|
Post by kronks on Jul 29, 2016 22:37:44 GMT -5
However poll after polled be did better than Hillary a v Trump match up, so you do not really need to ask the question when the answer is already proven. Because we have the electoral college, he will probably lose. He is not going to win enough states. Ah maybe, I forgot about that, it is similar in the UK, a small number constituencies in the balance determine the out come, many are forgone conclusions due to how the voters are distributed unevenly. Apparently the key states are usually. Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 7:41:38 GMT -5
Funny you should mention it. I was trying to put up the video from his website on this matter, but I had no success. For anyone interested go to MichaelMoore.com/trumpwillwin/ I think you might mean this??? michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/I'm still reading it, but I don't need to so much as I thought he might win a good while back. Indeed I just check my account to see the date I backed him and it was further back than I thought 11/08/2015 Just short of a year ago! Yes, I know that you have predicted a Trump win for a long time, but do you support him and, if you do, why?
|
|
|
Post by kronks on Jul 30, 2016 13:53:59 GMT -5
I think you might mean this??? michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/I'm still reading it, but I don't need to so much as I thought he might win a good while back. Indeed I just check my account to see the date I backed him and it was further back than I thought 11/08/2015 Just short of a year ago! Yes, I know that you have predicted a Trump win for a long time, but do you support him and, if you do, why? Well no I don't but the problem is the alternative is Hillary Clinton, who I really do not want to see as President. One other thing is that who is is president has to get his policies past congress. I have seen it described as between uninspiring and the unfit. To a certain extent the unfit can can be corrected by congress, but it can't do anything about the uninspiring.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 15:13:08 GMT -5
Yes, I know that you have predicted a Trump win for a long time, but do you support him and, if you do, why? Well no I don't but the problem is the alternative is Hillary Clinton, who I really do not want to see as President. One other thing is that who is is president has to get his policies past congress. I have seen it described as between uninspiring and the unfit. To a certain extent the unfit can can be corrected by congress, but it can't do anything about the uninspiring. I would agree with you but here's the problem: The President of the U.S. has tremendous power militarily. That's why he is considered the most powerful person in the world. He can negotiate deals and declare wars. Donald Trump is very combustible and, therefore, dangerous. Nobody even knows where he stands.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 30, 2016 17:33:53 GMT -5
Concern about who is the President is important, but in the Government of the United States it is not a do all for one point of view. For example, while a President can under some conditions deploy troops, it is specifically limited:
The Power of Congress to Control the President's Discretion .-- Over the President's veto, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution, designed to redistribute the war powers between the President and Congress. Although ambiguous in some respects, the Resolution appears to define restrictively the President's powers, to require him to report fully to Congress upon the introduction of troops into foreign areas, to specify a maximum time limitation on the engagement of hostilities absent affirmative congressional action, and to provide a means for Congress to require cessation of hostilities in advance of the time set. The Resolution states that the President's power to commit United States troops into hostilities, or into situations of imminent involvement in hostilities, is limited to instances of (1) a declaration of war, (2) a specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. In the absence of a declaration of war, a President must within 48 hours report to Congress whenever he introduces troops (1) into hostilities or situations of imminent hostilities, (2) into a foreign nation while equipped for combat, except in certain nonhostile situations, or (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States troops equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation. The President is required to terminate the use of troops in the reported situation within 60 days of reporting, unless Congress (1) has declared war, (2) has extended the period, or (3) is unable to meet as a result of an attack on the United States, but the period can be extended another 30 days by the President's certification to Congress of unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the troops. Congress may through the passage of a concurrent resolution require the President to remove the troops sooner. The Resolution further states that no legislation, whether enacted prior to or subsequent to passage of the Resolution will be taken to empower the President to use troops abroad unless the legislation specifically does so and that no treaty may so empower the President unless it is supplemented by implementing legislation specifically addressed to the issue.
However, to me an area of Presidential Power just as important (and also limited) is the President power to nominate am individual to an opening on the Supreme Court. Even this power is limited by the fact that the United States Senate must ratify that nomination. However, it is an important function in that it can have an important impact on the direction of the United States for many years. Even this can be minimized to the degree that the new Justice adheres to the Constitution. Here we can see what may happen based on how a new Justice adheres to their Oath of Office. For example, Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg on a visit to Cairo Egypt in January of 2012 told Egyptians that in the writings of a new Constitution, not to look to the Constitution of the United States for guidance but rather to the Constitution of South Africa. Some might suggest that this is merely a matter of opinion, but not for her as she took an Oath of Office. Which states:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
I realize that swearing an Oath in this day and age has become more than a little passé, and is considered by some as an anachronism of a time long gone. But to others, this is a sacred promise that at the very least defines the person, and can be (once was) considered to be legally binding on that Oath Taker.
I believe it is clear that she has violated that Oath of Office, but be that as it may, here too the Presidential powers are limited by Congress.
My point is that while the position of President of the United States is powerful, it is certainly not unlimited and so while concerns about the person holding that position are real, Congress, if it acts as it should, has the real power.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 17:38:54 GMT -5
Concern about who is the President is important, but in the Government of the United States it is not a do all for one point of view. For example, while a President can under some conditions deploy troops, it is specifically limited: The Power of Congress to Control the President's Discretion .-- Over the President's veto, Congress enacted the War Powers Resolution, designed to redistribute the war powers between the President and Congress. Although ambiguous in some respects, the Resolution appears to define restrictively the President's powers, to require him to report fully to Congress upon the introduction of troops into foreign areas, to specify a maximum time limitation on the engagement of hostilities absent affirmative congressional action, and to provide a means for Congress to require cessation of hostilities in advance of the time set. The Resolution states that the President's power to commit United States troops into hostilities, or into situations of imminent involvement in hostilities, is limited to instances of (1) a declaration of war, (2) a specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces. In the absence of a declaration of war, a President must within 48 hours report to Congress whenever he introduces troops (1) into hostilities or situations of imminent hostilities, (2) into a foreign nation while equipped for combat, except in certain nonhostile situations, or (3) in numbers which substantially enlarge United States troops equipped for combat already located in a foreign nation. The President is required to terminate the use of troops in the reported situation within 60 days of reporting, unless Congress (1) has declared war, (2) has extended the period, or (3) is unable to meet as a result of an attack on the United States, but the period can be extended another 30 days by the President's certification to Congress of unavoidable military necessity respecting the safety of the troops. Congress may through the passage of a concurrent resolution require the President to remove the troops sooner. The Resolution further states that no legislation, whether enacted prior to or subsequent to passage of the Resolution will be taken to empower the President to use troops abroad unless the legislation specifically does so and that no treaty may so empower the President unless it is supplemented by implementing legislation specifically addressed to the issue. However, to me an area of Presidential Power just as important (and also limited) is the President power to nominate am individual to an opening on the Supreme Court. Even this power is limited by the fact that the United States Senate must ratify that nomination. However, it is an important function in that it can have an important impact on the direction of the United States for many years. Even this can be minimized to the degree that the new Justice adheres to the Constitution. Here we can see what may happen based on how a new Justice adheres to their Oath of Office. For example, Justice Ruth Bader-Ginsburg on a visit to Cairo Egypt in January of 2012 told Egyptians that in the writings of a new Constitution, not to look to the Constitution of the United States for guidance but rather to the Constitution of South Africa. Some might suggest that this is merely a matter of opinion, but not for her as she took an Oath of Office. Which states: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” I realize that swearing an Oath in this day and age has become more than a little passé, and is considered by some as an anachronism of a time long gone. But to others, this is a sacred promise that at the very least defines the person, and can be (once was) considered to be legally binding on that Oath Taker. I believe it is clear that she has violated that Oath of Office, but be that as it may, here too the Presidential powers are limited by Congress. My point is that while the position of President of the United States is powerful, it is certainly not unlimited and so while concerns about the person holding that position are real, Congress, if it acts as it should, has the real power. I think that we have learned the hard way how easily that is circumvented. The President is still the Commander-In-Chief, and once a series of events is ignited [by the President] it is very hard to stop it.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 30, 2016 18:05:01 GMT -5
Ariel replied, " . . . I think that we have learned the hard way how easily that is circumvented. The President is still the Commander-In-Chief, and once a series of events is ignited [by the President] it is very hard to stop it. . . . "
True enough Ariel. There is no doubt that whether we are talking the President, members of Congress, or even court members, their acts are often discouraging. For me, the defining factor in this is whether they are following the Constitution of the United States or not.
Certainly for a citizen to make such a determination, if they are serious, can be a daunting task, at least for some issues. In part to ease that task that citizen can become familiar with various special interest think tanks which are more than willing to offer opinions. There are also many sources that will help others (inclusive of the interested citizen) to become familiar through various writings, and there are increasing numbers of credible institutions which will teach such analysis.
Even so there will be more than a little room for disagreement. I cannot imagine Professor Cass Sunstein and Professor Randy Barnett (both recognized Constitutional Scholars) easily finding common ground on Constitutional Interpretation. However, it is that Constitution which is our load stone (if you will) and the issues can only (reasonably) be addressed through it.
So too with the jobs of those elected to office and it is up to the citizen to hold the feet of those elected to the fire of the Constitution. If we as citizens are not willing to go that distance, then will we not reap the whirlwind?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 19:51:36 GMT -5
Ariel replied, " . . . I think that we have learned the hard way how easily that is circumvented. The President is still the Commander-In-Chief, and once a series of events is ignited [by the President] it is very hard to stop it. . . . " True enough Ariel. There is no doubt that whether we are talking the President, members of Congress, or even court members, their acts are often discouraging. For me, the defining factor in this is whether they are following the Constitution of the United States or not. Certainly for a citizen to make such a determination, if they are serious, can be a daunting task, at least for some issues. In part to ease that task that citizen can become familiar with various special interest think tanks which are more than willing to offer opinions. There are also many sources that will help others (inclusive of the interested citizen) to become familiar through various writings, and there are increasing numbers of credible institutions which will teach such analysis. Even so there will be more than a little room for disagreement. I cannot imagine Professor Cass Sunstein and Professor Randy Barnett (both recognized Constitutional Scholars) easily finding common ground on Constitutional Interpretation. However, it is that Constitution which is our load stone (if you will) and the issues can only (reasonably) be addressed through it. So too with the jobs of those elected to office and it is up to the citizen to hold the feet of those elected to the fire of the Constitution. If we as citizens are not willing to go that distance, then will we not reap the whirlwind? I have to know where you stand on the Second Amendment. I will be in Cuba by the time you answer, but I will definitely look for your reply.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 22:17:29 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Sysop3 on Jul 30, 2016 22:26:56 GMT -5
Do you really believe all that tommyrot, Chef? It all depends on where you get your news.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 22:32:49 GMT -5
Do you really believe all that tommyrot, Chef? It all depends on where you get your news. yes I do....funny thing is with Hillary no one has to lie or stretch the truth
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jul 30, 2016 23:05:10 GMT -5
Do you really believe all that tommyrot, Chef? It all depends on where you get your news. yes I do....funny thing is with Hillary no one has to lie or stretch the truth Good grief, how do you know? Some kind of extra sensory perception?
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 30, 2016 23:31:21 GMT -5
Ariel asked,” . . . I have to know where you stand on the Second Amendment. I will be in Cuba by the time you answer, but I will definitely look for your reply. . . “
Ariel, this is a little longer that I suspect what you are asking for, but to understand the position of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, there is a foundation and process which should be (in my opinion) understood.
As I’m sure you are aware the Second Amendment is the Second Ratified Article of the Bill of Rights. I say it this way since that is not the position it held as, which was the Forth Article in the twelve proposed Articles of the Bill of Rights proposed to the States.
This was no small task to write a Bill of Rights and in truth it is less a Bill of Rights than it is restrictions on acts of the Federal Government. That is, this Bill of Rights doesn’t represent rights granted to the Citizens of the United States but rather is a list of Rights in which each of the ratified Articles defines Constitutional exclusions of actions of the federal government as applied to Individual Rights preexisting (as derived from the Common Law) the Constitution and for that matter, the Articles of Confederation.
James Madison initially worked on as many as 20 such articles (even had a Preamble) for what would become the Bill of Rights. Members of the Congress also worked on this list and the result was a list of 12 Articles (sans a Preamble) proposed to the States.
The States ended up ratifying ten of the Articles dropping the 1st and 2nd Articles which moved what today we consider the Second Amendment from 4th to 2nd. By the way, all of this (inclusive of the 1789 Joint Resolution of Congress) can be found in the Rotunda of the National Archives Museum.
So the Bill of Rights excludes the Federal Government from specific acts relative to the specific rights defined in the first 8 articles of the Bill of Rights. For example, the first Article forbids the passage of any law relative to the rights as defined therein. The wording is different in the second article in that it excludes the federal government from infringing on this individual right to keep and bear arms. This is interesting as they could have just included it in the first article under the umbrella of ‘shall pass no law,’ after all they mean the same thing don’t they? No not really, as ‘shall not infringe’ is a far stronger restriction. Obviously it includes to not pass a law, but in the way it is written the federal government is excluded from doing anything indirectly which infringes on that right. For example, passing a law under the Commerce Clause (which is Constitutionally legal) and not mentioning arms but infringing on it say by increasing a federal tax. No, they are not supposed to do that.
As long as I have gone this far I guess I should say something about this well wore thing about Militias. The Founders were not a bunch of country boobs but were well educated and they knew language and how to use it. When they wrote the Second Amendment it stated:
“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
Today it is most often written as”
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
I hope the difference is clear, if not it is that today commas have been inserted after the word Militia and after the word Arms. This change can be used (and has been) to change the meaning of this Amendment. By the way this change is not my opinion but the original can be found in the Library of Congress and the National Archives Library with only the single comma after the word State. I also have official publications of my State of Iowa from the early 1900s which prints the Constitution of the United States with the Amendments and in the Second Amendment uses only the single comma after the word State.
However all of that comes-a-cropper as the most recent cases of the United States Supreme Court; District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), have declared the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as an Citizen Individual Right.
So with that lead in it is clear as a bell (even the cracked Liberty Bell) that this is an individual right period and that excludes any suggested impact from the reference to Militias.
Yes, I agree with that as I do with all Individual Rights. It is not about guns but rather about Individual Rights.
Now, what the court has not yet addressed (except in some lower court rulings) is whether there is a Constitutional position on type of gun, although in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court opined that if the gun in question had been defined as a Military weapon (a sawed off shot gun in that case), then the Citizen Miller had every right to have it and it was a military weapon since it was used as a trench clearer in World War I. This opinion was unusual as this was not part of the evidence in the case and the Supreme court offered that opinion, something they rarely do. It didn’t make much difference as this was offered from a minority opinion and the case was returned to the lower court but Miller died before it could be retried.
So how do I answer your question. The Second Amendment is a restriction on the federal government and not the Citizen. The federal government can neither give nor take away an Individual Right. They could have a Constitutional Amendment to provide some restrictions on the use of a weapon but I seriously doubt that will ever happen. Of course this restriction on the federal government has now been applied to State governments with the 14th Amendment in 1868 (an interesting debate in itself as to whether that was a legal Amendment) and then judged as a valid Amendment in 1869 in the case of Texas v. White.
To me a Citizen has a full unimpeded right to keep and bear arms as long as a court has not restricted their citizenship, say as a felon of as one not mentally competent. Also I have no problem with citizens having to go through gun training courses and receiving a carry permit after passing such a course. Since I am (have been) a firearms instructor working with students from 9 (with their parents in attendance) to 80, this should not be a surprise. I guess I should also say that for myself, I was trained in the use of weapons at a very early age and really can’t remember not having access to weapons.
My perspective is also influenced by my working with police and sheriff’s departments and I know that they (with rare exception) have no problem with a trained citizen carrying a weapon. I also work with military Veterans many of whom have been firearms instructors within the Military (as well as under me) and their perspectives are little different than mine.
I don’t know if that answers your question so feel free to ask more.
|
|
|
Post by men an tol on Jul 30, 2016 23:36:05 GMT -5
Do you really believe all that tommyrot, Chef? It all depends on where you get your news. Yes, I too believe this of Secretary Clinton.
|
|
|
Post by beth on Jul 30, 2016 23:50:29 GMT -5
Do you really believe all that tommyrot, Chef? It all depends on where you get your news. Yes, I too believe this of Secretary Clinton. I think you have to want to believe it to get there ... orrr watch and read an awfully lot of right wing propaganda. She isn't my favorite .. primarily because she's a professional politician, and I'd like to see a real person elected .. but there are no such candidates that could possibly win this time around. I think Trump has been a great curiosity and, to his credit, has brought in a lot of people who weren't particularly interested in elections before. The same thing happened with Reagan in the 80s. I suspect it's celebrity worship. All that aside, it's possible he could do this country a great deal of harm. More harm than with Hillary in office. I believe that's the way we have to look at it or we'll deserve what we get.
|
|