Margaret Thatcher 1925-2013

[yovargas]

[ot]

The fact that the Third Amendment still exists in its original form supports this notion, and pretty much tells me at least that strict constructionists have selective reading abilities. Or has someone had National Guard troops demanding to use their house recently?

Since that doesn't happen anymore, it doesn't violate a strict or unstrict reading of the written law.

[/ot]

[Lalaith]

Well, I can see how I have very little room for an opinion of the woman. I'm not from the UK, nor was I an adult when she was in power. I can really only remember thinking that it was rather cool that a woman was in charge of an entire nation!

Again, my only point is really that I don't think it's right to celebrate the death of someone. I didn't celebrate when bin Laden was killed. I was relieved. I felt some closure on a gaping wound, but I would never have had a party to celebrate his death. <shrug>

[JewelSong]

I can really only remember thinking that it was rather cool that a woman was in charge of an entire nation!

It was. And even people who despised her and her politics will probably agree with you there.

Again, my only point is really that I don't think it's right to celebrate the death of someone

.

I don't think so either, but then I am not in that group of people who were so completely devastated by her policies. But even so, she died senile and incapacitated...it's not like she died at the height of her power and her death changed anything that was happening.

And of course you have "room for an opinion" of her. But everyone's opinion is colored by his/her experiences and knowledge of the given situation or person. Your opinion is as valid as anyone's for pete's sake!

[Lalaith]

Well, thank you. Yes, it's valid; however, it's not very informed, so it has little value, I think. Like I said, I was a kid for most of her tenure. I was not directly affected by her policies. So, no, I don't have as informed an opinion of her as Alatar or Pearly Di or others.

It's okay. I really was just surprised by the reaction of many to her death. That's all. It was almost like she was on the same level as bin Laden.

[Pearly Di]

That's right Lali, which is why I distance myself from some of the more extreme hate on Thatcher going on. She wasn't Bin Ladin, or Hitler, or Stalin, or Mao. Or even Pinochet, as much as I despise her support for him.

I understand the dislike, sure, and I don't think people have an obligation to speak nicely about her in death when they were against her policies in life. And I still think the very public funeral is a bad move. I am nervous about next week. People angry about Thatcher's legacy woud do better to concentrate on fighting for social justice here and now rather than creating ruckus at her funeral. If there is violence, I will find it inexcusable. All this could be avoided, however, if our current government had more sense, and sensitivity.

But I am certainly interested in how Americans see Thatcher. I can see how her get-up-and-go-ness would go down well! And I understand how many in the US are impressed by a woman leading a nation, we beat you on that one, just as you have pipped us to the post with a black man as your leader. It will be some time before we catch up on that one ...

And I know zilch about American politics, that's never stopped me having an opinion about it.

[axordil]

[ot]

The fact that the Third Amendment still exists in its original form supports this notion, and pretty much tells me at least that strict constructionists have selective reading abilities. Or has someone had National Guard troops demanding to use their house recently?

Since that doesn't happen anymore, it doesn't violate a strict or unstrict reading of the written law.

[/ot]

It's not a matter of violating anything, but the simple fact that parts of the Constitution were built around the specifics of 1789 and make no sense outside that context.

[River]

[ot]

The fact that the Third Amendment still exists in its original form supports this notion, and pretty much tells me at least that strict constructionists have selective reading abilities. Or has someone had National Guard troops demanding to use their house recently?

Since that doesn't happen anymore, it doesn't violate a strict or unstrict reading of the written law.

[/ot]

It's not a matter of violating anything, but the simple fact that parts of the Constitution were built around the specifics of 1789 and make no sense outside that context.

While the existence of Amendment 3 is owed to the now dead practice of quartering troops in people's homes whether they like it or not, one has to wonder if the practice would remain dead is Amendment 3 disappeared. After all, dumping troops on host families is probably cheaper than maintaining bases and barracks...

[yovargas]

I don't see why a part of the Constitution not being used anymore would make one any less "strict". A "strict" reading says "don't do X" and we aren't doing X so we're cool.

But I guess this is a matter for another discussion.

[Aravar]

Oh, and she privatized the railroads. Worst Decision Ever.

No. She. Did Not

That was done under John Major and she was, IIRC, not in favour herself.

As a regular user of the railways both pre and post privatisation my own view is that they have improved, albeit not very much. Certainly the quality of the rolling stock is much better.

[axordil]

RE: the Third Amendment as example.

Let me put it this way: not all parts of the Constitution/BoR are created equal. A3 is perhaps the clearest example of a part designed to address what was then a very real and common problem. By contrast A1 is perhaps the clearest example of a part designed to address what were then very real and common problems that also happened to be abrogations of fundamental human rights. The other eight amendments in the BoR fall somewhere in between.

Case law, or the lack of it, pretty conclusively suggests A3 has become near-vestigial. It represents a concern that was unique to the historical moment (at least in our culture). If in fact the Constitution/BoR represents a best-guess-compromise at how the country needed to work, A3 is the most egregious example of a guess being (depending on how one looks at it) either wrong or superfluous. The next best candidates are the original setup for selecting the President and VP and the establishment of the national election day as the second Tuesday of November (great if it takes a day to ride your buggy to the county seat after going to church on Sunday after the harvest, absolutely nonsensical and borderline unethical now).

That's of course holding all the slavery-supporting mechanisms out as a special class of evil and stupid.

Election Day is a particularly good example of the influence of the dead. It makes it easier for exactly no one to vote, and harder for anyone with a day job. The only reasons it endures are hollow tradition, the difficulty of changing the Constitution, and the demographic advantage it provides to the Party of the Dead.

[yovargas]

As someone who sees himself as pretty "strict" I don't see the position being that all laws and rules of law are good and great and wonderful forever. Being "strict" simply means that what is written into law remains the law until that law is changed and disliking a law, or a law being outdated or outmoded, doesn't mean you get to ignore that law. It just means that law should be changed/removed. I frankly don't see any other way of viewing the existence of a Constitution that wouldn't make having a Constitution a pretty meaningless and pointless exercise.

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

If I'm reading ax right, he is simply saying once a trivial decision is made it often becomes hard to undo, due to inertia. And we do many things according to such obscure precedents that we don't even realise we are doing. Decisions have consequences. Irrelevant portions of the Constitution are such an example.

[yovargas]

I got stuck on the minor swipe at "strict constructionists" since that's the only thing that's come up in this thread which I have had enough of an opinion to make a comment.

[axordil]

Yov-

What I'm swiping at is the philosophical underpinning of strict constructionism (and really of conservatism in all its incarnations, whether political, cultural or intellectual): "the dead guys we like were smarter than anyone else will ever be."

It's another form of ancestor worship, as far as I'm concerned.

[yovargas]

And I'm saying it has nothing to do with them being smarter or wiser or right-er, just that they were the ones who wrote the law and that the law only changes when someone with the authority to change laws does so. If a guy from 300 years ago wrote something into law and no one has bothered to change it, it is still the law, regardless of whether it's a good law or now. I don't think the "philosophical underpinning" has anything to do with an undue reverence for the past and is merely a belief that this perspective is necessary to maintain the integrity of law itself.

[axordil]

Law is an inherently conservative concept.

[yovargas]

FIGHT THE (WO)MAN, MAN!!





*ahem*


We now return you to your thread about Thatcher.

[Primula Baggins]

Of possible interest here:

Sir Ian McKellen's musings about Thatcher at her passing. There is a surprising bit at the end.

http://www.mckellen.com/writings/tribut ... atcher.htm

[ToshoftheWuffingas]

As background, some school had a childrens book about a child with same sex parents. After an organised campaign of shock and horror by the usual homophobic right wing newspapers and commentators (oh how they thrived at that time!), Thatcher's government brought in a law which made it illegal for any local council in the country to 'promote' homosexuality as a valid family activity. It was not just the bigotry but the vagueness of the law which was so frightening. Libraries certainly were subject to the law in theory. Gay MPs in her party cheerfully voted for it, secure in not having to come out.
But despite how despicable and small minded it was, it is minor in the list of misdeeds of that period, merely typical.

[Pearly Di]

I'm going to repeat what I said on FB.

I don’t believe in behaving disrespectfully at anyone’s funeral. I also feel very strongly that people outside in the UK should not be deceived into thinking that we are all in a state of national mourning. We are not. I am not.

It is not the custom - it is not constitutional! - for our Prime Ministers to get a state or ceremonial funeral. Churchill being a rare and understandable exception. This is because the British Prime Minister is NOT the equivalent of a President. Our PM is NOT our head of state. The monarch – who has no political power – IS our (purely symbolic) head of state. The PM is the head of government, which our monarchy is totally debarred from. The monarch, being the symbolic head of state, gets a state funeral. ‘Minor’ royals, like Princess Diana, may get a ceremonial funeral. (If she hadn’t, Britain might be a Republic by now. LOL.)

Some major British figures of the past have also been honoured with a full state funeral for their great achievements, e.g. Isaac Newton, Lord Nelson, and Winston Churchill. Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli was offered the honour of a state funeral, but refused it in his will (good for him!) Florence Nightingale was also offered a state funeral, but her family chose to have a private ceremony instead. Charles Darwin was honoured by a major funeral in Westminster Abbey, attended by state representatives.

When the Queen eventually goes to glory (I trust not for many years yet), it will be a very different kind of day for the nation.

And the thing about Churchill is that he UNIFIED the country.

I am politely ignoring the (unnecessary) wall-to-wall coverage of Lady Thatcher's funeral. Nobody is disrespecting her by believing this should have been a quiet family affair, because what is happening here is pretty much unconstitutional.