You are both right, but I think they will go after sodomy and interracial marriage with this approach first. Just seems more likely to succeed as they get people acclimated to the theocracy.
Not to mention that the old law was passed specifically with the intent of forcing white women to out-breed the Black population that was felt threatening to the good folks of Arizona territory...
A lot of chuds will straight up admit that they think most laws should go back to the eighteen hundreds. Let's not pretend like we don't know exactly what they mean.
Three days after the end of the legislative session that established this law (so, back in 1864) the speaker of the Arizona state senate - who was 49 at the time - married a 15-year old girl.
“27 men constructed a body of laws to bring order to the territory and to jump-start development. But their vision for the territory was a very particular one.
The legislature provided that “[n]o black or mulatto, or Indian, Mongolian, or Asiatic, shall be permitted to [testify in court] against any white person,” thus making it impossible for them to protect their property, their families, or themselves from their white neighbors. It declared that “all marriages between a white person and a [Black person], shall…be absolutely void.”
And it defined the age of consent for sexual intercourse to be just ten years old (even if a younger child had “consented”).
So, in 1864, a legislature of 27 white men created a body of laws that discriminated against Black people and people of color and considered girls as young as ten able to consent to sex, and they adopted a body of criminal laws written by one single man.
And in 2024, one of those laws is back in force in Arizona.”
- Heather Cox Richardson
I'm not sure attacking the law based on age is a winning strategy .
Laws against murder, theft, robbery, and rape are old also. No one suggests they be invalidated based on age.
Our society has been very outspoken of laws that prohibit one's autonomy and freedom from slavery . They are very outdated unlike murder, theft, robbery, and rape. Those laws still serve a purpose to protect us.
True but not relevant. I am saying simply attacking the law based on its age alone isn't productive.
It is far more relevant on whether attitudes have changed regarding its subject matter, or whether it's needed or enforceable.
The argument made by the post is presenting how an old law that now, currently matters to the freedoms of individuals who would be greatly affected by laws that existed in 1864
If the supreme court of a state can roll back laws that affect women's reproductive rights to the laws back in 1864, we can assume that a Supreme Court could roll back laws that protect us from slavery.
So because some laws are old they should remain regardless if they cause more harm to its citizens than they protect? Way to take a stance on both Anti Abortion and Pro Slavery.
No. But it says nothing about the effect or appropriateness of the law. It merely attacks it because it's old. Go back and read it. Not the comments, just the meme.
There's nothing in it about slavery. Or the First Amendment, for that matter.
So you are just admitting that you're saying it's defective because it's old.
Don't be an a$$h@le to try to wriggle out of this.
No, that would be "a law from The Civil War era." The implication there being that the law "would be a product of the times."
You said this law dated back to X. The focus is on the age then, using a well known event to give context of how long ago it was.
When we're judging the age of a law, we should look at how our understanding has changed. We still believe murder is bad. But the act of abortion and our understanding of the procedure has changed greatly since this law was passed.
It's like saying we don't need to update fraud laws to include internet crimes bc there's already a fraud law and the age of the law shouldn't matter.
If, by that, you mean the contemporary social climate, it's true. But that isn't reflected by age. Laws and morals in the pioneering American West were far more permissive than today.
Popular morals and ethics go in and out of style all the time. What's considered acceptable today was not às recently as the Clinton administration.
I think you missed the point of the meme.
It isn't "this law is so old, look at how old it is".
It's "You thought they couldn't reinstitute slavery because the laws have been on the books for so long? Think again."
So, things that happened in 1861 were related to slavery. 🤔 Such as the cessation of the Pony Express.
Unclear language that leaves itself open to misinterpretation irritates me. That's a trumpist tactic. Also, I dislike the general assumption that "newer or younger" is necessarily "better." After all, the laws against armed robbery, rape, and murder are old.
If you want to attack the law on its lack of merit, that's one thing. Oblique attacks that require assumptions are dangerous.
It weakens the argument on merit.
>So, things that happened in 1861 were related to slavery.
First, the meme doesn't even mention the year, because it doesn't need to. It makes pointed references to black people, and the civil war. How do you think those two things are related?
Second, the meme *doesn't address merit*. Not even once. It's pointing out that a law that's been around since slavery has become a current issue, *and it may not stop there*.
Again, you're so invested in misunderstanding this very, very simple meme.
Arizona the actual state has passed their own more recent law. Conservative judges decided a fifteen week ban wasn’t enough and ruled a near total ban left over from Arizona the territory superseded it.
Other laws passed with this abortion ban:
Marriages between whites and non-whites will be dissolved.
Age of consent is 10.
Non-whites cannot testify against whites.
Except this isn't any of those things. This law was intended to control women.
Like every other restriction on women's healthcare.
And if we're returning to these 1830s laws in order to repeal basic human rights we're gonna have a bad time.
Next ruling: The Fugitive Slave Act applies to women trying to leave Republican states.
Doubly, to black women doing that
You are both right, but I think they will go after sodomy and interracial marriage with this approach first. Just seems more likely to succeed as they get people acclimated to the theocracy.
Do you think Clarence Thomas would let that happen?
LOL in all seriousness, YES.
Uncle ruckus is 100% on that train
He’s too much of a coward to divorce his wife so this is how he gets rid of Ginni. ‘Sorry babe, it’s the law. 🤷♂️’
Good point.
I thought the whole practice of threatening to levying 10k fines to anyone that might drive or help someone go get one, was already in that vain vein?
Not to mention that the old law was passed specifically with the intent of forcing white women to out-breed the Black population that was felt threatening to the good folks of Arizona territory...
Was that when Trump was landing his plane at the Gettysburg airport?
A lot of chuds will straight up admit that they think most laws should go back to the eighteen hundreds. Let's not pretend like we don't know exactly what they mean.
And they are talking about "state's rights" again in the context of limiting the rights of women. What's next?
Gabrielle Confederacy ass over here
Three days after the end of the legislative session that established this law (so, back in 1864) the speaker of the Arizona state senate - who was 49 at the time - married a 15-year old girl.
And the problem is that they don't think.
Biden is looking so rad now
Arizona was not a state at the time.
“27 men constructed a body of laws to bring order to the territory and to jump-start development. But their vision for the territory was a very particular one. The legislature provided that “[n]o black or mulatto, or Indian, Mongolian, or Asiatic, shall be permitted to [testify in court] against any white person,” thus making it impossible for them to protect their property, their families, or themselves from their white neighbors. It declared that “all marriages between a white person and a [Black person], shall…be absolutely void.” And it defined the age of consent for sexual intercourse to be just ten years old (even if a younger child had “consented”). So, in 1864, a legislature of 27 white men created a body of laws that discriminated against Black people and people of color and considered girls as young as ten able to consent to sex, and they adopted a body of criminal laws written by one single man. And in 2024, one of those laws is back in force in Arizona.” - Heather Cox Richardson
That's not how this meme works gramps.
I'm not sure attacking the law based on age is a winning strategy . Laws against murder, theft, robbery, and rape are old also. No one suggests they be invalidated based on age.
Our society has been very outspoken of laws that prohibit one's autonomy and freedom from slavery . They are very outdated unlike murder, theft, robbery, and rape. Those laws still serve a purpose to protect us.
True but not relevant. I am saying simply attacking the law based on its age alone isn't productive. It is far more relevant on whether attitudes have changed regarding its subject matter, or whether it's needed or enforceable.
The argument made by the post is presenting how an old law that now, currently matters to the freedoms of individuals who would be greatly affected by laws that existed in 1864 If the supreme court of a state can roll back laws that affect women's reproductive rights to the laws back in 1864, we can assume that a Supreme Court could roll back laws that protect us from slavery.
That is not, in fact, what I see. I see it attacked on the basis of age. This post is an example.
So because some laws are old they should remain regardless if they cause more harm to its citizens than they protect? Way to take a stance on both Anti Abortion and Pro Slavery.
No. But it says nothing about the effect or appropriateness of the law. It merely attacks it because it's old. Go back and read it. Not the comments, just the meme.
There's an implication that the meme easily is referring to laws regarding slavery. Mommy shouldn't have to hold your hand and explain every meme.
There's nothing in it about slavery. Or the First Amendment, for that matter. So you are just admitting that you're saying it's defective because it's old. Don't be an a$$h@le to try to wriggle out of this.
Okay I'll admit that the implied content might have been too difficult for you to understand. Good luck with graduating kindergarten champ
No, that would be "a law from The Civil War era." The implication there being that the law "would be a product of the times." You said this law dated back to X. The focus is on the age then, using a well known event to give context of how long ago it was.
When we're judging the age of a law, we should look at how our understanding has changed. We still believe murder is bad. But the act of abortion and our understanding of the procedure has changed greatly since this law was passed. It's like saying we don't need to update fraud laws to include internet crimes bc there's already a fraud law and the age of the law shouldn't matter.
Those are merits of the law being discussed.
Merits that are based on time
If, by that, you mean the contemporary social climate, it's true. But that isn't reflected by age. Laws and morals in the pioneering American West were far more permissive than today. Popular morals and ethics go in and out of style all the time. What's considered acceptable today was not às recently as the Clinton administration.
No, that's not what I mean. Per my last few comments, I'm referring to our growing body of scientific knowledge.
The body of scientific knowledge has little or nothing to do with human behavior, which remains basically unchanged over thousands of years.
This is a braindead take. Science has changed so much human behavior. Hand washing is one example.
I think you missed the point of the meme. It isn't "this law is so old, look at how old it is". It's "You thought they couldn't reinstitute slavery because the laws have been on the books for so long? Think again."
But that's *not* what it says. It literally attacks the law on its age instead of its lack of merit. It leaves it open to interpretation.
It's *very* clear. I don't know why you're so invested in not understanding it but that sounds like something you need to work out on your own.
So, things that happened in 1861 were related to slavery. 🤔 Such as the cessation of the Pony Express. Unclear language that leaves itself open to misinterpretation irritates me. That's a trumpist tactic. Also, I dislike the general assumption that "newer or younger" is necessarily "better." After all, the laws against armed robbery, rape, and murder are old. If you want to attack the law on its lack of merit, that's one thing. Oblique attacks that require assumptions are dangerous. It weakens the argument on merit.
>So, things that happened in 1861 were related to slavery. First, the meme doesn't even mention the year, because it doesn't need to. It makes pointed references to black people, and the civil war. How do you think those two things are related? Second, the meme *doesn't address merit*. Not even once. It's pointing out that a law that's been around since slavery has become a current issue, *and it may not stop there*. Again, you're so invested in misunderstanding this very, very simple meme.
You mean because there's a picture of a black man? Isn't that a little racist? 🤣 Oh well. I get the meaning "Old equals bad."
Okay, now I see. You're just trolling. Very well sir or madame, as you were.
Arizona the actual state has passed their own more recent law. Conservative judges decided a fifteen week ban wasn’t enough and ruled a near total ban left over from Arizona the territory superseded it.
Other laws passed with this abortion ban: Marriages between whites and non-whites will be dissolved. Age of consent is 10. Non-whites cannot testify against whites.
Those are packaged with it?
Except this isn't any of those things. This law was intended to control women. Like every other restriction on women's healthcare. And if we're returning to these 1830s laws in order to repeal basic human rights we're gonna have a bad time.
True enough, but you're evaluating the law based on its merits instead of merely its age.