Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

ax1 said:
America is a Constitutional Republic though, not a democracy. Elected officials can only exert their powers under the rule of law, that being the Constitution.

What your talking about is a little different. In the US 100% can vote to take rights away under the Constitution but enabling it is a crime, and then we are no longer the USA as it was created. Well of course, they all wipe their azz with it but thats another story, lol

Personally I prefer our country remaining as a hardcore Republic rather than the democracy your talking about.
Click to expand...

Again a "hard-core republic" could be one that goes hard on direct democracy. What you're advocating for is a federal bureaucracy with some democracy peppered in. Republic is just an "other" category for any Gov thats is not a Monarchy or Empire. China is a "republic."
 
Jiigzz said:
I think you're right. According to Cornell Law School, the constitution was interpreted in 1819 as giving the Supreme court the power to invalidate and state actions that interfere with the constitution. It isnt set out in the constitution itself, but was declared to exist by the Supreme Court in McCulloch vs Maryland
Click to expand...

Pretty sure we spent more time on this case in Con Law than any other case besides Citizens United which is a stupid fucking decision.
 
Woody said:
Pretty sure we spent more time on this case in Con Law than any other case besides Citizens United which is a stupid fucking decision.
Click to expand...

Yup Citizens United and buckley v valeo have been destroying this country for about 40 years
 
nostrum420 said:
Again a "hard-core republic" could be one that goes hard on direct democracy. What you're advocating for is a federal bureaucracy with some democracy peppered in. Republic is just an "other" category for any Gov thats is not a Monarchy or Empire. China is a "republic."
Click to expand...

There is direct democracy on elected officials and a direct democracy on the rule of law.

In the US there is no legal direct democracy on rule of law as it was written. If 70% vote to repeal the 4th Bill of Right for example, they cant do that. If 70% of our elected officials vote to do that in Washington, they cant do that. Well, they can but than they are violating the rules of the Republic and can and should be impeached and when the line is crossed to far that justifies the 2nd Amendment to be used to its full fruition to restore rule of law.

Rule of law here does not advocate Federal bureaucracy. Why? Because thats is the law. Its completely against that. Thats why I love the documents of our Republic, its hard to beat.

Rule of law and the concept of Republic does not = tyranny or China when it is written to protect the opposite. Does not = king or dictator either.
 
Anyways the "Republic" all depends on how the rule of law is written out anyways, its not the vague definition of having a Republic.

Whats important is how our Republic was set up.
 
nostrum420 said:
Again a "hard-core republic" could be one that goes hard on direct democracy. What you're advocating for is a federal bureaucracy with some democracy peppered in. Republic is just an "other" category for any Gov thats is not a Monarchy or Empire. China is a "republic."
Click to expand...

Im trying to find the right words here,

America has a king, it has a dictator, his name is the US Constitution, he (before anyone gets offended, she or whatever you believe is between your legs) is our god. He/she is the ruler of our empire.

Our elected officials is he/she's/its servants.
 
Invalid Link Removed
 
ax1 said:
Anyways the "Republic" all depends on how the rule of law is written out anyways, its not the vague definition of having a Republic.

Whats important is how our Republic was set up.
Click to expand...

re·pub·lic
/rəˈpəblik/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

That ^ is literally all a republic is.
 
thebigt said:
don't forget NYC...crime is up and climbing higher.
Click to expand...

My apologies! You’re exactly right. Violent crime is on a severe climb in NYC also. Which brings me to another issue. Minneapolis is going to vote on disbanding the PD in November. I can’t help but think about how much blood will be shed when unarmed counselors and social workers try to handle violent situations.
 
thebigt said:
don't forget NYC...crime is up and climbing higher.
Click to expand...

My apologies! You’re exactly right. Violent crime is on a severe climb in NYC also. Which brings me to another issue. Minneapolis is going to vote on disbanding the PD in November. I can’t help but think about how much blood will be shed when unarmed counselors and social workers try to handle violent situations.
 
manifesto said:
Just heard Deblasio is going to set up military check points preventing "out-of-towners" from coming into the city...and he plans in strictly enforcing the quarantine laws

....its so ironic. this sounds much more fascist than the false narrative of police killing black people for no reason...yet, no one will protest this lol
Click to expand...

Because that city is full of sheep and they will go along with what he says. It sickens me
 
Jiigzz said:
What lol.

Pretty sure kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment is a felon.

Freedom of speech is not freedom of consequence. It's pretty well understood that threats, slander, incitement and even non disclosure agreements are not covered under this right. I feel like people grossly misunderstand what a right to free speech is. Again, it is not an absolute right. If you dont believe me, try expressing your right to free speech by threatening the President. I guarantee any threat seen as legitimate will be held to account, and using your first amendment right won't protect you.

Also your example makes no sense to me. How exactly am I arguing for what you think I'm arguing for??
Click to expand...

Thank you for reenforcing my point. Yes we have constitutional rights in this country but there are still guidelines that apply to each right. Therefore, if a person is convicted of a felony, they can’t own a gun.
 
sammpedd88 said:
My apologies! You’re exactly right. Violent crime is on a severe climb in NYC also. Which brings me to another issue. Minneapolis is going to vote on disbanding the PD in November. I can’t help but think about how much blood will be shed when unarmed counselors and social workers try to handle violent situations.
Click to expand...
They will be standing in the "fatal funnel" all day long...dodging buckshot
 
nostrum420 said:
re·pub·lic
/rəˈpəblik/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

That ^ is literally all a republic is.
Click to expand...

Hey if your obsessed and dogmatic with the dictionary and it’s definitions so be it.

I’ll stay slow and worship our Constitutional Republic.
 
nostrum420 said:
re·pub·lic
/rəˈpəblik/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

That ^ is literally all a republic is.
Click to expand...
which is why i am grateful for the scotus....as extreme as both sides are if one side were to gain both houses plus the WH it is a very good thing the scotus is there.
 
nostrum420 said:
re·pub·lic
/rəˈpəblik/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

That ^ is literally all a republic is.
Click to expand...

Dog in dictionary = animal, 4 legged Kritter that likes to lick things

Dog in street = homeboy, my man, etc....

So if I called you “dog” you would pull out a dictionary and ask me why I’m calling you a 4 legged licky kritter because the dictionary told you that is what it is.
 
ax1 said:
Hey if your obsessed and dogmatic with the dictionary and it’s definitions so be it.

I’ll stay slow and worship our Constitutional Republic.
Click to expand...

I'm just saying if you're not in favor of more democracy and you like what's outlined in the Constitution that's a Constitutional Federal Democratic Bureaucracy which is a system where several states form a unity but maintain some sovereignty over internal affairs and has some elected representatives and some state officials create policy under a predetermined framework for governance (aka a constitution.)
 
nostrum420 said:
re·pub·lic
/rəˈpəblik/
Learn to pronounce
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

That ^ is literally all a republic is.
Click to expand...

What does your little pocket dictionary define “Constitutional Republic” as?

Or should I just pull out my pocket US Constitution and allow that to define it instead?
 
nostrum420 said:
I'm just saying if you're not in favor of more democracy and you like what's outlined in the Constitution that's a Constitutional Federal Democratic Bureaucracy which is a system where several states form a unity but maintain some sovereignty over internal affairs and has some elected representatives and some state officials create policy under a predetermined framework for governance (aka a constitution.)
Click to expand...

Your making stuff up now. I told you what I favor.
 
ax1 said:
Dog in dictionary = animal, 4 legged Kritter that likes to lick things

Dog in street = homeboy, my man, etc....

So if I called you “dog” you would pull out a dictionary and ask me why I’m calling you a 4 legged licky kritter because the dictionary told you that is what it is.
Click to expand...

The dictionary generally includes common slang but I see what you're getting at in terms of annotation vs connotation. That being said, the connotation of Republic meaning non-democratic is just a popular misnomer.
 
ax1 said:
What does your little pocket dictionary define “Constitutional Republic” as?

Or should I just pull out my pocket US Constitution and allow that to define it instead?
Click to expand...

I usually use a dictionary for definitions... 🤷‍♂️

Is that like, a controversial statement or something?
 
nostrum420 said:
I usually use a dictionary for definitions... 🤷‍♂️

Is that like, a controversial statement or something?
Click to expand...

Yes it is, there are 3 things in our world I don’t believe in, and that’s dictionaries and math.
 
sammpedd88 said:
Thank you for reenforcing my point. Yes we have constitutional rights in this country but there are still guidelines that apply to each right. Therefore, if a person is convicted of a felony, they can’t own a gun.
Click to expand...

I don’t think you’re making the point you think you’re making. Jiiggz has essentially been making this point the entire time?
 
thebigt said:
which is why i am grateful for the scotus....as extreme as both sides are if one side were to gain both houses plus the WH it is a very good thing the scotus is there.
Click to expand...

If one party were to gain SCOTUS 6-3 or more, it’s even more dangerous than controlling Congress, imo.
 
thebigt said:
which is why i am grateful for the scotus....as extreme as both sides are if one side were to gain both houses plus the WH it is a very good thing the scotus is there.
Click to expand...

If one party were to gain SCOTUS 6-3 or more, it’s even more dangerous than controlling Congress, imo.
 
Woody said:
If one party were to gain SCOTUS 6-3 or more, it’s even more dangerous than controlling Congress, imo.
Click to expand...
i have more faith in scotus than politicians, at least in theory.
 
ax1 said:
No lobby bribes in scotus. At least not officially lol.
Click to expand...
granted they vote along party lines the majority of times, but i think they would reign it in if either side went too extreme.
 
Woody said:
SCOTUS are at best retired politicians. No way they get nominated or confirmed by being apolitical.
Click to expand...
i agree, but more and more they surprise me...i have to think they would keep things in check to some degree.
 
Woody said:
SCOTUS are at best retired politicians. No way they get nominated or confirmed by being apolitical.
Click to expand...

I want term limits to be honest, that goes for the rest of Washington.

Not all are retired politicians, if any I haven’t looked into all of them but Gorstritch (sp??) was a judge along with that other guy Dump picked.
 
ax1 said:
I want term limits to be honest, that goes for the rest of Washington.

Not all are retired politicians, if any I haven’t looked into all of them but Gorstritch (sp??) was a judge along with that other guy Dump picked.
Click to expand...

The only way congressional term limits could maybe work is if Congress passed it. Haha. Hahaha. As if.

Also, I think justices are still politicians. You don’t get appointed to a federal bench or especially to SCOTUS without being a politician. They’re not congressional politicians or lobbyist politicians, but still politicians.
 
Woody said:
Term Limits v Thornton was also a bad decision in practicality.
Click to expand...
Lets talk about Tennessee V. Garner.

I believe this was great case for our country. Thoughts?
 
manifesto said:
Lets talk about Tennessee V. Garner.

I believe this was great case for our country. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

This?


In March of 1985, the United States Supreme Court, in Tennessee v. Garner,5 held that laws authorizing police use of deadly force to ap- prehend fleeing, unarmed, non-violent felony suspects violate the Fourth Amendment, and therefore states should eliminate them.
 
Woody said:
The only way congressional term limits could maybe work is if Congress passed it. Haha. Hahaha. As if.

Also, I think justices are still politicians. You don’t get appointed to a federal bench or especially to SCOTUS without being a politician. They’re not congressional politicians or lobbyist politicians, but still politicians.
Click to expand...
i agree with this 100%....but i still think that even if the party they align with goes off the deep end they would at least try to keep things in check....

some of the recent decisions handed down by scotus have truly surprised me.
 
nostrum420 said:
This?


In March of 1985, the United States Supreme Court, in Tennessee v. Garner,5 held that laws authorizing police use of deadly force to ap- prehend fleeing, unarmed, non-violent felony suspects violate the Fourth Amendment, and therefore states should eliminate them.
Click to expand...
Nope. This portion

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a Invalid Link Removed in which the Invalid Link Removed held that, under the Invalid Link Removed, when a Invalid Link Removed is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use Invalid Link Removed to prevent escape unless "the officer has Invalid Link Removed to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
 
you left out a big chunk there chief....
 
manifesto said:
Nope. This portion

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a Invalid Link Removed in which the Invalid Link Removed held that, under the Invalid Link Removed, when a Invalid Link Removed is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use Invalid Link Removed to prevent escape unless "the officer has Invalid Link Removed to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Click to expand...

I guess it's a mixed bag. 🤷‍♂️
 
manifesto said:
Nope. This portion

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a Invalid Link Removed in which the Invalid Link Removed held that, under the Invalid Link Removed, when a Invalid Link Removed is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use Invalid Link Removed to prevent escape unless "the officer has Invalid Link Removed to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Click to expand...

If you’re going to bring up Tennessee v Garner you need to understand it fully. In TN back in the 70’s when this case took place, it was legal to use deadly force to stop a fleeing suspect that committed a felony in progress even if it wasn’t a violent felony. NC’s deadly force statute was mentioned in this case as basically being a model statute. I totally agree with the ruling of TN v Garner. This case along with Graham v Garner are the hallmark cases that define the use of force.
 
sammpedd88 said:
Thank you for reenforcing my point. Yes we have constitutional rights in this country but there are still guidelines that apply to each right. Therefore, if a person is convicted of a felony, they can’t own a gun.
Click to expand...
Your point wasn't even a point. Rape, murder, kidnapping and unlawful imprisonment have nothing to do with free speech.

The 'guidelines' are written and evaluated in law, not the constitution. That's what takes away a felons rights to owning a gun, not the constitution itself.

Essentially you need the law to understand what the courts uphold the constitution to be in different situations. Without it, the language is ambiguous and open for interpretation. Again, that's why lawyers, Appeals Courts and SCOTUS earn big money, because their arguments can set precedents under law

That is my point.
 
Last edited:
Woody said:
I don’t think you’re making the point you think you’re making. Jiiggz has essentially been making this point the entire time?
Click to expand...
Yep lol
 
manifesto said:
Nope. This portion

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a Invalid Link Removed in which the Invalid Link Removed held that, under the Invalid Link Removed, when a Invalid Link Removed is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use Invalid Link Removed to prevent escape unless "the officer has Invalid Link Removed to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
Click to expand...
Probable cause is a reasonably high standard to prove. It's the standard that allows police to get search warrants, arrest people etc.

It's a pretty high threshold.

"When a non-violent felon is ordered to stop and submit to police, ignoring that order does not give rise to a reasonable good-faith belief that the use of deadly force is necessary, unless it has been threatened"

"The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable"

"While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect -- young, slight, and unarmed -- posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous"

In the same case.
 
Last edited:
manifesto said:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...
Antifa has been around since WW2 and the Civil Rights movement has existed in some form for decades. It might be BLM now, but groups like Black Panthers etc have always been around in some form.
 
Jiigzz said:
Antifa has been around since WW2 and the Civil Rights movement has existed in some form for decades. It might be BLM now, but groups like Black Panthers etc have always been around in some form.
Click to expand...
weather underground and SDS were forerunners of antifa....how about BLA FALN or patty's group SLA?
 
thebigt said:
weather underground and SDS were forerunners of antifa....how about BLA FALN or patty's group SLA?
Click to expand...
Maybe, but those definitely preceded Obama. You cant really blame Obama for things that existed decades before he was president lol.

Radical left groups are dangerous. Radical right groups are dangerous. It really pays to just not be radical.

One thing that annoys me is hypocrisy. Just because someone is more left leaning or right leaning, doesnt mean you have to tolerate or stand up for the radical versions of whatever ideology you hold. I see a lot of people defending radical beliefs simply because they are identified as being of the same leaning they are, but that shouldnt be the case. You can want Black people to feel equal without supporting rioting or chaos. Just because you support the cause, doesnt mean you support the chaos.

I'm far more for order than chaos. I support arming police. I also support better training and resourcing into police and mental health. You dont have to be one or the other - you can want a well functioning police that exists to serve the community and do it's best and be the best. A lot of conversation is about having one or the other. It can and should be both.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top