How's that Constitution thing working out for you?

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 1:48 pm

Here you go. One of the fine, upstanding folks being considered for Homeland Security (David Clarke Jr.):

Quote:

I suggest that our commander in chief ought to utilize Article I, Section 9 and take all of these individuals that are suspected, these ones on the internet spewing jihadi rhetoric…to scoop them up, charge them with treason and, under habeas corpus, detain them indefinitely at Gitmo…

Quote:

We have no idea how many people out there have pledged allegiance or are supporting ISIS, giving aid and comfort, but I would suggest hundreds of thousands, I would suggest maybe a million. It's just a guess. And then you take the known terrorists that are here, and you think we're going to arrest all these people and put them in jails and then sentence them to prison? It's idiotic. [Take them to] Gitmo and hold them indefinitely under a suspension of habeas corpus. We're at war. This is a time of war. Bold and aggressive action is needed.

oooooooooooookaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay then.

peanut butter c

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 4:32 pm

marina wrote:

It's just as outrageous as if he tweeted that every journalist who criticizes him belongs in jail. A blatant violation of the oath of office before he even takes it.

We have laws in this country that is apparently only being reinforced intermittently, depending on who is violating it and which law they are violating. So a group of white students were disciplined at a public university for posting a pic of themselves wearing "K" t-shirts and spelling out kkk with them even though it was protected by the first amendment. But if Jews are harassed by BDS, then that is protected by free speech. Entering the country without documents is illegal as is staying in the country after the visa expires, but that is apparently acceptable and violators are being protected and rewarded instead of disciplined and punished for breaking the law. Great.
Now we have Trump sayin that people should be penalized for burning the American flag. If he would act on it then it would be a free speech violation but is his speech not protected by the first amendment? Why not?
And would you be okay if he said that anyone who burns the gay rainbow flag be charged with a hate crime? How about the Mexican flag? And if it would be a hate crime to burn the gay rainbow flag or the Mexican flag , then why would it not be a hate crime to burn the American flag?
How do you pick and choose which laws are okay to break and which ones are not okay to break?

Last edited by peanut butter c on Tue, Nov 29 2016, 4:46 pm; edited 1 time in total

singleagain

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 4:45 pm

Squishy wrote:

Hillary, in one of her hacked emails, said that she has public policy positions which differ from her private policy positions. I think the same is true of Trump. If he didn't present himself as a good old boy, he wouldn't be pres-elect.

I heard Ehud Barak speak about a week before the election, and he was talking about his time in military and politics etc... and one phrase he used over and over and over again, was "behind closed doors" -- all politicians have a public face and a private face. and that's all I'm gonna say about that.... we will never know the real e! hollywood true story. we just have to make the best choices with the information we do have... just like the rest of life.

MagentaYenta

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 4:47 pm

peanut butter c wrote:

We have laws in this country that is apparently only being reinforced intermittently, depending on who is violating it and which law they are violating. So a group of white students were disciplined at a public university for posting a pic of themselves wearing "K" t-shirts and spelling out kkk with them. But if Jews are harassed by BDS, then that is protected by free speech. Entering the country without documents is illegal but that is apparently acceptableGreat.
Now we have Trump sayin that people should be penalized for burning the American flag. If he would act on it then it would be a free speech violation but is his speech not protected by the first amendment? Why not?
And would you be okay if he said that anyone who burns the gay rainbow flag be charged with a hate crime? How about the Mexican flag? And if it would be a hate crime to burn the gay rainbow flag or the Mexican flag , then why would it not be a hate crime to burn the American flag?
How do you pick and choose which laws are okay to break and which ones are not okay to break?

I don't know any liberals/progressives/lefties who think that illegal immigration is ok. I think there are differences in approaches. Pathways to citizenship are a point where there is significant disagreement on both sides of the aisle and within the parties themselves. Our current president had deported far more illegal immigrants than prior administrations. President Reagan's administration had declared amnesty, which was very unpopular at the time.

Our president elect has the same free speech protections as you or I would have. I think he is held at a higher standard because there is some expectation that he actually knows and understands the protections of the first amendment.

I'm not familiar with any instances where a rainbow flag has been burned and the actors were prosecuted under federal hate crimes laws. Please share what you know about this. I do understand that our president elect and Sessions both feel that hate crimes laws are unnecessary and likely to be run up to the SCOTUS to be set aside. So I would guess that with new SCOTUS appointments they all will be a thing of the past, all will be denied these federal protections be they white xtian males, POC, Jews or people of any religion.

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:03 pm

peanut butter c wrote:

We have laws in this country that is apparently only being reinforced intermittently, depending on who is violating it and which law they are violating. So a group of white students were disciplined at a public university for posting a pic of themselves wearing "K" t-shirts and spelling out kkk with them. But if Jews are harassed by BDS, then that is protected by free speech. Entering the country without documents is illegal as I staying not the country after the vis expires, but that is apparently acceptable and violators are being protected and rewarded instead of disciplines and punished for breaking the law. Great.
Now we have Trump sayin that people should be penalized for burning the American flag. If he would act on it then it would be a free speech violation but is his speech not protected by the first amendment? Why not?
And would you be okay if he said that anyone who burns the gay rainbow flag be charged with a hate crime? How about the Mexican flag? And if it would be a hate crime to burn the gay rainbow flag or the Mexican flag , then why would it not be a hate crime to burn the American flag?
How do you pick and choose which laws are okay to break and which ones are not okay to break?

Where do we begin?

No one has been criminally prosecuted for wearing a KKK shirt, or blackface, or anything equally offensive. They've been subject to academic discipline, including expulsion. (Which, FTR, I disagree with.) But they haven't been prosecuted. No one has been thrown in jail, charged with treason, or stripped of citizenship. Which is what Trump suggests for people who exercise another form of free speech.

Should universities take action against BDS protesters? Well, as I said, I don't think they should take action against other racists, so no. But action should be taken to protect people from their more physical and threatening attacks.

Does Joe Public have the right to state that he object to flag burning, and wishes that flag burners could be prosecuted. Sure. Free speech. I would disagree with you, but you have the right to say it if you want. But the president of the United States is sworn to uphold the Constitution. As such, Trump should not be advocating blatantly unconstitutional action.

As for undocumented aliens, there are approximately 11 MILLION in the US today, including several thousand Israeli Jews. It would cost between $400 and $600 BILLION to deport all of them. And it would likely cripple our economy, particularly as about 6.8 million of those aliens work, and pay taxes. We need to deal with the situation as it exists today, not in a dream world. That means adopting a sensible immigration policy, and working to deal with the many otherwise law-abiding undocumented aliens here today.

33055

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:04 pm

singleagain wrote:

I agree. My point is that Trump's public persona is not his whole persona. This guy could not have rolled his inheritance into the sizable fortune it is today without his synapses firing a lot quicker than liberals would have one believe. Trump has a great personal touch. I look forward to seeing him use it to benefit this country.

33055

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:10 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

The illegals cost us $113 BILLION each year!!!! If I could spend $400 and save $113 each year, I would be overjoyed with such an investment. What a rate of return!!!

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:15 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

I'm not familiar with any instances where a rainbow flag has been burned and the actors were prosecuted under federal hate crimes laws. Please share what you know about this. I do understand that our president elect and Sessions both feel that hate crimes laws are unnecessary and likely to be run up to the SCOTUS to be set aside. So I would guess that with new SCOTUS appointments they all will be a thing of the past, all will be denied these federal protections be they white xtian males, POC, Jews or people of any religion.

Sessions also believes that the worst thing that has happened to our schools is the IDEA, giving rights to disabled children. From his website:

Quote:

Over 25 years ago, for example, we passed a federal disabilities act. It was designed to mandate to school systems and require that they not shut out disabled kids from the classroom and that they be involved in the classroom. If they have a hearing loss, or a sight loss, or if they have difficulty moving around, in a wheelchair, or whatever, the school system must make accommodations for them. They would be mainstreamed. They would not be treated separately.

That was a good goal, a goal from which we should not retreat. I hope no one interprets what I say today as a retreat from that goal. But in the course of that time, we have created a complex system of federal regulations and laws that have created lawsuit after lawsuit, special treatment for certain children, and that are a big factor in accelerating the decline in civility and discipline in classrooms all over America. I say that very sincerely.

Teachers I have been talking to have shared stories with me. I have been in 15 schools around Alabama this year. I have talked to them about a lot of subjects. I ask them about this subject in every school I go to, and I am told in every school that this is a major problem for them. In fact, it may be the single most irritating problem for teachers throughout America today.

[He goes on to claim that teachers are not permitted to discipline disruptive students who have special needs. This is untrue. From Wrightslaw, "There is nothing in IDEA that restricts schools from disciplining children with disabilities. In fact, some would say that, by not addressing these dangerous behaviors, the student with special needs is not receiving an "appropriate" education. Both of the above children [citing same or similar examples to Sessions] may need specialized services to change the disruptive and dangerous behavior and to make sure that whatever discipline is used works in preventing a reoccurrence of that behavior." http://www.wrightslaw.com/info......pdf]

sushilover

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:15 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Were you so outraged when Clinton introduced a bill in 2005 to criminalize flag burnings? I would think that would be many times worse than a tweet.

(obviously, I don't agree that burning a flag should be illegal. But I am disgusted with the university's response. Just like I can be happy that Colin Kaepernick is legally allowed to disrespect the anthem, while still thinking he's gross and uneducated.)

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:22 pm

sushilover wrote:

The Bill proposed by Clinton would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. So it was entirely different. But sure, I disagreed with it. Happy?

marina

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:26 pm

sushilover wrote:

Trump is about to become the head of the executive branch of government, whose job it is to enforce the laws. That's very different than someone who proposes legislation.

Legislation that violates the constitution is proposed all the time, all over the nation. Most of it doesn't pass, although people get all riled up about it.

When the head of the enforcement branch, however, indicates that people who exercise their free speech rights should be jailed and stripped of their citizenship THAT IN AND OF ITSELF CHILLS FREE SPEECH AND VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

sushilover

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:33 pm

marina wrote:

Look, I think Trump said a dumb thing. But you gotta realize that you can't take him literally. You keep taking him literally, and you'll end up in an apoplectic fit before January 1st....

Fox

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:37 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Finally, and not addressed to your post, why does Fox keep referring to "Ivanka" taking away Trump's phone. She's his daughter, for heaven's sake. Sure, we've all heard his seriously creepy comments about her, and seen the memes but ... let's not go there. His wife is MELANIA.

It's a joke based on conservative Twitter and Facebook. Whenever Trump tweeted something inexplicable during the election cycle, everyone started tweeting something along the lines of, "Ivanka, you need to take your father's phone away!" to @IvankaTrump. Now everyone just tweets, "IVANKA!" as if they're calling her from another part of the house. Why the joke features Ivanka and not Melania, I have no idea. I suppose that Ivanka was considered more of a player in his campaign.

Listen, the election is over. It no longer matters whether we thought Trump was a great choice; the lesser of two evils; or evil incarnate. If he follows the pattern of every other President in my memory, there will be things he does that most people like; things he does that most people hate; things that benefit us that we don't find out for 20-50 years; and things that harm us that we don't find out for 20-50 years; and some just plain stupid things.

There is a huge difference between tweeting your opinion and managing to subvert decades worth of legal precedents and SCOTUS decisions. SCOTUS justices are like cats. They cannot be herded. There are almost-endless examples of justices who were appointed because of their supposed loyalty to various points of view . . . who turned out to be more loyal to the rule of law.

Come back for a discussion when Trump attempts to use executive orders or other extra-judicial means to do an end-run around Congress and/or the Supreme Court. Which I'm sure he will; it's like catnip for sitting Presidents.

marina

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:39 pm

Quote:

Now we have Trump sayin that people should be penalized for burning the American flag. If he would act on it then it would be a free speech violation but is his speech not protected by the first amendment? Why not?
And would you be okay if he said that anyone who burns the gay rainbow flag be charged with a hate crime? How about the Mexican flag? And if it would be a hate crime to burn the gay rainbow flag or the Mexican flag , then why would it not be a hate crime to burn the American flag?
How do you pick and choose which laws are okay to break and which ones are not okay to break?

Free speech is not always protected. The government can punish you if you disrupt the functioning of the government office where you work. For example, if you are a teacher and you decide to burn the flag in your classroom, disrupting the entire school, you will get fired.

Also speech made pursuant to your employment as a government employee is not protected. So if you are a teacher and complain about your students' scores, you can be fired.

Trump's comments should not be protected under the same concept- his comments disrupt the functioning of this country and are made pursuant to his employment.

But it doesn't matter at all. Protected free speech is always protected from someone- some government official. Who are you protecting Trump from? Are you worried that someone will strip him of his citizenship and put him in jail? Who will that be?

marina

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 5:42 pm

Quote:

There is a huge difference between tweeting your opinion and managing to subvert decades worth of legal precedents and SCOTUS decisions. SCOTUS justices are like cats. They cannot be herded. There are almost-endless examples of justices who were appointed because of their supposed loyalty to various points of view . . . who turned out to be more loyal to the rule of law.

It doesn't matter. Free speech is already chilled.

I, personally, would never post anything under my name publicly criticizing him. He can easily take action and it will take the supreme court years to sort it out. I can't imagine how journalists get up every day and do their job.

^^^ That's how free speech is chilled.