On the other hand, the 14th amendment does confer the power to enforce the provisions to Congress, so one can assume correctly that that power belongs with Congress and no one else. — NOS4A2

One would be assuming incorrectly.

See also the Supreme Court's ruling on the 15th Amendment in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966)

Section 1 of the Fifteenth Amendment declares that

"[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

This declaration has always been treated as self-executing, and has repeatedly been construed, without further legislative specification, to invalidate state voting qualifications or procedures which are discriminatory on their face or in practice.

The notion that the inclusion of Section 2 entails that there must be a federal law that grants citizens the right to vote is a false one. Section 1 is enough, and if someone is denied the vote then they may petition the courts to enforce their right. Congress doesn't need to get involved.

Section 5 entails that Congress has the power to enforce the provisions of the article. It doesn’t confer that power to anyone else. So why assume someone else can have that power? — NOS4A2

The 1st and 2nd Amendments don't confer the power to anyone. So why assume that anyone can enforce them?

I’m talking about the 14th amendment, section 5. — NOS4A2

So am I, and so was the Supreme Court in The Civil Rights Cases. Section 5 of the 14th Amendment doesn't entail that the courts cannot enforce Section 4, and Section 2 of the 13th Amendment doesn't entail that the courts cannot enforce Section 1.

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and Section 1 of the 13th Amendment are "self-executing", and like every other Constitutional provision (e.g. the 2nd Amendment), the courts have the power to enforce them.

It doesn’t say that any court has the power to enforce the provisions of the article. — NOS4A2

Neither does the 2nd Amendment.

It says there in plain English that those powers are left to Congress. — NOS4A2

No, it simply extends Congress' power. As I mentioned here, the Supreme Court has already ruled that these amendments are "self-executing" (much like the 2nd Amendment), and much like the 2nd Amendment the courts have the power to enforce it.

In fact, see The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3, 20 (1883), where the Supreme Court ruled that:

[The thirteenth] amendment, as well as the fourteenth, is undoubtedly self-executing without any ancillary legislation, so far as its terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances. By its own unaided force and effect it abolished slavery, and established universal freedom.

I suppose yes because the 13th amendment also grants “Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”.

No state or federal court has authority in either matter. — NOS4A2

How do you draw that conclusion? The 13th Amendment establishes two things: first, that slavery is abolished, and second, that Congress shall have power to enforce this abolishment.

Your conclusion only follows if the 13th Amendment was written as:

Congress shall have power to abolish slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

But it wasn't written this way.

Compare, for example, Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...

This wording precludes state and federal courts from laying and collecting taxes.

It’s probably why section 5 of the fourteenth amendment says “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” In regards to enforcing these provisions It doesn’t mention states or state courts. — NOS4A2

Would you say the same about the Thirteenth Amendment?

An originalist would need to consider this as a glaring problem with the state’s ruling, and also the fact that the president is not mentioned in the list of people who would be unable from holding office. — NOS4A2

It mentions "or as an officer of the United States". The court found that the President is an officer of the United States, starting page 79.

I think he's right, but that's because I'm a panpstychist. I suspect all causation is, at bottom, psychological. That avoids overdetermination. — bert1

The p-zombie argument is an argument against physicalism. If you're a panpsychist then the p-zombie argument is irrelevant. You already accept the conclusion that the mind is non-physical.

The point here is that we have a moral claim that we know to be true, such as, "No one should torture babies." — Leontiskos

Assuming that knowledge is (at minimum) justified true belief, what is the justification for the belief that no one should torture babies?

If moral subjectivism is unable to rationally justify such a truth, then moral subjectivism is an inadequate moral theory. — Leontiskos

The same goes for moral realism.

You seem to think that certain bodily behaviours can only be caused by subjective consciousness. Why is that?

The body is a physical object. Muscles contracting, neurons firing, sense receptors responding to various stimuli; all of this is purely mechanical.

I think the problem is that you keep trying to think of the “why” in intentional terms, when in fact intentions have nothing to do with it. I’m sure you know of deterministic arguments against free will? So just consider them. P-zombies have no free will. Everything they do is a physical effect of prior physical causes.

They’re an advanced ChatGPT in an advanced Boston Dynamics robot.

Biden pardons marijuana use nationwide.

That's nice of him.

Nice, definitions from the 19th century. Thanks for clearing that up. — NOS4A2

Well yes, that’s how originalism works, and originalism seems to be one of the most common ways to interpret the constitution.

Oddly enough they didn’t look up what “engage” means, because he wasn’t even present where the event happened, yet they conclude he engaged in it. — NOS4A2

They referenced United States v. Powell, 1871:

The expression “engaged” in insurrection, as used in the amendment, implies a voluntary effort to assist the insurrection.

Also they did look up the dictionary definitions. It starts on page 103.

Then there's this:

Attorney General Stanbery’s opinions on the meaning of “engage,” which he issued at the time the Fourteenth Amendment was being debated, are in accord with these historical and modern definitions. Attorney General Stanbery opined that a person may “engage” in insurrection or rebellion “without having actually levied war or taken arms.” Stanbery I, 12 Op. Att’y Gen. at 161. Thus, in Attorney General Stanbery’s view, when individuals acting in their official capacities act “in the furtherance of the common unlawful purpose” or do “any overt act for the purpose of promoting the rebellion,” they have “engaged” in insurrection or rebellion for Section Three disqualification purposes. Id. at 161–62; see also Stanbery II, 12 Op. Att’y. Gen. at 204 (defining “engaging in rebellion” to require “an overt and voluntary act, done with the intent of aiding or furthering the common unlawful purpose”). Accordingly, “[d]isloyal sentiments, opinions, or sympathies would not disqualify; but when a person has, by speech or by writing, incited others to engage in rebellion, [h]e must come under the disqualification.” Stanbery II, 12 Op. Att’y. Gen. at 205; accord Stanbery I, 12 Op. Att’y Gen. at 164

...

For example, in Ex parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75, 126 (1807), Chief Justice Marshall explained that “if a body of men be actually assembled for the purpose of effecting by force a treasonable purpose, all those who perform any part, however minute, or however remote from the scene of action, and who are actually leagued in the general conspiracy, are to be considered as traitors.” In other words, an individual need not directly participate in the overt act of levying war or insurrection for the law to hold him accountable as if he had.

Well... I think that rules come down to individual particulars. I'm sure you'll agree. Different communities hold different rules/moral belief.

So, with enough qualification it may be the case that kicking puppies is forbidden in some communities but not in others.

I'm okay with that. — creativesoul

Right, so you're arguing for moral relativism. I'm okay with that.

But why the need for rules here? Kicking puppies is wrong in and of itself. — creativesoul

Because you brought up rules. I'm happy to do away with them.

So what does it mean for something to be wrong? How do we verify or falsify (or justify) the claim that something is wrong? You say kicking puppies is wrong, I said kicking puppies is right. How do we determine which of us is correct?

Premise 2 is stating the rules. — creativesoul

So you say. But I say kicking puppies is not forbidden. That's me stating the rules.

Presumably you will say that one of us is right and one of us is wrong. So how do we determine which of us is right? How do we determine what the real rule is?

The judges believe he engaged in insurrection, a federal crime, and are keeping him off the ballot because of it, even though no one has been charged (let alone convicted) of said crime. So much for the constitution. — NOS4A2

The 14th Amendment doesn't say that only someone charged (let alone convicted) of insurrection is ineligible. It only says that someone who engaged in insurrection is ineligible. It's all explained in the court order.

How do we 'justify' stating the rules? — creativesoul

Your question is ambiguous.

If I were to say that it is against the rules to move a pawn backwards in chess then I would justify my assertion by referring you to the FIDE handbook.

If FIDE were to say that it is against the rules to move a pawn backwards in chess then they would justify their assertion by explaining that they are the authority who issued the rule.

But what do we do about moral rules? There's no authority to point to. The very concept of there being rules without a rule-giver is nonsense.

Or are you arguing for cultural relativism where we, as a society, invent (rather than discover) moral rules?

I suppose then that guns shoot people? Lock them up! — NOS4A2

Ridicule as an attempt to deflect from your hypocrisy. Very transparent.

I'll try to make this simple for you.

You are claiming that the judges would be to some degree responsible for Trump not appearing on the ballot even though the only thing they've done is issue a written judgement.

The rest of us are claiming that Trump is to some degree responsible for the attempted insurrection even though the only thing he did was give a speech.

Either accept both or reject both.

Sorry, guns are killers now. I wonder how they get away with it. — NOS4A2

I said that guns kill, not that guns are killers. If I said that downing kills then would you interpret that as me saying that water is a killer?

Guns are murderers now. — NOS4A2

I said that guns kill, not that guns are murderers. If I said that drowning kills then would you interpret that as me saying that water is a murderer?

If it is the case that kicking puppies is forbidden, then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies. Those two claims express the same state of affairs. Hence, "one ought not kick puppies" is true. — creativesoul

Your argument here is:

Premise 1. If it is the case that kicking puppies is forbidden then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies.
Conclusion. Therefore, "one ought not kick puppies" is true

This is a non sequitur. You're missing a second premise. Your argument should be:

Premise 1. If it is the case that kicking puppies is forbidden then it is the case that one ought not kick puppies.
Premise 2. Kicking puppies is forbidden
Conclusion. Therefore, "one ought not kick puppies" is true

I'm asking you to justify the second premise.

I, for one, cannot make sense of something being forbidden unless there is some authority figure who has commanded us not to do something.

But you believe commands command and orders order. — NOS4A2

Yes, just as guns kill.

I’m just trying to wade through the magical thinking here. — NOS4A2

It's not magic, it's common sense. The problem is that your position is nonsense.

Humans don’t command or order, then, only their words do? — NOS4A2

Humans command by using words, just like humans kill by using a gun.

And Trump influenced his cult by using his words.

My position is that some utterances of ought are true. Utterances of ought are a kind of claim. All true claims correspond to reality. Some utterances of ought correspond to reality. — creativesoul

The same is true of something like "electrons have no mass" and "electrons have mass". One of them is true and the true claim is the one that "corresponds" to reality.

But we have means to verify or falsify each claim. We have means to justify the claim that electrons have mass.

So far you are unwilling to offer even an attempt at justifying the claim that we ought not kick puppies.

Trump recorded pressuring Wayne County canvassers not to certify 2020 vote

More evidence of his direct involvement in an illegal scheme to defraud the election.

Do orders order, commands command, according to you? — NOS4A2

Obviously.

He used the word 'verify'.

I don't think he's equivocating the two the way you are — AmadeusD

I did comment here that I was unfairly equating "verify" and "justify" and so re-phrased my question to ask about justification and in his response here he refused to offer such justification and so I took it as implied that the same comments he made about verification apply also to justification.

But if he does have some means to justify the assertion that there are non-physical states of affairs that make the sentence "one ought not kick puppies" true then I'd like to hear them.

Yes, thanks for repeating the nonsense.

The hypocrisy in your claim that the court saying things is an act of coercion but that Trump saying things can't be an act of influence is laughable.

This is what happens when you will do anything to refuse to admit that Trump is in the wrong.

Can you verify those claims? I'd love to see that. — creativesoul

Here is empirical evidence of you admitting that you're not even interested in justifying your position.

A position that isn't justified is, by definition, unjustified.

Being justified in rejecting the unjustified strikes me as an epistemological truism, perhaps because it too is true by definition.

Are people orders now? — NOS4A2

Me: What have the judges done to coerce the secretary?
You: They’ve ordered her to remove Trump from the ballot.

If your response doesn't answer my question then I'm still waiting on an answer.

These are all irrelevant questions. — creativesoul

They're not. They're central to metaethics.

You're asserting that some type of ontological entity exists ("moral obligations") but won't justify your assertion. Hence your position is unjustified, and I am justified in rejecting the unjustified. So I reject your moral realism.

I didn’t say their orders coerced her. — NOS4A2

You: People coerce others.
Me: What have the judges done to coerce the secretary?
You: They’ve ordered her to remove Trump from the ballot.

Make up your mind. You're tying yourself in knots trying to defend your indefensible position.

A company is a thing, and is not physical. So is a promise, and a mortgage, and a marriage. — Banno

And are we to be a realist or a nominalist about these things, mirroring the distinction between mathematical realism and mathematical nominalism?

They’ve ordered her to remove Trump from the ballot. — NOS4A2

And their orders are just words. Therefore, if their orders have coerced her then their words have coerced her, which according to you is impossible.

People coerce others. — NOS4A2

How? What have the judges done to coerce the secretary?

That particular state of affairs consists of both physical and non physical things. — creativesoul

So what evidence – whether empirical or rational – supports your assertion that there are non physical things?

I am blaming the court for coercing the secretary — NOS4A2

How do they do that? All they've done is printed words on a document. What does it mean for words to "coerce" another person? Seems like another word for "influence".

It seems your argument is something like if a claim cannot be verified it ought not be believed — creativesoul

I suppose I was unfairly equating "verified" with "justified". So rather than ask you how you would verify the claim that one ought not kick puppies I will ask you how you would justify the claim that one ought not kick puppies.

If, like above, you "do not feel the need to [justify the claim] that we ought not kick puppies" then your assertion is, quite literally, unjustified. Moral realism appears to be a dogma.

I make no claim that one ought not hold unjustified beliefs.

Well, you were seeking verification. Hence... rules. Rules... are an example of b. — creativesoul

Rules require a rule-maker.

I personally do not feel the need to verify that we ought not kick puppies. I do not need a rule for that. — creativesoul

Right, so as I said, moral realism is a dogma. It doesn't even try to justify its assertions.