Trump's newest tweet is really scary

[bcking 3,157]

3 minutes ago, eieio said:

Trump appointed a constitutionalist judge. Conservative and Republicans are untitled in calling this a great pick. Why? Because he will make his decisions based on the constitution.

 

Democrats are opposing this Supreme Court pick. Why? Because he will make his decisions based on the constitution.

Unfortunately neither group (Dems/GOP) cares that much about the constitution. Just how they can bend it to their will.

 

Conservatives are excited because they know the judge will interpret the constitution in a way that supports their conservative ideals. I've already cited an example where that is happening with the 1st amendment. Allowing people to discriminate based on their "1st amendment freedom of religion" is an interpretation of the constitution that supports conservative ideals. That is not written in the constitution literally. 

 

As for the 2nd amendment - It is literally a sentence long. A literal interpretation is merely that people can keep and bear arms. Great, that says nothing about what kind of arms they can keep. If we want to think literally why don't we only allow people to keep 18th century muskets? Wouldn't that be most appropriate?

Edited February 6, 2017 by bcking

[eieio 1,594]

We don't get to decide if the constitution is conservative or liberal. It is what it is. Conservatives stand with the constitution. 

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, eieio said:

We don't get to decide if the constitution is conservative or liberal. It is what it is. Conservatives stand with the constitution. 

Why don't you actually respond to the arguments instead of just make grandiose statements?

 

The 1st Amendment states only that the government will not pass laws infringing on the free exercise of religion, or supporting the establishment of a particular religion. That is all. That is the literal meaning.

 

Conservatives have tried to "bend" that to mean that a Mom and Pop shop that makes fried chicken can choose not to sell to someone because they are gay. That is an interpretation. That is not "the constitution". 

[eieio 1,594]

I agree the 1st amendment is under assault. The attacks have all been coming from liberals lately.

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, eieio said:

I agree the 1st amendment is under assault. The attacks have all been coming from liberals lately.

Examples please?

 

In case you have forgotten:

 

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

 

And remember we are talking about LITERAL readings of that sentence only. No interpretations. As you said, it is "under attack" from the left. Please provide examples of where the left has attacked the LITERAL meaning of that sentence.

 

I'll give you a hint - Focus on "Congress shall make no law..."

Edited February 6, 2017 by bcking

[eieio 1,594]

14 minutes ago, bcking said:

Examples please?

 

In case you have forgotten:

 

" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

 

And remember we are talking about LITERAL readings of that sentence only. No interpretations. As you said, it is "under attack" from the left. Please provide examples of where the left has attacked the LITERAL meaning of that sentence.

 

I'll give you a hint - Focus on "Congress shall make no law..."

Plenty of videos out there showing liberals trying to and sometimes successfully so, shutting down free speech. I could post them...but I would be given another break.....as they are profanity laced.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

1 minute ago, eieio said:

Plenty of videos out there showing liberals trying to and sometimes successfully so, shutting down free speech. I could post them...but I would be given another break.....as they are profanity laced.

If they were credible, they wouldn't be profanity laced. 

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, eieio said:

Plenty of videos out there showing liberals trying to and sometimes successfully so, shutting down free speech. I could post them...but I would be given another break.....as they are profanity laced.

*woosh* over the head. That doesn't violate the 1st amendment. The 1st amendment is about CONGRESS making laws prohibiting/abridging the freedom of speech.

 

So unless you have examples of CONGRESS trying to pass laws to limit freedom of speech, then "liberals" aren't attacking the 1st Amendment. It has nothing to do with the people trying to limit freedom of speech, only the government.

 

I even quoted the amendment for you. It's written right there. Quite obvious what the literal interpretation would be.

 

EDIT: For it to violate the 1st amendment, the amendment would have to read "The people of the USA should not yada yada"

Edited February 6, 2017 by bcking

[eieio 1,594]

I never said liberals were sane

[spookyturtle 9,465]

2 minutes ago, eieio said:

I never said liberals were sane

But you've proved conservatives aren't. 

[eieio 1,594]

You are a conservative?

[smilesammich 10,727]

32 minutes ago, eieio said:

You are a conservative?

are you a liberal?

[yuna628 9,528]

17 hours ago, JayJayH said:

"Just cannot believe a judge would put our country in such peril. If something happens blame him and court system. People pouring in. Bad!"

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-judge-immigration-ban-terror-attacks-2017-2

 

Why is this so scary all of a sudden? Because this country functions because of an independent judiciary and checks and balances, not despite it. What Trump seems to be doing is to get his base to lose any trust in federal courts. If something actually were to happen, you could easily get a situation where Trump/Bannon start trying to use it to attempt to dismantle checks and balances, while discrediting the judicial branch.

 

Because of the judicial branch, the 1st amendment will still stand, no matter who is president. The 2nd amendment will still stand, no matter who is president.

 

Even if you voted for Trump and/or agree with the executive order, the proper response to a federal court decision you disagree with is to appeal, argue why you're in the right, and say "I disagree with the ruling, but this is how the system works." If the EO is constitutional, the Supreme Court will uphold it. Thankfully, it seems both the State Dept. and Homeland Security are acting according to the court.

 

Could you imagine a situation where a future president attempted to "ban guns", a federal court said "no" and the president said "Every life lost by guns from now on is on this so-called judge. Ridiculous."

Why is it scary to you all of a sudden? It always was scary and it's been there for years. The truth is, he's just repeating the things his base has thought about the judicial branch for a very long time. You think he's trying to discredit it? No no... it's already discredited in the eyes of his supporters. He's just saying exactly what they think, validating their views all along. The Constitution and rule of law only matters when it's something they like, when it's the interpretation that's the ''right'' way. The right way being the way that benefits them, without realizing how very quickly the tables could turn. I believe that there is a very good chance that SCOTUS could rule the EO an illegal order - not in full, but in part. And, I believe even more conservative judges would see things that way. There is a real case for argument here on several fronts, and we'll see what happens.

[bcking 3,157]

I'm assuming by his lack of response, eieio has no actual examples of "filthy liberals" trying to violate the 1st amendment, since the 1st amendment only addresses Congress establishing laws.

 

Tell me again how it is only conservatives who value the constitution? We all value it, we just all take different meaning from it.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Just now, bcking said:

I'm assuming by his lack of response, eieio has no actual examples of "filthy liberals" trying to violate the 1st amendment, since the 1st amendment only addresses Congress establishing laws.

 

Tell me again how it is only conservatives who value the constitution? We all value it, we just all take different meaning from it.

to be fair i don't think trump takes meaning from from the constitution, doubtful he's read it. just like those eo's president bannon wrote up.