|
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. |
United States43607 Posts
On May 10 2017 06:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 06:34 KwarK wrote: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. 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.
Again I'm going to play "if I understand you correctly".
You're saying that a law that the author said was intended to "establish white supremacy in this state" (and incidentally was and still is used for exactly that) isn't unconstitutional because although they specified that it was to apply only to black people when talking about it they left that part out when they wrote it down.
And that you want the people of the state that has just established white supremacy as their constitutional foundation to end that themselves in the ballot box which they have just deprived to the African American population? We're only a little bit short of asking the slaves to vote against slavery at this point.
And it wasn't one author, it was the president of the constitutional convention who said that it was to establish white supremacy. Following the end of slavery they feared losing political control so while they enshrined felon disenfranchisement in order to use their control of the legal system to systematically disenfranchise African Americans. It's a historical fact.
How are you not able to condemn this as unconstitutional?
Honestly I set the Alabama example up as an easy situation for you to go "yeah, sure, obviously some things aren't constitutional but campaign speeches are a different case". I wasn't expecting you to go full "white supremacy is a state's rights issue and the white supremacist state should decide for itself whether it needs to allow black people to vote". You've disappointed me.
|
On May 10 2017 06:52 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Even that would not be enough to hold water.
|
So how does this work now? Does the FBI select someone from within to take over? Is it a Trump appointee? If he can place another inept crony to the post, I'm worried whatever investigation has been going on can be seriously stifled.
|
On May 10 2017 06:56 crms wrote:
So how does this work now? Does the FBI select someone from within to take over? Is it a Trump appointee? If he can place another inept crony to the post, I'm worried whatever investigation has been going on can be seriously stifled.
Yeah, what a farce. How are we supposed to trust a fair investigation into Russian interference now? Comey was a person of integrity, he may have been wrong but he wasn't a crook.
|
On May 10 2017 06:54 On_Slaught wrote:
Does the FBI head have to be confirmed or is he just selected and off he goes?
The FBI director is confirmed by congress for 10 year terms. They are supposed to survive several administrations. Apparently Trump wants to make sure this Russia investigation stops now.
I also like how Sessions and Trump provide zero reasons for this firing.
|
gonna lose my mind if Christie ends up replacing Comey
|
|
|
I'm actually upset about this. James Comey called out the DOJ for being biased with Lynch at the head in the previous testimony, and I'm sure Jeff Sessions didn't want the same to happen to him. This is purely a protective maneuver.
|
Let the impeachment begin. Time to grow a spine Congress. You are not getting healthcare, not getting a tax cut. Give it up GOP, you now have to police the dumpster fire in the White House.
Edit: I would also like to thank all the conservatives to said Sessions was fine. And the Senators who voted to confirm him.
|
Makes no sense, keep in mind the Trump Administration said they were not going to follow up with a Clinton investigation.
|
Watching republicans say this isn't a terrifying development is going to be really frustrating.
|
The flip flopping we are doing on Comey is hilarious.
|
I wouldn't be surprised at all if Comey had much better favorables with the public than most of the Senate, and definitely better than Trump
|
United States43607 Posts
On May 10 2017 07:03 Plansix wrote:
Let the impeachment begin. Time to grow a spine Congress. You are not getting healthcare, not getting a tax cut. Give it up GOP, you now have to police the dumpster fire in the White House.
No chance. They're cowards.
|
On May 10 2017 07:04 Mohdoo wrote:
Watching republicans say this isn't a terrifying development is going to be really frustrating.
Comey will probably be being questioned by the Senate in a couple of months, and Ted Cruz will open with the question "But her emails!" to him.
|
This sounds like Sessions wants to charge Clinton.
|
On May 10 2017 07:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:03 Plansix wrote:
Let the impeachment begin. Time to grow a spine Congress. You are not getting healthcare, not getting a tax cut. Give it up GOP, you now have to police the dumpster fire in the White House. No chance. They're cowards.
Of course. They are going to try an act like everything is normal while the rails come off things.
|
gotta love the bit about "should've listened to lorretta lynch" after bitching about her being biased last year
|
Fucking called that shit! Clinton is his big win and it riles his base. We're back to "lock her up" chants.
|
On May 10 2017 06:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
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 doesn't matter how incompetent 'liberals' feel Comey is at his job for the optics of this development.
Trump just fired the man leading an investigation into him. There is no spin that will make this look like anything but a desperate attempt at obstructing the investigation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/jr8btVV.jpg)
