You think the same standards used for Clinton should be used for Trump?
Wouldn’t that be the thing to do under your rules?
Link: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-as-democrats-consider-impeaching-trump-gop-leaders-regret-pursuing-clinton
Republicans to introduce another candidate while many swing voters would be pissed about an unjust impeachment.
(no message)
(no message)
Glad to see those guys agree with me. I said the impeachment of Clinton was a mistake a long time ago. But, I fully encourage the Dems to continue their scorched earth policy, and go after Trump.
P.S. I will be travelling, so responses to future personal messages may be delayed.
The president you support could give 2 shits about the Constitution or civility.
But, it does explain how your comments about Trump's disdain for the Constitution carry no weight with me. If you cared about the Constitution more than him, your comments would carry more weight. as it is, you think anything a Dem pres does is ok.
As to the issue you raise: I think birth right citizenship is arguable from the text and intent analysis of the constitution. I think SCOTUS could come out either way on those too paradigms alone. The prudential arguments that might have made sense in favor of birthright for all 100+ years ago make little sense now.
SCOTUS could go another way.
be “interpreted” otherwise.
(no message)
Because "your rules" obviously means "our hideously jaded interpretation of your rules," which is not likely to be accurate.
The best summation of this was given by Cole a few months ago: His moral code was getting him nowhere, so he got rid of it and supported Trump.
That is the current GOP, in a nutshell.
Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=489552
of a living, breathing Constitution subject to different interpretations given the times.
Boarding now, so you guys get the last word.
There is a well defined method for changing the constitution and SCOTUS isn't it.
But, if we are right, how do you explain things like abortion and gay marriage being in the constitution? We are right in principle, but not in practice.
I see them as reasons not to.
But birthright citizenship actually is in there. As is the right to bear arms.
Ned will find all sorts of ways to have SCOTUS interpret it differently from its plain language.
Conservatives and libs both embrace an activist SCOTUS so long as it’s their agenda being advanced.
I also see more why conservative SCOTUS judges was Ned’s number one election priority.
Given that, I could say you have no integrity.
However, I don’t want to perpetuate and make it worse.
I would have no problem if Roe was overruled and the issue returned to the states where it belonged in the first place.
But to do the same shit on an issue that I like because now I can? That’s just wrong. That’s also Trumpism.
(no message)
Let's not pretend that your constitutional views preceded your views on abortion. The latter shaped the former, one hundred percent.
Original intent is knowable. And if it were intended for judges to change laws, we wouldn't need Congress. Judicial activism is antithetical to the principles of the founding of this country, the have a simple, well-defined job of which they take an oath to carry out.
The founders did not opine much on whether the right to privacy extends over zygotes, for instance, or whether bakers need to bake for gay people.
Some things need to be adjusted. Whether or not it is done in accordance with original intent is something always viewed through partisan lenses.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Can't you imagine how horrified someone in 1788 would be by the idea that people would want to kill their own unborn? Yet there is federalism, if your state doesn't grant this "privilege", you can have it done somewhere else.
I don't see why this is even the slightest bit controversial: opinions on constitutional originalism are 100% correlated with those on abortion.
Slavery was actually already disallowed by the text and (arguably intent) of the constitution, but they passed amendments for it anyways just for good measure. Pointing out the slavery issue and its genesis hurts your abortion argument. The 13-15th amendments is how it's supposed to work.
Now take the gay marriage issue, I am glad that gay people can marry, but I disagree with it coming from SCOTUS.
I would think that the terror of a Trump nominated majority on the court would sober you to the idea of constitutionalism. Sadly, it hasn't.
You might actually believe that. But you'd be as wrong as the feminist who makes the case for the opposite view.
You both start with a policy position and interpret the constitution in a way that fits.
My position is very clear: abortion is not addressed in the constitution (neither by text nor intent), therefore: short of an amendment or federal law it is a State issue.
Your post assumes a living, breathing Constitution where arguments that made sense when the Amendment was enacted don’t now.
The 14th Amendment language is broad and clear Ned. No new, living, breathing interpretation needed.
Things have changed, and arguments can be made. You have no integrity if you just argue that your favorite issues are textual, but issues you dislike are not.
When the text is plain it’s plain.
Ned you are as activist as the libs.