|
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 07:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:33 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 07:24 xDaunt wrote:On May 10 2017 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 07:04 Introvert wrote:
The flip flopping we are doing on Comey is hilarious.
Now he's a martyr, formerly the living reason Clinton was not elected. I think Comey handled badly. And if Trump fired him a week after taking office I would not have complained. But for god stakes you cannot ignore the timing of this. There never was going to be a good time for Comey to go. It was always going to look bad. Regardless of the timing, the need for getting rid of him is pretty obvious, which the Deputy AG laid out well. I know a good time. How about January the 24th. The day Trump told Comey he wants to keep him on as head of the FBI? How about any day in which Comey is not publicly heading up an investigation into the very man firing him. FFS you claim to be a lawyer. Do you not see the issue here? Ofcourse you do, you just can't accept that Trump fucked up massively. What specifically is wrong with the timing now? My guess is that Comey gave Trump assurances in January that he'd shut up and stop making so many public announcements politicizing the bureau's work.
I think Comey is supposed to testify on the Russia probe tomorrow. Also, the AG's letter to Trump recommending the firing specifically mentions Comey's handling of last year's Clinton email investigation as the reason for the recommendation. Considering how Trump mentioned right after his inauguration that he had full confidence in keeping Comey on board, it's weird to see him firing him right now allegedly because of an investigation from last year.
|
On May 10 2017 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:Now he's a martyr, formerly the living reason Clinton was not elected. I think Comey handled badly. And if Trump fired him a week after taking office I would not have complained. But for god stakes you cannot ignore the timing of this.
Yes you can. The letter didn't say he was fired for the Russia investigation, so it's ridiculous to think it could possibly mean otherwise.
|
On May 10 2017 07:47 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. On May 10 2017 07:33 Adreme wrote:On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. Clinton is not stupid enough to have her name mentioned alongside Nixon as people who have fired FBI directors. Trump already has a lot of Nixon like tendencies and he is not a president you want to be compared to. The president appointing a new FBI director is normal as Obama is the exception. Firing him the first day would be strange, but the FBI director being replaced during the first year is completely normal. Um that actually untrue. In fact I just went and looked up every single FBI director since Nixon in order to confirm that you are wrong and you are wrong. It is not common for a president to replace them. In fact it has not happened a single time since Nixon or before that going back to 1935 (though J Edgar Hoover was head of the FBI for almost 37 years of that). He is literally doing what Nixon did and seemingly for the exact same reasons.
Robert Muller started serving in 2001 which is the first year of President Bush. He also served the first term of President Obama, but as I said, he is the exception. Louis Freeh started serving in 1993 which is the first year of President Clinton. Webster and Sessions I'd be willing to let you dispute, but if you just look at the number of directors who have served 10 years or more the answer is two whereas there have been seven directors. If they have ten years terms and only two out of seven have served that long were they not replaced?
From another post it seems like pointing out that they haven't been fired. Alright that is true, but irrelevant to my point that directors do not typically serve their full 10 years as appointed.
|
On May 10 2017 07:57 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:Now he's a martyr, formerly the living reason Clinton was not elected. I think Comey handled badly. And if Trump fired him a week after taking office I would not have complained. But for god stakes you cannot ignore the timing of this. Yes you can. The letter didn't say he was fired for the Russia investigation, so it's ridiculous to think it could possibly mean otherwise.
Trumps letter did say that he was fired for telling the President he wasn't being investigated 3 times.
|
If Republicans don't authorize an independent investigation now, they should all be voted out in 2018.
|
On May 10 2017 07:57 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:Now he's a martyr, formerly the living reason Clinton was not elected. I think Comey handled badly. And if Trump fired him a week after taking office I would not have complained. But for god stakes you cannot ignore the timing of this. Yes you can. The letter didn't say he was fired for the Russia investigation, so it's ridiculous to think it could possibly mean otherwise.
Did you just say that because Trump's stated rationale isn't the Russia investigation, it's ridiculous to believe the real reason is the Russia investigation?
|
On May 10 2017 07:53 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:47 IgnE wrote:On May 10 2017 07:45 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 07:42 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:55 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:48 Danglars wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're opening this up into a whole can of worms that I don't have the time nor inclination to address. You have a lot of debatable points couched in "if I understand you correctly." It would take nothing short of a history exploration on the civil war and reconstruction. We fought a giant war on the issue. I'm not expecting current conflicts in the law and representatives to be resolved in the same way. When I pointed out that the fourteenth amendment expressly says voting rights may be restricted, that's the constitution. You want it unconstitutional, amend the constitution. So restricting voting rights of African Americans as part of a deliberate effort to create a white supremacist state is constitutional and legal until such a time as that white supremacist state decides to stop. Got it. it's prima facie valid no matter what the state legislator said. you would have to prove that it's application was discriminatory in a more detailed way than simply proving that "poor black men get arrested more frequently than white people." But the application was discriminatory. They stood up and said "let's pass this law so niggers can't vote" and then they passed the law and then they used the law to stop black people from voting. This happened 116 years ago. We can check. The whole purpose of the law was to return control of the franchise to the discriminatory institutions run by white supremacists. They literally said that's what they were doing. Of course the application was discriminatory, the whole point was to be a way to target non-whites.
no dude i am using "application" to mean the processes of the justice system. the racist legislator that proposed the law and said those things didn't arrest anyone or sentence anyone. i understand what you are saying but the law is prima facie valid. you can certainly imagine a scenario in which a legislator passes this law and it turns out the police and judiciary end up arresting and sentencing more whites than blacks, thwarting the legislator's intended purpose, right? it takes a racist department of justice to make law as youve presented it unconstitutional
|
|
|
On May 10 2017 08:05 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:57 Gahlo wrote:On May 10 2017 07:21 Gorsameth wrote:On May 10 2017 07:16 Danglars wrote:Now he's a martyr, formerly the living reason Clinton was not elected. I think Comey handled badly. And if Trump fired him a week after taking office I would not have complained. But for god stakes you cannot ignore the timing of this. Yes you can. The letter didn't say he was fired for the Russia investigation, so it's ridiculous to think it could possibly mean otherwise. Did you just say that because Trump's stated rationale isn't the Russia investigation, it's ridiculous to believe the real reason is the Russia investigation?
Go back and do a quick skim of the last 4-5 pages of this thread. I'm being satirical.
|
On May 10 2017 07:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:52 IgnE wrote:On May 10 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 07:44 IgnE wrote:
i agree w danglars that the Alabama white supremacist law is constitutional so long as its not only applied to black people. there are white felons you know. The problem being that they said that they wrote it so that they could turn black voters into felons using their control of the legal system. And then they did exactly that. The situation wasn't that the black population just happened to be felons already and just happened to get disenfranchised. The white majority said that anyone convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude" would be ineligible to vote and then deliberately set out to maximize the number of black people who met that description. You can't say that a law is racially neutral and that it impacts anyone who meets the description regardless of race when the guy controlling the description is currently wearing a Klan hood and the guy who wrote the racially neutral law said he intended it to establish white supremacy through the exploitation of their control of the legal system. Well, I mean Danglars can, but he shouldn't. ok well you havent made your case. which crimes are crimes of moral turpitude? That's the best fucking part man. They never actually defined which crimes are crimes of moral turpitude. It's up to the local registrars in the voting districts of Alabama to decide on a case by case basis which felons are allowed to vote and which aren't. White guy has a DUI, not moral turpitude, he can vote. Black guy has a DUI, moral turpitude, he can never vote again, no appeal. Hasn't been defined for the entire 116 years of this rule being in effect. But they did research on it and you'll never guess what they found. Turns out if you're black, you're not voting. Which is exactly how the President of the Alabama constitutional convention in 1901 said it was meant to work.
ok well i dont know the details and they werent presented to danglars in your original query. if all you say is true im sure the law could be ruled unconstitutional. maybe it is if this law s 116 years old. maybe some links would help
but surely you can see that in the hypothetical way you presented it the legislator's comments aren't dispositive
|
On May 10 2017 07:58 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:47 Adreme wrote:On May 10 2017 07:35 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. On May 10 2017 07:33 Adreme wrote:On May 10 2017 07:30 Zaros wrote:
Clinton probably would have sacked him day 1 hes lucky to have survived this long. Clinton is not stupid enough to have her name mentioned alongside Nixon as people who have fired FBI directors. Trump already has a lot of Nixon like tendencies and he is not a president you want to be compared to. The president appointing a new FBI director is normal as Obama is the exception. Firing him the first day would be strange, but the FBI director being replaced during the first year is completely normal. Um that actually untrue. In fact I just went and looked up every single FBI director since Nixon in order to confirm that you are wrong and you are wrong. It is not common for a president to replace them. In fact it has not happened a single time since Nixon or before that going back to 1935 (though J Edgar Hoover was head of the FBI for almost 37 years of that). He is literally doing what Nixon did and seemingly for the exact same reasons. Robert Muller started serving in 2001 which is the first year of President Bush. He also served the first term of President Obama, but as I said, he is the exception. Louis Freeh started serving in 1993 which is the first year of President Clinton. Webster and Sessions I'd be willing to let you dispute, but if you just look at the number of directors who have served 10 years or more the answer is two whereas there have been seven directors. If they have ten years terms and only two out of seven have served that long were they not replaced?
Basically the title of director has been held by 7 individuals and now 7 individuals now who can claim to be interim director of the FBI. For the directors Hoover served until his death, Kelly retired after almost 5 years of his term, Webster served his term, Sessions had to be removed due to a rather bad ethics scandal (that I actually wrote a paper on so I should have remembered that), Freech served 7 years before resigning due to calls that the FBI needed better leadership after it came out they had a mole for years who was not very good at hiding himself, then Mueller who you cited served 12 years and then Comey was fired for investigating Trump.
Of the 6 applicable temps Gray was put in place to replace Hoover who died and served less than a year, Ruckelshouse (probably spelling that wrong) served only about 2 months and then resigned rather then follow an order to fire the watergate prosecutor, Adams served a week in between kelley and webster, Otto served for 5 months in between Sessians and then Clarke and Mueller also served in between directors.
Hopefully you enjoyed that brief history lesson and now have context.
|
The FBI is conducting an investigation of Trump's campaign; Trump fired the FBI director citing rationale that contradicts one of Trump's main campaign statements (lock her up). At a minimum, there needs to be a special prosecutor.
|
|
|
United States42887 Posts
On May 10 2017 08:09 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:56 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 07:52 IgnE wrote:On May 10 2017 07:49 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 07:44 IgnE wrote:
i agree w danglars that the Alabama white supremacist law is constitutional so long as its not only applied to black people. there are white felons you know. The problem being that they said that they wrote it so that they could turn black voters into felons using their control of the legal system. And then they did exactly that. The situation wasn't that the black population just happened to be felons already and just happened to get disenfranchised. The white majority said that anyone convicted of a crime of "moral turpitude" would be ineligible to vote and then deliberately set out to maximize the number of black people who met that description. You can't say that a law is racially neutral and that it impacts anyone who meets the description regardless of race when the guy controlling the description is currently wearing a Klan hood and the guy who wrote the racially neutral law said he intended it to establish white supremacy through the exploitation of their control of the legal system. Well, I mean Danglars can, but he shouldn't. ok well you havent made your case. which crimes are crimes of moral turpitude? That's the best fucking part man. They never actually defined which crimes are crimes of moral turpitude. It's up to the local registrars in the voting districts of Alabama to decide on a case by case basis which felons are allowed to vote and which aren't. White guy has a DUI, not moral turpitude, he can vote. Black guy has a DUI, moral turpitude, he can never vote again, no appeal. Hasn't been defined for the entire 116 years of this rule being in effect. But they did research on it and you'll never guess what they found. Turns out if you're black, you're not voting. Which is exactly how the President of the Alabama constitutional convention in 1901 said it was meant to work. ok well i dont know the details and they werent presented to danglars in your original query. if all you say is true im sure the law could be ruled unconstitutional. maybe it is if this law s 116 years old. maybe some links would help but surely you can see that in the hypothetical way you presented it the legislator's comments aren't dispositive
http://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdf
But again, they literally said why they were doing it, how it was intended to work and what the desired result was when they wrote it. If ever there was a case to be made that the intent of the author changes the constitutionality of the law, this one does.
[In 1861], as now, the negro was the prominent factor in the issue. . . . And what is it that we want to do? Why it is
within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this State. . . . The justification for
whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. . . . These
provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his
race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition.”—
John B. Knox, president of the Alabama Constitutional Convention of 1901, in his opening address
I mean come on. At a certain point you don't need to go "hey now, hold on a minute, let's not be too hasty to judge 'The Law For The Manipulation Of The Ballot To End The Menace Of Negro Domination And Enshrine White Supremacy', we need to see how it's actually enforced".
|
I'm enjoying the new trend of chanting shame at GOP congress critters when they have to go into the public.
|
Republicans who praised Comey for going around the Justice Department due to his suspicions of Lynch's complicity with the Clintons, are now saying Trump is right to remove Comey for having done so. At some point you have to recognize your bias.
|
On May 10 2017 07:45 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 07:42 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 06:55 KwarK wrote:On May 10 2017 06:48 Danglars wrote: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. You're opening this up into a whole can of worms that I don't have the time nor inclination to address. You have a lot of debatable points couched in "if I understand you correctly." It would take nothing short of a history exploration on the civil war and reconstruction. We fought a giant war on the issue. I'm not expecting current conflicts in the law and representatives to be resolved in the same way. When I pointed out that the fourteenth amendment expressly says voting rights may be restricted, that's the constitution. You want it unconstitutional, amend the constitution. So restricting voting rights of African Americans as part of a deliberate effort to create a white supremacist state is constitutional and legal until such a time as that white supremacist state decides to stop. Got it.
LOL You always did find a way to keep it classy. But why fight a civil war if Kwark's constitutional theory involves neither the people, nor the president, nor the legislature, but judges making up what's constitutional or not constitutional as they go along? I mean you're morally bankrupt and all that, but at least you're consistent in one respect. The constitution is a paper meant to be rewritten or ignored at leisure and governments do not derive their power from the consent of the governed.
|
|
|
On May 10 2017 07:27 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On May 10 2017 03:28 Danglars wrote:On May 10 2017 03:16 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 12:41 Danglars wrote:On May 09 2017 11:20 zlefin wrote:On May 09 2017 09:42 Danglars wrote:
ACLU lawyer says a different candidate might have issued Trump's EO and it would be constitutional in that case, vs unconstitutional in Trump's case. This is the fourth circuit court of appeals. I had no idea the identity of the person in the office influences what constitutional actions he or she could take. of course it does; or rather, for the question of intent it does. IIRC this is similar to the legal principle of good faith. e.g. relying in good faith on the advice of your lawyer as to what is legal immunizes you against getting in trouble. the good faith part is so you can't find a lawyer to just tell you murder is fine. for anti-discrimination and some other things, there's a rule that basically says if your intent is to discriminate, it doesn't matter whether the policy is facially neutral. which is again to prevent people from using bs lies to get around the law. the identity and prior actions of the person in the office affect the determination of intent. Well, it's nice to know you don't care about executive orders for what they actually are, just what the person issuing them said on the campaign trail prior to the presidency. Or, in your terms, the murder doesn't actually matter, what matters is if you said stuff about justified killings prior to the act. I was being reasonable and pointing to well grounded principles of law and ethics. you are not, and are naysaying without an actual sound argument. you are trolling. please don't troll. I'll try to put it into your terms. I didn't see an actual sound argument in the first place from you. This is presidential campaigning and I'm sad to say campaign promises don't always come true and Trump contradicts himself on a regular basis if you don't cherry pick your quotes. If you ask me this boils down to the exteriorization of Law (ie the EO) in order to institute a hierarchal sacred order. we cannot tell what Trump means whenhe speaks, only when he writes laws. law becomes sacred writing imbued with the parousia that makes possible plain meaning. isn't that what we mean by "rule of law?" the conflict of interpretation takes place in the arena of execution. what is the meaning of the law and to whom? don't you find it discomforting, for example, to be forced to make choices about which judge has the right interpretation? doesn't the idea of "judge" itself already undermine the idea of "plain meaning" from the beginning? perhaps the most discomforting part is the centrality of a certain person's statement that the "same" EO might be (un)constitutional depending on who wrote it? who executed it? what is the place of the Law as sacred instituting order and what is the place of politics in the act of judging? maybe we should be thinking about Trump as crisis; that which destabilizes and delegitimates the sacral hierarchy. practically speaking if the executive branch and the judicial branch are at war (in the scenario where the EO1/2 is struck down) might that not mean that the Constitutional order itself is threatened? and if it is, how can we say that it is the "fault" of one or the other?
In that respect, the Constitutional order is threatened, certainly. But drawing from the founders and the constitution, the fault does lie in judges ill content to interpret the law, but rather to insert their politics on the playing field. It was designed to be weakest. Now it holds the field on foreign policy and domestic security. Tomorrow, what?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
