Honestly who gives a shit about Conway blathering on about the Bowling Green Massacre when this crap is going on:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/n...-oman-n1017066

I wish I could trust my government about such things but who knows who did this.

If I'm trump and I don't care about rules, ethics, only winning at all costs, I create deepfakes for every single D candidate, then a couple for myself, enough to blame them for saying whatever you want to make them say, then blame them for trying to create one for you. The entire concept of deepfakes are to continue to sew discord. It's the russia model to the max, executed perfectly. Who knows what is right, wrong, who said what? All dumb public knows is what they see and whatever trump says is right, so how do you play that up as much as possible? This is a true threat to the future of our country and the future of free and open elections. It's the constant manipulation through the constant attacking and questioning of reality. Reality will always be malleable and will always be in question. It's a brutal world to exist in.

dola


I think I called out the president for his choice to reach out to the public via twitter. What is happening now in regard to the presidency being beholden to the public is exactly what I was worried about. No more press conferences. No more taking questions from the public, only friendly fox news. Instead you have 100% control of the narrative by using twitter, in some manner of 'maybe it's official, maybe it's not, who knows?" fashion. You have the propoganda machine hard at work for you, and then suddenly we look very much like Russia and, and, we have people who want it like that, and are cheering that on.

Trump's 40-42% core supporters are solid. If those number haven't gone/stayed down by now ... it never will.

TBH, I don't see Twitter, Russian bots (speaking as a disinterested third party of course :)) etc. as swinging 2020 elections. People know what and who Trump is by now. Unlike Russia, there is still a healthy freedom of the press and plenty of real news to counter the plenty of fake news.

I see 2 major things for the Dems to win. They need to get united under a candidate (hear that Bernie?) and they better hope the economy is not going gang busters.

I love how the argument on election influence is so linear, like the Russians are going to take out ads that say 'vote trump!', and the rational is that 'hey, that won't sway anyone, because...numbers! So therefore they can't have and didn't have any influence whatsoever!

I'm sure Russia impacted the 2016 election. Was it significant enough to take Trump over the top - probably not. I blame it more on Comey, Hillary's campaign strategy failure & likability.

Except it it shouldn't matter what contributed more when it's about minimizing outside influence. That's like saying a referee being paid to make 3 deliberately wrong calls for a team didn't influence the game enough to cry about it, since the loosing team screwed up all by themselves the rest of the game.

I mean, so what if you think it wasn't the biggest factor or even a big factor (or the loosing party was to blame themselves) ? Is that really the standard you want to set ?

Shouldn't the "greatest country/democracy in the world" have the ambition to have their highest office decided independently from foreign meddling ? Or maybe it's just easy to accept being on the wrong side of that particular issue for a change ('being meddled' rather than meddling*), who knows.


* which Trump is actively endorsing as well, mind you.

80,000 people in 3 states were the difference. I don't know if that was enough, but I'm sure it helped. The campaigns were very targeted in part to the Trump campaign sharing internal polling data with the Russians.

I’m inclined to think that if we have 80K eligible voters in the whole country, let alone three states, who are tractable and/or stupid enough to have their votes impacted by a Russian propaganda campaign, we’ve got much bigger problems in our system than Trump or Russians.

Russia was able to organize protests and political rallies in the US using facebook. We have a lot of problems.

A lot of people including the President, his son, his staff, and a number of US Senators routinely re-tweeted and replied to fake Russian accounts online. Not to mention many in the media.

This was a fairly sophisticated propaganda campaign.

Again, not sure if that was the difference or not. But the difference in 80,000 votes among 129 million cast is small.

I think it's very naive to minimize the impact Russian propaganda had on the election and is having on our country right now. The anti-vaxxer movement is Russia's latest attempt to destabilize and divide our country.

This isn't a group of people just tossing shit out there on twitter and facebook. There's science and research behind what they're doing and who, specifically, they're targeting.

Russia didn't just do a great job of pushing Trump as a candidate, they also made sure Hilary was as divisive a candidate as they could possibly make her and were wildly successful in doing so. It wouldn't just take changing the votes of 80,000 people. Making sure the dirty on Hillary stuck with the public keeps some people at home as well. That's just as effective as changing a vote.

A large portion of people in this country still fail to see a country that sees us as it's enemy as an enemy. We have a President that sees a country that would rather have us wiped off the map as a reliable ally. Russia is more of a threat to our democracy than Trump and his administration because until we actually confront Russia on this they're going to continue to look for Trumps to help put in office and ways to destabilize our country.

I think the hacked e-mails were a pretty big part of the campaign. Not sure if it convinced 80k people to vote one way or the other but it was covered like it.

In an election that close, everything made the difference, Russian efforts, Hillary's campaign choices, Comey, all the Trump free media, etc.

It's not even 80k votes though. It's only 40K that have to switch sides

Because of the Russian impact on last election, we are now more aware and therefore it is less of a threat.

My original post was


Forget Trump being a (possibly) "illegitimate" President, the Mueller's report impact on Trump popularity is a dud (well until possibly Pelosi starts impeachment), he's not going to lose his 40-42% support.

Its how the Dems can win the undecided, encourage the registered Dems to vote in larger % than they did last time etc. with a good candidate and, they better figure out messaging if the economy is doing really well next year.

Question to you:

I'm pretty sure we all believe Russia impacted the 2016 election we just differ on degree. The yes/no question is - do you believe Russian interference was the reason why Trump was elected over Hillary?

I believe the answer is no (or at least there is not evidence enough) and say the risk is even less in the future because of awareness, and its time to move on from this as a political message. If Trump wins a second term, it legitimizes him.

I buy this. But its not all equal.

I know this is not your complete list but if you had to number, where would Russian efforts list? For me, its not at the top of the list.

They are all tied for #1. Take away any of them and it could have swung the election to Hillary. 80,000 votes just isn't much, even if you limit the pool to only three states. It's only a little more than 0.5% of the votes cast in those three states.

Boris the Message Board Troll has spoken

Name fits.

The flaw in your logic is people who are stupid enough to be swayed by facebook propaganda are too stupid to realize they are being swayed by facebook propaganda.

I have several older family members who are Trump supporters that blindly share that stuff on Facebook, and never once stop to think that they are being manipulated by someone who it making efforts to divide us. They take it all at face value.

I chuckled because there is truth in this. Hopefully, they don't go out and vote.

They will.

Virtually every Trump supporter will vote him blindly. It's his biggest advantage.

Eh, a lot of people still get their news from state media here like they do in Russia.

There is free press, but it's not particularly healthy. Lack of investment by companies and a reliance on stories that generate revenue, not necessarily inform the public. This has also led to aggregators putting sites like Infowars at the same level as regular news media.

It used to be 80-20 where the news is reported vs opinion and now it seems to be more 80% is opinion (and fake or exaggerated news). The Cronkite days are gone but this is the reality nowadays and in the foreseeable future.

Anyone that takes Infowars seriously is a lost cause and a fringe on the bell curve. Anyone that believes Russian propaganda on FB without first checking for corroboration is another example. We have much more awareness now of the Russkies and their evil plots.

Its an evolution of the Cronkite-like free press to current state and I do believe our younger generations are smart enough to read, filter, assess and make appropriate decisions for themselves with the current state of news.

They're not. They're not even close. I'm not saying other generations are better. Going back to something I posted a few weeks ago:


There are other examples, but it's well-documented that Americans are simply not informed enough, by their own choice, to make remotely intelligent decisions politically.

Can you provide the source? When I google, I am finding Millennial's are better educated, socially aware, and definitely more tech savvy.

Maybe the old standards of knowing American government/history is not the right way to measure current generation?

The funny thing is that this was exactly what the framers were thinking too. They didn't want a monarchy, but they knew the the poor farmers were never going to be good enough to actually be the leadership. The concept of the gentleman lords was simply carried over, without all the language that said that, but they were certainly thinking it.

So I can't get past some things with Iran.


What exactly differentiates Iran from North Korea? I mean, I could argue, that Iran is so much closer to the US in terms of culture and freedoms it's not even close. But specifically..


Why are there not good people on both sides?
Why is the president willing to believe another strong arm leader's "very strong words," but makes a point not to believe Iran's?


I'm not saying that Iran is free from blame, or shouldn't be strongly questioned, but there are some questions that are raised regarding weapons, words, and posturing between the three countries that show, at the very least, that the current US leadership is playing with two sets of cards, and that has to make people nervous. I just want to get to the bottom line of what makes that behavior, and why are the same people who are cheering for trump, not seeing it?

All in for Senator Steve Daines as he proposes an Amendment for a strong BAN on burning our American Flag. A no brainer!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 15, 2019

lol not this bullshit again.

Good question. They are both threats but in different ways. NK only has the nuke threat whereas Iran has the low-intensity terrorism, working against US interests version. NK can launch nukes (but who knows how successfully), Iran isn't there yet.

I think he probably thinks he can make a deal with NK whereas he had to strike down a deal with Iran because it was a Obama win. Because he struck down that deal, he now has to prove how "bad" Iran is.

Just my guess.

Iran supports terrorist organizations in the ME. When they have money they prop those organizations up. This further destabilizes an already unstable area.

NK is a rogue state that is poor and might have nukes.

Both are bad to USA interests. In different way.

And with Oil being "THE" resource, guess which state is worse?

And why arent we more involved in bringing democracy to Sudan? Oh yeah, the Saudis like a suppressed country with a leader they can control and we dont want to piss off the saudis.

That pesky first amendment.

These countries (Iran, Afghanistan, North Korea, etc) also happen to border our two rivals ("enemies") in the Cold War that is still going on in most of the Neo-cons heads. It's the Soviet Union's South American strategy from the 1970's... but of course since the US is doing it we are good guys right?

One side's terrorist organizations are another sides "freedom fighters". I'm actually a supporter of the Israeli State but to act like Israel and the United States play by the rules while the dark skinned are fully supporters of terror is why this mess is the way it is in the Middle East.

Or you choose sides. Because of the tribal ways of the ME, you are right, one mans freedom fighter is another mans terrorist group or supported by the white devil.

Annenberg Public Policy Center

You can see from the article, if you choose to read it, that the general trend here is in the wrong direction if it's moving at all. That's not what we would expect if younger generations are more informed.


I'd disagree with this mostly strongly. I don't think you need to know much history - that's probably not that interesting a topic to debate. But if you don't know the branches of government, you can't intelligently vote for Representative, Senator, or President. What we're saying here is that most Americans vote for people literally not knowing what their job is supposed to be at the most basic level. Again, this is just the most basic, entry-level, fundamental requirement to have any chance of make a decent choice. It's like an adult in their private life knowing how to pay their bills or put their socks on. Millennials may well be more tech-savvy, socially aware, and a great many other positive things, but that has zilch to do with this IMO.


We definitely have a rare point of agreement here.

Thanks for the article but it doesn't segregate by age group (as many here would point out, there are plenty of dumbass boomers).

But there is hope! The article below groups 18-50 and then 50+, so its Gen X, Gen Y (Millennials). Check out table in middle of article.

Younger Americans better at telling factual news statements from opinions | Pew Research Center

BTW - there is the quiz on the bottom but I was not able to take/click through it (not sure why, it may be broken).

I do agree. The label of Freedom fighter vs Terrorist is due to winners being able to write the history books and being able to influence the press, public opinion etc.

So the POTUS suggested in a tweet today not leaving office when two terms would be up. Truly frightening stuff.

Well, you know, if he isn't reelected, that it was rigged, and he'll need to stay in office to 'investigate' to preserve democracy.

So if we go back to the constitution then, are we to take that into account when we apply it today? Because, that's really all I hear about when we talk about it. Is that how it should be applied today?

Is there any betting action on how long it will take Trump to retweet OJ? He seems quite friendly with murderers.

I read someone saying the smart business decision would be for OJ to go full MAGA.

I don't know what you mean.

When interpreting the constitution we typically hear, " this is what the framers meant when they put this in the constitution." As in, we cannot change the intent of the original framers, even though society, culture and norms change. Yet, in situations like this, we know what they were thinking, because we knew what backgrounds they came from and we have a lot of their writings, yet, we don't deal with that particular framing, understanding, or definition for the way the constitution is applied today? Should the standard be one or the other, or is it a situation where some things we can say one thing, and for other things we can say another?



This isn't meant to be a call out or anything, it's a genuine question. Perhaps I'm off base on with the way I'm looking at it, but that's the way it seems.

I think it's mostly people will go to the original intent when it suits their needs. I see people do it for all sorts of issues, both sides of the aisle. It's just another form of argumentation.

Personally I think we should regard the Constitution as a living document and allow it to evolve and change as we and our culture do.

+1

Well, I don't think it's really true first of all that those ideas weren't put into the constitution. I'd say that's what the whole checks and balances thing was about, why we have a balanced bicameral legislature with the Senate originally elected by the states and not the people directly, the electoral college, etc. All of those things are aimed at providing a balance so that the needs of the common man for example are highly represented yet not totally dominant.

I think the standard should be one or the other. As for me, I say that standard should be what the words meant when they were originally written.


Opposing this approach is my #1 political issue. I believe in original intent whether it suits my need or it doesn't. My initial example of this is always the 17th amendment. I think it was a good idea, and a bad idea to revoke it, but it's no longer part of our constitution and respecting our form of government means accepting that decision, even though it's not one that I think was wise.

Specifically on the living constitution thing, I'll just point out a few things:

** It makes a mockery of the very idea of law. If something can be freely decided to mean something different, or even contradictory, to what it originally meant based on the whims of the moment, then it is a complete travesty to insult the terms 'law' or 'constitution' by applying them to that something.

** It actually disenfranchises the people. When the living constitution approach is followed, we do not rule by, of, and for the people. Instead we have the rule by, of, and for the nine (in modern times) unelected justices of the Supreme Court who are then to be regularly engaged in forming a new Constitution more appropriate to our times. It is noteworthy that the writers of the Constitution generally considered the judicial branch to be the weakest of the three, because it's purpose was basically to apply the work of the others. That is, it was considered to have no initiative in and of itself.

** We really do have a process for changing the Constitution when we find it needs revision. It's happened approaching 30 times. If we can just decide the Constitution means something else, it renders the entire amendment process superluous and totally circumvents the standards required for it, which were instilled as being supermajorities for a reason.

I hold the rule of law as being more important than anything else, because without it nothing else matters. It doesn't matter what rights, social compacts, treaties, etc. we enter into if there are no boundaries insisting that we respect those decisions even five seconds later. Every other political issue we debate as a society rests upon the foundation of the rule of law being held in high esteem - living Constitution theory rips that to shreds.

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is where I think your reasoning is going to run into difficulties.

Under "originalist" thinking, that was pretty clearly designed to prevent Confederate states from passing laws favorable to white people while excluding black people from those same benefits (or punitive to black citizens while not extending those same punishments to whites etc).

That approach would then insist that if we want OTHER groups to qualify for equal protection, we'd need a new, modern amendment to cover them.

30 sounds like a lot, but not in the context of almost 240 years (and a third of those essentially right off the bat, sooooo...)

"Originalist" thinking in that context asserts that any minority group that wants the Equal Protection Clause to, well, apply equally is gonna have to get 3/4th of state legislatures on board because the broad crafting of the 14th Amendment was meant to protect a specific class of citizens from chicanery, rather than applying to all subgroups equally.

I'm not saying that the Constitution necessarily needs to be a living document in its entirety, but there are pretty clearly areas where insisting that the only proper reading is the one that's 150+ years old is absurd.

Especially when those same groups use a modern reading of the 2nd Amendment to say that it means something completely different than what 200 years of American jurisprudence said it meant before Heller.

Originalists simply can't have that philosophy both ways.

That is my second biggest fear, just a little below him actually winning re-election.

I was discussing this with my wife yesterday because of the comments Trump made about staying in the White House. She isn't at all politically active, but even she hates Trump and sees him for what he is.

I was explaining to her how serious even a comment like that is and how desensitized we have become to his rhetoric. She took the attitude of "no way" that would happen. I told her 40% of the country would support it, and these are the things civil wars are made of. I explained that there is nothing more dangerous for a nation than a questioned leader, especially if the person who lost the election is refusing to give up power. I told her it is plausible Russia and China could team up and destroy, if we have civil unrest no way we could defend ourselves against those super powers, and given Trumps tactics our traditional allies wouldn't come to our rescue.

She basically dismissed it as not being able to happen. I think this kind of complacency is what could potentially doom us. I am far from a conspiracy person, but I think there is a legitimate shot we find ourselves in a really bed situation whenever Trumps run ends.

The DOuble Jeopardy decision today is another good example. I actually side with Gorsuch that federal and state charges on the same act is a double jeopardy problem, but there's not a good originalist argument there.

How can it be a mockery of the idea of law, when this is how the English Common Law has existed for centuries (and which our system of jurisprudence is based off of)?

Can we not agree that democracy in tribal states does not work. Why do we have to have borders?
You globalists, are borders not your worst enemy?

Your wife is right on this one. Freaky right wing people were saying Obama would never leave office. This isn’t some 40% thing. It’s maybe a 4% thing where they would want him to hold office at all costs. Not all of his 40% is bonkers and insane.

Maybe 15%? 4 seems low.

You can't compare the two.

Obama, to my knowledge, never suggested he should stay in office.

Trump has done countless terrible things since he took office, yet he has maintained his 40% base. They have been unwavering. Do you honestly think they would all of a sudden stop supporting him or would they just convince themselves it is what is best for 'Merica!

I'm not saying it will happen, I am saying we are in some really dangerous territory, perhaps the most dangerous time in our nations history, and I am not using hyperbole.

I'll believe it when I see it.

May be too late by then.

Those internal polls that all showed Trump winning?


Attention Required! | Cloudflare


Even saw a Fox News poll today that had Biden up by 10.

Dont forget that the polls had HRC winning.

I think those polls miss a large portion of Trump voters. I could see a 10 point advantage for Biden with a +/- of 10%.

Come on Lathum. You dont usually wear a tin foil hat, but that one is a little out there.

HRC did win the popular vote just like the polls predicted.

Good point.

Thank goodness for the Electoral College

Well, my belief in it happening won't stop it, so... :shrug:

Two aspects to my response here. Firstly, the matter of some basic historically-informed logic. What even is law, or the rule of law? Answer: an attempt to order society in a better more enlightened manner than 'might makes right'. That's been it's clear contribution I would say since King John signed the Magna Charta in 1215. And while that attempt largely failed in its goal, devolving into war anyway shortly thereafter, the idea eventually took more hold, for which we can and should be grateful. If law has any meaning, any positive force and effect whatsoever, it has to be found in its ability to restrain power, especially political power from being misused. It's a set of boundaries beyond which we are not allowed to go, and the codification of those boundaries. If the meaning can simply be changed when it is inconvenient, law no longer has that power and is useless. We can no longer speak of the rule of law, because it doesn't rule at all - it is impotent and what really rules is the whim of the moment, precisely what law is meant to restrain.

Second, as to the origins of our legal system, here are a few people who I think would take issue with your assessment. In this matter I think their opinions are more important and relevant than either of ours.



A judicial branch with no force or will. Oh, how I wish it were so.







Webster, known mostly for the dictionary by the same in our times but also a significant voice in the era of America's founding, went on to warn of 'injurious' mistakes that would result.

I'm going to refrain from discussing either of the specific amendments you brought up here, not by way of dodging in any way but to avoid tangents not germane to the much more important issue. Probably worth pointing out that I'm not here trying to carry water for any particular amendment or even the general structure of the Constitution as a whole - it's the underlying rule of law that is paramount in my mind.


I don't think this is clear at all. In fact, I'd say it is unambiguously false. You are certainly correct that a living constitution can make faster desirable progress. But the converse is also true; it can reverse desirable progress already attained. A court that can invent rights out of whole cloth can also eliminate long-established ones. Consider the rights you hold dear, whatever they may be. Do you really think it's a good idea for them to be freely eliminated at the discretion of the court and not the amendment process?

Regarding that process, I also don't think there's been a particularly low amount of them enacted either. Throwing out the bill of rights, there has still been on average multiple amendments enacted each generation, one every 12-15 years. But I would also stipulate that one could very credibly argue for a lower bar for the process if that is a major concern. It would be infinitely better in terms of preserving the proper integrity of the system to have a more easily achievable passing of amendments, then to permit the changing of existing law without it.

Appreciate the discussions. The nuances are above me.

Will say I am watching HBO John Adams (finished Ep 4) and its a great series so far. I will do more research re: accuracy on Adams seemingly close relationship with Jefferson; and how Jefferson, Adams and Franklin debated emancipation.

I think it's naive to think that the intent of a law is always easily understood. Take the 2nd, that text is unclear. Eventually a court is going to have to make decisions as to what the text of the law means, and those decisions will always be largely based on what those modern justices want it to mean.

This is a very peculiar way to speak of the legal system of the United Kingdom (since roughly the Norman Conquest of 1066) and of much of the United States (Louisiana, IIRC, uses the Napoleonic Code as its basis - a Civil Law system that conforms more to your desire for the law). Especially in the vast majority of cases a lot of us know how the Supreme Court will rule on a law due to precedential decisions.

The ones that we don't know, or that change, are generally due to the fact that words are ambiguous and intentions when it comes to new facts are hard to suss out (imagine having a conversation with George Washington about gay marriage).




All politicians who were fine with the English common law being in use. Most (aside from Jefferson and probably Madison) who were fine with the Supreme Court taking on decision making authority as to whether laws are unconstitutional (Marbury v. Madison) even though the Constitution does not that specifically say that it can (which was the reason Jefferson and Madison were pissed off).

In addition, their opinions matter to some extent, but not to others. The Supreme Court justices quoted were fine with common law jurisprudence when they were on the bench and would have likely said that was perfectly consistent with trying to find the intentions of the parties. With new facts come new considerations that the original law makers did not consider, so they must be applied differently.

(though as Justice Scalia would have pointed out, intent is fraught with peril as how can one know the intent of all the legislators who voted for a law and what happens when one group who voted for a law has a different intent than another group who voted for a law - Scalia, was an originalist who was strongly opposed to trying to suss out legislative intent).

Besides, they are all dead and we can't ask them what they meant. So we have to guess. There is also the view that the framers wrote the document in broad terms in order to create a living document. If they wanted it to be more strictly applied, they could have done what Napoleon did and wrote a far more specific code.

There's always cases of ambiguity but I think they are quite rare, and the 2nd Amendment I don't think is unclear at all. The debates on what it means that I've seen, and I've seen quite a few, really point that up. They always devolve into whether or not we should care about what it meant, whether or not its archaic/outdated, not difficulty in understanding what it actually says. I also always wonder at this perspective that justices must impose their desires on the text. I've read a lot of legal decisions that clearly don't do that. A good example from a while back is the Elian Gonzalez case, where lower-court rulings focused (properly) on what the law actually says about what rights a person has, at what age, etc. There was a lot of opinion in there that referenced the idea that look, some of these age markers are arbitrary, it may well be that it doesn't make sense to have these rigid divisons in place, but ultimately concluded that none of that mattered because the law says what the law says, and therefore here's the application. I totally reject the idea this can't be done as a consistent approach, there are far too many fine examples of it actually happening from judges who believe in it.

Why is the militia part included? Why is it first? Why does it say people and not individual? etc.

There's a ton of ambiguity in this amendment and anyone on either side of the gun debate should be able to see that. Eventually these questions have to be answered by judges because the text is unclear. When you talk about age limits, the text there is clear. If it says under 18 or over 21 or whatever, that text isn't ambiguous.

It's a fantasy to think laws are written in ways that are always perfectly clear and that apply to every situation clearly.

Do you really think that it's a good idea for Constitutional rights to only apply to people who were understood to be people at whatever arbitrary point in time those rights were enshrined?

The Second Amendment was written at a time when blacks were understood to be property. The Founders didn't intend for them to have the right, either individually or collectively, to bear arms, since they might then turn those arms against their masters.

Therefore, under a strict constructionist argument, the Second Amendment doesn't apply to them, regardless of what the Thirteenth through Fifteenth did for their citizenship and legal personhood rights. The Founders didn't intend for it to.

That's the same nonsense argument, by the way, that gets made by Christian Religious Liberty people about why the government should be allowed to do things to benefit Christianity without the Equal Protection clause requiring them to make those benefits available to Islam, Judaism, or any other non-Christian faith; Because The Founders Only Meant For It To Apply to Christianity, Damnit!

Militia - self-evidently a reason given for the right, 'being necessary for the security of a free state' makes that clear
First - I don't see how it matters what is first, but it's highly logical to provide the reason for something before stating the right. You could reverse the order without impacting the meaning.
People - Because that's the world the constitution uses for individual citizens, people being the plural of person and being the third word in the preamble and used repeatedly throughout the entire document.

This is really quite basic and none of the questions listed are in the least thorny. There are to be sure many debatable questions in constitutional or any other type of law. These aren't among them.

This is nonsense. If something applies to all citizens, then it applies to those who are later added to the group considered citizens. Calling this argument apples to oranges is being quite generous.


And I've had some fun discussions with said people, primarily on facebook, who I see making this kind of argument. My point is always that everyone gets freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc, not just the ones one might happen to agree with. So its not an argument I'm making. At all.

If it's so basic, why did it take two hundred years for the Supreme Court to say the 2nd amendment applies to individuals?

Because for most of our history it wasn't questioned. The whole question is still quite bizarre. Nobody suggests that the first amendment rights of assembly and petition aren't individual rights, or that the 4th amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures can't be claimed by individuals, and so on. Those are phrased exactly the same 'right of the people' way.

It was a 5-4 decision and the law it overturned was passed in 1975.

And in the 1st, "the people" is used in a separate clause from freedom of speech and implies group activity, to assemble. An individual can't assemble.

I'm not trying to argue Heller was wrong, just that the text is unclear and eventually was going to be interpreted by justices having to rely on something other than the clear meaning of the text.

Untrue. Or, rather, misleading. The Supreme Court didn't find an unrestricted individual right to bear arms until 2008. Hell, court rulings didn't even bind states to respect the Second Amendment until the early 20th century.

The jurisprudence on the issue before, like, 1980 is significantly more limited, and in that sense, "wasn't questioned" might be accurate...but it's misleading.

Because the reason it "wasn't questioned" is that the Supreme Court repeatedly, beginning with Cruikshank in 1875, found that there was no inherent absolute right for individuals to keep and bear arms separate from the State's interest in a "well-regulated militia." Did it again like a decade later.

It wasn't until Heller in 2008 that SCOTUS found that the Second Amendment contains an absolute individual right to bear arms. There is nothing "originalist" about that, when 225 years of jurisprudence following ratification repeatedly came back with "nope, that's not a thing."

That's conservative wish-fulfillment that finally paid off after about 25 years of intense lobbying and Republican judicial appointments.


Except they aren't phrased "exactly the same way." The Second Amendment places the 'well-regulated militia' clause in supremacy to the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms.'

Neither the First nor the Fourth places any sort of contingency on the "right of the people." There is, linguistically speaking, a significant difference between the First/Fourth and Second Amendment.

The First says "this particular outcome is desirable, and the preservation of this right is necessary to that outcome."

The First and the Fourth are straight up "thou shalt not."

Now, realistically, that matters exactly as much as the conservative wing of SCOTUS wants it to matter. Originalist doctrine is a thing that's used to hammer liberal ideas when convenient, and cast aside when the logical outcome of originalism would yield an inconvenient result.

Heller didn't find an absolute right to bear arms. But more on point, I think your argument here is misleading vis a vis Cruikshank. The issue there is that case came well before the doctrine of incorporation came to be. Prior to that, the bill of rights was understood to bar only the federal government, not the states as well, from taking certain actions. I.e., the whole 'states rights' issue. Or to put it another way, the 10th Amendment had not yet been de facto annulled. It was considered to be beyond SCOTUS' authority to tell any state what to do vis a vis guns (and a great many other things), but no federal imposition was allowable.


No it doesn't. It states both clauses but does not in any way state the militia clause to be supreme. The distinction being made here is one without a difference, and is also a red herring - even if that were so, it would still have nothing to do with whether 'right of the people' signifies an individual right or not.

Demons!

Trump spiritual adviser says 'demonic networks' have aligned themselves against president | TheHill

Language matters, dude. It doesn't HAVE to say "Okay, all you people with a Donald-Trump-level reading level, this clause is supreme to THAT one, now pay attention."

If the Second had been straight about individual gun ownership, the bit about militias being necessary to the preservation of a free State wouldn't even have been in there. As I pointed out previously, the First and the Fourth are full of "thou shalt not." They stand in marked contrast to the Second in that way.

The First Amendment doesn't bother with any preamble about why free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, assembly, or petition are important. It just says "hands off." Same with the Fourth, which crams a whole lot more "thou shalt not" in, but doesn't waste any time with justification.

So if the Madison took the time in the Second to say "this outcome is desirable, and this is why that outcome is desirable, and this action is necessary to protect that outcome"? That's supremacy.

Any writer will tell you that you lead with the shit that's IMPORTANT and back it up with the supporting elements.

To Madison, what was important was the security of a free State, and the necessity of a well-regulated Militia to the preservation of that security. The right to keep and bear arms was in subservience to that necessity.

And for two hundred years, American courts said that the Second restricted the federal government, not the states (which had significant gun control measures on the books even in the post-Revolutionary years).

There is zero rational argument for any "originalist" reading of the Second Amendment that aligns with the NRA and the conservative wing of the Roberts Court. To the extent that you're railing against the Court being able to fashion law out of whole cloth through convenient interpretation of the Constitution as a "living document," your finger is pointed squarely at conservative activists, if you're being at all intellectually consistent.

(You aren't.)

Welp, this is pure hogwash inasmuch as I never said I endorsed the NRA's vision of the Second Amendment or 'conservative' politics. I said right at the outset my concern is more fundamental than that. Just to make things clear (although it is totally irrelevant to what I've actually said), I favor at minimum a revision of the amendment and as written I don't see any justification that there can't and shouldn't be limitations on gun ownership - and neither did the decision in Heller.


Right, that's the same point I made in my last post. Not sure who you are arguing with on this issue.

Trump talking about how the downing of the US drine by Iran must have been by accident:


No sense of irony at all :D

Not necessarily.

+1

This isn't a term paper we're talking about.

Trump approved a strike on Iran, but may have pulled back.

This isn't going to go well.

Yeah, I'm quite confused by this. Especially since Iran has been boasting about downing the drone and the US has claimed that Iran has been targeting drones.

I'm sure the Generals & Admirals are too. Hopefully they can keep things in check and "measured".

It scares the shit out of me that someone so erratic could declare war on a whim.

Not to get too far back into the previous subject, but that fear exactly is one of the reasons I think it was a pretty darned good idea that Congress was initially given that power - and still technically retains it, though we've allowed the executive to take over a lot of it in practice.

So someone correct me

Obama brokers multi nation nuclear deal with Iran, which they have been honoring.

Because Trump hates Obama he pulls us out of it.

Iran then says screw it, we aren't sticking to the deal and starts stockpiling uranium. somewhere in there Trump puts sanctions on them.

Nation destabilizes and shoots down US drone and now the only thing keeping us from war is Putin doesn't want it.

Technically, the sanctions were levied immediately because t-dump said they were already violating the treaty and the sanctions were deserved. Normally, I'd believe the govt on the location of the drone, but his administration isn't believable on this one. But I think you're on track about Putin.

It's possible that both sides are telling the truth as to where the drone was. Iran expanded it's claim on the waters in the Gulf years ago, but we don't recognize the expanded claim. It's possible, maybe even likely, that according to us the drone was in international space and according to the Iranians it was in their territory.

If that's the case, it's hard not to see the mission as partially about provoking the Iranians into an act that would justify a strike.

Somewhere in there Trump also got mad about other Nations and their corporations keeping to the agreement that they helped broker and signed and started threatening them.


Also, siding with Israel and Saudi Arabia on everything regardless of how insane and destabilizing it is.

Don't know how credible this is but fat chance this is going to hurt Trump. It'll help sell books but that's about it.

President Donald Trump Faces New Rape Accusation

Its an extremely well written, disturbing and somewhat graphic piece that has a lot of value imo, not because of Trump - we know that doesn't matter to anyone - but just in general. Instead of worrying whether this specific allegation is true, reading things like these and understanding that a frighteningly large number of women have similar experiences that most of us as guys here on this board can never really comprehend. Screw the political side, this is just good for general empathy and understanding of the world.

It seems really out of character for a guy that moves on them like a bitch, kisses without consent, and grabs them by the pussy.

I read a listing of 21 accusations against Trump for all sorts of sexual invasions, from rape to sexual assault to groping to walking in on undressing females to kissing without consent. It is needless to say sickening. Trump of course denies every one of them.