2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

commodorejohn
Posts: 961
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:23 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Can you defend Trump as a candidate *without* resorting to attacking Clinton?

That's really the key thing here. I don't trust Clinton, and I'm not going to vote for her - but "voting against her" by voting for a compulsive liar whose professional history has primarily consisted of suckering people into investing in business ventures that go on to collapse while he walks away leaving them holding the bag, who openly and proudly admits to regularly cheating contractors when he can get away with it, and who displays little understanding of and absolutely zero respect for the Constitution, governmental ethics, or basic human decency, is just madness. It's cutting off your nose to spite the other guy's face.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Yablo
Posts: 387
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 9:57 am UTC
Location: Juneau, Alaska

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yablo » Thu Oct 27, 2016 11:51 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Can you defend Trump as a candidate *without* resorting to attacking Clinton?

If I can't I have no business supporting him, and I really wish more people would ask themselves that question about their choice. Too many otherwise-constructive political debates devolve into name calling, insults, and tearing down the opposition's platform.

I think his plan for a wall along the border may be a stretch, but I fully agree with the message. We can't guarantee the safety and well-being of our citizens without secure borders. I think Clinton's characterization of his deportation plan is a little off the mark, too. Rather than going door to door rounding up anyone without documentation, Trump would simply instruct his immigration, justice, and border patrol to be more efficient and determined in their efforts when they find anyone who is here illegally. Proof of citizenship is required for most employment, and in most areas of the country, it is required for a wide range of licenses and permits. Anyone here illegally knows they're here illegally, and granting amnesty and citizenship condones the breaking of our laws while simultaneously slapping all legal immigrants in the face.

He has walked back his ban on Muslim immigrants statement to mean extreme vetting, and given the state of the world and the demographics of known terrorists, I believe it's unfortunate but not entirely unreasonable. While I don't personally know any Syrian refugees, I've known plenty of Bosnian refugees in the past. From what they've told me, and what I know of how I'd feel about relocation, I have to believe that the majority of Syrian citizens would prefer to remain in their own country if a safe zone could be established rather than being uprooted and moved across the globe.

Trump's plan to renegotiate NAFTA is something I've been waiting to hear a candidate support for quite some time. It may be good for the region, but it's terrible for the U.S. His plans to bring companies and jobs back to the U.S. from other countries is also a solid one which will give our economy a much-needed relief. Being tougher on China and other countries which devalue and manipulate currency will also help us on a global level.

One thing I haven't heard him talk much about which I really wish he would is how he would handle government entitlements. He talks big about corruption and putting Americans back to work, but with all the social welfare programs spiraling out of control, he'll need to address it sooner or later if he's elected.
If you like Call of Cthulhu and modern government conspiracy, check out my Delta Green thread.
Please feel free to ask questions or leave comments.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 28, 2016 12:20 am UTC

Yablo wrote:I think his plan for a wall along the border may be a stretch, but I fully agree with the message. We can't guarantee the safety and well-being of our citizens without secure borders.
A 'stretch'? His 'plan' is "build a wall, make Mexico pay for it". That's it. I'm not even summarizing; that is literally the 'plan' he's laid out.

That's not a stretch; just referring to that as a plan is a stretch.
Yablo wrote: I think Clinton's characterization of his deportation plan is a little off the mark, too. Rather than going door to door rounding up anyone without documentation, Trump would simply instruct his immigration, justice, and border patrol to be more efficient and determined in their efforts when they find anyone who is here illegally.
Trump is on record for stating he would triple the number of immigration and deportation agents, and create a new 'special deportation task force' (his words, not mine) to go after the 'most serious threats'. Clinton's characterization isn't off the mark; it's just a repeat of what Trump himself has already said.
Yablo wrote:Proof of citizenship is required for most employment, and in most areas of the country, it is required for a wide range of licenses and permits. Anyone here illegally knows they're here illegally, and granting amnesty and citizenship condones the breaking of our laws while simultaneously slapping all legal immigrants in the face.
There are legal immigrants here with family members who are illegal immigrants. In some cases, we're talking about their parents, siblings, or even children. Do you think they take it as a slap-in-the-face when people talk about granting their loved ones amnesty?

Let me put it another way: If your mother was here illegally, how would you feel if I told you I'd grant her amnesty, but I felt like that would be an insult to you? "Wow, you're absolutely right, working to deport my mom to spare my feelings is so much less patronizing".
Yablo wrote:He has walked back his ban on Muslim immigrants statement to mean extreme vetting, and given the state of the world and the demographics of known terrorists, I believe it's unfortunate but not entirely unreasonable.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and wager you don't know how our actual vetting system currently works.

If it was any more 'extreme', people wouldn't be submitting themselves for US citizenship; they'd be submitting their unborn children for it -- because that's how long it'd take for the vetting process to complete.

morriswalters
Posts: 6940
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Fri Oct 28, 2016 12:34 am UTC

I guess more importantly from my point of view, is that if he can't be bothered to prep for the debates, how am I going to be able to rely on him to prepare, when his homework will be much harder and the outcome much more important. If he has a poker face I haven't seen it to this point. I expect the President to be able to conceal when concealment is required. He can't be still. And evidently he doesn't have the self control to go to bed or study, preferring it seems, to vent on Twitter at 3 AM. The campaign is where I expect Trump to display grace under pressure and the demeanor required of the President. To this point he hasn't shown that it is possible for him to do either. And the campaign is simple as compared to the fact of sitting in the Oval Office.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Oct 28, 2016 12:35 am UTC

Yablo wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Can you defend Trump as a candidate *without* resorting to attacking Clinton?

If I can't I have no business supporting him, and I really wish more people would ask themselves that question about their choice. Too many otherwise-constructive political debates devolve into name calling, insults, and tearing down the opposition's platform.

I think his plan for a wall along the border may be a stretch, but I fully agree with the message. We can't guarantee the safety and well-being of our citizens without secure borders. I think Clinton's characterization of his deportation plan is a little off the mark, too. Rather than going door to door rounding up anyone without documentation, Trump would simply instruct his immigration, justice, and border patrol to be more efficient and determined in their efforts when they find anyone who is here illegally. Proof of citizenship is required for most employment, and in most areas of the country, it is required for a wide range of licenses and permits. Anyone here illegally knows they're here illegally, and granting amnesty and citizenship condones the breaking of our laws while simultaneously slapping all legal immigrants in the face.


Look, I'm all for increased border security but the wall is stupid. Drug dealers are using UAVs and submarines to fly drugs into our country. The massive wave of illegal immigrants last year were a bunch of children running towards border patrol agents looking for food and shelter. The wall does jack shit: we weren't going to let a bunch of children starve on the border whether or not we had a wall or not.

As for the rest of your statements, you're basically looking at Trump's proposals with a rational lens, instead of actually letting his speeches do the talking.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aU4ZEcf27Q

Trump wants to build the wall, and he wants Mexico to pay for it.

If Clinton continue's Obama's trajectory with regards to border security, I'm frankly fine with it.

Image

--------

In any case, if you pretend that Trump's statements are somehow eloquently worded like yours and that he isn't "really going to build a wall", then I can pretend that Clinton really isn't going to open up a pathway to citizenship and that all of that rhetoric is just fake right-wing propaganda. I mean, really, Trump has made the wall his cornerstone immigration policy for the past year. Its completely fucking stupid and demonstrates his utter ignorance towards this problem.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6866
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:36 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I mean, really, Trump has made the wall his cornerstone immigration policy for the past year. Its completely fucking stupid and demonstrates his utter ignorance towards this problem.
And, like, this is partly what sets this election so far apart from previous ones for me. Politicians say some pretty dumb things -- even the ones running for the highest US office! But Trump's complete disregard for facts or reality -- his blatant, overt xenophobia -- his chauvinism, his misogyny, his racism, his lack of anything even resembling a coherent policy... and the fact that he's still got something like 40% of the popular vote? It's like watching half the country support a shrieking man-baby's Presidential bid.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:51 am UTC

Yablo wrote:I wholeheartedly believe that if Hillary Clinton wins and has her justices confirmed, the Supreme Court will willfully and irresponsibly misinterpret the Constitution of the United States, the document which serves as the backbone and frame of the nation.
What decisions, specifically, are you worried that the Clinton Supreme Court will hand down?
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5846
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:05 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Can you defend Trump as a candidate *without* resorting to attacking Clinton?

He's authentic/real cuz he has no filter. He cares about the forgotten white people who don't feel successful anymore. He's not a politician/ is an outsider. He's rich, but not in the snooty kind of way.(think prosperity theology) and he gave us a literal list of pro-life Scotus Judges that he would nominate. Lastly, he's unlikely to meddle with GOP controlled congress on what legislation Ryan/McConnell would pass.(doesn't care about legislation)

Now given, you can't actually trust that he'll follow through with any of this, but the GOP electorate does believe him. The ones who don't are Mormons.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:12 am UTC

sardia wrote:Now given, you can't actually trust that he'll follow through with any of this, but the GOP electorate does believe him. The ones who don't are Mormons.
Only about 3/4 of the GOP electorate view him favourably as of last week. The other 25% can't all be Mormons, surely.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4390
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:17 am UTC

Yablo wrote:This is a big election for so many reasons. In my opinion, much bigger than who ultimately wins the presidency is the question of the future of the Supreme Court and the interpretation of the Constitution. If Hillary wins, she's virtually guaranteed to appoint justices - at least one, and possibly as many as three - who will distort the image of this country so far beyond what it was intended to be that it will be unrecognizable, and it may never recover.


And if Trump wins, he'll do the same thing. The idea that the justices make decisions based on the original intent of the Constitution is a fantasy that is not backed up by the historical record of the court whatsoever. Even supposed strict constitutionalists (Scalia) regularly tossed the original language of the Constitution when it suited their preferred modern political views.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5846
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Oct 28, 2016 3:22 am UTC

ahammel wrote:
sardia wrote:Now given, you can't actually trust that he'll follow through with any of this, but the GOP electorate does believe him. The ones who don't are Mormons.
Only about 3/4 of the GOP electorate view him favourably as of last week. The other 25% can't all be Mormons, surely.

I was going for hyperbole. Anyway, look at his numbers before the sexual predator tapes. It was mostly establishment types(by definition not a large part of the party) and Mormons who went against Trump. Now we can add white women and college educated to the list.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18638
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:40 am UTC

ahammel wrote:
Yablo wrote:I wholeheartedly believe that if Hillary Clinton wins and has her justices confirmed, the Supreme Court will willfully and irresponsibly misinterpret the Constitution of the United States, the document which serves as the backbone and frame of the nation.
What decisions, specifically, are you worried that the Clinton Supreme Court will hand down?

Remember how Obama willfully and irresponsibly misinterpreted the Constitution of the United States, the document which serves as the backbone and frame of the nation, and everyone's guns got taken away?

Yablo wrote:Trump would simply instruct his immigration, justice, and border patrol to be more efficient and determined in their efforts when they find anyone who is here illegally.
Lets be clear - his plan of building a wall, with it's ever amorphously stated price tag and admitted failure-to-guy-with-a-ladder loophole, isn't actually his plan, his plan this whole time is just tell people to do their jobs better? Are you even reading what you're writing, because frankly, you're just regurgitating Republican propaganda just sans the fervor.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:42 am UTC

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/donald-trump-election-cancel-230414#ixzz4OKBwqXzi
“And just thinking to myself right now, we should just cancel the election and just give it to Trump, right? What are we even having it for? What are we having it for?”


… Yeah and that is why there are elections, to not choose someone like you…

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:43 am UTC

ahammel wrote:
Yablo wrote:I wholeheartedly believe that if Hillary Clinton wins and has her justices confirmed, the Supreme Court will willfully and irresponsibly misinterpret the Constitution of the United States, the document which serves as the backbone and frame of the nation.
What decisions, specifically, are you worried that the Clinton Supreme Court will hand down?


Lets be frank here: the Supreme Court has enormous power. From a liberal side, you surely are aware of Citizen's United. From the conservative side, Roe vs Wade is always one that is brought up.

I'm sure anybody who is into politics can name a Supreme Court case they disagree with. These Supreme Court justices stay on the court for decades typically. Its a life-term. So yeah, being afraid of justices you disagree with is a perfectly sane position to have.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:56 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
ahammel wrote:
Yablo wrote:I wholeheartedly believe that if Hillary Clinton wins and has her justices confirmed, the Supreme Court will willfully and irresponsibly misinterpret the Constitution of the United States, the document which serves as the backbone and frame of the nation.
What decisions, specifically, are you worried that the Clinton Supreme Court will hand down?


Lets be frank here: the Supreme Court has enormous power. From a liberal side, you surely are aware of Citizen's United. From the conservative side, Roe vs Wade is always one that is brought up.

I'm sure anybody who is into politics can name a Supreme Court case they disagree with. These Supreme Court justices stay on the court for decades typically. Its a life-term. So yeah, being afraid of justices you disagree with is a perfectly sane position to have.
I never said it wasn't. I've heard quite a bit of panic about the justices that Clinton, in particular, might appoint, so I'm just wondering what verdicts in particular are going to be so horrible.

Or does "willfully and irresponsibly misinterpreting the Constitution of the United States" just mean the same thing as "making decisions I disagree with"?
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Oct 28, 2016 4:59 am UTC

ahammel wrote:I never said it wasn't. I've heard quite a bit of panic about the justices that Clinton, in particular, might appoint, so I'm just wondering what verdicts in particular are going to be so horrible.

Or does "willfully and irresponsibly misinterpreting the Constitution of the United States" just mean the same thing as "making decisions I disagree with"?


Well, regardless of whether or not you agree with abortion, surely you and I can agree that the writers of the 14th Amendment had no intention for that amendment to be used to grant Abortion rights across America. Liberal judges bend the constitution to meet their morals. Conservative judges do not. That's just a fundamental philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats that has happened for all of the modern political era.

Specifically, Roe v Wade took this statement:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


(Section 1 of 14th Amendment)

And misinterpreted it to mean "Women have privacy rights" and "therefore anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional". I'd say that's a blatant misinterpretation... especially as it particularly ignores the "without due process of law" phrase. Actually... Roe vs Wade interprets "without due process" to mean "privacy", and then argues that Abortion is a private issue.

That's... a mighty large stretch. Do you not think so?

EDIT: And there's certainly nothing that suggests that this "privacy right" suddenly disappears in the 3rd Trimester of pregnancy, as per current Roe vs Wade rules. Its utterly arbitrary, and is a prime example of the Supreme Court making up laws from the bench to suite their opinion.

--------

At best, the 19th Amendment extended the 14th Amendment to apply to Women (so that women have voting rights, and other such rights granted by the Government). I still don't see how this applies to abortion. I might grant it for gay marriage, but I'm still hard pressed to say that marriage is a "right" that is covered by the 14th Amendment (even if I agree with the benefits of allowing Gay marriage in our society, it just doesn't feel right to piggy back off the 14th Amendment in this manner)
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:49 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5846
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:20 am UTC

A side note, it's fairly common to say Trump flip flops a lot/can't trust Trump, but don't we have it backwards? Isn't Trump just sending out feelers to gauge the (republican) public perception? Like when he was riling up crowds about abortion, until he went too far, and his base turned on him. Trump immediately backed down on his statement that mothers who abort should be punished. So if the crowds cheer when he proposes brutalizing muslims, then he'll amp that up in the next line.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:23 am UTC

sardia wrote:A side note, it's fairly common to say Trump flip flops a lot/can't trust Trump, but don't we have it backwards? Isn't Trump just sending out feelers to gauge the (republican) public perception? Like when he was riling up crowds about abortion, until he went too far, and his base turned on him. Trump immediately backed down on his statement that mothers who abort should be punished. So if the crowds cheer when he proposes brutalizing muslims, then he'll amp that up in the next line.


I agree that this seems to be Trump's strategy.

But this also means that Trump is amoral and 100% to the whims of his supporters. I prefer my leaders to lead, not to follow the crowds. There will be decisions that the majority of Americans don't like, but will be ultimately good for us. That's the real test of leadership, and Trump will fail that test.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4390
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:50 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Well, regardless of whether or not you agree with abortion, surely you and I can agree that the writers of the 14th Amendment had no intention for that amendment to be used to grant Abortion rights across America. Liberal judges bend the constitution to meet their morals. Conservative judges do not. That's just a fundamental philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats that has happened for all of the modern political era.

Specifically, Roe v Wade took this statement:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


(Section 1 of 14th Amendment)

And misinterpreted it to mean "Women have privacy rights" and "therefore anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional". I'd say that's a blatant misinterpretation... especially as it particularly ignores the "without due process of law" phrase. Actually... Roe vs Wade interprets "without due process" to mean "privacy", and then argues that Abortion is a private issue.

That's... a mighty large stretch. Do you not think so?


That's... not what happened at all.

The right to privacy was formally established in Griswold v. Connecticut, and upheld in Eisenstadt v. Braid, in '65 and '73, respectively. The question in Roe v. Wade was only whether or not abortion was covered by the right to privacy. The point of applying the due process clause in all three cases was that the government should not be able to create laws that baselessly infringe on people's life, liberty, or property. Essentially, it's the same reason that the government couldn't pass a law outlawing televlsions. There's no specific right to televisions in the Constitution, but the due process clause protects people against governments creating laws like this if it doesn't have a compelling interest in doing so.

EDIT: And there's certainly nothing that suggests that this "privacy right" suddenly disappears in the 3rd Trimester of pregnancy, as per current Roe vs Wade rules. Its utterly arbitrary, and is a prime example of the Supreme Court making up laws from the bench to suite their opinion.


The Supreme Court didn't say it disappears once the 3rd Trimester appears. It recognized that the right to privacy must be balanced against the competing interest of the state. This is pretty standard stuff in all kinds of cases... the right to free speech is limited in circumstances where your speech is likely to lead to immediate and severe harm; it is likewise limited when you are under oath in court, for example.

At best, the 19th Amendment extended the 14th Amendment to apply to Women (so that women have voting rights, and other such rights granted by the Government). I still don't see how this applies to abortion. I might grant it for gay marriage, but I'm still hard pressed to say that marriage is a "right" that is covered by the 14th Amendment (even if I agree with the benefits of allowing Gay marriage in our society, it just doesn't feel right to piggy back off the 14th Amendment in this manner)


Rights aren't granted by the government. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of government, not to limit the rights of people. The 9th Amendment specifically allows for rights not enumerated in the Constitution to nonetheless be protected.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Oct 28, 2016 7:12 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:Well, regardless of whether or not you agree with abortion, surely you and I can agree that the writers of the 14th Amendment had no intention for that amendment to be used to grant Abortion rights across America. Liberal judges bend the constitution to meet their morals. Conservative judges do not. That's just a fundamental philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats that has happened for all of the modern political era.

Specifically, Roe v Wade took this statement:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


(Section 1 of 14th Amendment)

And misinterpreted it to mean "Women have privacy rights" and "therefore anti-abortion laws are unconstitutional". I'd say that's a blatant misinterpretation... especially as it particularly ignores the "without due process of law" phrase. Actually... Roe vs Wade interprets "without due process" to mean "privacy", and then argues that Abortion is a private issue.

That's... a mighty large stretch. Do you not think so?


That's... not what happened at all.


Grossly simplified. But the chain of logic is nonetheless Abortion rights are 14th Amendment because of right to privacy, and all of the decisions that led to that point were crafted by the Supreme Court and not by the legislative Branch.

The Supreme Court didn't say it disappears once the 3rd Trimester appears.


Except it does in practice. Laws can be written to outlaw abortion in the 3rd Trimester according to Roe vs Wade. We can write many essays about it, but that's the decision of the Supreme Court. I mean really, its just the modern version of the 3/5ths compromise, except instead of being created by the legislature... it was a rule (and effectively a law) that was created by the Supreme Court.

The important tidbit is that its the Supreme Court that made all of these decisions, when really the design of our country was for the Senate / House to write the laws.

--------

Rights aren't granted by the government. The purpose of the Constitution is to limit the power of government, not to limit the rights of people. The 9th Amendment specifically allows for rights not enumerated in the Constitution to nonetheless be protected.


Sure, except its Congress that's supposed to be writing those laws of the Constitution. Not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court should be pulled in whenever there is an unknown case or contradictory case that wasn't thought up by Congress during the writing process... the Supreme Court shouldn't be the mechanism to create (in effect) "rulings" with the power of a Constitutional Amendments.

The constitution explicitly made the Constitutional Amendment process very very difficult (75% of the States!) because our founders knew that such power was mighty, and shouldn't be used very often. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has begun to use its position to create rulings and precedents that are in effect, as powerful as a Constitutional Amendment itself.

---------

Maybe this is hard for you to understand because you actually agree with the court on abortion. Fine. Lets switch to Citizen's United, and how the court tied political donations to the 1st Amendment. Are you still going to defend the practice of the Supreme Court effectively writing the nation's laws?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7312
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:33 am UTC

The constitution explicitly made the Constitutional Amendment process very very difficult (75% of the States!) because our founders knew that such power was mighty, and shouldn't be used very often. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has begun to use its position to create rulings and precedents that are in effect, as powerful as a Constitutional Amendment itself.

Then again, those same founders that made the constitution hard to change, were also the people who made the supreme court powerful (and open to political appointees). You can't appeal to the founder's wisdom for one aspect, and ignore them for the other.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4390
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:40 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
The Supreme Court didn't say it disappears once the 3rd Trimester appears.


Except it does in practice. Laws can be written to outlaw abortion in the 3rd Trimester according to Roe vs Wade. We can write many essays about it, but that's the decision of the Supreme Court. I mean really, its just the modern version of the 3/5ths compromise, except instead of being created by the legislature... it was a rule (and effectively a law) that was created by the Supreme Court.

The important tidbit is that its the Supreme Court that made all of these decisions, when really the design of our country was for the Senate / House to write the laws.


The Court's job is to interpret laws. Yes, that involves occasionally telling lawmakers that the laws that they've drafted are unconstitutional, which necessarily requires telling them how and why they are unconstitutional. That's arguably the Court's primary purpose.

Sure, except its Congress that's supposed to be writing those laws of the Constitution. Not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court should be pulled in whenever there is an unknown case or contradictory case that wasn't thought up by Congress during the writing process... the Supreme Court shouldn't be the mechanism to create (in effect) "rulings" with the power of a Constitutional Amendments.


The Court doesn't write laws. The Court decides the boundaries of what is and what is not constitutional. Maybe worth reading this, wherein a judge talks about the problems inherent in trying to understand the meaning of the Founding Father's remarks, as well as some other absurdities--for example, under a strict interpretation of the Constitution, any state would be free to pass laws that could, say, allow for cruel and unusual punishment, or establish a state religion. It's only through an expansive interpretation of the 14th Amendment that such things are forbidden at the state level.

Maybe this is hard for you to understand because you actually agree with the court on abortion. Fine. Lets switch to Citizen's United, and how the court tied political donations to the 1st Amendment. Are you still going to defend the practice of the Supreme Court effectively writing the nation's laws?


Again, the Court didn't write laws. It invalidated existing ones. Now, Citizen overruled over a hundred years of case law including numerous prior Supreme Court decisions, and the Court chose to greatly expand the scope beyond the original case set before it. Because of this, it's probably vulnerable to being overturned down the line. Good overview of the case here. But this issue really speaks to a failure of the Founding Fathers to s Unitednot properly enumerate how elections should be handled, and to set up an impartial body to oversee them. Most of the problems in American elections law ultimately stem from that failure... something that will require a Constitutional Amendment to fix. (The First Amendment has been tied to political contributions since the 70s, btw)

elasto
Posts: 3125
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Oct 28, 2016 8:53 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:The constitution explicitly made the Constitutional Amendment process very very difficult (75% of the States!) because our founders knew that such power was mighty, and shouldn't be used very often. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has begun to use its position to create rulings and precedents that are in effect, as powerful as a Constitutional Amendment itself.

The job of the court is to rule on ambiguities in the laws as drafted. They are doing their job.

The job of the legislature is to draft law - and if the effect of a law does not match the intention of the drafters, the legislature rewrites the law. This is the check and balance most modern countries implement.

If the legislature in the US is being constrained by the constitution to an unbalanced degree, the correct path forwards is to amend the constitution, not for each party to seek to pack the court with lapdogs who will 'legislate by proxy'.

Of course, the system wouldn't be so broken if US judges were apolitical as they are in most Western countries...

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1229
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Fri Oct 28, 2016 10:10 am UTC

Yablo wrote:It was intended to be a place where citizens could be free to do what they liked as long as they didn't harm another's mind, body, possessions, or livelihood. It was intended to be a place where people had no need to rely on or fear their government.
They also intended "citizens" to include only white people and "possessions" to include all black people.*

Buncha progressive librull weirdoes sure put a spanner in them spokes over the years, eh?

So, you reckon another Clinton administration would make more people more dependent on the government.

Image

How, exactly? By employing more teachers, doctors, nurses and hospital cleaners? By increasing vaccination rates and encouraging overseas tourism?

*
Spoiler:
http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/a_us_history/1700_1800_timeline.htm
1774 - September 5 to October 26, the First Continental Congress ... delegates agree to a boycott of English imports, effect an embargo of exports to Britain, and discontinue the slave trade.

July 8, 1783 - The Supreme Court of Massachusetts abolishes slavery in that state.
October 7, 1783 - In Virginia, the House of Burgesses grants freedom to slaves who served in the Continental Army.
May 25, 1787 - With 29 delegates from nine states present, the constitutional convention begins in the state house (Independence Hall) in Philadelphia.
July 13, 1787 - Congress enacts the Northwest Ordinance which establishes formal procedures for transforming territories into states. It provides for the eventual establishment of three to five states in the area north of the Ohio River, to be considered equal with the original 13. The Ordinance includes a Bill of Rights that guarantees freedom of religion, the right to trial by jury, public education and a ban on slavery in the Northwest.
July 16, 1787 - At the constitutional convention, Roger Sherman proposes a compromise which allows for representation in the House of Representatives based on each state's population and equal representation for all of the states in the Senate. The numerous black slaves in the South are to counted at only three fifths of their total number. A rough draft of the constitution is then drawn up.
February 27, 1788 - In Massachusetts, following an incident in which free blacks were kidnapped and transported to the island of Martinique, the Massachusetts legislature declares the slavery trade illegal and provides for monetary damages to victims of kidnappings.
June 2, 1788 - In Virginia, anti-Federalist forces, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, oppose ratification of the Constitution. They are joined by Richard Henry Lee who calls for a bill of rights and a lower house set up on a more democratic basis.
June 25, 1788 - In Virginia, the Federalists, led by James Madison, finally prevail as ratification of the Constitution (with a proposed bill of rights and 20 other changes) is endorsed by a close vote of 89 to 75.
September 25, 1789 - Congress submits 12 proposed constitutional amendments to the states for ratification. The first ten will be ratified and added to the Constitution in 1791 as the Bill of Rights.
March 1, 1790 - A Census Act is passed by Congress. The first census, finished on Aug. 1, indicates a total population of nearly 4 million persons in the U.S. and western territories. African Americans make up 19 percent of the population, with 90 percent living in the South. Native Americans were not counted, although there were likely over 80 tribes with 150,000 persons.
1801 Population 5.3 million (1 million of African decent)
1802 - Ohio outlaws slavery
So black slaves did count as people when it came to the House of Representatives, just 60% as much as white people. My mistake, eh?
Judging by that, the original Constitution didn't include the Bill of Rights (that'd be why they're all Amendments) and a lot of people argued quite hard about whether they should be included.
Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States and provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, ..."
1865. Another big change from 1787.
Yep, definitely a slave-owners' constitution.
By 1862, when it became clear that this would be a long war, the question of what to do about slavery became more general. The Southern economy and military effort depended on slave labor. It began to seem unreasonable to protect slavery while blockading Southern commerce and destroying Southern production. As one Congressman put it, the slaves "…cannot be neutral. As laborers, if not as soldiers, they will be allies of the rebels, or of the Union." The same Congressman—and his fellow Radical Republicans—put pressure on Lincoln to rapidly emancipate the slaves, whereas moderate Republicans came to accept gradual, compensated emancipation and colonization. Copperheads, the border states and War Democrats opposed emancipation, although the border states and War Democrats eventually accepted it as part of total war needed to save the Union.
I guess that war must have ... what was the phrase?

Yablo wrote:... distort the image of this country so far beyond what it was intended to be that it will be unrecognizable, and it may never recover.
Yeah, that. The war must have done that.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7312
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:02 am UTC

Of course, the system wouldn't be so broken if US judges were apolitical as they are in most Western countries..

I think it's more the other way round - most countries do not give judges the kind of sweeping powers of the US supreme court, and as result it is easier to keep the judiciary apolitical.

As an extreme case the other way round: the Dutch constitution explicitly forbids the courts from testing laws against the constitution, on the grounds that this would give the courts de facto legislative power. Basically, the constitution says 'that supreme court stuff like they do in the US? Don't do that'. The highest court will advise on the constitutionality of laws, but parliament is allowed to ignore that advice.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5652
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Fri Oct 28, 2016 11:34 am UTC

It's a bit more complicated than that though. The Dutch Supreme Court can't test laws against the constitution, but they can still test them against each other, or against international treaties. They also interpret laws. There certainly have been cases where the supreme court effectively overruled the coalition by striking down laws or regulations.

An infamous case is the supreme court effectively abolishing the law against blasphemy in 1967. A more recent example is the supreme court requiring the SGP [a christian fundamentalist political party] to allow (full) membership for women.

The US supreme court is much more active in the political sphere, and much more political. But it seems to be that the Dutch court could, within the bounds of our laws, theoretically become much more political too. Why this doesn't happen is an interesting question. Maybe it's a better designed legal framework, but maybe it's just tradition. Or maybe we have just been lucky so far, and 20 years from now we'll also be complaining about our highly politicized supreme court.

The Dutch supreme court is much larger than the US one, I think there are around 30 members (with different areas of expertise, they don't all sit together on the same cases). Maybe that helps? Each individual appointment matters much less, so there's less incentive to fight over it, which means there's less incentive to pervert the system.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 25818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby gmalivuk » Fri Oct 28, 2016 12:14 pm UTC

I can't decide if KnightExemplar's claim that conservative judges don't bend the Constitution is a No True Scotsman fallacy or just blatantly ahistorical nonsense.

Was Scalia a "conservative judge"? If you say yes, then I'll know it's the nonsense you' re going for. If no, then it's No True Scotsman.

(I don't deny that conservative *rhetoric* is all about" original intent", but that doesn't translate into what their judges actually do.)
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:03 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I can't decide if KnightExemplar's claim that conservative judges don't bend the Constitution is a No True Scotsman fallacy or just blatantly ahistorical nonsense.

Was Scalia a "conservative judge"? If you say yes, then I'll know it's the nonsense you' re going for. If no, then it's No True Scotsman.

(I don't deny that conservative *rhetoric* is all about" original intent", but that doesn't translate into what their judges actually do.)


When the Conservatives on the Supreme Court rule that money is speech and corporations are people, you might have a point, but until then...
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7312
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:11 pm UTC

But it seems to be that the Dutch court could, within the bounds of our laws, theoretically become much more political too.

Definitely. I think the crucial distinction, with the US situation, is not so much that the high court is more restricted to become political. It's that political actors outside of the judiciary have less reason to push the court. Either you control parliament, and then you don't have to push the court, or you don't, and then parliament can undo any controversial decision.

This is an extreme opposite formt he American situation. If you look for example at the German BVerfG, with much stronger independent powers, then you see definitely political influence at the highest level. Individual judges are associated with specific parties, or even with wings within the parties. Newspapers report on the election of new judges, there are controversies.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:15 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:I can't decide if KnightExemplar's claim that conservative judges don't bend the Constitution is a No True Scotsman fallacy or just blatantly ahistorical nonsense.

Was Scalia a "conservative judge"? If you say yes, then I'll know it's the nonsense you' re going for. If no, then it's No True Scotsman.

(I don't deny that conservative *rhetoric* is all about" original intent", but that doesn't translate into what their judges actually do.)


I prefer Clarence Thomas personally (though he too is not without fallacy, as all judges are due to them having a personal set of beliefs, that's why we have had between 6 and 10 supreme court justices throughout history).

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3671
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:16 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:I can't decide if KnightExemplar's claim that conservative judges don't bend the Constitution is a No True Scotsman fallacy or just blatantly ahistorical nonsense.

Was Scalia a "conservative judge"? If you say yes, then I'll know it's the nonsense you' re going for. If no, then it's No True Scotsman.

(I don't deny that conservative *rhetoric* is all about" original intent", but that doesn't translate into what their judges actually do.)


When the Conservatives on the Supreme Court rule that money is speech and corporations are people, you might have a point, but until then...


So although right on the "corporations are people" part, the "money is speech" part was ruled 9-0 in the more liberal Burger court.

And really they didn't even rule "corporations are people", they ruled that associations of people have the same free speech rights as individuals. Citizen's United wasn't even a corporation, but in fact a non-profit org.
Last edited by Dark567 on Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:21 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:20 pm UTC

Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

JudeMorrigan
Posts: 1238
Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 1:26 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby JudeMorrigan » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:21 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
Thesh wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:I can't decide if KnightExemplar's claim that conservative judges don't bend the Constitution is a No True Scotsman fallacy or just blatantly ahistorical nonsense.

Was Scalia a "conservative judge"? If you say yes, then I'll know it's the nonsense you' re going for. If no, then it's No True Scotsman.

(I don't deny that conservative *rhetoric* is all about" original intent", but that doesn't translate into what their judges actually do.)


When the Conservatives on the Supreme Court rule that money is speech and corporations are people, you might have a point, but until then...


So although right on the "corporations are people" part, the "money is speech" part was ruled 9-0 in the more liberal Burger court.

I don't think anyone in this thread has suggested that liberal judges are strict originalists. That doesn't change the fact that suggesting that conservative judges flat out do not "bend the constitution to meet their morals" is quite ludicrous.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3671
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:23 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCutcheon_v._FEC
Err sure, that expands on the principal in a tighter 5-4 ruling, but the principle of money=speech goes back further than that.
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:32 pm UTC

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nat ... ._Bellotti

If you are referring to a different one, why not say which one you are referring too instead of playing the Supreme Court Case guessing game? All these are Supreme Court justices choosing to interpret the constitution in ways it was pretty obviously not intended.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3671
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:47 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti

If you are referring to a different one, why not say which one you are referring too instead of playing the Supreme Court Case guessing game? All these are Supreme Court justices choosing to interpret the constitution in ways it was pretty obviously not intended.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 28, 2016 1:57 pm UTC

Which didn't rule that money was speech, it ruled that capping limits on campaign spending by candidates limited the candidates ability to speak. It did not rule that money was speech in and of itself.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3671
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:01 pm UTC

spending money, in its view, was the same as written or verbal expression
That sounds like money = speech to me?
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:04 pm UTC

Can we all just admit that we all want to stack the court with people who agree with us politically? I highly doubt we'll ever see a candidate who comes out and says they're going to pick someone who is apolitical because that would hurt that candidate politically.

Some states have tried to remove that political aspect of appointing judges but creating a selection committee made up of primarily lawyers in that state's Bar Association (there are others, but all are non-elected people). In Kansas this selection committee proposes three judges to the governor who then picks one which must then be confirmed by the legislature. The original intent sounded great but, as all things which involve power and control, this system too has now been intertwined in politics. (In Kansas our supreme court is exceedingly liberal in a state that is primarily conservative. Largely due to a large amount of liberal lawyers who live in the Kansas side of Kansas city / Johnson County / Lawrence area.) They have a horrible record before the supreme court. Even Justice Ginsberg has voted against them several times in rulings that were just ridiculous.

So while on paper that system sounds appealing, it too is not without faults (although if you were a liberal in Kansas you may think it's the great since it's a tool to be used against a very red state).

But I have gone off topic. My Apologies.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5508
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:04 pm UTC

Dark567 wrote:
spending money, in its view, was the same as written or verbal expression
That sounds like money = speech to me?


Contributions aren't spending, and Buckley v. Valeo did not strike down the laws on contributions. Spending money on advertising and giving money to a candidate are very different things.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests