[Steve_American]

[b]FEDERALIST SOCIETY SCHOLARS: TRUMP IS INELIGIBLE TO BE PRES. OR ANY OFFICE.[/b] . . . only 1.5 min.

The Federalist is a very conservative think tank. If they say this it may stick. Remember 6 Federalists are on the USSC,

.

[Steve_American]

Prof. Lawrence Tribe weighs in on this issue.
. . 11 min.

[Rich]

People seem to forget that Trump only entered the 2016 presidential race at the behest of the Clintons, with the promise that the Clinton's media friends would give him an easy ride. Of course the Clinton's didn't imagine for one second that he'd win the Republican nomination let alone the Presidency. I doubt Trump did either. Trump was and remains a troll performance artist. And a good one at that. If Trump is not upsetting people, he's not doing his job. It should also be remembered that even Trump's signature birther trolling was started by the Clinton campaign during the 2008 primary.

The fact that people seriously imagine there could have been a coup on Jan 6th, is a testament to Trump's brilliance. It reminds me of the the sacking of Tony Clifton. It wasn't like people, quite smart people, didn't know that Andy Kaufmann was a troll performance artist, but still they totally lost it. Similarly some actors complained that Kaufmann acted unprofessionally, which was stupid, if they wanted regular professional conduct they should have employed a regular comedic actor not a performance artist.

[Steve_American]

Two more takes on this situation.

.

[late]

The Federalist Society played a crucial role in the corruption of the judiciary. They are one of many tools that the extreme Right rich guys use to get control of the country.

Their beef with Trump is that the rich can't control him.

Personally, I wouldn't use them as a source.

[Rancid]

Meh, Trump will still run and probably win.

[Puffer Fish]

The Federalist Society played a crucial role in the corruption of the judiciary.

I think you mean that sticking to the Constitution like they are supposed to do is "corruption".

It's just amazing to hear some of these comments, when it seems to me these accusations apply far more to the other side.

Probably the only example of blatant corruption you can even point to is the African American judge that conservatives appointed to the Supreme Court. (and even that wasn't really the most horrible)

[late]

I think you mean that sticking to the Constitution like they are supposed to do is "corruption".

First, they are only Originalists when it helps their cause.

Second, they have been doing dirty tricks for a generation.

[Steve_American]

I think you mean that sticking to the Constitution like they are supposed to do is "corruption".

No, that is not the "corruption " I see.

What I see is the Justices taking bribes to rule a certain way. Bribes in the form of expensive long vacations from billionaires.

Sometimes they are originalists and other times they make up new ways to justify their rulings. An example is the Dobbs decision that looked bac in time to the early 1600s in England to figure out what the Founders meant in 1787 and then by the writers of the 14th Amendment in 1867.

They ignore the most basic reason to accept that the Constitution is a living document. What is you ask? It is the Marbury v Madison decision, in which the USSC simply invented and asserted that it could declare laws unconstitutional. This is not in a clear reading of the Constitution. It is not implied anywhere. There is no hint of this in it. Yet, the 6 Justices accept this as a precedent, but didn't accept Roe and Casey as equally valid precedents like they said they would while under oath to tell the truth.

I wonder what would happen if the DOJ investigated and decided to charge 3 of them with perjury and sent them to prison.
.

[Rich]

First, they are only Originalists when it helps their cause.

Indeed and they're only Federalists when it suits them. They're only into States rights when it suits them. For me DOMA, the defence of Marriage Act, was the last straw, from then on there needed to be a strict zero tolerance policy for American conservatives whining on about States' Rights.

How many times have we heard conservatives spreading the lie that the founders supported free speech. The Second Amendment notably didn't need incorporation, that's because the 2nd Amendment doesn't give the right to bear arms, it just recognises the pre-existing right of all Protestant English men to bear arms. The real revolution took place not in America in the late eighteenth century but in England in 1688-9. The American Constitution was just a modest incremental expansion to the pre existing settlement.

[late]

How many times have we heard conservatives spreading the lie that the founders supported free speech. The Second Amendment notably didn't need incorporation, that's because the 2nd Amendment doesn't give the right to bear arms, it just recognises the pre-existing right of all Protestant English men to bear arms. The real revolution took place not in America in the late eighteenth century but in England in 1688-9. The American Constitution was just a modest incremental expansion to the pre existing settlement.

A minor note of disagreement..

We got the 2nd because they were cheap. They knew militias sucked. But they didn't want the expense of a standing army, so we got the 2nd.

They were also worried about militias getting out of control. The right to bear arms was there to make sure city boys weren't kept out. That's a bit oversimplified, for the whole story, try this:

https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Waldman-Amendment-Biography-2015-06-10/dp/B0197P9QFI/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2H5Y6UV51GO3C&keywords=the+second+amendment+a+biography&qid=1692028059&sprefix=the+second+am%2Caps%2C142&sr=8-3

[Rich]

They were also worried about militias getting out of control. The right to bear arms was there to make sure city boys weren't kept out. That's a bit oversimplified, for the whole story, try this:

https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Waldman-Amendment-Biography-2015-06-10/dp/B0197P9QFI/ref=sr_1_3?crid=2H5Y6UV51GO3C&keywords=the+second+amendment+a+biography&qid=1692028059&sprefix=the+second+am%2Caps%2C142&sr=8-3

Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately I've already got a "A brief History of France" and "Case White, The Invasion of Poland 1939" on my urgent history reading list, so I'm going to have to remain ignorant to the details of this story for the foreseeable future.

[Steve_American]

Let's talk about the 14th amendment, Trump, & a GOP candidate for Pres. files suits in 7 red states to disqualify him.

Remove the [[==] to see it.
https://www.you[==]tube.com/watch?v=I5efTpmc8ag&list=TLPQMDIwOTIwMjPjgMh16zWqcw&index=96

[Verv]

Indeed and they're only Federalists when it suits them. They're only into States rights when it suits them. For me DOMA, the defence of Marriage Act, was the last straw, from then on there needed to be a strict zero tolerance policy for American conservatives whining on about States' Rights.

How many times have we heard conservatives spreading the lie that the founders supported free speech. The Second Amendment notably didn't need incorporation, that's because the 2nd Amendment doesn't give the right to bear arms, it just recognises the pre-existing right of all Protestant English men to bear arms. The real revolution took place not in America in the late eighteenth century but in England in 1688-9. The American Constitution was just a modest incremental expansion to the pre existing settlement.

... How did the founding fathers not support free speech?

I also find this next statement confusing:

The 2nd Amendment doesn't give the right to bear arms, it just recognises .... the right to bear arms.

Are you really just saying that the right pre-existed, so it is just there to acknowledge it..?

It's not a declaration of a value for the newly founded US government to follow in posterity after the constitutional convention..?

I don't really get it.

I understand there's a lot of sophistry involved with interpreting these things but I would like this unpacked more.

[Steve_American]

... How did the founding fathers not support free speech?

I also find this next statement confusing:


Are you really just saying that the right pre-existed, so it is just there to acknowledge it..?

It's not a declaration of a value for the newly founded US government to follow in posterity after the constitutional convention..?

I don't really get it.

I understand there's a lot of sophistry involved with interpreting these things but I would like this unpacked more.

The Founders showed that they didn't believe in the 1st Amendment when they passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 and then repealed it after the Federalist Party lost the 1800 election to the Democratic-Republican Party under Jefferson.

One of the acts didn't let natural born Americans criticize the Gov. People were convicted and sent to prison for years for this.

I think it is fair to call the Federalists who controlled Congress and the Presidency in 1798, Founders.

Link => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts


The history of the 2nd Amend. is much more disputed, even now. With disinformation being generated every day.

[Verv]

The Founders showed that they didn't believe in the 1st Amendment when they passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 and then repealed it after the Federalist Party lost the 1800 election to the Democratic-Republican Party under Jefferson.

One of the acts didn't let natural born Americans criticize the Gov. People were convicted and sent to prison for years for this.

I think it is fair to call the Federalists who controlled Congress and the Presidency in 1798, Founders.

Link => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts


The history of the 2nd Amend. is much more disputed, even now. With disinformation being generated every day.

From your own link:

The Acts were highly controversial at the time, especially the Sedition Act. The Sedition Act, which was signed into law by Adams on July 14, 1798,[33] was hotly debated in the Federalist-controlled Congress and passed only after multiple amendments softening its terms, such as enabling defendants to argue in their defense that their statements had been true. Still, it passed the House only after three votes and another amendment causing it to automatically expire in March 1801.[31] They continued to be loudly protested and were a major political issue in the election of 1800. Opposition to them resulted in the also-controversial Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, authored by James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. Upon assuming the presidency, Thomas Jefferson pardoned those still serving sentences under the Sedition Act,[21]: 231  and Congress soon repaid their fines.[34]

So Adams and some amount of the people actually did believe that this was an OK thing to do, but big name Founding Fathers, who were normally refer to and often refer to as founders, such as Madison and Jefferson, actively opposed it and worked to undue it, and this has been the norm.

Who else do we think of when we think of the Founders?

Washington, who was dead, and we would assume would oppose it (perhaps erroneously?).
Franklin, who was dead, and was the weirdest of the bunch.
Paine, who was one of the most radicals of the group, doubtlessly would have opposed it
Ethan Allen would fit a similar description as Paine, and was dead by 1789...

... I mean, what's going on here..?

Are we saying that everyone who was in Congress in 1798 is a founding father? ... And only something like half of these people agreed to the watered down version, and only after an expiration amendment was added...

... And, as your page notes, this act was unpopular enough that the Sedition Act itself is accredited as helping get Jefferson elected...

Not really feeling your argument.

It's more like this Sedition Act of 1798 was not endorsed by the founding fathers we really look to, the fathers of the Revolution who penned the 1st amendment, and then the country corrected the problem of the congressmen who did not agree with the principles of the first amendment pretty forthrightly.

[Steve_American]

From your own link:



So Adams and some amount of the people actually did believe that this was an OK thing to do, but big name Founding Fathers, who were normally refer to and often refer to as founders, such as Madison and Jefferson, actively opposed it and worked to undue it, and this has been the norm.

Who else do we think of when we think of the Founders?

Washington, who was dead, and we would assume would oppose it (perhaps erroneously?).
Franklin, who was dead, and was the weirdest of the bunch.
Paine, who was one of the most radicals of the group, doubtlessly would have opposed it
Ethan Allen would fit a similar description as Paine, and was dead by 1789...

... I mean, what's going on here..?

Are we saying that everyone who was in Congress in 1798 is a founding father? ... And only something like half of these people agreed to the watered down version, and only after an expiration amendment was added...

... And, as your page notes, this act was unpopular enough that the Sedition Act itself is accredited as helping get Jefferson elected...

Not really feeling your argument.

It's more like this Sedition Act of 1798 was not endorsed by the founding fathers we really look to, the fathers of the Revolution who penned the 1st amendment, and then the country corrected the problem of the congressmen who did not agree with the principles of the first amendment pretty forthrightly.

OK, the Acts were controversial.
OTOH, they were passed and enforced by members of the Founders generation.
This includes Pres. Madison, the Father of the Constitution, who you avoided mentioning.

My point is that the 1st Amendment was not as sacred as it is now.

OTOH, Trump and the Repuds intend to imprison leading leaders of the opposition, see the 1025 Plan video in the thread about Trump ending democracy. So, they don't hold it sacred any more.

[SpecialOlympian]

People seem to forget that Trump only entered the 2016 presidential race at the behest of the Clintons, with the promise that the Clinton's media friends would give him an easy ride. Of course the Clinton's didn't imagine for one second that he'd win the Republican nomination let alone the Presidency. I doubt Trump did either. Trump was and remains a troll performance artist. And a good one at that. If Trump is not upsetting people, he's not doing his job. It should also be remembered that even Trump's signature birther trolling was started by the Clinton campaign during the 2008 primary.

The fact that people seriously imagine there could have been a coup on Jan 6th, is a testament to Trump's brilliance. It reminds me of the the sacking of Tony Clifton. It wasn't like people, quite smart people, didn't know that Andy Kaufmann was a troll performance artist, but still they totally lost it. Similarly some actors complained that Kaufmann acted unprofessionally, which was stupid, if they wanted regular professional conduct they should have employed a regular comedic actor not a performance artist.

Hillary wanted him to get the nomination but Trump had run multiple times before as a publicity stunt. He just happened to be the dog that caught the car in 2016.

Also considering one woman was crazy enough to get her stupid ass killed it was a coup attempt. It wasn’t going to be successful but they tried.

[Rich]

Also considering one woman was crazy enough to get her stupid ass killed it was a coup attempt. It wasn’t going to be successful but they tried.

Four people died at Kent State, that didn't mean there was a coup attempt. Thirteen died on Bloody Sunday in Northern Island, that doesn't mean it was an insurrection. It just means that the security forces had a robust, perhaps too robust response.

There was no coup attempt on Jan 6th. Its sometimes difficult to tell whether the Liberals are morons or just pathological liars. So far the Liberals haven't produced a single army, Navy or Air-force commander that was contacted about this supposed coup. What sections of the CIA, the FBI or the ATF were involved? Perhaps they were going to use State police forces? No again there was nothing.

People seem to think I have some partisan bias, but I scoffed at the same nonsense, when Conservative said Obama was going to make himself King. No Trump dutifully handed over the nuclear codes, surrendered the White House and walked away the same as Obama did. And I predict exactly the same will happen in 2029, if Trump wins in 2024.

All Trump did on Jan 6th was call the Republican establishment's bluff. They had been saying for years that the Democrats were fraudulently stealing elections, he just asked Republican officials to use their Constitutional powers to disrupt the fraud they had been alleging.

[SpecialOlympian]

Four people died at Kent State, that didn't mean there was a coup attempt. Thirteen died on Bloody Sunday in Northern Island, that doesn't mean it was an insurrection. It just means that the security forces had a robust, perhaps too robust response.

The Army went to Kent State. The students didn't go to the army. It's very clear who was the aggressor was.

That dumb fucking idiot who died was trying to crawl through a window toward a person pointing a gun at her so she could be the hero who strangled Mike Pence. I don't like police. Even the capital police, who are basically mall cops. But what the fuck did anyone think would happen?

Aside from the guy who tazed his balls to death while trying to steal a portrait of Tip O'Neil, it's the dumbest death of Jan 6th. Which is when the stupidest people on earth with no clear goal marched on a government building, which is what they should have done but for the dumbest reasons possible.

Also that dumb cunt was a former chairforce officer who knew exactly what happens when you try to invade governmnent property. Zero sypmathy for someone who knew better and still marched toward the end of a gun barrell. The fuck you think is going to happen?