1. We have moved to a new forum system. All your posts and data should have transferred over. Welcome, to the new Serebii Forums. Details here
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
    Dismiss Notice
  3. If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders
    Dismiss Notice

U.S. Politics 2017: So much for the tolerant SPPf

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous Polls' started by BigLutz, Apr 15, 2014.

  1. Mordent99

    Mordent99 Banned

    To anyone who truly feels Trump respects and will uphold the Constitution, I've done the research, and it ain't pretty.

    Now I know several people here will try to debunk, defend, and deny all this with a heavy dose of dodging and deflection, along with accusations of narrow mindedness and "having a closed mind". Well, that's your right. Just remember, I don't believe you one bit, nor do I care for your accusations or insults, seeing as I've heard every single excuse. over the past eight long years. My goal, like that of every true patriot, is to keep an incompetent buffoon from becoming leader of the free world.

    I'll tell you how he plans to violate the Constitution right here, and I'll do it by amendment, with dates:

    FIRST Amendment:

    Best to start at the beginning, after all

    Shortly after the November 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris, Trump told Fox News that the U.S. government should close mosques where “some bad things are happening." As he put it, “Nobody wants to say this and nobody wants to shut down religious institutions or anything, but you know, you understand it. A lot of people understand it. We’re going to have no choice. Some really bad things are happening.”

    At its core, Trump’s proposal would target a religious institution for sanction because of its members’ adherence to certain beliefs. It’s a textbook example of the kind of action expressly prohibited by the First Amendment—which protects religious liberty and bans laws that would prohibit the “free exercise” of religion. This is known as the Free Exercise Clause.

    Trump could claim that he sought to shut down only mosques that advocate what he calls “radical Islam” (although he made no effort to provide evidence of such advocacy). Even this modified proposal, however, would run afoul of not only the Free Exercise Clause but also the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, which allows us to stop speech that incites immediate violence but not broadly controversial speech that might inspire some future violent act.

    Trump has also suggested that as president, he would enact new restrictions on the First Amendment’s guaranteed freedom of the press. “We're going to open up those libel laws,” Trump said in February. “So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace … we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected.” For more than 50 years, the Supreme Court has held that for a public figure to prove libel against a news outlet, they must show that the outlet acted with “‘actual malice’ — that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” To seek to overturn this constitutional protection such that news organizations could be sued for publishing a story that gets some minor facts wrong but is not actually malicious would run contrary to our long-established understanding of the First Amendment freedoms of speech and the press. In a constitutional democracy, it is essential that the press has broad freedom to investigate public officials so that voters have the information needed to hold them accountable.

    EIGHTH Amendment:

    “What do you think about waterboarding?” Well, it's the rhetorical question Trump asked of an adoring Ohio audience in June. He answered his own inquiry: “I like it a lot. I don't think it's tough enough.” He seemed to yearn for the medieval torture and execution options available to ISIS militants, saying incredulously: “So we can't do waterboarding, but they can do chopping off heads, drowning people in sealed cages? You have to fight fire with fire.”

    More troubling, in December, Trump brazenly expressed his desire to seek to kill and torture not only terrorists, but their family members (“We're fighting a very politically correct war," he said, "and the other thing is with the terrorists: You have to take out their families.”). That idea has been met with shock and horror from a bipartisan swath of lawmakers, military officials and former Cabinet members—and there’s a basic constitutional reason why.

    The Eighth Amendment prevents the use of cruel and unusual punishment, protecting people within the U.S., at a minimum, from punishments that involve torture and the intentional infliction of pain. Justice Antonin Scalia famously argued that torture to gather information is not unconstitutional because it is not “punishment” within the meaning required by the clause. However, Trump’s discussions of waterboarding and intentional attacks on civilian family members of terrorists have the flavor of punishment-as-vengeance, rather than torture intended to gather intelligence. If this is indeed their purpose, and if he means to apply them to the war on terror within the United States, then they are clearly unconstitutional. In fact, they would serve well as hypotheticals that constitutional law professors might use to demonstrate how the ban on cruel and unusual punishment might be violated. (The proposal to target terrorists’ innocent civilian family members would also be a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s requirement of “due process,” because they have committed no crime and would have had no trial.)

    FOURTEETH Amendment

    Donald Trump’s statements about Muslims run up against so many clauses of the Constitution that it’s hard to pick just one. But the 14th Amendment is key here. This includes the Equal Protection Clause, which forbids the government from depriving individuals from “equal protection of the laws”—a protection that courts have ruled extends to all levels of government in our federal system.

    Trump’s suggested “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the U.S.” clearly runs afoul of both. The policy would, in effect, deny the right of Muslims who are U.S. citizens to leave the country, as they would presumably be banned from reentry once abroad.

    Trump has attempted to walk the statement back claiming that while his ban focused on only those seeking to immigrate to the U.S., we had to generally be “vigilant” about all Muslims entering the country. As he put it, this policy “[would] not apply to people living in the country, except we have to be vigilant.” As a policy, "vigilance" targeted at all Muslims inside the country’s borders creates a presumption of guilt based solely on religious belief, a clear violation of the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses—protections that extend to citizens and noncitizens alike.

    At minimum, Trump’s various iterations of a policy limiting travel and immigration for Muslims suggests heavy profiling based not just on religion but also on race and ethnicity.

    Trump’s proposed ban on foreign Muslims immigrating to the United States may also violate our Constitution. Despite the fact that immigration policy is set by the president and Congress, under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause (which is applied to the federal government through the Fifth Amendment), any law based on animus—hatred of a particular ethnic or religious group—is unconstitutional, and this certainly qualifies. The high court has held that immigration restrictions based on ideology do not necessarily violate the Free Speech Clause, but discrimination based on religion is different. Trump’s proposal erroneously ascribes dangerous beliefs to an entire religion. Trump’s supporters might point to a 19th century Supreme Court decision upholding the exclusion of Chinese nationals from immigration, but the holding could well be reversed if Trump’s proposed policy ever made it to the high court. Even Trump’s most recent immigration proposal, which scraps any reference to Muslims, focusing instead on “terrorist countries,” could be ruled unconstitutional if it is actually a pretext to engage in discrimination against Muslims wishing to enter the United States.


    In perhaps the most perfect storm of Trump’s hostility to constitutional values, in June, he declared U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel unfit to preside over lawsuits against Trump University solely because of the judge’s Mexican heritage. In Trump’s view, this Indiana native who was born to parents from Mexico could never fairly preside over a case against Trump in light of Trump’s proposal to build a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico. This hostility became even more apparent when Trump threatened the judge’s tenure, should he win the presidency.

    Trump’s comments about Judge Curiel drew attention for suggesting ethnic prejudice is at work in his thinking. However, they also suggest a fundamental misunderstanding about the role of the judicial branch in U.S. government. The judicial branch is not supposed to be beholden to personal interests of the president. In fact, the founders designed the judiciary to counter the power of the presidency. This system of constitutional checks and balances, James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers, is “essential to the preservation of liberty.” He emphasized the importance of an independent judiciary, quoting Montesquieu in Federalist 47: “There is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” Trump’s threat to remove Judge Curiel because of a personal vendetta indicates a clear disregard for the independence of the judiciary.

    Currently, we have many checks to protect an independent judiciary. An essential one is the requirement that the Senate confirm Supreme Court justices. Even so, there is reason to fear that Trump could undo our constitutionally designed independent judicial system without a care. Responding to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's criticism of him, he tweeted out a threat him, “swamp” the court with “real judges and real legal opinions,” which many read as a statement of his intent to pack the court with justices who would do his bidding instead of acting as independent stewards of justice.

    To those of us who study - and read - the Constitution, this is a frightening prospect. Unbeknownst to many Americans, there is nothing in our Constitution that requires nine Supreme Court justices. At the founding we had six, for most of American history we’ve had nine, and currently we have eight. In a controversial move during his tenure in the White House, President Franklin Roosevelt once threatened to add justices until they—to use Trump’s term—“swamped” the court and issued rulings favorable to his view. FDR’s threat, though controversial, was intended to preserve his New Deal policies, now widely recognized as constitutional, against a conservative Supreme Court that was hostile to them. Trump’s threat, however, appears intended to further his unconstitutional agenda. Of course, it is unclear what exactly Trump meant, but his indifference to the constitutional values of the rule of law and an independent judiciary might just give him the confidence to try to pack the high court.
  2. Mordent99

    Mordent99 Banned

    Sorry to double post, but my last one was long.

    That's not what I meant, I meant they're okay with Trump's adultery. And Newt's, and that of most other of Clinton's detractors. (And btw, polygamy is illegal here, last I checked.)

    I personally do not care what consenting adults do so long as they don't force their opinion on someone else or don't hurt anyone in the process. That's why I've always supported LGBT rights and oppose anyone who gives a song and dance about "sodomy", "fornicators", or what 3,000 year old books say. This is America, 2016.

    Same reason the Brooklyn Dodgers moved to LA: $$$
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2016
  3. Locormus

    Locormus Can we please get the old forum back?

    Just wanna say that I'm late to the party that preaches whatever Ana Navarro says. Navarro4Prez. Cooper Anderson for runningmate.

    That will be one hell of an election come 2020.. Navarro/Anderson vs. West/Swift.. WOW.. xD

    Preach.. I only made the comment since Sister Wives was on just now.. xD

    Yeah.. It's all about the bucks, but Saltlake was actually a smaller (but more devoted) market and they could've changed the name as many other franchises did, for instance the Charlotte Bobcats retaking the name Hornets in 2014, when the New Orleans Hornets named themselves the Pelicans after they returned from Oklahoma City.
  4. chess-z

    chess-z campy vampire

    It's pretty clear that Hillary will win the 2016 election (or at least that's what FiveThirtyEight says), but how will the republican party deal with the aftermath of nominating Trump? He's the avatar of everything bad that the democrats have been saying about republicans for years, and he is redrawing the electoral map in a very bad way for him and his party. I hope that the years of gerrymandering by the right establishment can be undone by this election. I hope Trump destroys the republican party.
  5. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    With even a moderate supreme court justice the blatant gerrymandering can stop. Look at North Carolina's districts and tell me that's a fair map.


    Also Trump said he's winning in Ohio, but they kinda forgot to poll a few groups there.
  6. Mordent99

    Mordent99 Banned

    Not just FiveThirtyEight, Chess-Z. CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, most folks at Fox, and every major polling group favors Hillary.

    The only guys I think claim otherwise is Breitbart and Alex Jones.

    And trust me, bobjr, Trump would try to spin the Call of the Light Brigade so it sounded like a victory.
  7. GhostAnime

    GhostAnime Searching for her...

    Or so they say. Can you truly predict that this is the case and would make a marginable difference in a real election? Even your example of McMullin (not McMuffin.. lol) is still losing. All he's managing to do is sap Trump's strength.

    "ranked based" elections would be overly complicated and I guarantee you most people would spend more time arguing over the complexity of the system rather than implementing one.
  8. Silver Soul

    Silver Soul Well-Known Member

  9. yuoke

    yuoke Treasure huntin'

  10. The Admiral

    The Admiral solid state survivor

    They'd probably do exactly what we'd expect them to do: sweep this under the rug, switch back to subtler language about how they think people who aren't white, straight, cis, male and Christian are Literally Satan, pretend it never happened.
  11. Navin

    Navin MALDREAD

    That is complete horseshit. You think they'd have realize so many people dislike the GOP for the 8 years of obstructionism, and now they want it to continue.
  12. U.N. Owen

    U.N. Owen In Brightest Day, In Blackest Night ...

    Good grief, I know politics is taken personally by too many people but this is absurd. I don't like Clinton and I think this is another level of what on Earth are they snorting.
  13. bobjr

    bobjr It's Fusion, I don't have to expalin it. Staff Member Moderator

    Technically Hillary could recess appoint a Justice every year, leading to my fanfic where Obama becomes a temporary Supreme Court Justice, but this is the reason why even if you disagree with some of her stuff having her in the white house is crucial if only for an issue like this.
  14. Pikachu52

    Pikachu52 Well-Known Member

    I posted this time last week that the campaign was becoming a "tit-for-tat almost school-yard style exchange," after Trump took to twitter to attack GOP leaders distancing themselves from him and started running adds attacking Hillary over the debunked conspiracy over her health. He's now doubling down on the claim that the election is rigged by suggesting that "dead people are voting." He's basically reinvigorating the "voter fraud is widespread" claim that the GOP used to justify restrictive voter ID laws that have the effect of disenfranchising marginalised voters who are more likely to back democratic candidates. It's not just tit-for-tat anymore. It's as if Trump knows he's loosing but is determined to go out in a blaze of sour grapes, creating a ground on which to reject the legitimacy of his defeat and sow mistrust in the electoral system among his voters. The most sinister part of his rhetoric is that he's claiming undocumented migrants are fraudulently voting, a continuation of the racist narrative he's been running since he opened his campaign with the claim that Mexican migrants were "bringing drugs and crime." And already his supporters are staging "open carry" protests outside Democratic campaign offices and plan to stalk non-white voters. Election day could be very ugly.
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016
  15. Truly Deceptive

    Truly Deceptive It is I: ME!

    So, I just realized that even if Trump did propose flat-out de jure genocide, it'd never get past Congress.

    Hillary, on the other hand, is an actual threat as capable of waging nuclear war with the Russians as she claims (and presumably intends).

    I wouldn't trust her with the next 4 years of America's future (nor would I bet all our lives on the off chance of her not working on behalf of a monolithic, ruthless conspiracy—or any outside party with no regard for our well-being).

    That's all they are: accusations (and they say nothing about how his policies might actually affect us).
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016
  16. Mordent99

    Mordent99 Banned

    His finger will be on the button. He's expressed a desire to use nukes. He questions why we haven't. Don't underestimate him.

    Where'd you get that?

    Conspiracy, right. Please go away.

    Do you listen to anything she says?


    Second to last paragraph.
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016
  17. yuoke

    yuoke Treasure huntin'

    Lol so you say everything said about trump is accusations....and then come right back and say accusations about hillary are fact.
  18. Pikachu52

    Pikachu52 Well-Known Member

    Trump isn't the only one to oppose the "New York Times v Sullivan" standard. The late Justice Scalia has also voiced distaste for the precedent. In an interview with Charlie Rose he said:

    While I have immensely dislike Donald Trump and strongly oppose what he stands for, I'm inclined to agree with him here. The view that the press having broad freedom to investigate public figures is, I believe misguided. The press, like all other money making corporation, are interested in selling papers. And finding scandals that embarrass public officials is often a better way of said selling papers than proper balanced discussion of policy issues. Other countries, including my own, have much more plaintiff friendly defamation laws including for public officials and still maintain a democratic system of governance. I also reject the view that freedom of the press is necessary to hold politicians accountable, believing personally that it is something of a supposed "trump card" shall we say journalists throw whenever media law reform is on the table. Singapore has very strict press controls and a relatively strong culture of censorship, but extremely limited levels of public corruption. This is probably largely because they have efficient enforcement of anti-corruption laws by an independent and well financed body. The view that the press present "information" to voters is too simplistic a statement. Media outlets can be selective in what they report in order to benefit certain candidates or political positions, they can sensationalise matters and take material out of context and by getting facts wrong they can misrepresent and openly vilify marginalised people. While journalists can be responsible for very good investigatory journalism and commentary, the media reinforces structural inequalities so it's freedom is largely of benefit to the privileged and can in some cases harm the marginalised.
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2016
  19. Mordent99

    Mordent99 Banned

    Are you saying that an unlawful and unconstitutional idea is okay because other politicians support it.

    Think about this, Admiral, say someone didn't like the post you just made. If Trump had his way, you'd be perma-banned from here in an instant and EVERY post you made would be deleted. If you were lucky.

    Doesn't seem so bad now, huh?

    Btw, Vanity Fair just made the first political endorsement in its history, for Clinton. Why? Think about ti.
  20. The Admiral

    The Admiral solid state survivor

    Wow, I didn't know it was possible to put this many wrong statements into one place. (Outside of Scott Adams calling whatever happened to him on Twitter "treason" jfc)

    Yeah, but be honest with us: how much of this belief is actually because journalism is dead?

Share This Page