, most of the population is fat and a good third are obese - the consequences of all of this need to be paid for, and the money's got to come from somewhere. Is it, therefore, any real surprise that taxes are high, even without factoring in the need to service our colossal debts?
Nor is a societal infrastructure that's falling apart any good for the long term prosperity of the people. Lack of investment in training, career development, scientific research - it's all going to chew away at the tax base. And, ultimately, a big, valuable house full of nice stuff is of precious little use to you without security. A country shot through with poor people liable to resort to crime (whether they want to get rich by wanton criminality, or simply nick stuff because they're completely destitute,) safe in the knowledge that they're unlikely to be caught by a skeletal police presence, isn't one that anybody can thrive in.
I'm not sure I'm somebody who fits neatly into a fully coherent political position - I'm not in a party, and I just come on here to talk about stuff - but I suppose if I were forced to pick a tag I'd probably say, the way I've moved in response to the state of the country, that I'm a social democrat. I don't think that capitalism is useless, I do believe in private property and I therefore disagree with the specific assertion that everything belongs to the Government and that people should be grateful for their pocket money. But I also believe that (a) the fabric of the country is rotting, and repairing it can't be done without a lot more money; and (b) that there is too much emphasis in the tax system on earned incomes and not enough on asset values. Therefore, if the state is going to obtain the money it needs to help society to recover, and if the pressure on earned incomes is to be eased through a programme of tax cuts, then assets are going to have to be seriously soaked. And that's really all there is to it.
@RichardJMurphy Where the Republicans go the Tories follow. We take the right to abortion, contraception, gay rights and same-sex marriage for granted now. We shouldn't. Very soon Tory think tanks will have their sights on all of them. Fascism is on the march.
Clearly a case of too many tweets make a twat
PBers may have noted that I'm not the greatest fan of this ghastly Conservative administration and the poisonous Jabba the Hutt that heads it but the idea that Boris and his think tanks are on the march towards fascism is so far off the mark as to suggest that Priti Patel is also a sleeper agent for the Rwanda Tourist Board.
Yes, but then we’re exploring the line between couldnt, and wouldn’t. Thankfully the couldn’t line is sufficiently strong that hopefully any questions of wouldnt remain hypothetical.
Noting as an aside that before the storming of the Capitol, most Americans would have thought the same.
The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.
They were arrested.in their own bedroom.
On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pled guilty to "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth". They were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended on condition that the couple leave Virginia and not return together for at least 25 years. After their conviction, the couple moved to the District of Columbia.
Shocking and horrible
But then, it is shocking and horrible that homosexuality was illegal IN THE UNITED KINGDOM during MY lifetime - and people went to jail for it. Indeed some went to jail, in the UK, for years after 1967
Is that worse or better than people going to jail for miscegenation?
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
Surely that is something that would have to be illegal?
Which are the states where it was illegal?
In the United States, anti-miscegenation laws (also known as miscegenation laws) were laws passed by most states that prohibited interracial marriage, and in some cases also prohibited interracial sexual relations. Some such laws predate the establishment of the United States, some dating to the later 17th or early 18th century, a century or more after the complete racialization of slavery.
Most states had repealed such laws by 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that such laws were unconstitutional (via the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868) in the remaining 16 states.
The term miscegenation was first used in 1863, during the American Civil War, by journalists to discredit the abolitionist movement by stirring up debate over the prospect of interracial marriage after the abolition of slavery.
So would it automatically revert to being illegal?
I'm actually a bit less worried about this. Republicans restrict the voting opportunities for blacks because it serves their interests to do so. I'm not sure what miscegenation laws does for them. Would there really still be a majority in favour of it?
A mere 94% of Americans approve of Inter-racial marriage.
But in, say, 2000 when the last anti-miscegenation law was repealed (Alabama) approval was only 64%. About a similar level to the percentage of Americans who want Gun control or oppose Roe vs Wade being over turned now.
Cyclefree has pointed out to me that today's SCOTUS ruling puts as risk inter-racial marriage.
I cherish the fact that I was part of an inter-racial marriage when I married one of the natives and nobody batted an eyelid.
Thank Allah my grandparents moved to the UK and not the USA.
Why does it do that? Genuinely puzzled
Well like Roe v. Wade it was SCOTUS in Loving v. Virginia that decided anti-miscegenation laws were unconstitutional.
Now using the precedent set today, it is not for SCOTUS to decide such things but for the individual states. I expect some states would stall and just not pass laws making inter-racial marriages legal.
I cannot see the SCOTUS permitting that. It’s insane
I know America seems nuts but there is a vast moral gulf between upholding the right of elected state legislatures to rule on abortion, and allowing edicts against interracial marriage. The second is surely an obvious infringement of the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is fundamentally unAmerican.
Also there aren’t any extant laws forbidding interracial marriage? So the individual states would have to create them and pass them. Not going to happen
There is enough toxin in the American body politic right now without adding imaginary poisons
It’s extremely unlikely, but the history is more recent than you imagine.
https://www.thoughtco.com/interracial-marriage-laws-721611 … By November 2000, interracial marriage had been legal in every state for more than three decades, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 ruling. But the Alabama State Constitution still contained an unenforceable ban in Section 102:
"The legislature shall never pass any law to authorise or legalise any marriage between any white person and a Negro or descendant of a Negro." The Alabama State Legislature stubbornly clung to the old language as a symbolic statement of the state's views on interracial marriage. As recently as 1998, House leaders successfully killed attempts to remove Section 102. When voters finally had the opportunity to remove the language, the outcome was surprisingly close: although 59% of voters supported removing the language, 41% favored keeping it. Interracial marriage remains controversial in the Deep South, where a 2011 poll found that a plurality of Mississippi Republicans still supports anti-miscegenation laws.…
@RichardJMurphy Where the Republicans go the Tories follow. We take the right to abortion, contraception, gay rights and same-sex marriage for granted now. We shouldn't. Very soon Tory think tanks will have their sights on all of them. Fascism is on the march.
Comments
PBers may have noted that I'm not the greatest fan of this ghastly Conservative administration and the poisonous Jabba the Hutt that heads it but the idea that Boris and his think tanks are on the march towards fascism is so far off the mark as to suggest that Priti Patel is also a sleeper agent for the Rwanda Tourist Board.
USA! USA! USA!
I know America seems nuts but there is a vast moral gulf between upholding the right of elected state legislatures to rule on abortion, and allowing edicts against interracial marriage. The second is surely an obvious infringement of the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is fundamentally unAmerican.
Also there aren’t any extant laws forbidding interracial marriage? So the individual states would have to create them and pass them. Not going to happen
There is enough toxin in the American body politic right now without adding imaginary poisons
Thank you Northern!
Which are the states where it was illegal?
Though am slight encouraged that you feel that at least SOME Americans are entitled to your respect.
State legislatures regularly restrict the voting rights of black voters, restricting their ability marry will be no biggie.
after tax is the people's. But of course you do have to get the balance right and I'm no fan of waste - either by the government or the people.
Loving v Virginia made these laws unconstitutional.
As I remarked earlier today, if the United States is going to hold together as a single polity (and I think it will, incidentally,) then Americans are going to end up as a much looser federation - think something a bit like the Eurozone, but with an overarching sovereign personality incorporating a common external policy and defence forces. Within that framework, there will be a much wider divergence on socio-economic policy (crudely put, the blue states are likely to become more like Canada and the red states to go the way of the Religious Right.) This will be deeply distasteful to the more liberal fraction of the American population, but the Constitution denies them the votes they need to impose their will on the rest of a deeply divided country.
Basically, it's either that or dissolution.
(Incedentally, is there something wrong with the numbering? The Seven Years War was worldwide, or was that just the pilot series?)
I’ve been to these places. There is racism, and plenty of it, but no way would they ever pass a law with this explicit purpose. And I cannot see how you could do it by subterfuge. Nor can I see any lawmakers, outside extreme Klan nutters, wanting to do so
Most states had repealed such laws by 1967, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Loving v. Virginia that such laws were unconstitutional (via the 14th Amendment adopted in 1868) in the remaining 16 states.
The term miscegenation was first used in 1863, during the American Civil War, by journalists to discredit the abolitionist movement by stirring up debate over the prospect of interracial marriage after the abolition of slavery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-miscegenation_laws_in_the_United_States
Awkward snogging is back
Believe in God, and you believe in abortion!
Considering tendency of Boris Johnson & Co toward crony-capitalism (and -socialism also -anarchism) writ large?
After all, a pound is still a pound the world around.
EDIT: Never mind, I see where you were coming from. I think they're all off the statute books now.
Today's SC ruling does NOT impose a ban on abortion US wide and states with Democrat governors and/or state legislatures like California, New York, Washington and Illinois and Massachusetts will effectively still have abortion on demand. Just liberals can no longer impose abortion on demand on pro life states with GOP governors and legislatures
But the TTs also got AAA fire from the Moral Majority, I am sure.
"George Bush was born in Pennsylvania around 1779. An only child, he was raised as a Quaker and educated in Philadelphia.[2] Bush's African American father, Matthew Bush, was born in India.[1] Matthew Bush worked for a wealthy English merchant named Stevenson for most of his life. At Stevenson's home in Philadelphia, Matthew Bush met his wife, an Irish maid who also worked for Stevenson, and they married in 1778. Pennsylvania did not repeal its anti-miscegenation law until 1780, suggesting that Matthew Bush was either not considered black, or he was married under the care of Germantown Friends meeting in violation of the law. George's parents served Stevenson until his death. Stevenson had no other family and so left the Bushes a substantial fortune."
Bush moved, in a series of steps to what is now Washington state: "The Oregon Treaty of 1846 ended the joint administration north of the Columbia, placing Bush Prairie firmly in the United States. By staking an American claim to the area, Bush and his party had also brought Oregon's black American exclusion laws, clouding the title to their land; these laws would not have applied if the territory were under the British Empire. When the Washington Territory was formed in 1853, one of the first actions of the Territorial Legislature in Olympia was to ask Congress to give the Bushes unambiguous ownership of their land, which it did in 1855.[1][9][16][17] Bush was thus among the first African-American landowners in Washington State."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Bush_(pioneer)
He appears, by all accounts, to have been a wonderful man.
I'm actually a bit less worried about this. Republicans restrict the voting opportunities for blacks because it serves their interests to do so. I'm not sure what miscegenation laws does for them. Would there really still be a majority in favour of it?
It was her biggest ever hit.
@SeaShantyIrish2 has a point. This site can lapse all too easily into anti-Americanism. It is not pretty. Yes America is having a brutal, intense and sometimes ugly debate about abortion - but this is a fundamental moral difficulty. Where does life begin? When do we begin to protect it? This is not a small matter, and they take it more seriously than us
Just because they are having this terrifically thorny debate does not mean that Americans - 99% of whom are decent kind honest people - are about to accept laws banning marriage between different races. It’s nuts
Assuming that Boris Johnson actually attends mass?
The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code, which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.
They were arrested.in their own bedroom.
On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pled guilty to "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth". They were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended on condition that the couple leave Virginia and not return together for at least 25 years. After their conviction, the couple moved to the District of Columbia.
It’s bumping into some of them in Europe that sometimes makes it more difficult.
(What does? It is a delicate subject, but some black Democratic men are married to white women, and those women generally stay in the background.)
We are often reminded that the tax burden is at its highest since the 1950s. What nobody mentions is the country is absolutely full of sick, disabled and very elderly people who would have had a much curtailed life expectancy back then, or would simply not have survived. Average life expectancy has gone up by over a decade in that time, most of the population is fat and a good third are obese - the consequences of all of this need to be paid for, and the money's got to come from somewhere. Is it, therefore, any real surprise that taxes are high, even without factoring in the need to service our colossal debts?
Nor is a societal infrastructure that's falling apart any good for the long term prosperity of the people. Lack of investment in training, career development, scientific research - it's all going to chew away at the tax base. And, ultimately, a big, valuable house full of nice stuff is of precious little use to you without security. A country shot through with poor people liable to resort to crime (whether they want to get rich by wanton criminality, or simply nick stuff because they're completely destitute,) safe in the knowledge that they're unlikely to be caught by a skeletal police presence, isn't one that anybody can thrive in.
I'm not sure I'm somebody who fits neatly into a fully coherent political position - I'm not in a party, and I just come on here to talk about stuff - but I suppose if I were forced to pick a tag I'd probably say, the way I've moved in response to the state of the country, that I'm a social democrat. I don't think that capitalism is useless, I do believe in private property and I therefore disagree with the specific assertion that everything belongs to the Government and that people should be grateful for their pocket money. But I also believe that (a) the fabric of the country is rotting, and repairing it can't be done without a lot more money; and (b) that there is too much emphasis in the tax system on earned incomes and not enough on asset values. Therefore, if the state is going to obtain the money it needs to help society to recover, and if the pressure on earned incomes is to be eased through a programme of tax cuts, then assets are going to have to be seriously soaked. And that's really all there is to it.
Noting as an aside that before the storming of the Capitol, most Americans would have thought the same.
But then, it is shocking and horrible that homosexuality was illegal IN THE UNITED KINGDOM during MY lifetime - and people went to jail for it. Indeed some went to jail, in the UK, for years after 1967
Is that worse or better than people going to jail for miscegenation?
https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx
But in, say, 2000 when the last anti-miscegenation law was repealed (Alabama) approval was only 64%. About a similar level to the percentage of Americans who want Gun control or oppose Roe vs Wade being over turned now.
https://twitter.com/EmmanuelMacron/status/1540393817609740288?s=20&t=dVaSxCRyYI_FdrsOrWKecw
https://twitter.com/JustinTrudeau/status/1540362024051408897?s=20&t=dVaSxCRyYI_FdrsOrWKecw
https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1540415877102837760?s=20&t=dVaSxCRyYI_FdrsOrWKecw
https://www.thoughtco.com/interracial-marriage-laws-721611
… By November 2000, interracial marriage had been legal in every state for more than three decades, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1967 ruling. But the Alabama State Constitution still contained an unenforceable ban in Section 102:
"The legislature shall never pass any law to authorise or legalise any marriage between any white person and a Negro or descendant of a Negro."
The Alabama State Legislature stubbornly clung to the old language as a symbolic statement of the state's views on interracial marriage. As recently as 1998, House leaders successfully killed attempts to remove Section 102.
When voters finally had the opportunity to remove the language, the outcome was surprisingly close: although 59% of voters supported removing the language, 41% favored keeping it. Interracial marriage remains controversial in the Deep South, where a 2011 poll found that a plurality of Mississippi Republicans still supports anti-miscegenation laws.…
https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/management/people/academic-staff/richard-murphy