Obama Supreme Dictator

[Larry Gude]

You reiterated that you think it is different, and why you think it should be seen as different, but you didn't answer the question which is how it is different for women/LGBT/minorities and straight, white (and now Christian) males. .

So, I don't have to go look it up, please rephrase and ask your question again.

 

[Larry Gude]

So, where does that leave us? What do we do to achieve our goals? Well, whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. .

And the right of the people, at least in Maryland, is to have things pretty much the way they are. You are still stuck looking at this as a minority. You can advocate for the changes YOU'D like, the things YOU want but you can no more argue for ending the federal or state gummint in the name of the people than anti gunners can argue they speak for the people. They speak for that part of the people. I say stop trying to argue guns as EVERYONE'S rights. Clearly, a LOT do not. I say argue for guns as YOUR, MY issue. "That we, guys, have the right to keep and bear arms. Join us if you like but we demand this right."

 

[This_person]

Are you suggesting that Fourth Amendment rights depend on citizenship status? <--- Real question, I'm not sure that's what you're suggesting but I think it is, so I'm asking so as to be clear.

I think it's ambiguous to suggest it is exclusive to citizens or not. "The people" is the phrase to whom it applies...does that mean all people, or (as the preamble defines) we, the people of the United States of America? There are SCOTUS decisions that imply the constitution is for citizens only, and others that imply the constitution is for all, and others that say only some things are limited.

My personal opinion is that the constitution is for citizens only.

 

[This_person]

So, I don't have to go look it up, please rephrase and ask your question again.

In what way does the TSA support the rights of women/LGBT/minorities while harming the rights of white, Christian, straight males? Now, I'm not asking why you think people support it, I'm asking what it is about the TSA that is different for some than others - the "some" defined here as women/LGBT/minorities vs white men.

 

[This_person]

And the right of the people, at least in Maryland, is to have things pretty much the way they are. You are still stuck looking at this as a minority. You can advocate for the changes YOU'D like, the things YOU want but you can no more argue for ending the federal or state gummint in the name of the people than anti gunners can argue they speak for the people. They speak for that part of the people. I say stop trying to argue guns as EVERYONE'S rights. Clearly, a LOT do not. I say argue for guns as YOUR, MY issue. "That we, guys, have the right to keep and bear arms. Join us if you like but we demand this right."

That implies that citizens' rights are variable on sex, color, etc. I do not feel they are.

I argue that we, the people, have the right to keep and bear arms, and if you don't want to exercise that right, don't.

 

[Tilted]

I think it's ambiguous to suggest it is exclusive to citizens or not. "The people" is the phrase to whom it applies...does that mean all people, or (as the preamble defines) we, the people of the United States of America? There are SCOTUS decisions that imply the constitution is for citizens only, and others that imply the constitution is for all, and others that say only some things are limited.

My personal opinion is that the constitution is for citizens only.

There are some rights which (or contexts in which some rights) apply only to citizens. But Fourth Amendment rights - and due process rights in general - aren't limited to citizens. And, I believe, that is as it was intended by the framers.

 

[This_person]

There are some rights which (or contexts in which some rights) apply only to citizens. But Fourth Amendment rights - and due process rights in general - aren't limited to citizens. And, I believe, that is as it was intended by the framers.

I'm not sure I agree that is what the framers intended, nor what is appropriate.

There are decisions, of course, which support your position, and some which do not. I tend to lean on the side of citizens having rights non-citizens do not. That does not mean that non-citizens should not also have rights, it merely means that rights given to non-citizens are not promised, in my mind, to those people, but are rather given by the kindness of citizens.

 

[Larry Gude]

In what way does the TSA support the rights of women/LGBT/minorities while harming the rights of white, Christian, straight males? Now, I'm not asking why you think people support it, I'm asking what it is about the TSA that is different for some than others - the "some" defined here as women/LGBT/minorities vs white men.

Ok, thanks.

OK, women and minorities, however many white Christian males, collectively the majority of voters in the US are happy or at least accepting of the TSA. That is self evident. If most thought like me, you'd never be able to do it in the first place.

From a Constitutional standpoint, I see it as a clear violation. As an American it is an affront and an outrage. To most of us, it is acceptable security. It makes them feel safer, they like that so, it stays. I see it as a way of avoiding fixing the actual problem, of pretending to do something about it. I'm in the clear minority.

So, it supports their rights, the clear majorities rights, whomever that includes, to at least feel safe. And it, to me, is exactly what Franklin was talking about; those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security will have, and deserve, neither. The majority disagrees. Clearly.

 

[Larry Gude]

That implies that citizens' rights are variable on sex, color, etc. I do not feel they are.

I argue that we, the people, have the right to keep and bear arms, and if you don't want to exercise that right, don't.

That's fine to take that position. I submit it is a losing one. Time after time.

Think of it this way; if women approached abortion from the standpoint of ALL of our right to privacy, it's a loser. Men wanted to prohibit their right to privacy on this issue. Didn't affect them. Some men were able to see past that and say "OK, it IS about all our privacy". Most didn't and many still don't. For guns, most of the strongest voices for those rights are male and most women take the same view men did on abortion; "I don't want you to have those rights as you're not talking for me. They don't apply to me."

Now, just like abortion, the principle DOES apply to all if you really think about it. Guys need to assert OUR right to keep and bear and leave others to decide for themselves.

 

[Larry Gude]

I'm not sure I agree that is what the framers intended, nor what is appropriate.

There are decisions, of course, which support your position, and some which do not. I tend to lean on the side of citizens having rights non-citizens do not. That does not mean that non-citizens should not also have rights, it merely means that rights given to non-citizens are not promised, in my mind, to those people, but are rather given by the kindness of citizens.

Then, on what basis would we EVER set foot in another country for war if your view was correct? We'd have no basis for taking sides. Our constitution doesn't apply to others.

Certainly, we want ONLY American's to have the right to vote but that is not to say we want to be able to just arrest and search non citizens as the mood strikes.

Trump is wrong in how he says a lot of things. He's not wrong to say "It is common sense to take jihadi Muslims at their word and take steps to prevent them from attacking us here." He;s wrong to say "We need to ban ALL Muslims until we get this figured out." That's like saying "We need to lock up all the Japs until we get this figured out" or "All Italians" or "All Germans".

What Trump says violates the Constitution, blatantly. The question is do he see the difference in the two above approaches and can he articulate that and convince people that's what he really meant.

 

[This_person]

Ok, thanks.

OK, women and minorities, however many white Christian males, collectively the majority of voters in the US are happy or at least accepting of the TSA. That is self evident. If most thought like me, you'd never be able to do it in the first place.

From a Constitutional standpoint, I see it as a clear violation. As an American it is an affront and an outrage. To most of us, it is acceptable security. It makes them feel safer, they like that so, it stays. I see it as a way of avoiding fixing the actual problem, of pretending to do something about it. I'm in the clear minority.

So, it supports their rights, the clear majorities rights, whomever that includes, to at least feel safe. And it, to me, is exactly what Franklin was talking about; those who would sacrifice essential liberty for temporary security will have, and deserve, neither. The majority disagrees. Clearly.

If I'm reading you correctly, you are not asserting that the TSA's existence is better for some people over others based on their sex, sexual orientation, skin color, or anything else. You are saying that - statistically - women and minorities are okay with their rights being abused while white males are not.

Am I reading you correctly?

 

[This_person]

That's fine to take that position. I submit it is a losing one. Time after time.

Think of it this way; if women approached abortion from the standpoint of ALL of our right to privacy, it's a loser. Men wanted to prohibit their right to privacy on this issue. Didn't affect them. Some men were able to see past that and say "OK, it IS about all our privacy". Most didn't and many still don't. For guns, most of the strongest voices for those rights are male and most women take the same view men did on abortion; "I don't want you to have those rights as you're not talking for me. They don't apply to me."

Now, just like abortion, the principle DOES apply to all if you really think about it. Guys need to assert OUR right to keep and bear and leave others to decide for themselves.

The problem with equating abortion and gun rights is that abortion kills people legally and gun rights protects people legally.

Gun rights are not white-male exclusive. The right to not be killed is not white male exclusive.

 

[Larry Gude]

If I'm reading you correctly, you are not asserting that the TSA's existence is better for some people over others based on their sex, sexual orientation, skin color, or anything else. You are saying that - statistically - women and minorities are okay with their rights being abused while white males are not.

Am I reading you correctly?

Their rights being abused as YOU see it. No slave owner thought his slaves rights were being abused. Few men in 1901 thought women's rights were being abused. They were fine as things were.

Your challenge here is in seeing things from the viewpoint of the clear majority who do not object to the TSA.

 

[This_person]

Then, on what basis would we EVER set foot in another country for war if your view was correct? We'd have no basis for taking sides. Our constitution doesn't apply to others.

Certainly, we want ONLY American's to have the right to vote but that is not to say we want to be able to just arrest and search non citizens as the mood strikes.

Trump is wrong in how he says a lot of things. He's not wrong to say "It is common sense to take jihadi Muslims at their word and take steps to prevent them from attacking us here." He;s wrong to say "We need to ban ALL Muslims until we get this figured out." That's like saying "We need to lock up all the Japs until we get this figured out" or "All Italians" or "All Germans".

What Trump says violates the Constitution, blatantly. The question is do he see the difference in the two above approaches and can he articulate that and convince people that's what he really meant.

Again, you're equating very disparate things. It is FAR different to say, "we need to limit legal immigration" and "we need to lock up people".

We go to war when our interests or security are threatened or actually attacked. That seems pretty reasonable. People in Mexico do not have constitutional protection because they are no in the United States, so if they attack us they get attacked back. People in HI who are citizens have the protection of the Constitution. People in HI who are citizens of other countries have certain rights, and not others. It is my opinion that these rights are granted by the citizens, not by the Constitution. There are SCOTUS decisions that support and others that oppose my position.

 

[This_person]

Their rights being abused as YOU see it. No slave owner thought his slaves rights were being abused. Few men in 1901 thought women's rights were being abused. They were fine as things were.

Your challenge here is in seeing things from the viewpoint of the clear majority who do not object to the TSA.

I would say their challenge is in not seeing things from the point of view of the wording of the Constitution.

 

[Larry Gude]

The problem with equating abortion and gun rights is that abortion kills people legally and gun rights protects people legally.

Gun rights are not white-male exclusive. The right to not be killed is not white male exclusive.

Again, in YOUR view. The majority thinks it is a woman's right to choose. You do not have to accept it or agree. You would do well to look at it how the majority see it to understand their position.

And, as to gun laws, same thing. A lot of people think private gun rights are part of the problem. Agree or not, that is reality and my suggestion that, like women, like minorities, if you make your argument based on YOUR rights instead of trying to speak for all, you end up at the same place. Roe is an argument for personal privacy, not just abortion. It has many times been said of slavery and the civil rights era, if one of us isn't free, none of us are.

 

[Larry Gude]

I would say their challenge is in not seeing things from the point of view of the wording of the Constitution.

As you see it.

 

[Larry Gude]

We go to war when our interests or security are threatened or actually attacked. .

No, we don't.

 

[Tilted]

Then, on what basis would we EVER set foot in another country for war if your view was correct? We'd have no basis for taking sides. Our constitution doesn't apply to others.

Certainly, we want ONLY American's to have the right to vote but that is not to say we want to be able to just arrest and search non citizens as the mood strikes.

Trump is wrong in how he says a lot of things. He's not wrong to say "It is common sense to take jihadi Muslims at their word and take steps to prevent them from attacking us here." He;s wrong to say "We need to ban ALL Muslims until we get this figured out." That's like saying "We need to lock up all the Japs until we get this figured out" or "All Italians" or "All Germans".

What Trump says violates the Constitution, blatantly. The question is do he see the difference in the two above approaches and can he articulate that and convince people that's what he really meant.

A number of things that Mr. Trump supports or advocates or suggests violate the Constitution. His rhetoric (not just during this campaign) suggests that he has no more respect for the Constitution than most other politicians (and people in general for that matter). And his temperament suggests to me that he'd be at least as willing to disregard it in furtherance of his goals or interests as others have typically been.

That said, I'm not sure that prohibiting the immigration (or entrance) of all Muslims - assuming that was limited to those who didn't already have a legal status - would be unconstitutional. I think there are arguments for why it would be, and I haven't thought them through enough to be sure that I think they're all wrong. But for now I'm leaning toward it not being a constitutional violation - at least not in general. Particular applications of that policy might still be. Wrongheaded? Yes. Counterproductive (even assuming a good intent)? Yes. Antithetical to what America is supposed to be? Yes. To what it should be? Yes. A deplorable suggestion? Absolutely. But unconstitutional? I'm not sure about that.

Also, I don't think it would be the same as banning Japanese or Italians or Germans when it comes to the constitutional consideration. Those are nationalities, not a religion. My initial thought is that it is more likely to be constitutionally problematic than those nationality-based bans would be.

 

[This_person]

You would do well to look at it how the majority see it to understand their position.

I understand their position. I understand when a two year old is angry because I won't let them stick a fork in an outlet. Understanding their position and giving it credence are two very different things.

It is inarguable, from a scientific point of view, that a person dies in an abortion. How they look at it does not change that simple fact. It is inarguable that the text of the second amendment says the government may not infringe upon the people's right to keep and bear arms. How people look at it does not change that simple fact.

If one of us is not free, none of us are? That implies that having a judicial system that allows for punishment of crime makes none of us free. We are all "slaves", if you will, of our laws. You and I are free to disagree on this because our Constitution allows it. We can disagree with Obama, or with Cruz, or with Trump, or with Clinton - because our laws allow it. We are not free to kill others, and we are not free to restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens from keeping and bearing arms.

That some people vote to allow it is like saying slavery was appropriate because it was legal, that Plessy v Ferguson settled the question of minority rights, etc.