trump

[Timjoebillybob]

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?

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

That I'm likely in good company

I'll agree that both were wrongly decided. But you reconcile it just how? You state as a strict Constitutionalist you have to accept the ruling of SCOTUS (not that I necessarily agree). But you give him a pass on supporting both politically and personally a by your admission wrongly decided interpretation of plain text vs his opposing abortion and stating it should be illegal (notice he didn't say it should be up to the states) which was decided by SCOTUS on the basis of the 9th and 14th Amendments. The 14th which prohibits states from making or enforcing laws which infringe on the privileges and immunities of citizens of the US, same one which applied the 2nd to the states through McDonald. Along with the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th along with other un-enumerated rights. And the 9th that states that the preceding 8 are not an exhaustive list. The 10th does not apply due to the 14th.I can agree with the right to privacy being a protected right and it has been recognized by SCOTUS as one since at least the mid 20s, I disagree how they applied it to abortion. And the 9th that states that the preceding 8 are not an exhaustive list.

Strict construction is pretty much how I described Justice Scalia. Mainly Texturalist with some original intent. Plain reading of the text according to definitions in place at the time with going back to what the authors wrote on the subject if the words are ambiguous/can be taken more than one way.

I'd agree that you are probably generally in good company. But with that list which is far from exhaustive, do you still thing it's a good idea to allow the govt to generally profile? Heck by that list I'd say the vast majority of INGO could be placed on the Terrorist watch list, which one of the goals of the anti-gun crowd is getting those on the list prohibited from buying/owing firearms.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Trump's ban on Muslims doesn't apply to those that are rich and are his friends.

“Believe it or not, I have a lot of friends that are Muslim, and they call me, and in most cases, they’re very rich Muslims.”Pressed by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews whether Trump’s friends could even get into the country with a ban on Muslims, Trump conceded. “They’ll come in,” he said. “They’ll come in, and you’ll have exceptions.”

Donald Trump Says His Very Rich Muslim Friends Won't Be Banned From The Country | ThinkProgress

So now Trump is creating classes of people. Apparently if his ban was to go into effect, he would have the power to make exceptions.... not for diplomatic purposes, but because of personal preference. What would the crown for an American president look like?

 

[jamil]

Okay, so we've tried this "Trump" experiment. And yeah, we like are middle fingers and stuff. But I'd like to think we've learned some lessons from all this. And not that we haven't learned positive things because of Trump. Like, for example, sometimes it's okay to be politically incorrect and say the legitimate things that need said even if it hurts the flower children's feelings. And, we learned that not only is Bush boring, but he is too much a ***** to be president. And, yeah, the immigration thing is far from settled and we need to do something far short of embracing them.

But we've also learned that having absolutely no filter isn't good either. Having an inability to concede anything is not a great attribute. Having a general negative attitude towards women, and pissing 75% of them off probably is only a winning strategy if women can't vote. Some people are convinced by vague rhetoric, but most aren't. Policy matters. Pandering doesn't really cause people to select the most competent candidates to support.

And perhaps the middle left has learned some lessons as well and might take a more serious look at Webb for their primaries.

Having learned all the lessons, I think we can say we deserve a do-over. I mean Trump caught us off guard. Let's just forget what has transpired so far in the primaries, except the ousting of Bush and the fat ass puss bag of course, and replay this out knowing what we know now. Maybe the second time around America won't end up with a choice between the 2 candidates Americans hate most.

 

[T.Lex]

What would the crown for an American president look like?

That's a silly question.

It'll look like whatever Trump wants it to look like.

(PS - is this some sort of April Fool's joke?)

 

[ArcadiaGP]

And perhaps the middle left has learned some lessons as well and might take a more serious look at Webb for their primaries.
.

If recent history has taught us anything... "BERNIE WASN'T LEFT ENOUGH, WE NEED SOMEONE EVEN MORE SOCIALIST AND THEN WE CAN WIN!"

 

[T.Lex]

Transcript of Chris Matthews' town hall with Trump.
FULL TRANSCRIPT: MSNBC Town Hall with Donald Trump Moderated By Chris Matthews - Msnbc Info

First and foremost, Chris Matthews suXor as an interviewer/moderator. For some reason, he surprises me every time at how bad he is, even though I know going in how bad he is.

Second, Trump advocates plundering:

Now, when we got out of Iraq, we got out the wrong way. We set a date, which was terrible. We should have left some soldiers back. And I always said, "Take the oil," because you know who has the oil right now?

MATTHEWS: You need ground troops to do that.

TRUMP: First of all, Iran is getting the oil.

MATTHEWS: You need ground troops to take the oil.

TRUMP: I said, "Take the oil.

Then the abortion thing, again, Trump is all over the map. Granted, part of it is because Matthews absolutely sucks.

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.

MATTHEWS: Ten cents? Ten years? What?

TRUMP: Let me just tell you -- I don't know. That I don't know. That I don't know.

MATTHEWS: Why not?

TRUMP: I don't know

 

[printcraft]

Amazing how social issues like this get injected into every race, every time, by the same people. NOBODY CARES.
It's made to order from the leftists to get people stirred up.

Republicans need to redirect any questions like this back to jobs, economy and security. Focus on the top 5 concerns the country has.
Ignore the social justice warriors, their game is to trip you up on nonsense that the nation as a whole does not think are important issues.

 

[HoughMade]

Social issue, sure, but in a larger sense, the usurpation of State authority by the federal government through unelected, appointed-for-life judges.

While I am personally anti-abortion, I would prefer this, and many other issues, be addressed in this context rather than, ultimately, whether you (as a candidate for federal office) personally think there should be laws one way or another. As pro-life as I am (and I am very), there should not be federal law on the matter one way or the other and states should be allowed to decide for themselves. That's the nature of a federal form of government and a representative republic....or it should be.

...not that Trump is going to be that nuanced.

He essentially makes it up as he goes along and whatever gets the most cheers, he repeats.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Transcript of Chris Matthews' town hall with Trump.
FULL TRANSCRIPT: MSNBC Town Hall with Donald Trump Moderated By Chris Matthews - Msnbc Info

First and foremost, Chris Matthews suXor as an interviewer/moderator. For some reason, he surprises me every time at how bad he is, even though I know going in how bad he is.

Second, Trump advocates plundering:


Then the abortion thing, again, Trump is all over the map. Granted, part of it is because Matthews absolutely sucks.

I'm ok with plundering nations we had to put the smackdown on.

 

[printcraft]

Yes, it's an issue to be discussed..... BUT
On pretty much every "Important issues effecting you" type of poll it ranks pretty far down the list. Like global warming effecting you low.
The leftists don't REALLY care about it.
The pander to the base to stir people up for voting every couple of years.
It's fake outrage, as much as we may hate it abortion isn't going away in any meaningful way.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm ok with plundering nations we had to put the smackdown on.

O rly?

Like Grenada?

 

[Kutnupe14]

I may not agree, but Trump annoyed me by backtracking on his abortion comments. If one is pro-life, his original statement should've been fine. It's philosophically consistent.

 

[T.Lex]

Chris Matthews: Candidate Lex, let's say abortion was made illegal, right? Like, let's say Republicans get control of Congress and pass a law banning all abortions, because that's what all Republicans want. And let's say you've been able to stack the Supreme Court with other Republicans, because that's what Republicans do. Let's say all that happens and Congress' abortion-ban bill comes to your desk. Do you sign it in blue or black ink?

Lex: First, I prefer to sign in blue, so it is easier to tell -

Matthews: Yeah, that's great, I totally had you pegged as a blue ink guy.

Lex: - if it is an original signature.

Matthews: Right, I get that. Good thought. So you sign the bill, then what?

Lex: No, you don't understand, I was going to say -

Matthews: Right, you were going to say what would happen after you signed the bill.

Lex: No, I was going to say that I wouldn't sign the bill. I couldn't sign the bill.

Matthews: What do you mean, you just said you'd sign the bill in blue ink. And what do you mean you couldn't sign the bill? Carpal tunnel?

Lex: No. I mean the Supreme Court has already established the parameters for legal abortions. Government should focus on issues where we can improve lives, so women are less vulnerable and don't feel the need for abortions.

Matthews: So you're in favor of late term abortions?

Lex: What? No.

Matthews: You claim to be Catholic, but are in favor of abortions? I think you have some explaining to do!

Lex: I think you're on crack, so we're even. Abortions are legal within parameters. The rest is a moral issue, a question of conscience and informed consent. There are societal issues that government cannot and should not get involved in. What government can influence is providing opportunities for women and families to have stability. Economic and legal stability.

Matthews: So, personally, are you pro-life of pro-abortion?

Lex: Personally, I believe in the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. That is my moral judgement. No matter how fervently I hold that belief, the law isn't going to change. What we can influence is what causes women to want abortions in the first place.

Matthews: So after you're elected and ban abortions, what will you do next?

Lex: Get in my time machine, go back to the day I agreed to do this, slap myself silly, and RSVP a big ole HAYL NO.

 

[HoughMade]

I may not agree, but Trump annoyed me by backtracking on his abortion comments. If one is pro-life, his original statement should've been fine. It's philosophically consistent.

If Trump were well versed on the subject and even had a constitutional philosophy, he could have said something like: "This should be a State law matter and the states can decide whether they want abortion legal or illegal and if illegal, how to write that into law. However, I hope that the state legislatures who would consider making abortion illegal would consider this: It has to be acknowledged that a woman considering abortion in already undergoing a intensely difficult situation and preserving the life of the child need not include the threat of criminal prosecution for the woman. Making abortion illegal can be largely accomplished through regulatory means and criminal penalties, for the women or physicians, do not necessarily need to be part of a policy that protects infant life."

However, Trump isn't interested in careful consideration and a nuanced, thoughtful approach. He's interested in trying to predict what primary voters want to hear and then saying that, backtracking, reiterating, then accusing the MSM of attacking him unfairly for reporting what he said.

 

[miguel]

A comment on Trump's "punishing the woman" for an abortion if an abortion or the circumstances of the abortion were illegal...

Boo hoo, Trump says someone breaking a law should be punished!!! What a meanie.

So, how would leftists/statists be acting if instead of abortion we were talking about fully automatic rifles? It might go something like this...

Transcript adapted from the broadcast transcript available at: Trump: "Some Form Of Punishment" For Women if Abortion Becomes Illegal; UPDATE | Video | RealClearPolitics

A LEFTIST tells MSNBC if fully automatic rifles become illegal women should face "some sort of punishment" for owning them. LEFTIST was speaking at a taped town hall event with Democratic voters in Wisconsin moderated by a CONSERVATIVE. The town hall will air in its entirety at 8pm on MSNBC.

CONSERVATIVE: Should the woman be punished? For having an fully automatic rifle?

LEFTIST: Well look.

CONSERVATIVE: This is not something you can dodge.

LEFTIST: It’s not—

CONSERVATIVE: If you say owning a fully automatic rifle is a crime or owning a fully automatic rifle will lead to murder, you have to deal with it under the law. Should owning fully automatic rifles be punished?

LEFTIST: Well people in certain parts of the Democratic party and centrist Democrats would say, no they should be punished.

CONSERVATIVE: How about you?

LEFTIST: I would say that it’s a very serious problem and it’s a problem that we have to decide on. It’s very hard—

CONSERVATIVE: But you’re for banning it.

LEFTIST: Are you going to say, well wait, are you going to say put them in jail? Is that the punishment you’re talking about?

CONSERVATIVE: No I’m asking you because you say you want to ban it. What does that mean?

LEFTIST: I am against. I am anti-gun. Yes. I am anti-gun.

CONSERVATIVE: How do you ban fully automatic rifle? How do you actually do it?

LEFTIST: You know you’ll go back to a position like where they had where people perhaps will buy from illegal places.

CONSERVATIVE: Yeah.

LEFTIST: But you have to ban it. I’m against—

CONSERVATIVE: Yeah you ban it but they go to someone who doesn't have an FFL and-

LEFTIST: Are you Catholic?

CONSERVATIVE: Yes, I think I-I-I

LEFTIST: And how do you feel about the Catholic church’s position?

CONSERVATIVE: I accept the teaching authority of my church on moral issues.

LEFTIST: I know, but do you know what their position on fully automatic rifle is?

CONSERVATIVE: Yes, I do.

LEFTIST: And do you concur with that position?

CONSERVATIVE: I concur with their moral position but legally I want to get to the question—

LEFTIST: No but let me ask you. What do you say about—

CONSERVATIVE: It’s not funny.

LEFTIST: It’s really not funny. What do you say about your church? They’re very very strict.

CONSERVATIVE: The churches make their moral judgments, but you’re running for President of the United States to become Chief Executive of the United States. Do you believe in punishment for owning a fully automatic rifle, yes or no, as a principle?

LEFTIST: The answer is there has to be some form of punishment.

CONSERVATIVE: For the woman?

LEFTIST: Yes.

CONSERVATIVE: 10 cents, 10 years, what?

LEFTIST: I don’t know. That I don’t know.

CONSERVATIVE: Well why not, you take positions on everything else.

UPDATE: LEFTIST released a statement that says he would hold FFL accountable, not the woman, for owning a fully automatic rifle if the practice was deemed illegal. The statement:

"If Congress were to pass legislation making fully automatic rifles illegal and the federal courts upheld this legislation, or any state were permitted to ban fully automatic rifles under state and federal law, the FFL or any other person selling this illegal item to a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman. The woman is a victim in this case as is her fully automatic rifle. My position has not changed - I am anti-gun with exceptions."

 

[T.Lex]

I'm sorry, mentally, it is nigh impossible for me to substitute "conservative" for Chris Matthews. I do appreciate the point you are trying to make, though.

Part of me feels bad that Trump can't figure out how to not engage on this. Most of me knows that he can't stop himself, though.

 

[miguel]

I'm sorry, mentally, it is nigh impossible for me to substitute "conservative" for Chris Matthews. I do appreciate the point you are trying to make, though.

Part of me feels bad that Trump can't figure out how to not engage on this. Most of me knows that he can't stop himself, though.

Agreed on that. He's (DT) good at being a dick, so he should apply the "be a dick" rule across the board.

Personalities aside, I do love the swap a leftist hot button word for something anathema for them, and they won't like it.

 

[BugI02]

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:


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:


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?

But maybe the framers actually did say what he thinks they said

"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."

What are the logical consequences of the 'and' in that text? Could it not be taken to mean all the listed conditions must be joint and severally met? Then it would turn on the meaning of 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. Are people who are not US citizens, who struggle across the border just to give birth, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States or are they still citizens of their native country? Born or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction...

I think you could make the case that simply making it across the goal line is not enough to qualify your child for automatic citizenship. I see nothing wrong with that assertion being tested in court or even pursuing a constitutional ammendment through the allowable channels. The 14th was appended to the Constitution to right a perceived wrong. Why couldn't the same purpose be countenanced today.

I don't, however, think it is the president's place to be leading the charge on any such attempt if he expects to represent all the people (as he should). I think the bar for an ammendment to the constitution is set high enough to keep the petty or the unserious from succeeding but they should still have a right to try, kind of like wanting a federal balanced budget ammendment.

And should it matter how long a precedent has been deemed viable? Should it matter that the interpretation has held for 120 years. Roe v Wade has been the presiding legal interpretation on abortion for 43 years, at what seniority does it gain immunity from challenge. That is at once the promise and danger of having an activist SCOTUS. They can right perceived wrongs and wrong perceived rights with equal alacrity.

 

[T.Lex]

Please, there is no need to speculate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark

The framers of the 14th amendment made it clear, and this was confirmed by SCOTUS, that "born in" means born in. If someone is in the US, they are subject to US jurisdiction. Period.

Your layering of your own desires for it to say something it does not are exactly what you decry in the "living document" criticism.

That "you could make the case" is weak. That case was attempted. That case lost.

Like it or not, you said you would reconsider if Trump took a certain position. He has taken - and continues to take - such a position. Your comfort with that is your issue.


ETA:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plyler_v._Doe

"no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful."

 

[BugI02]

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.

Immigration proceedings are matters of administrative law, not criminal law. ( the consequence of violating your immigration status is not jail but deportation.) And Congress has nearly full authority to regulate immigration without interference from the courts. Because immigration is considered a matter of national security and foreign policy, the Supreme Court has long held that immigration law is largely immune from judicial review. Congress can make rules for immigrants that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.

Thus a requirement to register ones religion could be made a condition of acceptance of an individuals petition to immigrate, it might be necessary to do this for all emigres of any religion to avoid equal protection problems.