Trump v. the Deep State


#41

“I don’t know where the tumor is, so I’ll just remove a random body part and hope that fixes it.” Admirable logic, Comrade!


#42

Is that logic? It seems like poor reading comprehension or willful ignorance to me.


#43

Your words, Comrade. :idunno:

And now I wish you a pleasant, cancer-free day. :bowing:


#44

Thank you. And happy civil asset seizures to you.


#45

I never said anything about those, other than asking what #11 had to do with them (which, as it turns out, is nothing).


#46

We concur. Civil asset forfeiture has nothing to do with the Constitution, yet it’s “Constitutional.” Go figure.


#47

The obvious thing to do is challenge it on constitutional grounds. I reckon this has already been done, but I don’t know when or what the result was. If you can point out such a case, I’m interested. :slight_smile:


#48

It’s not all that different in principle from eminent domain abuse. They challenged the hell out of that and didn’t get far because the wrong people are in power.

Il Douche liked to say “elections have consequences.” The truth is, election results ARE consequences.

I’d have preferred the Tea Party to The Donald, but the IRS quashed them, making the current president possible. Draining a swamp is messy. We go to the swamp with the drainers we have.

And there are multiple swamps to drain. US politics is utterly corrupt and dysfunctional. Weimar America.


#49

The Supreme court overstepped its authority with that one. The government does not have the right to seize your property to build a shopping mall because it will generate higher tax revenue.


#50

Authority is just a word. It’s what you can get away with that matters.


#51

When the Constitution becomes a “living document” and five unelected, unaccountable public officials with lifetime tenure get to decide how to amend it “constitutional” becomes just a word. It’s what you can get away with that matters.


#52

Hear, Hear, Hear Jefferson

In denying the right they usurp of exclusively explaining the constitution, I go further than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist, of an opinion that “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.” If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our constitution a complete felo de se (self-destruction, suicide). For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scarecrow; that such opinions as the one you combat, sent cautiously out, as you observe also, by detachment, not belonging to the case often, but sought for out of it, as if to rally the public opinion beforehand to their views, and to indicate the line they are to walk in, have been so quietly passed over as never to have excited animadversion, even in a speech of any one of the body entrusted with impeachment. The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please.

My construction of the constitution is very different from that you quote. It is that each department is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the constitution in the cases submitted to its action; and especially, where it is to act ultimately and without appeal.

According to Jefferson, Trump can just go tell Robart to pound sand. Because he’s perfectly intelligent enough to know what the Constitution says or not about immigration.


#53

According to Jefferson, Trump can just go tell Robart to pound sand. Because he’s perfectly intelligent enough to know what the Constitution says or not about immigration.
[/quote]

One country’s living tree rooted in soil is another’s dead wax rooted in sand. :idunno:


#54

The Donald is spearheading the resistance. From the point of view of the establishment, resistance is extreme disobedience and is not to be tolerated. Hence the meltdown.

This is all out war, which is why there’s so much drama. And at least one side is too inflexible to allow for any kind of negotiated peace. So one side of the other will have to lose everything. Hence the panic.

The election victory was forbidden, but it happened anyway. They weren’t all so much predicting a Hillary win as commanding it to be so. The electorate disobeyed, and this is simply unacceptable.


#55

[quote]Non Sequitur

(also known as: derailment, “that does not follow”, irrelevant reason, invalid inference, non-support, argument by scenario [form of], false premise [form of], questionable premise [form of])

Description: When the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In more informal reasoning, it can be when what is presented as evidence or reason is irrelevant or adds very little to support to the conclusion.

Logical Form:

Claim A is made.
Evidence is presented for Claim A.
Therefore, claim C is true.
Example #1:

People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have sand. Therefore, having sand floors in homes would be a great idea!
Explanation: As cool as the idea of sand floors might sound, the conclusion does not follow from the premises. The fact that people generally like to walk on sand does not mean that they want sand in their homes, just like because people generally like to swim, they shouldn’t flood their houses.[/quote]

Example #2

The Constitution needs to be amended from time to time to account for changing events and circumstances. Article V of the Constitution, the Constitutional Amendment Process, invests the power to amend the Constitution in the Congress and state legislatures. Therefore, if you don’t believe judges should have the power to amend the Constitution you believe the Constitution is a dead document rooted in sand which should never be amended.

Explanation. Some people are apparently blissfully unaware of the existence of Article V and the nearly universal agreement that the Constitution needs to be amended from time to time so they’ve convinced themselves of a strawman argument.


#56

Awesome conspiracy theory circle jerk right here, folks. Step right up!

Read all about it on Breitbart: when reality is not your thing, make the switch to a channel you can trust.


#57

[quote=“Winston_Smith, post:55, topic:158311, full:true”]
Example #1:

People generally like to walk on the beach. Beaches have sand. Therefore, having sand floors in homes would be a great idea![/quote]

Actually, that does sound neat! :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Example #2

The Constitution needs to be amended from time to time to account for changing events and circumstances. Article V of the Constitution, the Constitutional Amendment Process, invests the power to amend the Constitution in the Congress and state legislatures. Therefore, if you don’t believe judges should have the power to amend the Constitution you believe the Constitution is a dead document rooted in sand which should never be amended.

Explanation. Some people are apparently blissfully unaware of the existence of Article V and the nearly universal agreement that the Constitution needs to be amended from time to time so they’ve convinced themselves of a strawman argument.

Comrade, how many American jurists (as a percentage) actually oppose the living tree doctrine? Never mind how many common law jurists around the world…

You can argue the American people voted for Originalism when they voted for Trump. I would say that’s not necessarily true, as the appointment of judges was only one of many issues they consdiered when voting, and even if we put that aside, we’re still waiting to see how Trumpist the Trump appointed judges will actually be.

Like I said, if it’s really that important to you, and if you trust the voters to know best (or is that just Rowland?), why not push for a referendum?


#58

Because the correct procedure for amending the Constitution is specified in Article V of the Constitution and it has nothing to do with judges or voters. I recommend you acquaint yourself with Article V. It would save us both a lot of futile effort and just plain silliness about referendums and dead Constitutions.


#59

Your own “Politburo” has been disagreeing with you since the whateverth century, and the prevailing trend among your (elected) legislators and presidents has been to go along with it. If none of that matters to you, so be it.

:bowing:


#60

What matters to me is what little faith I have left in homo sapiens is being badly eroded by this conversation.