|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 10 2017 06:17 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 05:38 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, might I ask you to respond to my earlier query? If I understand your point correctly you want only the language of a law to be considered and don't think the intent, as stated by the person drafting the law, matters. In the case of a racially neutral law that the framer intended to be combined with racist institutions to deprive African Americans of their constitutional rights would you not agree that the broader context matters? No, I think a judge's interpretation of statements made on the campaign trail shouldn't be considered a sufficient indicator of intent in a law otherwise constitutional and non-discriminatory. Drafting statements, a presidential televised/radio address, congressional subcommittees and congressional debate are routine and well-established means of gathering intent for such things as seeing if a law is being correctly interpreted. What you stated is not my point understood correctly. There's not very much interpretation being done on Trump's statements though. What else could he have meant by calling for a complete and total shutdown on Muslims entering the country?
Deliberate provocation of the media, statements made before he was advised on the real ways to fight radical Islamic terrorists, and statements meant to incite the parts of his base very little informed on the matter. I heard none of this Muslim ban nonsense from Trump in the White House or his cabine or VP. Then he flubs one EO, but absolutely nails the next one. When we see no intent manifested, no statements of intent from the Oval Office, why write in discrimination in an order that does not discriminate? It boggles the mind.
|
United States43605 Posts
On May 10 2017 06:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 05:38 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, might I ask you to respond to my earlier query? If I understand your point correctly you want only the language of a law to be considered and don't think the intent, as stated by the person drafting the law, matters. In the case of a racially neutral law that the framer intended to be combined with racist institutions to deprive African Americans of their constitutional rights would you not agree that the broader context matters? No, I think a judge's interpretation of statements made on the campaign trail shouldn't be considered a sufficient indicator of intent in a law otherwise constitutional and non-discriminatory. Drafting statements, a presidential televised/radio address, congressional subcommittees and congressional debate are routine and well-established means of gathering intent for such things as seeing if a law is being correctly interpreted. What you stated is not my point understood correctly. Okay so your opinion on the example I asked about? I was busy editing my post on that matter while you posted, and you can find it there.
I'm confused by your response.
On May 10 2017 02:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:If we're striking down laws for being unconstitutional by using the stated intent of the authors then there's a good number of anti felon voting laws in the American South which need to be looked at. The President of the constitutional convention in Alabama that disenfranchised felons stated that the objective of the amendment to the state constitution was to establish white supremacy in this state. I wager you've seen the fourteenth amendment, which has been used in these cases in the past: Show nested quote +But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
The question is this. Is the constitutionality of Alabama's racially neutral felon disenfranchisement law impacted by the fact that the author of it explicitly intended it to be used with the racist control of the legal system to selectively disenfranchise African American voters? If you could answer in a yes or no that'd be great.
|
|
|
That seems wildly unlikely as a tactic to convince Graham there are no business ties.
|
On May 10 2017 06:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 06:17 Nevuk wrote:On May 10 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 05:38 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, might I ask you to respond to my earlier query? If I understand your point correctly you want only the language of a law to be considered and don't think the intent, as stated by the person drafting the law, matters. In the case of a racially neutral law that the framer intended to be combined with racist institutions to deprive African Americans of their constitutional rights would you not agree that the broader context matters? No, I think a judge's interpretation of statements made on the campaign trail shouldn't be considered a sufficient indicator of intent in a law otherwise constitutional and non-discriminatory. Drafting statements, a presidential televised/radio address, congressional subcommittees and congressional debate are routine and well-established means of gathering intent for such things as seeing if a law is being correctly interpreted. What you stated is not my point understood correctly. There's not very much interpretation being done on Trump's statements though. What else could he have meant by calling for a complete and total shutdown on Muslims entering the country? Deliberate provocation of the media, statements made before he was advised on the real ways to fight radical Islamic terrorists, and statements meant to incite the parts of his base very little informed on the matter. I heard none of this Muslim ban nonsense from Trump in the White House or his cabine or VP. Then he flubs one EO, but absolutely nails the next one. When we see no intent manifested, no statements of intent from the Oval Office, why write in discrimination in an order that does not discriminate? It boggles the mind.
I’ve met a lot of people who claim they are not racist, but have huge problems with black culture that they can provide to me in painful detail. The fact that the order specifically points out that is isn’t designed to discrimination seems to be the lady protesting to much.
|
On May 10 2017 06:36 Nevuk wrote:That seems wildly unlikely as a tactic to convince Graham there are no business ties.
I like how he hired a law firm in DC to send a certified letter and then told us about it like it is impressive or something. Rather than just providing the press with a copy of the letter or using the phone to call the senator.
|
|
|
Wow, this is disgraceful. I've just lost all respect for Trump.
I wonder how the agents of the FBI will react to this.
|
On May 10 2017 06:34 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 06:25 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:21 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:15 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 05:38 KwarK wrote:
Danglars, might I ask you to respond to my earlier query? If I understand your point correctly you want only the language of a law to be considered and don't think the intent, as stated by the person drafting the law, matters. In the case of a racially neutral law that the framer intended to be combined with racist institutions to deprive African Americans of their constitutional rights would you not agree that the broader context matters? No, I think a judge's interpretation of statements made on the campaign trail shouldn't be considered a sufficient indicator of intent in a law otherwise constitutional and non-discriminatory. Drafting statements, a presidential televised/radio address, congressional subcommittees and congressional debate are routine and well-established means of gathering intent for such things as seeing if a law is being correctly interpreted. What you stated is not my point understood correctly. Okay so your opinion on the example I asked about? I was busy editing my post on that matter while you posted, and you can find it there. I'm confused by your response. Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 02:35 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 02:31 KwarK wrote:If we're striking down laws for being unconstitutional by using the stated intent of the authors then there's a good number of anti felon voting laws in the American South which need to be looked at. The President of the constitutional convention in Alabama that disenfranchised felons stated that the objective of the amendment to the state constitution was to establish white supremacy in this state. I wager you've seen the fourteenth amendment, which has been used in these cases in the past: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State. The question is this. Is the constitutionality of Alabama's racially neutral felon disenfranchisement law impacted by the fact that the author of it explicitly intended it to be used with the racist control of the legal system to selectively disenfranchise African American voters? If you could answer in a yes or no that'd be great.
If it's constitutional to deprive felons of the vote, in this case absolutely written in by amendment, it doesn't matter if Alabama had bad motives for enforcing it. It's inherently constitutional. Now, if that's the only reason for the law to be on the books, to deprive blacks of the vote, absolutely Alabama's citizens should agitate for its removal. If the only reason for that section of the 14th amendment was for white supremacist motives, then the country's citizens should organize to amend the constitution again. I don't see why any one author has rights to its intent if it was voted on by a people's assembly, but you'd have to produce the debate in their legislature. I can think of other reasons to prohibit felons from voting that were unintended by one representative, but absolutely figured into the vote of another ... not to throw the baby out with the racist bath water.
|
And now shit gets real. Republicans are going to be able to provide ZERO cover on this one.
|
I'm just wondering what the reason is. Takes some pretty magical thinking to fire the person who made you president
|
What do we think was the straw that broke the camel's back? Was he just looking for an excuse and got one today? Also, this doesnt help his optics in this whole investigation. If he expects the FBI and others to just go away then he is going to be disappointed.
|
Not surprising from a petty president. Somewhat ironic to fire the person who was partly responsible for you being in office.
|
On May 10 2017 06:51 On_Slaught wrote:What do we think was the straw that broke the camel's back? Also, this doesnt help his optics in this whole investigation. If he expects the FBI and others to just go away then he is going to be disappointed.
I honestly think Trump was on his way out. I think Comey was allowing an investigation making some truly significant anti-Trump progress. I would not be surprised to see some massive leaks occur soon.
|
On May 10 2017 06:49 Nevuk wrote:
I'm just wondering what the reason is. Takes some pretty magical thinking to fire the person who made you president
I would not at all be surprised to hear if it has something to do with Clinton and how he thinks Comey botched the e-mail investigation.
|
So are liberals happy Comey is gone since he's the reason Hillary lost?
What if part of why he was firing him was for the letter?
|
|
|
It is Nixon without having to wait the full 2 years. The senate is going to lose their mind. The fact that Sessions recommended is also pretty telling. But then again, Sessions is a petty power hungry bitch.
|
Does the FBI head have to be confirmed or is he just selected and off he goes?
|
Uh the same Sessions that recused himself from the investigation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
