Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Another brilliant Dem plan


FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Status: Offline
Posts: 4779
Date:
Another brilliant Dem plan


Gillibrand Unveils Plan for Govt to Give Every Eligible Voter $600 in Campaign Donation Subsidies

Craig Bannister
By Craig Bannister | May 1, 2019 | 11:03 AM EDT
 
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (Screenshot)

The U.S. government should give voters money to donate to federal candidates, Democrat presidential hopeful Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said Wednesday.

Detailing her Clean Election Plan to NBC News, Sen. Gillibrand said voters would register for vouchers, which could then be donated to candidates:

Under Gillibrand's plan, every eligible voter could register for vouchers to donate up to $100 in a primary election and $100 in a general election each cycle, either all at once or in $10 increments to one or more candidates over time. Each participant would get a separate $200 pool for House, Senate and presidential contests for a total maximum donation of $600 for those federal offices.

There would be strings attached for both donors and candidates. The money could go only to elections in the donor's state, although they could be used for House candidates outside the voter's district.

The cost of the government donation subsidies would be covered by the elimination of a corporate deduction for executive compensation, Gillibrand told NBC.

According to the U.S. Census, at the time of the November 2016 elections, there were 245.5 million U.S. citizens of legal voting age, 157.6 of whom were registered to vote.

If each of the 157.6 million registered voters received the full $600 subsidy, the plan would cost approximately $94.6 trillion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

CNSNews Reader,



-- Edited by Shawnee_B on Wednesday 1st of May 2019 07:14:51 PM

__________________
Drive it like you stole it


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

CNS got their math wrong, it would be about 94 Billion with a B, so they were only off by about 93 Trillion or so. Hopefully their climate science department isn't as incompetent.

I'm absolutely in favor of public financing for elections which would serve to keep special interest and corporate money in check, this particular plan seems a bit expensive though. I suppose if the changes to the tax code she proposes actually made it revenue neutral it could be a good thing.

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Status: Offline
Posts: 4779
Date:

I don't think the funding would keep anything in check, the politicians are all too corrupt.

Good catch on the math, thought it sounded a bit high!

__________________
Drive it like you stole it


CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16307
Date:

What's a few trillion between friends, eh? lol

 



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

We had some campaign finance reform for a while, and then there was Citizens United.

Basically you can thank conservatives on the Supreme Court for allowing unlimited corporate and special interest money into the political sphere. Which makes me wonder, if you don't like such corruption, why are you guys so hell bent on stacking the court with more judges like that?

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16307
Date:

Because if left to you guys you'd stack them with illegals or refugees!



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

No, we would stack them with well qualified people who view the Constitution as a living document.

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

No, we would stack them with well qualified people who view the Constitution as a living document.


 

 and by LIVING document YOU MEAN the ability to change it at will to support your leftist mentality...

 

like how outdated the left feels the second amendment is...

 

you should be getting prepared for civil war because we are on the brink of it...

 

because too many of us will never allow the left to have their way...

 

just not going to happen...



__________________


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

No, by living document I mean that it can be changed through the proper amendment process, and should be interpreted to account for changing technology ie: unreasonable search and seizure should also apply toward private cell phones etc.

If I were you I wouldn't be calling for civil war because the first place we're gonna nuke is Alabama.

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

No, by living document I mean that it can be changed through the proper amendment process, and should be interpreted to account for changing technology ie: unreasonable search and seizure should also apply toward private cell phones etc.

If I were you I wouldn't be calling for civil war because the first place we're gonna nuke is Alabama.


 

 

Yes it can be changed...it requires 38 states to ratify any change...

 

good luck getting that from your four population centers....

 

PS...I do not live in Alabama...






-- Edited by Nuffan on Friday 3rd of May 2019 04:12:16 PM

__________________


CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16307
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

No, by living document I mean that it can be changed through the proper amendment process, and should be interpreted to account for changing technology ie: unreasonable search and seizure should also apply toward private cell phones etc.

If I were you I wouldn't be calling for civil war because the first place we're gonna nuke is Alabama.


 

Nuffan gives you that "Alabama" feel, huh? LOL

There is this one state that elected a Muslim refugee who wasn't even natural born! Oh wait, that was your state wasn't it? LOL, never mind!



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Well he owns rental properties there so I figured he wouldn't live too far away. But you're right, while his ideas may be Alabama all day, he is too well spoken to actually be from that backwater state, I'm guessing Oklahoma.

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16307
Date:

Nuffan wrote:
PowerStroker wrote:

No, by living document I mean that it can be changed through the proper amendment process, and should be interpreted to account for changing technology ie: unreasonable search and seizure should also apply toward private cell phones etc.

If I were you I wouldn't be calling for civil war because the first place we're gonna nuke is Alabama.


 

 

Yes it can be changed...it requires 38 states to ratify any change...

 

good luck getting that from your four population centers....

 

PS...I do not live in Alabama...

 



 

I think you underestimate them Nuffan.... I think a lot of people do...

These Liberals are not creatures of habit, they are high mobility and often times they shuffle them around... The population centers are just hives of sorts, but as the hive gets full they send them all over the country. They love to up and leave, free spirt kind of people! It wouldn't take much to get some of these states districts, just a sympathetic mayor or state official to allow money into the state and a little sly of hand and before you know it every state will have a Dearborn to go with their China and Mexican towns!



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16307
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

Well he owns rental properties there so I figured he wouldn't live too far away. But you're right, while his ideas may be Alabama all day, he is too well spoken to actually be from that backwater state, I'm guessing Oklahoma.


 

I thought Liberals were against stereotyping and profiling? Oh, I forgot... that is only when it's detrimental to their plight. LOL



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

We are against stereotyping and profiling, but when a guy like that comes along and gives you that much material to work with, it fun to take a guess just to see if you're right.

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16307
Date:

I wonder if that is how a cop feels when a lowered vehicle with tinted windows, loud exhaust, big chrome rims and expired plates goes cruising past?



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Oh probably



__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Status: Offline
Posts: 4779
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

No, we would stack them with well qualified people who view the Constitution as a living document.


 I got your "living document" hanging between my legs. Smarten up libtard.

 

Damn I can't wait till civil war and elimination of you retards.



__________________
Drive it like you stole it


FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Status: Offline
Posts: 4779
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

Well he owns rental properties there so I figured he wouldn't live too far away. But you're right, while his ideas may be Alabama all day, he is too well spoken to actually be from that backwater state, I'm guessing Oklahoma.


 Back water? Racist a bit huh???? 



__________________
Drive it like you stole it


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Nah, I'm pretty sure he and I are of the same race. All of this civil war talk is just amazing. Lets hope your side is better with missile coordinates than they apparently are with math, lest you commit an own-goal by calling in an air strike on yourselves.

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

Nah, I'm pretty sure he and I are of the same race. All of this civil war talk is just amazing. Lets hope your side is better with missile coordinates than they apparently are with math, lest you commit an own-goal by calling in an air strike on yourselves.


 

 

Thirty years of Financial Informatics under my belt never once been accused of bad math....lol

 

Civil War because the LEFTIST are gaining numbers by allowing just anyone to enter the country at any time...

 

Protecting ILLEGALS to gain votes...

 

Funny part is they are the side that does not like guns...and wants the government to take away our gun rights, probably because they KNOW they will get their ass kicked if it comes down to civil war...and it will...




 



-- Edited by Nuffan on Saturday 4th of May 2019 07:00:16 AM

__________________


CERTIFIED POST WHORE

Status: Offline
Posts: 16307
Date:

The talk of civil war is because the left cant handle losing.



__________________

What is to give light must endure burning -- Viktor Frankl

 

 



UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

I own guns, and in 8 years of Obama nobody ever came to take them away. I'd still be in favor of regulating them a little better though.

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

I own guns, and in 8 years of Obama nobody ever came to take them away. I'd still be in favor of regulating them a little better though.


 

Correct no one came to take them away BECAUSE we still have the Second Amendment...Which the left keeps trying to erase...

 

And you can PLAY DUMB on that all you like...The left wing wants to remove the second amendment several of their 2020 candidates have stated as much...

 

The only one that does not come right out and say they want to repeal the 2nd is Kamala Harris, but she is in favor of government guaranteed jobs...



__________________


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Government can and should be the employer of last resort. That's a large part of what dug us out of the Great Depression.

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Status: Offline
Posts: 4779
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

I own guns, and in 8 years of Obama nobody ever came to take them away. I'd still be in favor of regulating them a little better though.


 Regulating like as in what? Registry so they know where to come and get them?

What part of "shall not infringe" don't libs get.



__________________
Drive it like you stole it


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

What part of well regulated militia don't con's get?

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

Government can and should be the employer of last resort. That's a large part of what dug us out of the Great Depression.


 

WRONG it should not...

 

Government is why it took over a decade to recover...

 

 

 



__________________


No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

What part of well regulated militia don't con's get?


 

The part where you think well regulated is an open invitation to infringe...



__________________


FAR BEYOND DRIVEN

Status: Offline
Posts: 4779
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

What part of well regulated militia don't con's get?


 WE are and still are well regulated, alive and well. 



__________________
Drive it like you stole it


ABOVE AND BEYOND

Status: Offline
Posts: 9950
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

No, we would stack them with well qualified people who view the Constitution as a living document.


 oh you mean like AOC , tahlib, bernie, warren, harris,  beto odork, mayor pete......etc...........?

 

btw...its NOT a 'living' document!  it doesnt change.....except by hook and crook........



__________________


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Do you not believe that your personal cell phone and email accounts would be protected by the unreasonable search and seizure clause? Because the Constitution makes no mention of such things.

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

Do you not believe that your personal cell phone and email accounts would be protected by the unreasonable search and seizure clause? Because the Constitution makes no mention of such things.


 

 

The individual is protected therefore all these items belonging to said individual would be protected...

 

Why is that so hard for you to understand? 



__________________


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

I understand it just fine, but the "strict constructionists" you guys like to stack the court with generally take the position that if something isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution (like cell phones and email accounts), it becomes a states rights issue.

I personally prefer a greater level of privacy rights, and the comfort of knowing that all states are bound to them, but that's just me, and I believe the intent of the framers.

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

I understand it just fine, but the "strict constructionists" you guys like to stack the court with generally take the position that if something isn't specifically mentioned in the Constitution (like cell phones and email accounts), it becomes a states rights issue.

I personally prefer a greater level of privacy rights, and the comfort of knowing that all states are bound to them, but that's just me, and I believe the intent of the framers.


 

 

Bullshit, you are simply a LIAR...

 

You will sit here and claim your right to privacy should be the same in every state...

 

and I agree it should...

 

Then turn around and defend cities that take away a person right to carry a fire arm...

 

gun laws should be the same everywhere...

 

both are specifically mentioned in the constitution...

 

so maybe you want to try again to find a true example? 

 

 

 

 

 

 



-- Edited by Nuffan on Monday 6th of May 2019 07:08:49 AM

__________________


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Nuffan wrote:

 Bullshit, you are simply a LIAR...

About exactly what part? 

You will sit here and claim your right to privacy should be the same in every state...

 

and I agree it should...

 

Then turn around and defend cities that take away a person right to carry a fire arm...

 When have I defended cities that take away a persons right to carry? I live in a very blue state, and I could get a concealed carry permit pretty easily if I wanted one, my brother already has one.

gun laws should be the same everywhere...

 Eh, I dunno about that. What works in rural Oklahoma may not work for a loft downtown. I know I'd be a little worried if someone started shooting trap from their appartment balcony in downtown Minneapolis. A city can have an ordinance against shooting within city limits and that has been the norm for a lot of places for a very long time.

both are specifically mentioned in the constitution...

I see no mention of cell phones or email accounts in the Constitution. Though I believe the Constitution would be correctly interpreted in the spirit of the framers if the courts required warrants before law enforcement could look at them against the will of the private citizen who owns them. A strict constructionist judge would say that since there is no mention of cell phones and email accounts in the Constitution, they are therefore a states rights issue, which bothers me.

so maybe you want to try again to find a true example? 

My example is just fine thank you very much.

 

 

 


 



-- Edited by PowerStroker on Monday 6th of May 2019 04:49:13 PM

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:
Nuffan wrote:

 Bullshit, you are simply a LIAR...

About exactly what part? 

You will sit here and claim your right to privacy should be the same in every state...

 

and I agree it should...

 

Then turn around and defend cities that take away a person right to carry a fire arm...

 When have I defended cities that take away a persons right to carry? I live in a very blue state, and I could get a concealed carry permit pretty easily if I wanted one, my brother already has one.

gun laws should be the same everywhere...

 Eh, I dunno about that. What works in rural Oklahoma may not work for a loft downtown. I know I'd be a little worried if someone started shooting trap from their appartment balcony in downtown Minneapolis. A city can have an ordinance against shooting within city limits and that has been the norm for a lot of places for a very long time.

both are specifically mentioned in the constitution...

I see no mention of cell phones or email accounts in the Constitution. Though I believe the Constitution would be correctly interpreted in the spirit of the framers if the courts required warrants before law enforcement could look at them against the will of the private citizen who owns them. A strict constructionist judge would say that since there is no mention of cell phones and email accounts in the Constitution, they are therefore a states rights issue, which bothers me.

so maybe you want to try again to find a true example? 

My example is just fine thank you very much.

 

 

 


 

 



-- Edited by PowerStroker on Monday 6th of May 2019 04:49:13 PM


 

 

 

 

PRIVACY and ARMS are both specifically mentioned in the constitution...therefore you would think they would apply the same across all 50 states...

 

and you ask when have I ever...then immediately do what you asked about...

 


"I dunno about that. What works in rural Oklahoma may not work for a loft downtown."  

 

 

You have a noticed habit of contradicting yourself...

 

 

 

 



__________________


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

I have not found the right to privacy specifically mentioned in the Constitution, however the 4th Ammendment implies it (at least when interpreted by a moderate or liberal judge):

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Luckily, there is precedent established by mainstream judges to interpret the Constitution in a manner that grants privacy rights to the citizenry, despite the word privacy not being literally present.

Were there no such precedent, a true strict constructionist judge would rule that people are secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, but not cell phones and email accounts unless their state has specifically enacted such protections. This is why I cringe whenever another strict constructionist is placed on a federal court.

 



__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

I have not found the right to privacy specifically mentioned in the Constitution, however the 4th Ammendment implies it (at least when interpreted by a moderate or liberal judge):

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Luckily, there is precedent established by mainstream judges to interpret the Constitution in a manner that grants privacy rights to the citizenry, despite the word privacy not being literally present.

Were there no such precedent, a true strict constructionist judge would rule that people are secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, but not cell phones and email accounts unless their state has specifically enacted such protections. This is why I cringe whenever another strict constructionist is placed on a federal court.

 


 

 

Those of us educated beyond grade school understand that the fourth amendment establishes privacy without the use of the word...just like the first amendment establishes the separation between church and state without the use of the word separation...

 

Liberal Judges tend to want to CHANGE the constitution from the bench...There is a manner in which the constitution can be amended...the left just knows they do not control enough states to get the changes they want...

 

 



__________________


No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

 

You make statements like "true strict constructionist judge would rule" and you have no clue...that is just what your handlers have led you to believe...

 

Judges are not supposed to CHANGE the constitution...the left wing wants judges to reinterpret things the way they want it interpreted...

 

Show me the case where a conservative judge ruled an individuals privacy has to be specifically stated...I'll wait...

 



__________________


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Robert Bork (Reagan's failed nominee for the Supreme Court) http://www.english-for-students.com/robert-bork-and-the-right-of-privacy.html

Robert Bork's THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY examined the landmark case Griswald versus Connecticut. Bork's originalist view proclaimed that Justice Douglas erroneously interpreted the right of privacy from the Constitution. The originalist view is that judges must strictly adhere to the language of the Constitution, thus people do not have a general right to privacy because it was never actually written into the Constitution. This view severely restricts judges in dealing with new issues that our forefathers could not have possibly envisioned. The inability of originalist to deal with modern and future problems displays a need for Supreme Court judges to be able to interpret laws from the Constitution. Without this ability it would be doubtful if people today could claim a general right to privacy. The Griswald case involved a bizarre law that forbade the use of condoms in the hope that it would prevent adulterous affairs. This deduction is as absurd as banning all sales of chocolate in order to prevent obesity. Robert Bork admitted that this law did not make sense, especially in the ability of government officials to enforce the law. Yet, Bork disagreed with the method used by Justice Douglas to overturn the conviction of two doctors distributing information on condoms. Bork felt that Douglas's liberal use of penumbras to create a zone of privacy was an excessive use of judicial power. Bork feels a judge must follow the Constitution and should not imply anything from the various ideas in the Constitution. This poses problems when trying to deal with cases that the Constitution does not specifically mention. For example, without the ability to interpret some of the various amendments in the constitution it would be virtually impossible for a judge to decide cases dealing with the on-line world. Is an on-line service provider similar to a magazine publisher (Responsible for the information that it disseminates) or like a bookstore (That is not specifically liable for the information that it disseminates)? These types of decisions cannot be solved with an originalist view, because the Constitution did not have the foresight to deal with such issues. In this same manner Justice Douglas implements penumbras to arrive at a general right of privacy that is not explicitly written into the Constitution. These penumbras are all valid within the spirit of the Constitution and do not go against anything specifically forbidden in the document. Thus, the justification of Justice Douglas to create a zone of privacy is legitimate and the old archaic Griswald laws are forever vanquished into the history books. Justice Douglas writes that various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment...The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers...The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'...The Fifth Amendment in its Self Incrimination Clause...The Ninth Amendment provides: 'The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Bork also complained that Justice Douglas was being quite the alarmist by implying that the Griswald case would never be enforced. There was, of course, no prospect that it ever would be enforced." It is not very assuring to my own peace of mind, when one defends an offensive law by stating that it's never going to be used. It only takes one ambitious politician to selectively enforce these laws for their own prejudice or gain. Bork complained that Douglas imagined horrible events...that never happened, never will, and could be stopped by the courts if they ever seemed about to happen. It should have dawned upon Mr. Bork that Justice Douglas and his colleagues was precisely the court that would stop those horrible events from ever happening. The originalist philosophy is admirable in its use of such a strict discipline in interpreting the Constitution, yet the ultimate lack of flexibility in addressing modern problems in the Constitution is far to binding. The role of judges is ultimately based upon arbitrating what is right or wrong from the laws themselves, but when a problem arises that is not addressed within the laws/Constitution, then judges must be able to imply decisions based on the general spirit of the original document. Basically, if the Constitution does not specifically prohibit a right, and most amendments concur with that right, then it is permissible for judges to create rights like privacy. It would be most problematic if we had a strict originalist judicial history because blacks would be only 3/5 of a person, women would never have been enfranchised and the Senate would still be chosen by the House of Legislature. The Supreme Court (consisting of the most learned and able legal experts in the country) should have the ability to interpret certain aspects of the Constitution in order to prevent the Constitution from becoming a dated, historical document. Problems will continue to rise that the fathers of this country could not have possibly envisioned. Robert Bork's originalist view is far too restrictive in practice to allow the Constitution to be as vital today as it was 200 years ago.

 

 



__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

Robert Bork (Reagan's failed nominee for the Supreme Court) http://www.english-for-students.com/robert-bork-and-the-right-of-privacy.html

Robert Bork's THE RIGHT OF PRIVACY examined the landmark case Griswald versus Connecticut. Bork's originalist view proclaimed that Justice Douglas erroneously interpreted the right of privacy from the Constitution. The originalist view is that judges must strictly adhere to the language of the Constitution, thus people do not have a general right to privacy because it was never actually written into the Constitution. This view severely restricts judges in dealing with new issues that our forefathers could not have possibly envisioned. The inability of originalist to deal with modern and future problems displays a need for Supreme Court judges to be able to interpret laws from the Constitution. Without this ability it would be doubtful if people today could claim a general right to privacy. The Griswald case involved a bizarre law that forbade the use of condoms in the hope that it would prevent adulterous affairs. This deduction is as absurd as banning all sales of chocolate in order to prevent obesity. Robert Bork admitted that this law did not make sense, especially in the ability of government officials to enforce the law. Yet, Bork disagreed with the method used by Justice Douglas to overturn the conviction of two doctors distributing information on condoms. Bork felt that Douglas's liberal use of penumbras to create a zone of privacy was an excessive use of judicial power. Bork feels a judge must follow the Constitution and should not imply anything from the various ideas in the Constitution. This poses problems when trying to deal with cases that the Constitution does not specifically mention. For example, without the ability to interpret some of the various amendments in the constitution it would be virtually impossible for a judge to decide cases dealing with the on-line world. Is an on-line service provider similar to a magazine publisher (Responsible for the information that it disseminates) or like a bookstore (That is not specifically liable for the information that it disseminates)? These types of decisions cannot be solved with an originalist view, because the Constitution did not have the foresight to deal with such issues. In this same manner Justice Douglas implements penumbras to arrive at a general right of privacy that is not explicitly written into the Constitution. These penumbras are all valid within the spirit of the Constitution and do not go against anything specifically forbidden in the document. Thus, the justification of Justice Douglas to create a zone of privacy is legitimate and the old archaic Griswald laws are forever vanquished into the history books. Justice Douglas writes that various guarantees create zones of privacy. The right of association contained in the penumbra of the First Amendment...The Third Amendment in its prohibition against the quartering of soldiers...The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms 'the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures'...The Fifth Amendment in its Self Incrimination Clause...The Ninth Amendment provides: 'The Enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Bork also complained that Justice Douglas was being quite the alarmist by implying that the Griswald case would never be enforced. There was, of course, no prospect that it ever would be enforced." It is not very assuring to my own peace of mind, when one defends an offensive law by stating that it's never going to be used. It only takes one ambitious politician to selectively enforce these laws for their own prejudice or gain. Bork complained that Douglas imagined horrible events...that never happened, never will, and could be stopped by the courts if they ever seemed about to happen. It should have dawned upon Mr. Bork that Justice Douglas and his colleagues was precisely the court that would stop those horrible events from ever happening. The originalist philosophy is admirable in its use of such a strict discipline in interpreting the Constitution, yet the ultimate lack of flexibility in addressing modern problems in the Constitution is far to binding. The role of judges is ultimately based upon arbitrating what is right or wrong from the laws themselves, but when a problem arises that is not addressed within the laws/Constitution, then judges must be able to imply decisions based on the general spirit of the original document. Basically, if the Constitution does not specifically prohibit a right, and most amendments concur with that right, then it is permissible for judges to create rights like privacy. It would be most problematic if we had a strict originalist judicial history because blacks would be only 3/5 of a person, women would never have been enfranchised and the Senate would still be chosen by the House of Legislature. The Supreme Court (consisting of the most learned and able legal experts in the country) should have the ability to interpret certain aspects of the Constitution in order to prevent the Constitution from becoming a dated, historical document. Problems will continue to rise that the fathers of this country could not have possibly envisioned. Robert Bork's originalist view is far too restrictive in practice to allow the Constitution to be as vital today as it was 200 years ago.

 

 


 

 

That is not a case where the supreme court ruled against the right of privacy of the individual...in fact the supreme court got it right...7-2

 

Come back when you have a court case a conservative judge ruled against it...I'll wait AGAIN

 



__________________


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

You can find your own examples, I'm not here to do your research for you. I merely stated what a true constructionist believes and why they are extremely dangerous to civil liberties. Luckily Dems had the filibuster back then to stop someone like Bork from joining the court, and some Republicans even saw the light and joined them. Now the filibuster is gone, and Republicans see the light far, far less frequently. I believe McCain was the most recent example in his healthcare vote. You are a conservative, but a libertarian one. I can think of no conservative nominees in recent history that did not have strong authoritarian tendencies, and as a libertarian that should horrify you, yet it doesn't. Did you ever stop to wonder if the people you categorically view as your enemies actually aren't?

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

You can find your own examples, I'm not here to do your research for you. I merely stated what a true constructionist believes and why they are extremely dangerous to civil liberties. Luckily Dems had the filibuster back then to stop someone like Bork from joining the court, and some Republicans even saw the light and joined them. Now the filibuster is gone, and Republicans see the light far, far less frequently. I believe McCain was the most recent example in his healthcare vote. You are a conservative, but a libertarian one. I can think of no conservative nominees in recent history that did not have strong authoritarian tendencies, and as a libertarian that should horrify you, yet it doesn't. Did you ever stop to wonder if the people you categorically view as your enemies actually aren't?


 

There are NO EXAMPLES...

 

You present some nominee to the SCOTUS who was was not confirmed, most likely due to his extreme views...

 

and you claim that is the conservative bedrock....and that is bullshit...if it were then we would have examples in the courts of what you suggest...

 

the reason you point at that one republican nominee is it is the only example at all....and as stated they were never confirmed....

 

That would be like me claiming that Diane Feinstein is the bedrock of left wing gun control principals...she is a way out on the LEFT moron on gun control...

 

the idea that the courts are being taken over by originalist Justice is a bunch of crap....

 

Conservative Judges do not have a habit of acting like anti-federalist...That is old school democrats...

 

There have not been any known confirmed states rights judges since pre-civil war that I am aware of...

 

Bork would have fit that description and was to me what was wrong with Reagan, that whole side of Reagan that Aided the Contras and spoke of smaller government as he EXPANDED the role of government and tripled the debt...

 

The judges appointed by Trump were much more liberal than Scalia, Scalia was probably the most strict constitutionalist to ever sit as a Justice...but he was not an originalist....Hell Citizen United PROVES THAT....lol

 

The constitution does not specifically mention money as speech but Scalia said it was...

 

I am ONLY a conservative....too many issues with libertarians...

 

I have no party as the republicans have not really been conservative in my lifetime...

 

You know who has been very conservative with his policy....

 

Donald Trump....

 

I would consider myself a Ben Shapiro conservative although we do not agree 100% on Abortion...I am a Pro Life Conservative, but only within the first trimester.

 

If Ben Shapiro were to run at some point I would likely vote for him...

 

I hate people like Rush Limbaugh, morons from the right....

 

both sides have them....



__________________


No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

Just so we are clear...

 

I see you (Powerstroker) as a left wing Milo Yiannopolis only you are not near as smart as Milo...you are a fraud, you are more interested in trying to get a rise out of people (by nature of your baiting responses)  you want to provoke others...

 

Milo is not right wing but loves to pose as one because he is gay...

 

I come off as a Libertarian because my social views would exclude government having ANY SAY in how people live their lives...

 

Too many libertarians are only libertarian when it comes to any religion outside of Christianity...sad but true fact....

 

I vote republican because democrats have sold out to LEFTIST...

 

If you think racism is worse today than 50 years ago...you're a fucking moron...and leftist use that narrative to push their agenda....

 

If you honestly believe in WHITE PRIVILEGE you're a fucking moron...

 

Too many successful NON-WHITES to even try and make such an argument...

 

PRIVILEGE still exist...it has ZERO to do with skin color...

 

If you think the government has any right to restrict access to semi automatic weapons you're a leftist...

 

These are not LIBERAL principals....they are LEFTIST...

 

 

 

 

 



-- Edited by Nuffan on Tuesday 7th of May 2019 11:38:26 AM

__________________


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Does the government have the right to keep convicted felons from possessing semi-automatic firearms?

how about the clinically insane? I ask because those are really the only 2 groups I worry about. The Constitution says Congress shall provide for the general welfare of the citizenry, and i would argue that keeping guns from those 2 groups would be consistent with what the Constitution says.

Somehow you seem to think I'm one of those "anti gun democrats" yet I OWN GUNS bro. I believe in some common sense regulation of firearms, which by the way a great number of NRA members agree with. It's too bad their leadership takes such a hard line stance.



-- Edited by PowerStroker on Tuesday 7th of May 2019 03:00:39 PM

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

Does the government have the right to keep convicted felons from possessing semi-automatic firearms?

how about the clinically insane? I ask because those are really the only 2 groups I worry about. The Constitution says Congress shall provide for the general welfare of the citizenry, and i would argue that keeping guns from those 2 groups would be consistent with what the Constitution says.

Somehow you seem to think I'm one of those "anti gun democrats" yet I OWN GUNS bro. I believe in some common sense regulation of firearms, which by the way a great number of NRA members agree with. It's too bad their leadership takes such a hard line stance.



-- Edited by PowerStroker on Tuesday 7th of May 2019 03:00:39 PM


 

 

The government has establish a precedent for keeping guns from both felons and the mentally incapacitated....

 

And now you are starting to understand the TRUTH....

 

The government can REGULATE the people, IE prevent felons and mentally incapacitated from obtaining weapons...

 

trying to regulate an object is stupid...the object does not do anything unless in the hands of a human...it is the human you have to be concerned with not the weapon...

 

And I think you are missing the entire point....the real issue is they are trying to make up a false narrative about a semi automatic mechanism....

 

when it simply means one bullet per trigger pull...

 

any additional regulations against a semi automatic is total NONSENSE...

 

If you are truly a gun owner you should understand that...

 

 

 

 



-- Edited by Nuffan on Tuesday 7th of May 2019 06:30:48 PM

__________________


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

Are you talking about bump stocks? Because I think they should be banned. I really don't know specifically what I said about guns that got you pissed off, though I would like to add a 3rd group of people who I think should be banned from having guns (people on the no fly list).

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/



No longer a user - left on their own accord.

Status: Offline
Posts: 766
Date:

PowerStroker wrote:

Are you talking about bump stocks? Because I think they should be banned. I really don't know specifically what I said about guns that got you pissed off, though I would like to add a 3rd group of people who I think should be banned from having guns (people on the no fly list).


 

 

You always assume I am pissed off...

 

LET ME REPEAT ONCE AGAIN....

 

I do not give a fuck what you think....

 

As for Bump Stocks....I am not a fan of them....never owned one...I do not think the constitution grants the government the authority to ban them or fully automatics...

 

And there in lies the problem....rather that CORRECTLY address such an issue with an amendment to the constitution, we have let judges make such changes from the bench...



__________________


UNSTOPPABLE!

Status: Offline
Posts: 6491
Date:

I thought President Trump banned bump stocks by executive fiat?

Which changes from the bench are you talking about?

__________________

 

https://djtrumplibrary.com/

1 2  >  Last»  | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard