Will you still support Justin as an Independent?

[RonZeplin]

When bills have been passed to violate it then unless you can get a judge to overturn them you must pass bills to remove the violating bills.

But you are so much smarter to let the bills that violate it stand.

You're flat out wrong. Administrators have no obligation to enforce bad "law" aka unconstitutional legislation. There are three branches of gov for a reason, the judicial branch does not have the final say, the people who enforce DO, the executive branch.

You're just trying to make excuses for your scofflaw false god, the chief executive of the USA, Donnell of NYC.

Impeach, remove, lock 'em up!

 

[Swordsmyth]

You're flat out wrong. Administrators have no obligation to enforce bad "law" aka unconstitutional legislation. There are three branches of gov for a reason, the judicial branch does not have the final say, the people who enforce DO, the executive branch.

You're just trying to make excuses for your scofflaw false god, the chief executive of the USA, Donnell of NYC.

Impeach, remove, lock 'em up!

That's all well and good if you can get administrators that agree but since that doesn't usually happen then it is much better to pass laws telling them to stop violating rights as much as possible.

And Trump has to walk a tight-rope to avoid being impeached for "breaking the law" by a hostile Congress if he is going to stay in office and do some good.

You keep proving that you really want President Pelosi.

 

[familydog]

That is not correct:

1) This is not a rebuttal on the merits of my argument. The courts did not apply the Bill of Rights to the states until the 1920s. 1925 with the case Gitlow v. New York, specifically. The courts magically found a new interpretation and rejected over a century of legal jurisprudence. This is a fact. But even then, it wasn't until the 1950s that the courts took this idea and ran with it. 2) Regarding Justice Thomas, he is incorrect. The 1873 Slaughterhouses Cases specifically state that the Privileges or Immunities Clause cannot be used in the idea of incorporation. Justice Thomas is interpreting the clause radically different than the framers of the 14th Amendment had imagined. 3) The Due Process clause was intended as a procedural measure. Currently, the courts apply substantive due process instead. The difference is important and striking. 4) Justice Thomas is not an originalist. He is arguably a textualist. An originalist view of the 14th Amendment would argue the Amendment was illegally ratified and thus void. He would also argue that the Constitution does not apply the Bill of Rights to the states.

What if all the states start violating your rights?

This is an unlikely scenario. When have all 50 states agreed on anything? If you study the founding, you will see that the north and south were radically different culturally and philosophically. Thus, the only way to establish a country was a voluntary union between the 13 individual and sovereign states. Even then, the Constitution was barely ratified. The system was set up with disagreements between the states in mind. There are now 50 states to choose from. Presumably one of them would be a fit.

I would also like to add that one man's rights are another man's shackles.

What good is it to have the BoR designating fundamental GOD granted rights if any level of government is allowed to violate them?

You are taking issue with the founders. As I stated previously, there would be no United States if the framers of the Constitution insisted upon incorporation. There just wasn't support for that. What you champion is the elimination of federalism in favor of a centralized government. It is a one-size-fits-all argument that betrays the orginal understanding of how our system ought to operate.

As a matter of Natural Law no government may violate the rights of its citizens, anything that any level of government may violate is by definition not a right.
Whatever the consensus was at any point in the past doesn't matter, My rights come from GOD and no human government may violate them, any state that desires to violate my rights should be overruled, expelled or allowed to secede because this nation was founded on the principle of respecting the GOD given rights of the people.

You would be in line more with the French Revolution than you ever would be in the American Revolution. The French wanted to eliminate the past. As do Marxists. History needs to be erased in order to shape the future. I disagree. We need our past. Our traditions and heritage are crucial to a functioning and peaceful society. If we erase our history, what do we have left? If we acknowledge our history and fail to adhere to it, then we are a slave to totalitarianism at the whim of the mob.

 

[EBounding]

I don't see Justin running for POTUS in 2020. I see him running for his current seat as an independent. There is precedent for an incumbent congressman or senator running as an independent and winning. In a 3-way race if Justin was in a close 2nd behind the republican, many democrats would be tempted to throw their weight behind him just to shore up a vote for impeachment.

That's what I think too. I hope he doesn't run in 2020. Actually winning re-election as an independent would give more credibility to a future 3rd party presidential run.

His biggest hurdle is that Michigan is a straight ticket state. I think he has a decent chance though if both parties nominate lousy candidates.

 

[cruzrulez]

No I will not support him as an independent. He's aligned tacitly, although not outright with bill kristol. Maybe if he disavowed bill kristol and also was as hard on the obama administration for the fisa abuse as he dogpiled on trump I could see him more or less as ideologically consistent - but he's not and isn't.

 

[revgen]

I won't support him financially if he's running for a congressional seat. I'll be throwing money away. National elections are impossible to win for independents and 3rd parties. If he's running for a local or state office, I'll think about it. It's the state election laws that favor GOP and Dems. Only state reps can change them.

 

[EBounding]

I won't support him financially if he's running for a congressional seat. I'll be throwing money away. National elections are impossible to win for independents and 3rd parties. If he's running for a local or state office, I'll think about it. It's the state election laws that favor GOP and Dems. Only state reps can change them.

The state legislature did eliminate straight ticket voting, but then voters approved a proposal to bring it back.

 

[shakey1]

Not sure... could be too soon to tell just what direction he’s gonna take. RP gave him a pretty strong endorsement when he was just getting started, but things change.

 

[Swordsmyth]

1) This is not a rebuttal on the merits of my argument. The courts did not apply the Bill of Rights to the states until the 1920s. 1925 with the case Gitlow v. New York, specifically. The courts magically found a new interpretation and rejected over a century of legal jurisprudence. This is a fact. But even then, it wasn't until the 1950s that the courts took this idea and ran with it. 2) Regarding Justice Thomas, he is incorrect. The 1873 Slaughterhouses Cases specifically state that the Privileges or Immunities Clause cannot be used in the idea of incorporation. Justice Thomas is interpreting the clause radically different than the framers of the 14th Amendment had imagined. 3) The Due Process clause was intended as a procedural measure. Currently, the courts apply substantive due process instead. The difference is important and striking. 4) Justice Thomas is not an originalist. He is arguably a textualist. An originalist view of the 14th Amendment would argue the Amendment was illegally ratified and thus void. He would also argue that the Constitution does not apply the Bill of Rights to the states.

Thomas lays out an excellent case that the 14thA absolutely imposed the BoR on the states and that people said it would when it was passed, see the other posts I mad with longer pieces of his opinion.

This is an unlikely scenario. When have all 50 states agreed on anything? If you study the founding, you will see that the north and south were radically different culturally and philosophically. Thus, the only way to establish a country was a voluntary union between the 13 individual and sovereign states. Even then, the Constitution was barely ratified. The system was set up with disagreements between the states in mind. There are now 50 states to choose from. Presumably one of them would be a fit.

All 50 states agree on many things that violate your rights.

I would also like to add that one man's rights are another man's shackles.

That's just plain wrong.

You are taking issue with the founders. As I stated previously, there would be no United States if the framers of the Constitution insisted upon incorporation. There just wasn't support for that. What you champion is the elimination of federalism in favor of a centralized government. It is a one-size-fits-all argument that betrays the orginal understanding of how our system ought to operate.

The founders also still had slaves, are you going to argue that we should still allow that?
Making the states recognize some basic human rights isn't destroying federalism, all the other restrictions on the Federal government still apply and most powers are reserved to the states.

You would be in line more with the French Revolution than you ever would be in the American Revolution. The French wanted to eliminate the past. As do Marxists. History needs to be erased in order to shape the future. I disagree. We need our past. Our traditions and heritage are crucial to a functioning and peaceful society. If we erase our history, what do we have left? If we acknowledge our history and fail to adhere to it, then we are a slave to totalitarianism at the whim of the mob.

You would be more in line with the French Revolution because it was just about who got to rule instead of fundamental GOD given rights.

It is ridiculous that you are putting state governments above GOD given individual rights, if any state and its people are insistent on violating rights then they should be allowed to leave the union or expelled from it.

 

[revgen]

The state legislature did eliminate straight ticket voting, but then voters approved a proposal to bring it back.

I didn't know that. Either the voters were fooled by propaganda or the votes were rigged. Or both.

 

[familydog]

Thomas lays out an excellent case that the 14thA absolutely imposed the BoR on the states and that people said it would when it was passed, see the other posts I mad with longer pieces of his opinion.

You are correct that Thomas lays out a case, but he is wrong. He is not an originalist. He is in favor of a living constitution that changes with the times.

All 50 states agree on many things that violate your rights.

Such as?

That's just plain wrong.

One man's human right to healthcare is another man's burden to provide it.

The founders also still had slaves, are you going to argue that we should still allow that?

I'm beginning to think that you have no interest in genuine dialogue and debate.

Making the states recognize some basic human rights isn't destroying federalism, all the other restrictions on the Federal government still apply and most powers are reserved to the states.

You must be unaware of what federalism is then.

You would be more in line with the French Revolution because it was just about who got to rule instead of fundamental GOD given rights.

With all due respect, you have no idea what the French Revolution was about.

It is ridiculous that you are putting state governments above GOD given individual rights, if any state and its people are insistent on violating rights then they should be allowed to leave the union or expelled from it.

I'm abiding by the Constitution and the American tradition. That's all.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You are correct that Thomas lays out a case, but he is wrong. He is not an originalist. He is in favor of a living constitution that changes with the times.

He is absolutely right and he lays out an originalist case.

Such as?

Most of their laws.
Just one obvious example is that all 50 states require a Driver's License to drive a car.

One man's human right to healthcare is another man's burden to provide it.

There is no human right to healthcare, I'm beginning to understand that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm beginning to think that you have no interest in genuine dialogue and debate.

I'd say the same for you, you tried to claim that we should do things one way because the founders did it that way as opposed to whether or not it is the right thing but now you want to run away because I demonstrated how absurd that is.

You must be unaware of what federalism is then.

No, that would be you.

With all due respect, you have no idea what the French Revolution was about.

I most certainly understand it better than you and you have absolutely no idea what the American Revolution was about either.

I'm abiding by the Constitution and the American tradition. That's all.

No, but even if your interpretation was correct you are arguing against changing it to be better too.

 

[familydog]

He is absolutely right and he lays out an originalist case.

You do not know what originalism is.

Most of their laws.
Just one obvious example is that all 50 states require a Driver's License to drive a car.

Most of their laws is not an answer.

Licensing in and of itself is not a violation of your liberties unless you are an anarchist. I assume that you are not.

There is no human right to healthcare, I'm beginning to understand that you have no idea what you are talking about.

According to whom?

I'd say the same for you, you tried to claim that we should do things one way because the founders did it that way as opposed to whether or not it is the right thing but now you want to run away because I demonstrated how absurd that is.

Now I know you are not serious about having a genuine dialogue. I don't have time to listen to an SJW talk about how the founders were terrible racists and therefore they should be ignored. I'll take my exist after this post.

No, that would be you.

Your rhetorical jujitsu is astounding.

I most certainly understand it better than you and you have absolutely no idea what the American Revolution was about either.

By stating that the French Revolution was about who got to rule as opposed to about liberty and equality, you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject. The point is that the French and the Americans had polar opposite definitions of liberty and equality. You must not be aware of this.

No, but even if your interpretation was correct you are arguing against changing it to be better too.

I'm arguing against unconstitutional actions be the general government. Its really that simple.

 

[Swordsmyth]

You do not know what originalism is.

LOL

Most of their laws is not an answer.

Yes it is.

Licensing in and of itself is not a violation of your liberties unless you are an anarchist. I assume that you are not.

I am a well known non-anarchist but even I know having to get permission is a violation of my rights, if someone causes enough damage you could put them under a court order barring them from driving, you don't make everyone jump through government hoops to exercise the right to travel.

According to whom?

According to anyone who isn't a liberal lunatic, you have no right to the property or services of others.

Now I know you are not serious about having a genuine dialogue. I don't have time to listen to an SJW talk about how the founders were terrible racists and therefore they should be ignored. I'll take my exist after this post.

I didn't say they were evil racists and therefore should be ignored, I said that they were not perfect and we are not bound by their flaws and errors.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Your rhetorical jujitsu is astounding.

It's a match for yours.

By stating that the French Revolution was about who got to rule as opposed to about liberty and equality, you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Keep proving your ignorance, the French Revolution CLAIMED to be about liberty and equality but it was not about either in the least, it was about who got to rule and the winners proceeded to violate everyone else's rights in a legendary manner.

The point is that the French and the Americans had polar opposite definitions of liberty and equality. You must not be aware of this.

The French were liars and hypocrites, The Americans actually believed in GOD given individual rights.
You believe in state governments.

I'm arguing against unconstitutional actions be the general government. Its really that simple.

They aren't unconstitutional because the Constitution has been amended and even if it hadn't you are arguing against amending it to preserve the individual's rights against state governments.

 

[jmdrake]

He said he does not rule it out- though it is getting late to start fundraising for a run if he does intend to. https://www.newsweek.com/justin-ama...tial-run-says-pelosi-making-strategic-1447916

Yeah...and Trump didn't rule out bombing Iran over a downed drone....but he ultimately didn't do it. There's no reason for him to take that option off the table at this point.

 

[TheCount]

You do not know what originalism is.

Swordsmyth thinks that originalism permits nationalization of the internet under the Post Office.

 

[loveshiscountry]

With all due respect, so far the 15 bootlickers of big government in this poll

Because Amash votes extremely pro liberty doesn't matter. He went after Trump and by golly no one goes after our guy. Why don't everyone of you go back to England and get in a circle jerk with King George. And then die in your sleep. Amen.

 

[UWDude]

With all due respect, so far the 14 boot lickers of big government in this poll are:
AngryCanadian, bubbleboy, cruzrulez, euphemia, fcreature, floridave, kahless, Mach, mrsat_98, spudea, Stratovarious, susano, Swordsmyth, UWDude

Because Amash votes extremely pro liberty doesn't matter. He went after Trump and by golly no one goes after our guy. Why don't everyone of you go back to England and get in a circle jerk with King George. And then die in your sleep. Amen.

Id choose a democrat that was against impeaching Trump over the collusion hoax before id ever support Amash.

And saying nothing of the attempted framing of the president over a hoax, not to mention the wedge being driven between Russia and America by the criminal hoax, by Amash, means he is not pro liberty at all, he is just "with all due respect" a calculating lawyer sleazebag, and dumb one at that, since it is clear he severely miscalculated, (not to mention it is clear he thinks the meuller report was worth reading).

"golly"

 

[Ender]

Id choose a democrat that was against impeaching Trump over the collusion hoax before id ever support Amash.

And saying nothing of the attempted framing of the president over a hoax, not to mention the wedge being driven between Russia and America by the criminal hoax, by Amash, means he is not pro liberty at all, he is just "with all due respect" a calculating lawyer sleazebag, and dumb one at that, since it is clear he severely miscalculated, (not to mention it is clear he thinks the meuller report was worth reading).

"golly"

Amash never believed the Russian hoax. His POV on impeachment came from possible obstruction from Trump in the investigation process. These kinds of possible actions were also what got Clinton impeached as well as Nixon.

But of course, don't read the report & just keep spouting stuff that has nothing to do with Amash's actions.

 

[UWDude]

Amash never believed the Russian hoax. His POV on impeachment came from possible obstruction from Trump in the investigation process. These kinds of possible actions were also what got Clinton impeached as well as Nixon.

But of course, don't read the report & just keep spouting stuff that has nothing to do with Amash's actions.

Sure he didn't believe it, but he believed in it enough to think the Meuller report was worth a damn. He believed in it enough to never once condemn it for the frame job witch hunt it was. He believed in it enough to claim there were grounds for impeachment based on the flimsiest of excuses, flimsier than a fart on a sailboat.