The last 3 sentences in an 8-sentence update I just added to last night's "Supreme Court Hears Arguments on ‘One Person One Vote.'"
In the cold
ADDED: Reading my own writing (there in the post title), I had to wonder: What's the difference between a "concept" and a "precept"? I mean, that's what I wondered after I wondered why I didn't notice the awkwardness of using both those words and edit one out. It's 5:50 and I have no precepts or concepts that prevent me from going in and changing it now, in this and the earlier posts, but I'm actually interested in the language question.
The etymology of "concept" is complicated. The OED cites "multiple origins." One is the Latin word conceptum, which means "that which is conceived, fetus, that which is conceived in the mind, idea." Have you ever thought of your ideas as fetuses? Well, I just gave birth to that one, but I could have aborted it.
There's also the Middle French word "concept," which originally meant "idea, mental image," and the Dutch and German "concept," which meant "plan" or "design."
"Concept" basically is an idea, notably an "idea underlying or governing the design or content of a product, work of art, entertainment."
Now, how to distinguish it from a "precept"? This is a "general command or injunction; a rule for action or conduct." It's not just an idea, but an idea that we must follow, a maxim. You might think: "pre-" means before and "con-" means with, so there's some kind of time line. And if we go back to the Latin, we can find "praecipere," which means "to take beforehand, to anticipate, to presuppose, to give instruction, to advise, to order, command." That is, you can see how a rule that must be followed comes before whatever it is that it commands you to do.
So there are many concepts that are not precepts. And I'll leave it to you to decide when
पोस्ट्स
१३ टिप्पण्या:
There is no such thing as "fair" when it comes to voting (or taxes, or just about anything else).
But if you want to be fair about it, then pregnant women should get two votes.
"Fairness" is a concept and a precept.
"Energy" is a concept, not a precept.
I don't think you can have a precept that is not a concept.
Conceptually the human mind uses images to arrange connections among the things it seeks to control.
Freud and friends never ceased digging out Dreams on Nrurotics for those symbols. The Greek play writes just received their culture from occult oracles speaking to them in trances.
Enter the fairytale Fantasia of Walt Disney and modern Goebbels techniques of the media narrative Big Lie, and It's concepts concepts concepts all the cartoonish way down.
And ISIL Jihadists memorize the rankings of Mohammed and cut off Christians heads. All that boldly death ang expiring men as their throats are slit just stimulates the Dream of Conquest.
Welcome to the War of concepts.
If there should be no taxation without representation, how about no representation without taxation? I'm talkin' ya need to have some skin in the game, or ya don't gets ta vote.
The original system is, we all are sovereign over ourselves. We are sovereign in the disposition of the labor of our bodies and the chattels accumulated thereby. Any involuntary deviation from this is slavery.
But we are also a civilizing and grouping race, so it must be "you and I against eachother" but also "us against them."
In days of old, when Hoplites were bold, and all went out to defense of farm ... all put at risk their life and limb, but those with more chattels hazarded that also.
Fast forward a few milenia. National taxing powers (e.g. income tax) wrung from the citizenry in time of war have lingered and now become entrenched. The wealth (and concomitant power) aggregated at the national level represent a significant portion of the individual's fruits of labor.
This deviates significantly from the sovereignty of the individual, and tends toward slavery. The problem is particularly severe when and if voters have a negative amount of "skin in the game."
Althouse wrote: Have you ever thought of your ideas as fetuses? Well, I just gave birth to that one, but I could have aborted it.
Yes! I wrote about a new life as an invention, complete with "conception" and "reduction to practice:" link
But if you want to be fair about it, then pregnant women should get two votes.
Nope. The fetus is under the age of 18, so no right to vote yet.
Precepts are concepts backed by authority or force or reality.
It is a concept that man can fly, but a precept that it takes a flying machine for one to do so, because gravity is a mean SOB. Hope that helps.
I remember in my law school days, a very long time ago (class of 1970), that our attention was drawn to the Harlan dissent in Baker v Carr, where Harlan asked where in history, practice or understanding of the intended meaning of the 14th amendment, one can find a basis for the principle "one man one vote", i.e., the principle that districts must be of equal population. Once decided, though, that idea has been broadly accepted and is obviously not about to be revisited. However, as long as lines are drawn to define congressional districts, factors other than balancing numbers of people are being brought into play through the actions of the legislature. I still think Harlan had a point; and I wonder how,in practice, equal protection, if that must be the test,has been achieved or advanced by this line of cases.
"So be a tad less fuzzy-headedly idealistic and face reality. That's always a pretty decent idea."
Yes, indeed. But the opposite of facing reality is not "idealism" so much as it is hiding in delusions. Not much to choose from there.
As for 'one-person, one-vote,' it was always just a short-hand expression for a complex legal proposition. Those complexities have been the subject of Supreme Court cases for decades. The two argued yesterday are more of the same. Having read both transcripts, I agree with Ann about the result in the Texas case. I think the Arizona one will also result in an affirmance. The Arizona case involves a challenge to a redistricting decision in which some of the five commissioners were found to have partisan motives for the decision, even though the lower court also found that partisanship was a subsidiary consideration -- the major factor being a desire to avoid problems with DOJ under the Voting Rights Act. A contrary ruling would have the unhappy consequence of making all redistricting decisions subject to challenge since, as several justices commented, the decision makers in every redistricting case are likely to have a partisan preference and can always be accused of having a subsidiary motive of wanting to further it.
Concept is an orientation and precept is its expression.
It's not person rights. It's human rights. Human life begins (i.e. source) at conception. This is not a negotiable scientific fact other than through individual faith pulled from a penumbra.
The issue is whether human rights can be reconciled with abortion rites, and, of course, clinical cannibalism.
If there should be no taxation without representation, how about no representation without taxation? I'm talkin' ya need to have some skin in the game, or ya don't gets ta vote.
As much as I like this idea in principle, I see far too many problems of a practical nature.
Back when the country first started ONLY LANDED (owning property) PEOPLE COULD VOTE. If you didn't own land, no vote. If you were a woman, no vote. If you were a slave, no vote.
So this 'one person, one vote' was never there to begin with, especially for illegals. There is no constitutional right to 'one person, one vote'. If there was, then even babies could vote.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा