trump

[jamil]

Nope. Your response is your response, and I'll leave it alone.

We'll start with an easy one. Registering Muslims.

Trump advocated registering (at a minimum) all Muslims until we figure out what motivates terrorism from Islamic countries. He has expressed support for the internment of Japanese during WWII. Since at least 1878, SCOTUS has said that religious opinion and belief should not be regulated - although actions can be. So, human sacrifice (or polygamy) would not be tolerated as religious expression.

But, Trump's policy would create government intervention into a person's religious belief based solely on the modern need to fight terrorism.

To you, is that an example of asserting the 1st Amendment might be open to modernization/interpretation other than through the amendment process?

Closest I could find to pins and needles.

 

[BugI02]

Sorry about quoting. I know it upsets some people but I do it for continuity's sake

Nope. Your response is your response, and I'll leave it alone.

We'll start with an easy one. Registering Muslims.

Trump advocated registering (at a minimum) all Muslims until we figure out what motivates terrorism from Islamic countries. He has expressed support for the internment of Japanese during WWII. Since at least 1878, SCOTUS has said that religious opinion and belief should not be regulated - although actions can be. So, human sacrifice (or polygamy) would not be tolerated as religious expression.

But, Trump's policy would create government intervention into a person's religious belief based solely on the modern need to fight terrorism.

To you, is that an example of asserting the 1st Amendment might be open to modernization/interpretation other than through the amendment process?

This is a tough one. Part of me wants to say registering an individual does not interfere with their ability to practice their religious belief. They can still answer the call to prayer, keep their holy days and feasts, what is said from their 'pulpits' would not be constrained on the face of it. I am not so naive as to believe it would not have a chilling effect.

But the operative language is "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
and I'm not sure this example would rise to that level. I would have no problem registering non-residents but I think registering citizens might more properly infringe the fourth. I am also not sure that everyone uses Muslim according to its proper definition of a practitioner of Islam. I get the feeling it has become synonymous with 'middle eastern'. I'm uncertain Trump meant 'practitioners of Islam' rather than 'people antithetical to us from middle eastern countries'
After all in your example we interred (putative) Japanese people rather than Shinto or Buddhists.

I would say no to this one. In the '...intervention into a person's religious belief based solely on the modern need to fight terrorism.' I feel the religious portion is incidental. If I'm right, the issue could be cleared up by saying register people from Afghanistan ,Pakistan ,Iran ,Iraq , Syria, Libya ... etc etc
and there would be no first ammendment issue at all

 

[T.Lex]

Second example: 5th Amendment and eminent domain.

The 5th Amendment clearly states that private property may be taken by the government only for public use. Trump - both personally and politically - has expressed support for the Kelo decision that allows a municipality to take private property, then transfer to another private entity. Constitutional traditionalists have called Kelo an example of modernizing beyond what the framers intended.

Example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-2-originalism-and-living-constitutionalism/

To you, is that an example of asserting the 5th Amendment is open to modernization/interpretation other than through the amendment process?

 

[GREEN607]

View Images​

chlordiazepoxide-clidinium oral ( 39 Reviews )
Uses | SideEffects | Precautions | Interactions | Overdose
This medicine is a light green, oblong capsule imprinted with "607" and "607".
Generic Name: chlordiazepoxide-clidinium
Strength: 5-2.5 mg

OK, I'll give you that, that is quite funny. Good one -GREEN607

 

[BugI02]

Second example: 5th Amendment and eminent domain.

The 5th Amendment clearly states that private property may be taken by the government only for public use. Trump - both personally and politically - has expressed support for the Kelo decision that allows a municipality to take private property, then transfer to another private entity. Constitutional traditionalists have called Kelo an example of modernizing beyond what the framers intended.

Example:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-2-originalism-and-living-constitutionalism/

To you, is that an example of asserting the 5th Amendment is open to modernization/interpretation other than through the amendment process?

Am not sure this rises to the level you assert. He references a POTUS decision that has already been made so in some respects it already is the law (precedent?) of the land. I happen to think that particular decision is a gross miscarriage of justice but it is what it is. Is someone who chooses to have an abortion advocating modernization/interpretation of the Constitution or has that already been done in Roe v Wade and they are taking advantage of a right upheld by a decision of the supremes. I'm not getting the nefarious intent/attack on the Constitution vibe that you might wish me to

Perhaps to clarify a bit, I would sit up and take notice a bit more if Trump said something like "The Constitutions position on X is hopelessly out of step with the times and it should be ammended to sayY" or " I think the framers clearly meant to say X and thus will interpret the Constitution to mean what the framers meant to say." He has to make a deal with the Devil, not just praise his work

 

[jamil]

Sorry about quoting. I know it upsets some people but I do it for continuity's sake



This is a tough one. Part of me wants to say registering an individual does not interfere with their ability to practice their religious belief. They can still answer the call to prayer, keep their holy days and feasts, what is said from their 'pulpits' would not be constrained on the face of it. I am not so naive as to believe it would not have a chilling effect.

But the operative language is "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
and I'm not sure this example would rise to that level. I would have no problem registering non-residents but I think registering citizens might more properly infringe the fourth. I am also not sure that everyone uses Muslim according to its proper definition of a practitioner of Islam. I get the feeling it has become synonymous with 'middle eastern'. I'm uncertain Trump meant 'practitioners of Islam' rather than 'people antithetical to us from middle eastern countries'
After all in your example we interred (putative) Japanese people rather than Shinto or Buddhists.

I would say no to this one. In the '...intervention into a person's religious belief based solely on the modern need to fight terrorism.' I feel the religious portion is incidental. If I'm right, the issue could be cleared up by saying register people from Afghanistan ,Pakistan ,Iran ,Iraq , Syria, Libya ... etc etc
and there would be no first ammendment issue at all

Just gonna challenge this a little. Either a person has a right to believe or they don't. We think owning firearms is a right, and that we shouldn't have to register as a gun owner to exercise that right.

If we say we're going to register people who are of a particular religion, aren't we saying that they don't have the right to believe in their religion? I just don't think I can be consistent declaring that registration is a violation of my 2A rights while saying some particular religious group must register because they happen to share the same religion as the people who commit the most heinous terrorist acts around the world. If we're not consistent on that, then how are we a nation of laws rather than men.

Most we can do to curb violence committed with guns is to make acts of violence illegal. That kinda covers the very most that laws can do regarding the practice of religion or gun ownership, or really anything.

That said, I certainly don't mind scrutinizing groups of people migrating from some countries more than others. But using religion as a criterion for profiling means Americans really don't have freedom of religion. If that can be a criterion for registration then no better than reluctant "tolerance" of religion. Christianity is turning into that now. Belief is an individual, unalienable right. That should be regarded as an axiom.

 

[BugI02]

Jamil, do you believe profiling is a valid tool for law enforcement work?

 

[BugI02]

OK, I'll give you that, that is quite funny. Good one -GREEN607

Especially given your avatar I was googling to see if GREEN607 might have some military meaning, such as a unit identification; and that came up on the first page

 

[jamil]

Jamil, do you believe profiling is a valid tool for law enforcement work?

Depends on the profile. But sometimes yes. For example, I think it's not a violation of constitutional rights for the TSA to scrutinize people who look more likely to be terrorists than the quintessential American grandma.

 

[BugI02]

If you were to profile likely domestic terrorists, what criteria would you use (just a few of the most important)

 

[jamil]

If you were to profile likely domestic terrorists, what criteria would you use (just a few of the most important)

Probably mannerisms more than anything. I may be mistaken but I think BBIs posted something about that. Behavior is a fairly good indicator of intentions in a lot of cases. Then you don't have to go by physical appearance alone.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

No, I don't believe I would. If Trump were to get in trouble with me I would expect it to be relative to I, IV, X and maybe VII

Well I was going to ask about V but it was already brought up.

Am not sure this rises to the level you assert. He references a POTUS decision that has already been made so in some respects it already is the law (precedent?) of the land. I happen to think that particular decision is a gross miscarriage of justice but it is what it is. Is someone who chooses to have an abortion advocating modernization/interpretation of the Constitution or has that already been done in Roe v Wade and they are taking advantage of a right upheld by a decision of the supremes. I'm not getting the nefarious intent/attack on the Constitution vibe that you might wish me to

Perhaps to clarify a bit, I would sit up and take notice a bit more if Trump said something like "The Constitutions position on X is hopelessly out of step with the times and it should be ammended to sayY" or " I think the framers clearly meant to say X and thus will interpret the Constitution to mean what the framers meant to say." He has to make a deal with the Devil, not just praise his work

How do you reconcile that view of well it's already the law of the land compared to his recent statement that abortion should be illegal when it is the law of the land via a SCOTUS decision same as KELO? Especially since IMO KELO was a much more blatant example of SCOTUS deciding by a "living Constitution" view.

And neither of those are really examples of what is called "a living Constitution", the first example is how the Constitution is supposed to be changed and the second sounds a lot like original intent which I'm a proponent of along with the late great Justice Scalia. ETA In all fairness Justice Scalia was a blend of Textualist and Original intent. And a bit heavier on the Textualist side.

Jamil, do you believe profiling is a valid tool for law enforcement work?

Sure. But as mentioned based on acts/mannerisms.

If you were to profile likely domestic terrorists, what criteria would you use (just a few of the most important)

Well not my criteria, but the govts. 2nd Amendment supporter, Constitutionalist, anti-government/pro small govt., pro state rights, libertarian view, fan of post apocalyptic fiction, being a prepper, Ron Paul supporter,... Now how do you feel about the govt profiling?

 

[GREEN607]

Well not my criteria, but the govts. 2nd Amendment supporter, Constitutionalist, anti-government/pro small govt., prostate's rights, libertarian view, fan of post apocalyptic fiction, being a prepper, Ron Paul supporter,... Now how do you feel about the govt profiling?

​FIFY...

 

[BugI02]

Well I was going to ask about V but it was already brought up.



How do you reconcile that view of well it's already the law of the land compared to his recent statement that abortion should be illegal when it is the law of the land via a SCOTUS decision same as KELO? Especially since IMO KELO was a much more blatant example of SCOTUS deciding by a "living Constitution" view.

I reconcile it that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided, in my mind as was KELO. In KELO the pertinent language of the fifth would be "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." It only mentions taking private property for public use, the taking of private property for the use of other private concerns never should have passed muster by inspection. In Roe v Wade it is to my mind the ninth and tenth. The Constitution has nothing to say about abortion on demand and as such I would hold it to be a right of individual states to control as they see fit. But if I am going to be a strict constitutionalist must I not accept the ruling of the supreme court until such time as another case can be brought that might overturn either verdict?

And neither of those are really examples of what is called "a living Constitution", the first example is how the Constitution is supposed to be changed and the second sounds a lot like original intent which I'm a proponent of along with the late great Justice Scalia. ETA In all fairness Justice Scalia was a blend of Textualist and Original intent. And a bit heavier on the Textualist side.

I prefer strict constructionism to individual intent, I prefer to go by what the Constitution actually says rather than attempt some parsing of what the framers really meant. That seems fraught with potential mischief



Sure. But as mentioned based on acts/mannerisms.



Well not my criteria, but the govts. 2nd Amendment supporter, Constitutionalist, anti-government/pro small govt., pro state rights, libertarian view, fan of post apocalyptic fiction, being a prepper, Ron Paul supporter,... Now how do you feel about the govt profiling?

That I'm likely in good company

 

[BugI02]

Depends on the profile. But sometimes yes. For example, I think it's not a violation of constitutional rights for the TSA to scrutinize people who look more likely to be terrorists than the quintessential American grandma.

So perhaps you would give me a short list of the major similarities between the Paris terrorists (Bataclan etc) the other Paris terrorists (Charlie Hebdo) and the Brussels terrorists, you know things we might use to develop a profile

 

[jamil]

So perhaps you would give me a short list of the major similarities between the Paris terrorists (Bataclan etc) the other Paris terrorists (Charlie Hebdo) and the Brussels terrorists, you know things we might use to develop a profile

I think you should ask the professionals who profile behavior for a living. My position is that I'm okay with *some* profiling. I'm not okay with using constitutionally protected rights as criteria.

And I'd really rather that you to address this part of my argument instead of filibustering with the above exercise. I like saying that I shouldn't have to register my guns because the constitution doesn't provide the government power to require that. The government doesn't grant the government power to require people with certain religious beliefs to be registered. I don't see how you can agree with registering people based on religious belief and have ANY room to make an argument against registering guns.

 

[T.Lex]

Perhaps to clarify a bit, I would sit up and take notice a bit more if Trump said something like "The Constitutions position on X is hopelessly out of step with the times and it should be ammended to sayY" or " I think the framers clearly meant to say X and thus will interpret the Constitution to mean what the framers meant to say." He has to make a deal with the Devil, not just praise his work

On July 20, 1868, Secretary of State William Seward certified that the 14th Amendment had been properly adopted by Congress and ratified by sufficient states. Section 1 states (for our purposes) "All persons born ... in the United States ... are citizens of the United States." In 1898, the US Supreme Court interpreted this to mean that a child born of Chinese nationals in the United States was a United States citizen. That has been the law of the land unceasingly since then.

On August 19, 2015, Donald Trump lamented the modern idea of "anchor babies" and expressed a willingness to "test in court" whether children born in the United States were citizens. Specifically, he did not want to amend the Constitution, as it would take too long. Rather, he wants the concept re-interpreted:

"I think it would take too long," he told Fox News. "I'd much rather find out whether or not anchor babies are citizens because a lot of people don't think they are. We're going to test it out."

As recently as January 29, 2016, he raised the issue by calling Ted Cruz an "anchor baby." His website states that his policy goal is to:

End birthright citizenship. This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration. By a 2:1 margin, voters say it’s the wrong policy, including Harry Reid who said “no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

The text is clear. The interpretation has been unwavering for about 120 years.

Trump is explicitly saying "The Constitutions position on birthright citizenship is hopelessly out of step with the times and it should be ammended to end it." (Only without the amendment part, although his website is ambiguous as to process.) His position must be "I think the framers clearly meant to say children of illegal aliens aren't citizens and thus will interpret the Constitution to mean what the framers meant to say."

Will any deal with the Devil do, or do you accept the ones that you agree with?

 

[jamil]

.

Posted before you finished? I've done that before. What I saw of it before you blanked it out was intriguing.

 

[T.Lex]

Posted before you finished? I've done that before. What I saw of it before you blanked it out was intriguing.

haha

Yes, I'm over 40, so premature postification sometimes happens. Hough says its normal.

 

[jamil]

By all means. Please finish. It looked interesting.

ETA. Nevermind. I updated and there it was.