Trump v. the Deep State


Here is an prime example of Democrat thinking, which is why it is paramount they be fired and drained. Leaking classified information is a felony, but Democrats justify it for politics’ sake.


In the name of a more open and tolerant society, they must demonize and attack all who disagree with them.


If you step outside of party lines, and try to look at this objectively, it very much goes both ways. Demonizing and attacking those who don’t agree with you is a method of reinforcing your own biases. Humans in general, regardless of political views, do this. A lot.


I view Trump and the police state as natural allies so once Trump purges all the bad apples and learns who gets dachas and who doesn’t I expect big things from the two.

Eight years from now we’ll look back on this rocky start and laugh at how naive we were expecting the apparat to serve as a bulwark against America’s transmogrification into Amerika.


For crying out loud, this is American Government 101. The police state is the Executive Branch, which Trump is the head of. Of course they are “natural allies,” and under Trump to boot, and has been this way for 300 years. This has nothing to do with aberrant balance of powers, or dictatorships. Rather, we are wary of dictators who execute laws that they are making.

It is much more likely in a parliamentary system, which Germany was. The Prime Minister’s party usually has control of Parliament and executes the laws that his or her party makes, which expedites government agendas.

But our Founders wanted more infighting to make sure the will of the people weren’t trampled on, which is why they chose a President system, the President might be different party than the Congress according to people’s choice.


I’m talking America 2.0 and you’re talking American Government 101. If you think the old rules are still going to apply once Donald Trump makes America great again by purging, doling out dachas and packing the Supreme Politburo with originalist sinners you’re not paying attention.


This post makes more sense, and is much less speculative, if you replace Trump with Obama.


Pinyin wars, American style! :popcorn:


No budding police state is complete without a war of words:

targeted killing/drone lynching
enhanced interrogation/torture
Operation Iraqi Freedom/The War About Nothing
Pax Americana/Pox Americana
Supreme Court/Supreme Politburo
Patriot Act/Last Refuge Act . . .
Domestic Surveillance Directorate/Big Brother
Civil Asset Forfeiture/11th Amendment


CIA guy induced to quit spooksplains why. When you read something like this, you have to read between the lines to get the real story…

How did that work out?


I think both resulted is destabilizing the middle east, one directly invading, the other using covert means to overthrow governments.

Guess that means President Trump won’t follow in overthrowing governments like Presidents Bush and Obama did.


I wonder how Trump can drain the swamp in intelligence agencies like he’s doing at State. But this is sure one thing that needs to be going on more. Analyst gets fired for publicly criticizing Trump’s agenda.

In the real world, there’s no room for getting hung up on existential dilemmas when you gotta job and answer to your boss. Trump showing that his business acumen sharpened by market dynamics leads him aright when applied to government too.

“I don’t think that any person that is there in order to carry out the president’s agenda should be against the president’s agenda,” spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders told reporters

“It seems pretty silly that you would have somebody that’s not supportive of what you’re trying to accomplish there to carry out that very thing,” Sanders said.


If that’s not a typo for 14th, please enlighten me about how the 11th relates to that. :slight_smile:


It’s alive!

Welcome to the “living document”:

[quote]In a Philadelphia suburb last year, cops seized the home of a couple who had never been charged with a crime. Their son had allegedly dealt heroin out of the house, and cops said the home could be seized because it was tied to illegal activities.

Markela and Chris Sourovelis — who owned the house — said they had no knowledge of their son’s alleged drug deals, as CNN reported. However, as unbelievable as it sounds, the Supreme Court has ruled it’s Constitutional for the government to take away your property even if you’re innocent.

Under federal and state laws known as civil forfeiture, police can seize cash or property if they suspect it’s tied to an illegal activity even if the property owner isn’t charged with a crime. On its face, this practice seems like an obvious violation of the Fifth Amendment’s stipulation that you can’t “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. That court has issued a number of rulings upholding civil forfeiture, including one in 1996 that said seizure of an innocent person’s property didn’t violate due process. In that case, a Michigan woman named Tina Bennis fought the seizure of her car after her husband was caught having sex with a prostitute in it.

For her part, Bennis argued she had no clue her husband would use the car for the illegal tryst. The high court ruled that didn’t matter, citing the following case law:

It has long been settled that statutory forfeitures of property entrusted by the innocent owner or lienor to another who uses it in violation of the revenue laws of the United States is not a violation of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In its 1996 decision, the high court pointed to a bizarre line of reasoning it made in its first-ever decision on civil forfeiture handed down back in 1827. That case involved the government’s attempt to seize a ship used for piracy. When the owner of the ship claimed it couldn’t be forfeited until he’d been convicted of a crime, the Supreme Court had this to say:

The thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is attached primarily to the thing.[/quote]


It’s alive!

The Eleventh Amendment was the first to revise the Constitution after the ratification of the first ten in the Bill of Rights.

So there’s American Originalism 1.0 and AO 2.0, and you’re 2.0 because you want to keep the Bill of Rights and ditch everything that came later?


You tell me what part of the Constitution civil asset forfeiture metastasized from. It’s anybody’s guess at this point since only the Supremes know for sure and there’s nothing in the Constitution about “the thing is here primarily considered as the offender, or rather the offence is attached primarily to the thing.” That sounds more like something out of Alice in Wonderland.

So, no, I’m not in favor of"ditching everything that came later." I’m in favor of removing the Constitutional cancerous parts like civil asset forfeiture and keeping all the healthy parts that were actually ratified and written down.


Okay, American Originalism 1.0 plus all the ratified amendments, so we should call Comrade Smith’s brand AO 28.0, or maybe AO 1.27. As long as it stays dead! :ghost:


Dead? Have you never heard of the Constitutional amendment process or are you just pretending you haven’t heard of it?

[quote]Constitutional Amendment Process

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA’s Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal “red-line” copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

In a few instances, States have sent official documents to NARA to record the rejection of an amendment or the rescission of a prior ratification. The Archivist does not make any substantive determinations as to the validity of State ratification actions, but it has been established that the Archivist’s certification of the facial legal sufficiency of ratification documents is final and conclusive.

In recent history, the signing of the certification has become a ceremonial function attended by various dignitaries, which may include the President. President Johnson signed the certifications for the 24th and 25th Amendments as a witness, and President Nixon similarly witnessed the certification of the 26th Amendment along with three young scholars. On May 18, 1992, the Archivist performed the duties of the certifying official for the first time to recognize the ratification of the 27th Amendment, and the Director of the Federal Register signed the certification as a witness.[/quote]


Dear Comrade, which one of us implied the 11th amendment was proof of the Constitution being “alive”? :stuck_out_tongue:


I’m not sure what part of the Constitution civil asset forfeiture metastasized from so I just randomly picked the nearest organ. That’s the problem with Constitutional cancer. It’s hard to diagnose.

When the Constitution grows normally via the amendment process, on the other hand, it’s easy to tell what’s going on and why.