Donald Trump running for president

[nostrum420]

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.

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."

 

[Woody]

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

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.

 

[nostrum420]

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.

Yup Citizens United and buckley v valeo have been destroying this country for about 40 years

 

[Woody]

Yup Citizens United and buckley v valeo have been destroying this country for about 40 years

Term Limits v Thornton was also a bad decision in practicality.

 

[ax1]

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."

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.

 

[ax1]

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.

 

[ax1]

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."

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.

 

[manifesto]

 

[nostrum420]

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.

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.

 

[sammpedd88]

don't forget NYC...crime is up and climbing higher.

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.

 

[sammpedd88]

don't forget NYC...crime is up and climbing higher.

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.

 

[sammpedd88]

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

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

 

[sammpedd88]

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??

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.

 

[manifesto]

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.

They will be standing in the "fatal funnel" all day long...dodging buckshot

 

[sammpedd88]

They will be standing in the "fatal funnel" all day long...dodging buckshot

Hell yeah!

 

[ax1]

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.

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.

 

[thebigt]

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.

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.

 

[ax1]

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.

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.

 

[nostrum420]

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.

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.)

 

[ax1]

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.

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?

 

[ax1]

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.)

Your making stuff up now. I told you what I favor.

 

[nostrum420]

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.

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.

 

[nostrum420]

Your making stuff up now. I told you what I favor.

LOL I'm not making up anything. I'm just trying to use the correct vocabulary.

 

[nostrum420]

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?

I usually use a dictionary for definitions...

Is that like, a controversial statement or something?

 

[ax1]

I usually use a dictionary for definitions...

Is that like, a controversial statement or something?

Yes it is, there are 3 things in our world I don’t believe in, and that’s dictionaries and math.

 

[nostrum420]

Yes it is, there are 3 things in our world I don’t believe in, and that’s dictionaries and math.

LMAO

 

[Woody]

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.

I don’t think you’re making the point you think you’re making. Jiiggz has essentially been making this point the entire time?

 

[Woody]

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.

If one party were to gain SCOTUS 6-3 or more, it’s even more dangerous than controlling Congress, imo.

 

[Woody]

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.

If one party were to gain SCOTUS 6-3 or more, it’s even more dangerous than controlling Congress, imo.

 

[thebigt]

If one party were to gain SCOTUS 6-3 or more, it’s even more dangerous than controlling Congress, imo.

i have more faith in scotus than politicians, at least in theory.

 

[ax1]

i have more faith in scotus than politicians, at least in theory.

No lobby bribes in scotus. At least not officially lol.

 

[Woody]

No lobby in scotus. At least not officially lol.

SCOTUS are at best retired politicians. No way they get nominated or confirmed by being apolitical.

 

[thebigt]

No lobby bribes in scotus. At least not officially lol.

granted they vote along party lines the majority of times, but i think they would reign it in if either side went too extreme.

 

[thebigt]

SCOTUS are at best retired politicians. No way they get nominated or confirmed by being apolitical.

i agree, but more and more they surprise me...i have to think they would keep things in check to some degree.

 

[ax1]

SCOTUS are at best retired politicians. No way they get nominated or confirmed by being apolitical.

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.

 

[Woody]

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.

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.

 

[manifesto]

Term Limits v Thornton was also a bad decision in practicality.

Lets talk about Tennessee V. Garner.

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

 

[nostrum420]

Lets talk about Tennessee V. Garner.

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

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.

 

[thebigt]

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.

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.

 

[manifesto]

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.

Nope. This portion

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

 

[manifesto]

you left out a big chunk there chief....

 

[nostrum420]

Nope. This portion

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

I guess it's a mixed bag.

 

[thebigt]

NY and DC AG's sue to dissolve NRA

 

[sammpedd88]

Nope. This portion

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

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.

 

[Jiigzz]

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.

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.

 

[Jiigzz]

I don’t think you’re making the point you think you’re making. Jiiggz has essentially been making this point the entire time?

Yep lol

 

[Jiigzz]

Nope. This portion

Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

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.

 

[Jiigzz]

View attachment 196313

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.

 

[thebigt]

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.

weather underground and SDS were forerunners of antifa....how about BLA FALN or patty's group SLA?

 

[Jiigzz]

weather underground and SDS were forerunners of antifa....how about BLA FALN or patty's group SLA?

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.