- 5,051
- Netherlands
America - The Official Thread
- Thread starter ///M-Spec
- 39,279 comments
- 1,759,178 views
Joey D
Premium
- 47,441
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
I ask that question of the police all the time because as far as I can tell, there are way too many officers that don't give a damn about the Constitution. From unlawful search and seizure to questionably detaining people because they're young, not white, dress a certain way, or somehow fit a vague description of a suspect. Not to mention that some officer actually ends up killing unarmed and unthreatening individuals and walk because, of course, the police are above the law. And before you say it, no I'm not talking just about blacks being unfairly targeted by police, I'm talking about citizens as a whole. I trust the police about as much as I trust sushi from a gas station named Bubba's and I trust them to follow the Constitution even less than that.
It's not all police officers by any means, but it's enough of them that makes me wary of all of them.
And by Trump wanting to deploy these tactical border patrol agents (whatever they are, my guess is agents who are more of a shoot first ask questions later sort) it sort of oversteps the bounds of the federal government. It's a state issue as to what should happen with "sanctuary cities".
Joey D
Premium
- 47,441
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
You're going around preaching about the Constitution, yet ignore the 10th Amendment.
Even when the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed, both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were very critical of them because it overstepped the powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution. Why should a federal government agency go into cities not located on the border to arrest and detain people? What jurisdiction do they have? Nevermind that many border patrol agents forgo a warrant completely, which is also illegal.
And who's to say federal law is right? Federal law seems to be wrong more than it's right.
- 1,874
- United States
But as long as it is the law of the land as written and like it or not it is the law and should be enforced.
Whether the law should be written as is is a debate that state and city officials cannot decide or change with their little Sanctuary City designation but would have to taken up and the Federal law changed or repealed by Congress on the Federal level.
Enforcing the laws that are legally on the books is not a Democrat or Republican issue but an issue that all Americans should stand behind on enforcement.
When it comes to criminal illegal aliens it always seems to be the Democrats that are selective on not enforcing the laws of this nation. Until the laws are changed by the Federal government the immigration laws should be enforced as written and any official city, state or federal official that impedes or attempts to prevent those laws from being enforced should be charged and jailed themselves.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,441
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
So much for the 1st Amendment.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/filmm...ias-oath-not-to-boycott-israel-sues-us-state/
https://www.timesofisrael.com/filmm...ias-oath-not-to-boycott-israel-sues-us-state/
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
No it will mean she doesn't have to pledge allegiance to a foreign government to do business with the state of Georgia.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I think you're misreading it. The agreement to be a private services provider to the trading entity of the State of Georgia involves being prepared to do business with certain other trading partners of the State of Georgia, not to declare an allegiance to a foreign power.
EDIT: To be clear... I think you and I share similar feelings about the government of Israel, but I feel like this story's being spun into something beyond the simple private contract requirement that it actually represents. If one's scruples prevented one from doing business with Israel, as well they might, one shouldn't be interested in doing business with Israel's explicitly-stated trade partners.
- 29,925
- a baby, candy, it's like taking.
- TexRex72
Oh look, someone else who doesn't grasp that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from all consequences of speech. Her desire to engage in peaceful protest and to promote peaceful protest of Israel (which isn't in and of itself anti-Semitism, mind) is admirable, but termination of a contract is a consequence of doing so. There may be legal recourse if the termination of the contract was inappropriate (there also may not be), but this isn't a free speech issue.
That said, I question the state's allegiance to Israel. I don't think it should have a position one way or the other, and I'd hope this action results in private contractors boycotting the state by refusing to provide services. That's probably not viable, but it's a hope regardless.
Still though, you quoted me but then completely disregarded that which you quoted. The implication was that Republicans present themselves as being for small government and states' rights, which they may have been at one point (just, you know, pay no attention to Lincoln and a Republican-led Congress passing the Revenue Act of 1861--a federal income tax statute--a mere six years after the party's founding), but they shamelessly favor big government when doing so serves their interests.
That said, I question the state's allegiance to Israel. I don't think it should have a position one way or the other, and I'd hope this action results in private contractors boycotting the state by refusing to provide services. That's probably not viable, but it's a hope regardless.
How you managed to keep a straight face while remarking on letter-of-the-law after previously laying bare your position on the impeachment of Trump for his actual violation of actual federal law is beyond me. You can't have, surely?
Still though, you quoted me but then completely disregarded that which you quoted. The implication was that Republicans present themselves as being for small government and states' rights, which they may have been at one point (just, you know, pay no attention to Lincoln and a Republican-led Congress passing the Revenue Act of 1861--a federal income tax statute--a mere six years after the party's founding), but they shamelessly favor big government when doing so serves their interests.
- 1,874
- United States
Yes, IF THAT LEADER IS breaking the current laws with illegal acts to attempt to circumvent the currently in force legal laws of the nation. If that leader is going through the proper and legal steps to have the law changed and repealed while during such process is still adhering to within the legal laws statues then he is not breaking the current laws and correctly trying to invoke a change in the laws and policies as they have been written.
But under any scenario until such a Federal law is repealed or changed through the correct procedures and channels then the current laws as on the books and written are the legal laws of the land and should be followed and enforced.
Half the problems this nation faces today in my opinion is the result of for way too long we have been picking and choosing what laws to enforce or not enforce based off of personal beliefs or political party affiliations rather than following our laws as written until a legal change or revision actually changes such law therefore making a joke or mockery of our legal and justice system both on a state and federal level.
Prime example is marijuana use and/or the practice of allowing and to be accepting within our nation the individual states to pass what are currently illegal laws claiming to be legalizing the substance that are not actually worth the paper they are written on as far as protecting the citizen from Federal prosecution.
No matter what laws are passed at a state level under current Federal law marijuana is an illegal class 1 narcotic within all the borders of this nation and all users, growers, sellers or anyone possessing any quantity is subject to arrest and prosecution under the current legal Federal statutes.
I am not making a case for against marijuana or whether it is made legal or not here.
My point is instead of attempting to create state laws which are actually illegal under the Federal system why not FIRST change or repeal the current Federal laws which make the states marijuana laws illegal or actually useless to begin with? This subject particularly changing Federal laws to remove marijuana from a controlled narcotics classification does not force marijuana to be legalized in the states that do not want to legalize it but does allow those stated to legalize it that want to. But until this happens marijuana is illegal in this country period and not accepting that is picking and choosing by choice or personal beliefs which laws should be enforced.
You allow this because you agree with marijuana should be legal then when another law is ignored that you do not agree should be overlooked those folks have the same rights as to ignore this law as you have to ignore the marijuana laws. Never ending bottomless pit that has no common ground other than whether you like it or do not.
This sector of this conversation started over sanctuary cities and immigration enforcement so,
My problems stem from so many instances of people thinking that the current legal laws only apply to others and not themselves and this does include immigration laws. We have a legal immigration system and those that ignore that system and come into this country illegally should not expect that their disregard for our laws be looked over or pardoned but should be deported to get in line BEHIND those people that respect our nation, our citizens and our laws to follow the legal process to enter and move to this country through the pre established legal system to do so.
- 1,874
- United States
Come back and talk to me AFTER the illegal acts of the Clintons, the Bidens, the illegal FBI probes into Trumps campaign, even the Dems manipilation of creating the "whistleblower" which was the supposed reason for the Trump impeachment trial which all occurred prior to any transgression claimed against Trump are investigated and prosecuted for their Federal crimes which we know the Democrats have been covering up for years
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
I really like John Oliver. I've seen basically all of his stuff. He does a great job, but he is heavy handed. If you were inclined, I'd invite you to re-watch that episode and watch just how much of it is whatabouting. Seriously, watch it with that in mind, because it's almost the entire episode.
He says things to the effect of "these are the problems with universal healthcare", and then combats that with "but the current problems are bigger". He's whatabouting. Our current situation does not have to be solved with universal healthcare, there are obvious obstacles we can handle right now, one of which he highlighted (the Tijuana thing, which is highlighting some ridiculous laws that prevent the market from holding companies accountable when they jack the price up in the US only).
He also has an absolutely paper thin argument against Buttigieg's "Medicare for all who want it". He says that doesn't get rid of private insurance, which is exactly what I was saying we must not do, and I (and Pete probably) have good reasons for not wanting to get rid of it.
Unlike John Oliver claims with his false dichotomy, no I do not have to own all of the problems with the US healthcare system simply because I don't like Sanders's version. I'm one of those people in the bar chart that says it should be overhauled. I'm not about to start celebrating our healthcare insurance mess. I very much despise it.
But that does not cause me to want to adopt Canada's mess. As I've said before, I've heard from one Canadian resident who fled to the US and was in tears about how she was treated under the Canadian system. I'll admit that the US system has horror stories, but that doesn't make Canada's system what I want.
I'd rather have the UK system or the AU system if we're just picking existing systems. But above all, I'd rather fix the obvious issues with the US system.
- 6,259
- Tecumseh, MI
- I_Fail_At_FPS
Most of the Canadians I've ever met have said the same thing. All of them but one who still live in Canada say they just pay the money to come to the US for healthcare because ours, even as messed up as it is, is far superior to theirs. The only person I've ever heard say they thought Canada's healthcare was better was unemployed and couldn't afford to come over.
Joey D
Premium
- 47,441
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
So like every Republican in Congress outside of Mitt Romney who voted to ignore the law based on party lines? Ok, that makes sense.
So like the President? That makes sense too.
The federal law on marijuana is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment. The Constitution does not give power to the US government to make substances, such as a plant, illegal. Therefore, it should go to the states to decide. Most federal laws shouldn't be federal laws at all, they should be state laws though if the states deem them needed.
It doesn't work that way. Just because the Clintons and Bidens are probably guilty and probably ignored the law, it doesn't make Trump any less guilty or have ignored the law any less. As far as I'm concerned they're all guilty, but the actions of Trump's are more worrisome since he's the President and the others aren't.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Where do you get this view of law as something that "should be followed" on the face of it. Law is more like a social convention than you seem to realize, and the world has had some pretty detestable laws. If the law is asking you to do something immoral, you ignore the law, because you're still immoral if you enforce an immoral law. There have been many examples of such laws, even within American history. In fact, we fought a civil war against entire states that wanted to maintain immoral laws. And yes, it was immoral to own, abuse, and murder slaves even when it was legal. It was always immoral to apprehend escaped slaves and return them to their masters even when it was legally required.
When the law is wrong, ignoring it is the right thing to do. "It's the law" is not a defense. And "it's the law" is not a reason to incarcerate people, ever.
If I had to wager a guess, I'd guess that you're misunderstanding the nature of law because Christianity teaches that law should be adhered to regardless of morality. Christianity and other religions teach people to trust morality to their superiors - even to the extent where Yahweh is asking Abraham to sacrificially murder his innocent son. The test is "are you willing to do something you know is immoral because it is the rule". And that is exactly the moral compass that should never be beaten out of anyone.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
But it's the state of Georgia not a private company, and It's also odd that it is one foreign state not a bunch of other supposed ''trading partners''.
Consequences of speech would apply to private institutions and the not the state it self would it not?
There is also Precedent(with 2 other cases like this going the same way) to argue that it is unconstitutional.
https://theintercept.com/2019/04/26...ike-down-pro-israel-oath-as-unconstitutional/
- 1,874
- United States
Apparently the Supreme Court does not agree WITH YOUR interpretation of what the 10th amendment does or does not allow the Federal government to do or not do.
"The Tenth Amendment does not impose any specific limitations on the authority of the federal government; though there had been an attempt to do so, Congress defeated a motion to modify the word delegated with expressly in the amendment. It thus does not grant states additional powers, nor does it alter the relationship that exists between the federal government and the states. It merely indicates that the states may establish and maintain their own laws and policies so long as they do not conflict with the authority of the federal government."
"In a test of the Constitution’s “necessary and proper” clause (Article I, Section 8, paragraph 18) against the Tenth Amendment, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion that the federal government was not prohibited from exercising only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution:"
Joey D
Premium
- 47,441
- Lakes of the North, MI
- GTP_Joey
- GTP Joey
I'm reading the 10th Amendment and telling you what it says. If the powers aren't granted by the Constitution then it's up to the states. I fully understand that it doesn't often work that way, but the US as a whole ignores the Constitution more often than not.
More laws should be challenged because many of our laws are indeed in violation of the Constitution.
- 1,874
- United States
Well the legal scholars and supreme court differ in your viewpoint. Read the sentence above and it will clarify for you their interpretation of the law.
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that apparently the difference in the text of the delegated vs expressly changes the legal interpretation concerning states rights and Congress voted not to modify the text.
Maybe in your opinion but in reality and the grand scheme of things the highest court in the land says you are not correct.
- 1,874
- United States
[QUOTE="Joey D, post: so Imma head out.[/QUOTE]
Might not be a bad idea since you seem to think you are more of an authority on the constitution and its amendments than decades of the law professions legal experts and authorities on the subject and decades of Supreme Court Justices.
And I am sure over those decades there have been countless liberals as well as conservatives that have pored over those documents and their wording trying to interpret them to support their opinion and agenda.
Might not be a bad idea since you seem to think you are more of an authority on the constitution and its amendments than decades of the law professions legal experts and authorities on the subject and decades of Supreme Court Justices.
And I am sure over those decades there have been countless liberals as well as conservatives that have pored over those documents and their wording trying to interpret them to support their opinion and agenda.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
...which is what the supreme court is doing/has done/will do. The first day of an administrative law class in law school at a major university includes "All of this is unconstitutional. Administrative law is well known to be unconstitutional. But we all ignore that, so with that out of the way, here's your admin law lecture..."
Interstate commerce interpretation is laughable... Kelo v New London is downright absurd. Good luck defending the supremes. They have their moments, but only when it suits them.
- 11,853
- Marin County
@VFOURMAX1
You know you would be cheering gleefully if "illegal immigrants" burned San Francisco to the ground. Just think how self-righteous you could be if that happened! Why so much posturing? You should be urging Trump to remove all federal agencies from the city, that's more in line with your goal if you believed the illegals were truly causing chaos. But then you know that the result would be underwhelming...that San Francisco (and New York & the others) would be just fine, because the presence of undocumented immigrants isn't actually a big problem. The "I told you so" moment would continue to be elusive.
Come on, what you really want to say is:
"I hate liberals so much I desperately want to see ICE tanks rolling over liberal protesters and all those immigrants". That's really what it's all about. You want big government, heavy handed, military response to the liberals - not the immigrants. You want that picture of those tanks in San Francisco. Trump bringing the snowflakes to heal. Right?
Your passionate assailing of sanctuary cities cannot possibly square with your lack of proximity to them. You don't really care - you can't, because they have zero impact on you. It's a pretext for you to express your bleeding-heart conservative worldview and militant anti-liberalism, with heart racing indignation. But again, you don't really care.
You know you would be cheering gleefully if "illegal immigrants" burned San Francisco to the ground. Just think how self-righteous you could be if that happened! Why so much posturing? You should be urging Trump to remove all federal agencies from the city, that's more in line with your goal if you believed the illegals were truly causing chaos. But then you know that the result would be underwhelming...that San Francisco (and New York & the others) would be just fine, because the presence of undocumented immigrants isn't actually a big problem. The "I told you so" moment would continue to be elusive.
Come on, what you really want to say is:
"I hate liberals so much I desperately want to see ICE tanks rolling over liberal protesters and all those immigrants". That's really what it's all about. You want big government, heavy handed, military response to the liberals - not the immigrants. You want that picture of those tanks in San Francisco. Trump bringing the snowflakes to heal. Right?
Your passionate assailing of sanctuary cities cannot possibly square with your lack of proximity to them. You don't really care - you can't, because they have zero impact on you. It's a pretext for you to express your bleeding-heart conservative worldview and militant anti-liberalism, with heart racing indignation. But again, you don't really care.
