For what it's worth, I was unaware of the reference that was used as this project's namesake. That is ignorance on my part.

Furthermore I would like to apologize, as my comment seems to have inspired quite a bit of unproductive ideological bickering.

Any individuals that try to imply that the naming of a proxy server product within a larger software ecosystem indicate an endorsement of the position of an organization with a similar name are displaying pathological behavior and should generally be disregarded.

I doubt anyone will think this product endorses the hate group but it could prove to be an unnecessary distraction.

I hope for a future where ideas are toxic, not sequences of letters.

As one of your potential customers / users, I would not base any judgement of your company or product based on some a shared name with a small fringe organization that some people find unsavory which uses a pretty common term or combination of terms.

Got any examples of this strategy succeeding?

https://www.stormfront.co.uk/about

:P

There definitely needs to be a series of libraries named after keyblades.

Maybe I should pay attention to the discussion with the community when that occurs, but I'm interested in which "values" you take issue with. Care to share here?

Note well: I take no position on whether Oath Keepers is using "upholding the Constitution" as a cover for white supremacy.

And those people are incorrect. It's incorrect to believe that all modern Constitutional law and Supreme Court decisions are the result of judges and lawmakers simply making up whatever interpretation they like without any basis in, study of, or respect for the Constitution.

The alternative would be to pretend to know in all cases what an eighteenth century philosopher would decide about an issue of law in the context of modern society.

> The alternative would be to pretend to know in all cases what an eighteenth century philosopher would decide about an issue of law in the context of modern society.

No, the alternative would be to know what they said the rules are.

(Now, I will admit that deciding how the rules they agreed on apply in a specific situation can be very complicated. But I trust "let's look at the rules and see how they apply" more than I trust "interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary"[1]. The former view makes the Constitution the final law; the latter makes policy the master over the Constitution.)

[1] From the Wikipedia article on "Living Constitution". The quote was marked "citation needed". If you don't think it's an accurate statement of how some judges view the Constitution, make your case.

Problem is, parts of the text are maddeningly vague, and they didn't exactly agree in their politics, so a single, simple, objective and provably correct interpretation of those rules is not always possible.

>If you don't think it's an accurate statement of how some judges view the Constitution, make your case.

I do think that's an accurate statement. I disagree with 'people who see, for example, the "living Constitution" jurisprudence as not actually upholding the Constitution, but rather just saying what you want and calling it the law.'

One can disagree with the doctrine of a 'living Constitution' but there is more nuance and thought put behind the rationale than some conservatives want to admit. Both sides believe, in good faith, that what they're doing is upholding the Constitution.

>The former view makes the Constitution the final law; the latter makes policy the master over the Constitution.)

I prefer to see it as the former making the Founding Fathers the master over the Constitution, the latter making the people the master over it. The Constitution is a legal document, not the word of God, and nothing in the Constitution explicitly requires that it be interpreted according to strict originalist intent, so interpreting it either way is equally valid, and equally a matter of politics.

> Problem is, parts of the text are maddeningly vague, and they didn't exactly agree in their politics, so a single, simple, objective and provably correct interpretation of those rules is not always possible.

True.

>>If you don't think it's an accurate statement of how some judges view the Constitution, make your case.

I do think that's an accurate statement. I disagree with 'people who see, for example, the "living Constitution" jurisprudence as not actually upholding the Constitution, but rather just saying what you want and calling it the law.'

The original statement was "interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary". Deciding that "the original meaning is unacceptable" is exactly "deciding what you want and calling it the law". It's deciding, on the basis of what you think policy should be, what the Constitution should have said.

Let me put it this way: Trump may, before he's done, nominate three Supreme Court justices. Do you want those justices to decide based on what they think is "acceptable as a policy matter"? Or do you want them to be bound by what the text says?

> One can disagree with the doctrine of a 'living Constitution' but there is more nuance and thought put behind the rationale than some conservatives want to admit.

I will admit that - for at least some of those who hold that position. Others... their behavior seems to indicate that they want to rule over the Constitution, not to faithfully interpret it.

> so interpreting it either way is equally valid

Is it? We don't accept that reasoning with contracts, why should we with the Constitution?

(That is, if you have a contract, and you try to interpret the terms in ways that are outside the bounds of the words of the contract, a court isn't going to care how much you see the contract as a living document. They also aren't going to care how much you care about original intent. They're going to care about the words on the paper. I've seen it happen in court, with one side arguing creative meaning plus intent, and the other destroying them with the actual words.)

Nice discussion. I'll leave you the last word; I'm out for the next two days.

If I support decisions by previous courts, such as Roe V. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, then the intellectually honest position would be to concede that whomever Trump nominates has the right to do the same. I may not like it, but I do believe that is the Court's prerogative.

I don't think it's harmful to consider updated interpretations of the Constitution per se, although particular decisions can do harm even when they correctly reflect the attitudes of the time (as with Plessy V. Ferguson and segregation.) But then, obviously wrong interpretations can also be reversed. I think that we're a stronger democracy for being able to ask these questions, and consider the Constitution as evolving philosophy as much as a legal document, than if we were prevented from doing so.

>Is it? We don't accept that reasoning with contracts, why should we with the Constitution?

Well... the Constitution isn't a contract. If it were, it would be far more precise and verbose in its language, and you wouldn't have entire bodies of scholarship around the meaning of a comma.

But here we are in 2018, in the age of the internet, global surveillance, 3d printed guns, genome sequencing and a thousand other things the Founders would probably never have conceived of. If we remain bound only by the original intent of the original definition of the words of the Constitution when interpreting challenges and questions of Constitutional law, then I'm afraid the result is going to be that Constitution becoming less and less relevant to modern society.

Although I cannot imagine Americans being happy that racists opposed to the rule of law are cowering behind their constitution.

> organization founded on premise of upholding the Constitution

wut?

Also, look at this wild display of racism! /s

http://www.newsweek.com/oath-keepers-ferguson-blacklivesmatt...

    > The Oath Keepers are more extreme than nearly all other 
    > white people. Just a fact. Read up on them and I think 
    ? you will agree.

For non-americans, the idea of a group of people who do not instantly submit to individual figures in authority, but instead, resist those in authority if they believe that those in authority are infringing on rights that are protected by the constitution, may seem really bizarre.

To condemn an organization because their raison d'etre is such resistance, would be normal in other countries, but it's a little frightening how a quick google search shows that condemnation here in America (assuming the people who wrote those pages were American).

I know a lot of HN readers are not American, so just wanted to clarify that we do have a slightly less submissive culture over here.

Completely ahistorical.

https://oathkeepers.org/about/

The racist part is pretty amusing as 5 minutes watching interviews with black oath keepers would make obvious.

I will post a motherjones (not exactly conservative friendly site) that, while not complementary, at least highlights that oath keepers is composed of individuals of diverse backgrounds and beliefs, and that they do strive to weed out bad actors when they are identified, just like any other group would do. I found the reporting to be relatively unscathing, considering it's source, and I learned from it myself. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/02/oath-keepers/

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlz3-OzcExI

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wknw5UwClFI&bpctr=1531431778

* https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/december-2017-marc...

To you, somebody calling her a name is not honorable. You don't care what she did to earn that name.