You mean the path of twisting others words to mean something they don't to suit a political agenda? Yes, that's much better.
No, not what you are doing. Allowing that the world has evolved and our principles remain the same as we address new problems. Under your originalism bullshit black people are still second class with separate schools and women are not allowed to vote - not to mention marriage equity and the right to privacy. The list is pretty fucking long.
Incorrect. As I said before, the constitution can be added to and subtract from via constitutional amendment. Completely new law is another path. Black people are equal under the law via the emancipation proclamation and the civil rights act. Most of the grievances you could name can be addressed through new law or amendment without altering the twisting the words of previous laws. If you don't like something push for the legislature of your local, state, federal government to do something about it. The supreme's are meant to uphold existing law and declare what is and is not constitutional when the lower courts disagree. They are not suppose to play activist from the bench, but it happens all to often.
I don't think Trump is anymore capable of appointing an unbiased judge than any other politician. He has a base to play to in the general public and within the congress. There will be another political pick no matter who is in the oval office because they have to get through the polarized Senate first.
None of the examples I cited would have come to pass by changes in the law. Now they are for the most part considered common sense. The phrase "more perfect union," in the Declaration implies that we are meant to grow and become more than what we are. The Federalist Papers were written to explain what was generally meant when the Constitution was written. It was always itended to grow from there. Under originalism there is no right to privacy, no right to prevent illegal wiretaps, on any device invented after 1789. That is what you advocate. If a state wants spate but equal schools for minorities then that is what we have.
No one is without bias. It is what human's are. What judge on planet earth would you say is? The idea evolved that different points of view would arrive at a reasonable and just interpretation of what the law should be based on our principles. With a few hiccups its worked pretty well. Most of the hiccups involve originalism.
Again incorrect. The government cannot wiretap your phone or monitor you for no reason. It must be fore the public good and/or safety. If you are a danger, you can be monitored. You can't be surveilled "just because". HIPPA provider privacy protections for your medical information. Without justification, the government has no right to that information. There are a series of laws not apart of the constitution itself that provide privacy protection as long as you are not a danger to society. If it can be proven that you are a danger in a court of law then and only then can your privacy be violated.
Originalism does not solely pertain to the original form of the constitution. Later amendments are to be held to the meaning of what they were written as at the time of their passage. It also goes toward more modern laws. Even in criminal court, you can only be tried by the laws that were established at the time of your crime. You can't be charged with an action that was legal at the time, but made illegal a year later. Which are why artificial drugs (bathsalts and such) are such a problem. Every time a particular brand is added to the illegal list of drugs, the chemists make a minor change to the chemical composition and they are legal again.
Your intent is good, but there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it. Warping the words of others to suit your ends instead of honoring the original meaning and intent of those words is just wrong. As you say, the constitution is meant to grow and be updated to fit the times through amendments and new law. Amending the constitution is hard. It's suppose to be. You are suppose to fight for it. Not change the meaning to something you like.
The only reason the government needs a reason to wiretap is because of an implied right to privacy, which originalist say does not exist. Ditto striking sodomy laws. Again as I said the list goes on. Originalism is code for no lgtb rights, no abortions for women, primacy of Christianity and keeping progress retarded. Slice it any way you want - it is just window dressing for being reactionary.
I must say I missed that. Then again all he has to do is open his mouth and the press dictates his every word unchallenged. You can only consume so much garbage before you get sick. Then again it's not Trump, it's the people that support Trump. There will always be a Trump lurking nearby.
There is no way to sufficiently sully a pig or mock a clown. The effort only draws one further onto the opponent’s turf and away from one’s own principles and priorities.
There is no way to shame a man who lacks conscience or to embarrass an embarrassment. Trump is smart enough to know what he lacks — substance — and to know what he possesses in abundance — insolence.
So long as he steers clear of his own weakness and draws others in to the brier patch that is his comfort, he wins.
As MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said in December, this is asymmetric warfare. Conventional forms of political fighting won’t work on this man. Truth holds little power, and the media is still enthralled by the monster it made
Trump’s Asymmetric Warfare
distilledpunk
Expert Member
So you basically want a fantasy? Because you can't have both. Take gay marriage, for example, it's a "complicated" subject (even if it shouldn't be) that you can argue about six ways from Sunday. Some might assume that the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment extends tax rights and benefits to homosexuals, since their consent is as valid as any other consensual relationship. But an "originalist" (read: dumbass) would just interpret the 14th amendment for slavery. So then wouldn't an originalist too be subject to reading the 2nd amendment in its original intention and decide that the amendment is totally worthless and does not permit access to firearms for personal protection? Yes, very much so. But you won't get that!
And I'd be terrified to touch the subject of abortion, where autonomy is granted to both women and unborn children under extensive review of equal protection. So it's up for legislators and SCOTUS to constantly review when an unborn child is eligible for personhood. Because even if legislators pushed for a law that banned or gave business more choice in their provisions of women's healthcare, SCOTUS has to review whether it's in violation of the 14th amendment, the 9th amendment, Title VII and the Civil Rights Act.
TL;DR, there's no such thing as "go solely by the letter of the law." Because "the letter of the law" is meant to be interpreted.
A lot to unpack here...
So, due to the phrasing in the legislation, the 14th amendment expanded the civil rights act and all other anti-discrimination laws to cover "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" . The combination of these laws mean that the government cannot provide protections and rights to one group and not another. It's not complicated, it's very simple. Everyone has them or no one does. By the government providing special rights
and privileges to married couples, they had to either extend those rights to homesexual couples or strip them from heterosexual couples. Once you have a right, you can't lose it at no fault of your own. If marriage had remained a strictly religious matter, gay marriage would still be in the hands of the church and gay marriage would still be forbidden. BUT as the government had gotten involved with "holy unions", gay people have the right to everything straight people do and vice versa. As well it should be.
The 2nd amendment, one side says everyone has the right to a gun. The other side says only a state run militia such as the police and the military have the right to own a gun as they are part of a "well regulated militia". Both are not in keeping with the original meaning of the words. The 2nd amendment was written so that anyone who wanted a gun could have one, but if you had one then your state or territory militia. The reserves reserve. You got a gun, you are in the army now. A governor has the power to tap you as a resource if the state is ever invaded and the standing army isn't enough. You don't have the right to own a gun to protect you from Uncle Sam. You have the right to own a gun so that uncle Sam can press gang you into service if need be. BUT no one reads it that way any more because the gun lobby has spent generations and hundreds of billions of dollars to change the meaning of the words and fogging up the issue so that every gun nut can arm up to the teeth to protect themselves from "the black helicopters" and guns sales could sky rocket even if only a fraction of the population are the ones pulling bullets off the shelves faster than the companies can make them. Good for business.
As for the abortion part... you got that part right actually... Abortion rights hinge on the passage or blockage of "personhood". As it stands, an unborn child is not defined as a person and thus does not have the right to life , liberty, and property. "It" is still considered as part of the mothers body and what happens to it is up to her. Until/If the child is born and the mothers actions during pregnancy has lead to the child being born with some kinda of defect or a still birth that could have been avoided, then she could be (I stress "could") arrested and charged with gross negligence. Technically anyway. In practice, I'm not aware of any mother having this happen to her. But there may have been at some point. Legally possible.
Trump has gotten alot grief over his statement that a woman who gets an abortion should suffer some sort of punishment. The lead up to that question, of whether a mother who gets an abortion should be punished, was if a personhood amendment was passed would you have to punish a mother who gets an abortion. If a personhood amendment was passed, an abortion would no longer be considered (under the law) as a medical procedure. It would effectively be a contract killing. The doctor would be the equal of a hitman with the mother as a client and the unborn child as the target. It would be no different than a mother with a 5 year old putting a hit on her kid. If personhood passes, the mother who gets an abortion and the doctor that performs the abortion would got to jail for murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Pro-lifers don't want to think of it like that, but under the law, that's what it would do.
distilledpunk
Expert Member
The 14th amendment's equal protection clause can be preceded by the 9th amendment's enumeration: is the right to marry carried by the state or the people? The right will say the people, the left will say the state - there is no "clear" legal answer to marriage, which brings politics into SCOTUS. Personally I'm glad of SCOTUS' ruling on Obergefell v Hodges, because giving the right to the state was the best thing that could have happened. The backwards twats that insisted "if gays want equal rights, they should try to do something about it" and then prevent them from being successful when they try to do anything about it (anyone remember Prop 8?) can go burn for all I care. Openness and tolerance only go so far.
The 2nd amendment's intent was to arm all people and keep the Feds hands off people's guns entirely. The need for a militia is somewhat irrelevant. The reason why they wanted to arm all people was so that the country could call on anyone with a gun to fight an invader or representative's betrayal, but the 2nd amendment was written with the intent of keeping guns entirely in possession of the people, not that I'm a fan of it. "Originalists" were drag their feet on about it because nobody in the right mind really wants to believe that it's smart anymore: it's an outdated concept that needs to be amended but any discussion of that is surely to lead to some backlash because somehow the founding fathers of the US of A were infallible.
And yes, while defining personhood is important, there's still a lot of precedent and the science is not a definite solution (because with science, you can pinpoint several stages of embryonic development - any of which could be made a case for personhood). Putting it in the hands of lawmakers can be dangerous, and SCOTUS will always have to decide - regardless of any amendments or laws or acts, if the new laws infringe on the rights of the mother/woman. Even if the personhood amendment passed, there's no guarantee that SCOTUS would rule on it being in line with our constitutional liberties already held by the people by the 9th amendment.
You can't escape politics, even in SCOTUS. Originalism is a lie. Although SCOTUS' job isn't about lawmaking, it's about the evaluation of laws and deciding if new laws (and even new amendments!) are rights that should be retained by the people or the state.
rbkwp
Mythical Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Posts
- 79,813
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 45,347
- Points
- 608
- Location
- Auckland (New Zealand)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
looks like theyre getting into there own form of adulation for a dictator ..gonna be a big worry for the US and the world
if it gets in
a JFK may be the only solution /sad to say, for JFK that is .
i suppose it will be the ultimate extrteme USA reality show?
The Trump Army: Haters invited, incited and convinced to hate
if it gets in
a JFK may be the only solution /sad to say, for JFK that is .
i suppose it will be the ultimate extrteme USA reality show?
The Trump Army: Haters invited, incited and convinced to hate
Now you're getting it. Although it's not just "retained by", it's also "extended to" in some cases. Gay marriage being one such. It takes a while to get past religious, ethnic, and gender biases to get to the clear reading, but it happens... eventually... Then you need a definitive statement from the arbiters of what is legal and what isn't, namely SCOTUS, to make it an official stance of the government rather than just a policy. The problem is, generally, political bias. I would prefer a supreme court comprised of independents, but... that ain't happenin'. Not when it's the parties that get to pick whose ass is in what chair. For the time being, best one can hope for is 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and a fight to the political death over the middle one.
As for Trumps army of Haters, they were already there. No incitement needed.The only difference is they have a light shined on them now instead of being ignored and people pretending they don't exist. Racism is over. Sexism is a thing of the past. Homophobia is a dying trend.... no... still alive an well and now they have their champion. The bigots would be there, and shall continue to be for the foreseeable future, regardless of Trump.
You can ignore them and pretend they aren't there OR you can take a good long honest look at America. He didn't make them. They made him.
You can ignore them and pretend they aren't there OR you can take a good long honest look at America. He didn't make them. They made him.
Last edited:
rbkwp
Mythical Member
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2007
- Posts
- 79,813
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 45,347
- Points
- 608
- Location
- Auckland (New Zealand)
- Sexuality
- 100% Gay, 0% Straight
- Gender
- Male
no denying that
they have a leader to follow now
was/is convenient to ignore them, as not usually privy to such exposure
usually quickly turn off the TV if asnything Trump comes along.get adequate info from here
but in reading/viewing those images, well ha, cant help but throw in a comment?
and i know/knew, the shooting or mention of much loved JFK may not go down to well
but
a truth is a truth/reality
You can ignore them and pretend they aren't there OR you can take a good long honest look at America. He didn't make them. They made him.
distilledpunk
Expert Member
Unfortunately that's not how that works. The United States is a "republic," although it becomes increasingly looser with every generation. Rights belong to the federal government, the states or the people. And the eternal debate will be that anything that's not explicitly constitutionally enumerated can be interpreted as a right retained by the state or the people. And that's why you'll always have politics even in SCOTUS, because they will interpret laws and give their reasons why they believe the rights belong to the people or the states. Because there's sure no "right" answer (although some make a lot more sense to the sane of mind).
The difference now is Trump has "unhooked" conservatism from the hate and served it up with a ton of "leftist" ideas like keeping Social Security, Medicare and bashing trade agreements. Turns out the base cares more about the hate than being a genuine "conservative". And that's the real reason the "establishment" hates Trump.
And this "breaking news" should be no surprise....
An overwhelming majority of Republican voters say their party’s leaders should get behind Donald J. Trump, even as he enters the general election saddled with toxic favorability ratings among the broader electorate, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
Republicans Want Their Party to Unify Behind Donald Trump, Poll Shows
Republicans Want Their Party to Unify Behind Donald Trump, Poll Shows
Last edited by a moderator:
- b.c.,
As I said, they'll all be jumping aboard the bandwagon, all those who've ever harbored a thought akin to his demagoguery, as well as many who THOUGHT they didn't. Meanwhile those on the cusp and other disaffected elements will begin offering all sorts or rationalizations as to how a Trump presidency would be preferable to a Clinton one.
Yep. If you saw the RNC chair this weekend Priebus went from TV studio to TV studio, four in all, on a trudge of abasement, a ride of shame. Excusing everything and nothing mattered since 'we are winning'. They win but the country loses with a flag wrapped around the corpse. And now we have the male Sarah Palin nominated for president and apparently a good bit of the cave dwellers along with him.