Trump - a Constitutional problem
Trump has said that as president he would sue Newspapers that write negatively about him... 1st amendment be damned.
http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/trump-just-issued-massive-threat-to-news-media/
Trump has said he supports a national concealed carry permit, states rights and the 10th Amendment be damned. He also compares it to a diver's license, which as he correctly notes is a privilege, not a right, the 2nd Amendment be damned.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/18/trump-backs-2nd-amendment-national-concealed-carry/
And regarding the 2nd Amendment in particular a mere 16 years ago Trump was all too willing to ban assault weapons and was all for increased waiting periods for folks to obtain firearms. Are we to believe him then, when he was willing to put it IN WRITING or now, when he's campaigning and seeking elected office?
quote:I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
Trump has long supported and abused eminent domain laws, the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments be damned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-domain/
Keeping these things in mind, do folks really think a president Trump would be the constitutional advocate and protector they need at the highest level? Will they feel secure in their persons and property from government overreach? Do they think their rights will be secure? Do they think that their freedoms will increase at all under Trump? Or do they even place any importance upon freedoms and rights at all? Does what Trump has done in the past play any part in how believable he is now? Questions.
http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/trump-just-issued-massive-threat-to-news-media/
Trump has said he supports a national concealed carry permit, states rights and the 10th Amendment be damned. He also compares it to a diver's license, which as he correctly notes is a privilege, not a right, the 2nd Amendment be damned.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/sep/18/trump-backs-2nd-amendment-national-concealed-carry/
And regarding the 2nd Amendment in particular a mere 16 years ago Trump was all too willing to ban assault weapons and was all for increased waiting periods for folks to obtain firearms. Are we to believe him then, when he was willing to put it IN WRITING or now, when he's campaigning and seeking elected office?
quote:I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today's Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.
Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
Trump has long supported and abused eminent domain laws, the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments be damned.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/19/donald-trumps-abuse-of-eminent-domain/
Keeping these things in mind, do folks really think a president Trump would be the constitutional advocate and protector they need at the highest level? Will they feel secure in their persons and property from government overreach? Do they think their rights will be secure? Do they think that their freedoms will increase at all under Trump? Or do they even place any importance upon freedoms and rights at all? Does what Trump has done in the past play any part in how believable he is now? Questions.
0
-
Did not and were intended to are two very different things, Joe, and I see no way around the fact that we had both. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Did not and were intended to are two very different things, Joe, and I see no way around the fact that we had both.
Yes, they are different. I did not use them synonymously.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
So Jefferson was wrong ?
When he fathered children with his slave Sally Hemings? Yes, that was wrong. Do you have any other stupid questions?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
I think that if you would read the BOR, you would immediately note:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So, who was to make no laws ???
The states ?
Hardly.
Virginia got rid of it's state established religion, when ???
Requiring states to give full faith and credit to CCW, operating under color of law, is just as wise as requiring submission to the fugitive slave act.
How did that work out ?
So it was merely an oversight the ones i listed refer to rights of the people and only the first that specifically restricts Congress. Very sloppy Amendment writing or intentional?0 -
Don, you're wrong. Go read history. 0 -
It is obvious that Madison presented the Bill of Rights as individual rights of the people that were enforceable upon the States. It is also instructive that the First Amendment, which was the 3rd Article at the time, was re-written to specifically mention Congress, as it originally specifically addressed the states.
It is also important to note that it was only in 1833 that the Supreme Court rendered the first decision that the Bill of Rights was not applicable to the States.
There is no question as to how the Bill of Rights was applied or rather not applied to the states over time. As Madison noted, most of these rights were already protected by the Constitutions of the individual States, but it is also obvious that Madison's goal was to also restrict the powers of the individual states over the individual rights of their citizens. In Barron v. Baltimore is was ruled that the omission of a specific reference to the states confirms that the Bill of Rights did not apply to those States, even though, at the time, most of the States were operating under the assumption that they did.
This court decision, IMO, ignores the specific reference to the rights of 'the people' and 'persons' as the individual rights intended by Madison and others during the writing and submittal of the Bill of Rights.
History tells us that from 1791 through 1833 the majority of the States operated under the assumption that the Bill of Rights was applied to them. An incorrect SCOTUS decision, Barron v Baltimore formally changed this. An error that was corrected by the application of a phrase in the 14th Amendment that reiterates Article 4, Section 2, and the a provision in the 5th Amendment itself.
It is, therefore, my assertion, that Barron v Baltimore was a flawed decision that changed the original intent of the Bill of Rights and changed how the individual State Legislatures believed that Bill of Rights applied to them.
You are correct that in our History, from 1833 to the beginnings of 14th Amendment incorporation, the Bill of Rights did not apply to State and local legislatures and judiciaries. This does not, IMO, change the fact that prior to 1833 it was generally assumed they did.
History is not as clean as we are led to believe.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
I think that if you would read the BOR, you would immediately note:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So, who was to make no laws ???
The states ?
Hardly.
Virginia got rid of it's state established religion, when ???
Requiring states to give full faith and credit to CCW, operating under color of law, is just as wise as requiring submission to the fugitive slave act.
How did that work out ?
So it was merely an oversight the ones i listed refer to rights of the people and only the first that specifically restricts Congress. Very sloppy Amendment writing or intentional?
Neither oversight nor sloppy anything.
Do not try to limit the possible answer to your question a priori as others so often do.
Start with the history of the matter:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
I started prior to that with Madison's presentation to the House of Representatives. I see nothing new in what you have linked. Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify your point.0 -
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Don, you're wrong. Go read history.
Even if Don were wrong (which he isn't) IT DOES NOT MATTER because state Constitutions exist and also control.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Don, you're wrong. Go read history.
Even if Don were wrong (which he isn't) IT DOES NOT MATTER because state Constitutions exist and also control.
Oh, horse manure! Who ties your shoes for you?0 -
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by tallcharlie
Don, you're wrong. Go read history.
Even if Don were wrong (which he isn't) IT DOES NOT MATTER because state Constitutions exist and also control.
Oh, horse manure! Who ties your shoes for you?
I was right, you have no idea State Constitutions exist.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Barzillia
I think that if you would read the BOR, you would immediately note:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
So, who was to make no laws ???
The states ?
Hardly.
Virginia got rid of it's state established religion, when ???
Requiring states to give full faith and credit to CCW, operating under color of law, is just as wise as requiring submission to the fugitive slave act.
How did that work out ?
So it was merely an oversight the ones i listed refer to rights of the people and only the first that specifically restricts Congress. Very sloppy Amendment writing or intentional?
Neither oversight nor sloppy anything.
Do not try to limit the possible answer to your question a priori as others so often do.
Start with the history of the matter:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
I started prior to that with Madison's presentation to the House of Representatives. I see nothing new in what you have linked. Perhaps you would be so kind as to clarify your point.
It appears as though you are conflating what was presented to the states for ratification with some idea that they were presented to the states for their individual adoption.
Which is why I pointed out what became the first amendment as a clear example that was an incorrect assumption.
If you have a clear an uncontrovertable (as much as that is possible) reference by Madison that what you are suggesting is the case, feel free to post it.
Not by interpreted general reference, please.
I posted a link to Madison's presentation to the House and copied a section of the transcript earlier. About the ninth post on this page. It reflects the reference to the States in what became the First Amendment that was changed and previously discussed. While presented as a group, I believe it to be an significant assumption that the wording regarding the specific restriction on Congress noted in the first to be operative on the remainder. For this to be the case, such a statement should be in the preamble, which it is not.
I simply cannot believe that, while singling out Congress for limitation in the first Amendment, the remainder that specifically mention protections of 'the people' and of 'persons' are not universal in nature and intent.0 -
Cruz is married into the globalist, anti-US cabal. Literally. His wife is with Goldman Sachs.
The only reason I support Trump is because he is not in anybody's pocket. The rest of them are.
He claims that he has taken leftist stances in the past to help him in the business world. Not because he was into that nonsense. I hope to God that it is true.
Bottom line. In my opinion, he is the only candidate that has even a 1% chance of being truly for this country and the people. The rest of the field is in the camp of the globalists without any doubt.
We are in serious trouble. SOS0 -
quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
Cruz is married into the globalist, anti-US cabal. Literally. His wife is with Goldman Sachs.
The only reason I support Trump is because he is not in anybody's pocket. The rest of them are.
He claims that he has taken leftist stances in the past to help him in the business world. Not because he was into that nonsense. I hope to God that it is true.
Bottom line. In my opinion, he is the only candidate that has even a 1% chance of being truly for this country and the people. The rest of the field is in the camp of the globalists without any doubt.
We are in serious trouble. SOS
The tinfoil is too tight, man.0 -
Hellory will win, why, because Republicans are to childish to get together and stand behind one person. No candidate is perfect. If one would look in all of their past you will find something wrong with all of them.
A vote for anyone but the candidate that runs under the Republican name is a vote for Hellory. Anyone who votes for her is saying they don't give a damn about this once great nation. You think Obama screwed us wait till she gets in office. We will be doomed.
Getting back to the OP, I have read so much BS from the media about Trump but have found little proof he said this or that. Anyone can say anything about anyone. Does not actually make it true. Kinda like the fools that claim the War of Northern Aggression was about slavery. Try going to DC sometime and read Lincoln's papers. He didn't give a damn about slaves. Politics was the same back then as it is now. All about power and money.0 -
Sherriff Joe likes Trump!...that's good enough for me..![;)] 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
Cruz is married into the globalist, anti-US cabal. Literally. His wife is with Goldman Sachs.
The only reason I support Trump is because he is not in anybody's pocket. The rest of them are.
He claims that he has taken leftist stances in the past to help him in the business world. Not because he was into that nonsense. I hope to God that it is true.
Bottom line. In my opinion, he is the only candidate that has even a 1% chance of being truly for this country and the people. The rest of the field is in the camp of the globalists without any doubt.
We are in serious trouble. SOS
The tinfoil is too tight, man.
If you would look at how much the US government owes and to who, and look at how and why all of the industry that made us a power house in WWII has packed up and set up over seas. You might be able to make a better contribution to the conversation.0 -
quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by 7.62x39Lover
Cruz is married into the globalist, anti-US cabal. Literally. His wife is with Goldman Sachs.
The only reason I support Trump is because he is not in anybody's pocket. The rest of them are.
He claims that he has taken leftist stances in the past to help him in the business world. Not because he was into that nonsense. I hope to God that it is true.
Bottom line. In my opinion, he is the only candidate that has even a 1% chance of being truly for this country and the people. The rest of the field is in the camp of the globalists without any doubt.
We are in serious trouble. SOS
The tinfoil is too tight, man.
If you would look at how much the US government owes and to who, and look at how and why all of the industry that made us a power house in WWII has packed up and set up over seas. You might be able to make a better contribution to the conversation.
Mr. Perfect never allows facts or logic to stand in his way too a stupid conclusion.0 -
It's not unconstitutional to sue the newspapers. It will just be thrown out of court. You can sue a telephone pole if you want to.You just can't win.
No state can pass a law preventing you from keeping and bearing arms' Ask Chicago or Illinois. The supreme court ruled against them, Did they not? The bill of rights applies to the states as well as the Fed.
Any state can pass a unconstitutional law and it stands until it is over ruled by the courts. Any state or person who contests it must be able to show that it has cause him harm or loss. Not anybody can contest it. It may stand for many years even though it is unconstitutional. There are cases where the safety of the public over rules the constitution,0 -
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
It's not unconstitutional to sue the newspapers. It will just be thrown out of court. You can sue a telephone pole if you want to.You just can't win.
No state can pass a law preventing you from keeping and bearing arms' Ask Chicago or Illinois. The supreme court ruled against them, Did they not? The bill of rights applies to the states as well as the Fed.
Any state can pass a unconstitutional law and it stands until it is over ruled by the courts. Any state or person who contests it must be able to show that it has cause him harm or loss. Not anybody can contest it. It may stand for many years even though it is unconstitutional. There are cases where the safety of the public over rules the constitution,
So, you want a president that will file frivolous lawsuits that bully newspapers? Odd.0 -
Mr. Perfect4
So you want the same old corrupt system we have now HUH? I never said what I wanted and you don't know. What do you think of the national inquirer's story about Cruz's so called affairs. No constitutional right is without limits. What I want above all else is the truth and we haven't been getting much of that.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
Mr. Perfect4
So you want the same old corrupt system we have now HUH? No, that is why I want Cruz. An odd accusation considering I believe you know this. I never said what I wanted and you don't know. Sorry, I can only infer from your statements what you mean. If you mean something else, say different things. What do you think of the national inquirer's story about Cruz's so called affairs. It's as baseless as the NI always is, that's what I think. No constitutional right is without limits. What I want above all else is the truth and we haven't been getting much of that. Odd then that you would apparently support Trump, whose position on anything is impossible to narrow down, since it changes depending upon who he's talking to at the moment. That FACT is so easily demonstrable, it's comical you'd be unaware of it. Why not support Cruz instead? The accusations made about his supposed lying, have turned into nothing more than fairy tales.0 -
Mr.Perfect--
Seems as though you are more interested in insulting someone than having a discussion. I don't think Cruz is lying and I don't believe half of what Trump is accused or either. I am a political junkie and have been in office for years before myself. I doubt if you know half as much about the game as I do but I could be wrong. If seems to me that you don't think you could be wrong. With some people it is a matter of who is right rather than what is right. I am only interested in what is right. I like Cruz better than Trump but don't think he can win because he can't win the NE USA. Figure out how to insult me on that. Oh-- Tell me just how is Cruz going to abolish the IRS? You know that is BS. The whole House and Senate would loose their power if that happened. He can't do a thing without them and they hate him. There is a thing here that I doubt anybody on this forum has thought about. If it Comes to a brokered convention either Cruz or trump could give their delegates to the other and that would trump the establishment.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
Mr.Perfect--
Seems as though you are more interested in insulting someone than having a discussion. I don't think Cruz is lying and I don't believe half of what Trump is accused or either. I am a political junkie and have been in office for years before myself. I doubt if you know half as much about the game as I do but I could be wrong. If seems to me that you don't think you could be wrong. With some people it is a matter of who is right rather than what is right. I am only interested in what is right. I like Cruz better than Trump but don't think he can win because he can't win the NE USA. Figure out how to insult me on that. Oh-- Tell me just how is Cruz going to abolish the IRS? You know that is BS. The whole House and Senate would loose their power if that happened. He can't do a thing without them and they hate him. There is a thing here that I doubt anybody on this forum has thought about. If it Comes to a brokered convention either Cruz or trump could give their delegates to the other and that would trump the establishment.
No one is insulting you, and I'm not interested in doing that either. If you have reasonable contributions to make to a discussion; ones that aren't red herrings and sophistry, post them up. At least here we have some baseline from you as to what you support and apparently don't.[:I]0 -
I knew you could do it. Another insult. Only your posts are reasonable HUH?
Nobody else has any brains but you. It never fails, the dumbest people always think there a genius.
Well can you explain how Mr. Cruz will abolish the IRS? I don't think so. I'll bet you can conger up another insult. Insulting and name calling is a sign of a bankrupt mentality. Work on the answer to the IRS thing. I know it's hard but try.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
I knew you could do it. Another insult. Only your posts are reasonable HUH?
Nobody else has any brains but you. It never fails, the dumbest people always think there a genius.
Well can you explain how Mr. Cruz will abolish the IRS? I don't think so. I'll bet you can conger up another insult. Insulting and name calling is a sign of a bankrupt mentality. Work on the answer to the IRS thing. I know it's hard but try.
Are you reading my responses, or some other thread?0 -
Mr. Perfect
IRS-- abolish- Cruz - remember? Try harder.0 -
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
Mr. Perfect
IRS-- abolish- Cruz - remember? Try harder.
Lyin Ted?0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Wulfmann
You are correct.
We should vote for Hillary because we know where she stands and can count on her.
Or, one could back Cruz whose history demonstrates a consistent support of the Constitution. Your choice.
Why not vote for Jimmy Swaggart?....He and Cruz could be father and son...[:o)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
Mr. Perfect
IRS-- abolish- Cruz - remember? Try harder.
Try harder? Dude, you're really, really clueless (that's not an insult its statement of fact). I am not will not nor have ever claimed that Ted's claim of abolishing the IRS is something he can accomplish. For some reason you think I have said so or implied so. Until this very post, and in the history of my posting to this forum that I have ever even mentioned the IRS and Cruz in the same thought. Is there some reason you can't respond intelligently to the statements I made in the OP, either in agreement or disagreement? Thus far you've tried to claim that a president suing newspapers isn't unconstitutional. That one easily disproven statement appears to be all you've really got on the topics of the op and since then it's clear all you wish to do is engage in bunny trails that are neither meaningful nor contributory. You apparently don't support Trump, so that makes it all the more perplexing.[xx(][xx(]0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by jerrywh818
Mr. Perfect
IRS-- abolish- Cruz - remember? Try harder.
Try harder? Dude, you're really, really clueless (that's not an insult its statement of fact). I am not will not nor have ever claimed that Ted's claim of abolishing the IRS is something he can accomplish. For some reason you think I have said so or implied so. Until this very post, and in the history of my posting to this forum that I have ever even mentioned the IRS and Cruz in the same thought. Is there some reason you can't respond intelligently to the statements I made in the OP, either in agreement or disagreement? Thus far you've tried to claim that a president suing newspapers isn't unconstitutional. That one easily disproven statement appears to be all you've really got on the topics of the op and since then it's clear all you wish to do is engage in bunny trails that are neither meaningful nor contributory. You apparently don't support Trump, so that makes it all the more perplexing.[xx(][xx(]
Randy, I wish you wouldn't use the term "Dude"....that's way below your learning curve...I put it into the other term that I think is disrespectful, "Red Neck" , which I feel is derogatory as the NEGRO word. So, Please refrain, because you don't need to use it! We are not gonna fall out or we?0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
97 comments