• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Constitutional Rights -

Lafayette

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
9,594
Reaction score
2,072
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
From "the Economist Explains": How America’s courts can keep the government in check

Excerpt:
In its ruling upholding the district court’s freeze on the executive order, the three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals depicted Mr Trump’s lawyer’s claims as out of bounds: “The Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context”. It is “beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action”.

Each branch of government telling the other that its position is “beyond question” presents an impasse. Surprisingly, a glance at America’s constitution does not suggest a way out: while Article VI declares that the constitution “shall be the supreme law of the land” and every “thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary” must bow before it, there is no provision granting the final word to any particular institution. What, then, is the basis for the judiciary’s power to serve as a check on a president’s executive actions?

The answer lies in Marbury v Madison, a case from 1803 in which John Marshall (...), America’s fourth chief justice, brilliantly salvaged—and expanded—the power of the Supreme Court.

Facing a case that pit Federalists against their bitter rivals, the Democratic-Republican party of President Thomas Jefferson, Marshall worried that a ruling in favour of the administration would look like capitulation but that deciding against it might lead Jefferson to defy the Supreme Court. In Marbury, Marshall managed to defang his political opponents with a nominal win while arming the court with a startling new power: judicial review. “It is emphatically the duty and province of the judicial department”, he wrote, “to say what the law is”.

Presidents generally respect this principle but not all—including Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt—have always hewed to the Supreme Court’s line.

Shall we add Trump to that list of three names?

As a constitutional wrecking-ball I cannot imagine a more willing or able PotUS. Besides, who would dare question him?

He thinks he walks on water ...
 
From "the Economist Explains": How America’s courts can keep the government in check

Excerpt:

Shall we add Trump to that list of three names?

As a constitutional wrecking-ball I cannot imagine a more willing or able PotUS. Besides, who would dare question him?

He thinks he walks on water ...

When he walked on water you guys mocked him because you thought he couldn't swim ! :lol: Only 7.99 years to go try not to have your head explode . :lol: :2wave:
 
When he walked on water you guys mocked him because you thought he couldn't swim ! :lol: Only 7.99 years to go try not to have your head explode . :lol: :2wave:

The way he is going now, he will be a one-term PotUS ...
 
That article is simple-minded and largely inaccurate. It fails to mention that the Supreme Court has reiterated, in a number of cases, that decisions by the political branches of government regarding the admission and exclusion of aliens are not for the courts to question. In other threads, I have cited and quoted from some of those decisions to refute the baloney I have seen scribbled about this.

The power of judicial review in general is not nearly as clear an issue of constitutional law as the author of that article would have his readers believe. Marbury is barely the beginning of the story, let alone the end of it. I see he did not mention Ex Parte McCardle, in which Congress quickly passed a law to remove a case from the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, even after the justices had heard oral arguments in it. "The Federal Courts and the Federal System," Hart and Wechsler's definitive text on the difficult field of constitutional law known as federal jurisdiction, devotes a whole chapter--several dozen of its 1,800-plus pages of fine print--to the various ways the two political branches can limit--and have limited--the jurisdiction of the federal courts.
 
The way he is going now, he will be a one-term PotUS ...

In one month and Trump has done more than Obama in his do nothing 8 years , unless you count dividing the Nation !! :lol:
 
In one month and Trump has done more than Obama in his do nothing 8 years , unless you count dividing the Nation !!

Substantiate, please, your opinion with fact rather than sarcasm and insinuation.

Obama undertook and accomplished two major projects:
*The first having pegged an exploding Unemployment Rate at 10% (handed to him by an incompetent Replicant PotUS), and bringing said rate back to historic levels of less than 5% despite no help whatsoever from a Replicant HofR. The consequence of which was to extend the pain and suffering of millions of unemployed 4 more years beyond that necessary. And,
*He tried but did not fully succeed in extending HealthCare coverage to 16% of the American population, that previously had no such insurance whatsoever. Nonetheless, what they have now is access to much better than the indignity of none whatsoever because Privatized Insurance companies were milking a high-priced Cash-cow. They still are, because an ignoramus of an HofR would not allow a fully nationalized system as all other developed countries have adopted at much lower costs.

Otherwise, your comment is like so many others on this forum - one-liners without factual evidence from those desperate to justify their electoral choice as PotUS ...
 
Last edited:
Substantiate, please, your opinion with fact rather than sarcasm and insinuation.

Obama undertook and accomplished two major projects:
*The first having pegged an exploding Unemployment Rate at 10% (handed to him by an incompetent Replicant PotUS), and bringing said rate back to historic levels of less than 5% despite no help whatsoever from a Replicant HofR. The consequence of which was to extend the pain and suffering of millions of unemployed 4 more years beyond that necessary. And,
*He tried but did not fully succeed in extending HealthCare coverage to 16% of the American population, that previously had no such insurance whatsoever. Nonetheless, what they have now is access to much better than the indignity of none whatsoever because Privatized Insurance companies were milking a high-priced Cash-cow. They still are, because an ignoramus of an HofR would not allow a fully nationalized system as all other developed countries have adopted at much lower costs.

Otherwise, your comment is like so many others on this forum - one-liners without factual evidence from those desperate to justify their electoral choice as PotUS ...

Obamacare was a totally failure most would rather pat the penalty than pay the outrageous premiums ! Obama added more debt than ALL the presidents before him !!! Obama failed our Country and our troops ! :roll:
 
Obamacare was a totally failure most would rather pat the penalty than pay the outrageous premiums ! Obama added more debt than ALL the presidents before him !!! Obama failed our Country and our troops ! :roll:

Oh, come off it. Enough of the Obama this and Obama that.

Obama was gifted by Dunderhead Dubya THE WORST RECESSION SINCE THE GREAT ONE in the 1930s! Of course debt skyrocketed, as it would in any such circumstance.

And, as the Employment to Population Ratio improves most of that debt will diminish. Like others in this forum, you fail to understand that failure to pay-off US debt does not mean other nations are going to come to repossess America. At the very worse, all that happens is that interest-rates rise so maintenance is more costly.

In fact, other countries love to buy T-Notes the revenue of which is necessary for the US to balance its books.

More over, if you really want to reduce the deficit, why not reduce that portion most responsible for it! Guess which one it is in this pie-chart of Non-Discretionary Spending:
discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted.png


So, do answer the question, "What do you propose for reducing the humongous DoD spending that represents more than half of the total budget?

I'm awaiting your answer with bated-breath ...
 
Oh, come off it. Enough of the Obama this and Obama that.

Obama was gifted by Dunderhead Dubya THE WORST RECESSION SINCE THE GREAT ONE in the 1930s! Of course debt skyrocketed, as it would in any such circumstance.

And, as the Employment to Population Ratio improves most of that debt will diminish. Like others in this forum, you fail to understand that failure to pay-off US debt does not mean other nations are going to come to repossess America. At the very worse, all that happens is that interest-rates rise so maintenance is more costly.

In fact, other countries love to buy T-Notes the revenue of which is necessary for the US to balance its books.

More over, if you really want to reduce the deficit, why not reduce that portion most responsible for it! Guess which one it is in this pie-chart of Non-Discretionary Spending:
discretionary_spending_pie,_2015_enacted.png


So, do answer the question, "What do you propose for reducing the humongous DoD spending that represents more than half of the total budget?

I'm awaiting your answer with bated-breath ...

And enough with it's Bush's fault !!!! :roll: Where is the 150 BILLION Obama gave to Iran in that top secret deal ???? Where is the 115 billion spent on ILLEGALS ????
 
INTELLECTUAL NERDS

And enough with it's Bush's fault !!!! :roll: Where is the 150 BILLION Obama gave to Iran in that top secret deal ???? Where is the 115 billion spent on ILLEGALS ????

150B is a drop in the bucket compared to years and years and years of DoD budgets above $500B - and all for what? Our misadventure in Iraq, was it worth it? All it produced was ISIS (that was formulated in a military camp run by the US Army of ex-Hussein soldiers).

I can nitpick arguments too!

But that is not the point. The point is THIS:
600px-Number_in_Poverty_and_Poverty_Rate_1959_to_2011._United_States..PNG


Since 1965, more than half a century ago, 40 million fellow-Americans (equivalent to the states of California and Idaho) find themselves below the Poverty Threshold, which is $24K a year for a family of four. And because they cant make their way out, they turn to "other means", which lead to this:
incarceration_rate_oecd_countries.jpg


As the stats keep telling us ... the US is not the nicest place on earth. And stats also tell us, "in fact it is highly dangerous place".

But, who cares about statistics! That's for intellectual nerds!

Isn't it ... ?
 
And enough with it's Bush's fault !!!! :roll: Where is the 150 BILLION Obama gave to Iran in that top secret deal ???? Where is the 115 billion spent on ILLEGALS ????

False! See here from "FactCheck.org": Trump's Fanciful Iran Negotiation - excerpt:
In spinning a fanciful tale of how he would have negotiated a tougher nuclear agreement with Iran, Donald Trump betrayed a fundamental misunderstanding of who controlled billions of dollars in Iranian assets that were unfrozen as part of the deal. Trump incorrectly claimed that Iran’s money was held by the U.S.

Trump lied his way into the presidency, and an Electoral College defied the Popular-Vote and allowed a defeated candidate to win. Hillary was defeated in the Electoral College* and yet won the popular vote by one of the highest margins in history of presidential elections!

Seven months into his tenure and the country is sick, sick, sick of Donald Dork's antics. Moreover, this guy is going to lose the Right both houses of Congress next year. Mark my words ...

*The Electoral College is and always has been a sham democratic election process. It is disproportional and highly manipulable. Uncle Sam would do better to rid himself of this dangerous handicap to a pluralistic democracy ...
 
False! See here from "FactCheck.org": Trump's Fanciful Iran Negotiation - excerpt:

Trump lied his way into the presidency, and an Electoral College defied the Popular-Vote and allowed a defeated candidate to win. Hillary was defeated in the Electoral College* and yet won the popular vote by one of the highest margins in history of presidential elections!

Seven months into his tenure and the country is sick, sick, sick of Donald Dork's antics. Moreover, this guy is going to lose the Right both houses of Congress next year. Mark my words ...

*The Electoral College is and always has been a sham democratic election process. It is disproportional and highly manipulable. Uncle Sam would do better to rid himself of this dangerous handicap to a pluralistic democracy ...

I'm not sure where you intended to go with this thread, so you could elaborate on what you intended to say.

I do think you are wrong about assuming that the people will jump on a bandwagon to change both Houses of Congress over Trump. The people cannot be depended upon to vote for Ds simply because the Rs don't have all the right answers. The Ds will have to come out with answers and solutions... and get rid of those embarrassments like Nancy Pelosi, Al Franken, John Lewis, Dianne Feinstein, Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, and Maxine Waters if they want the party to be competitive.
 
In one month and Trump has done more than Obama in his do nothing 8 years , unless you count dividing the Nation !! :lol:
America since January 20, 2017 is like the Dodgers - we keep winning.
 
The Ds will have to come out with answers and solutions... and get rid of those embarrassments like Nancy Pelosi, Al Franken, John Lewis, Dianne Feinstein, Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer, and Maxine Waters if they want the party to be competitive.

Permit me to link you to the definition of the word that characterizes perfectly your above remark - ad hominem.

Accusing the opposite side of the political-divide in America of being "embarrassments" is just sniping sarcasm. If you want, otoh, to make a cogent accusation that is debatable then go dig for it and write it up here.

The US has the highest Income Disparity of any developed nation - meaning it is "unjust and unfair" in its distribution of income. And that does not mean that everybody should be earning the same salary.

Incomes should show progressivity in order to be equitable - but Reckless Ronnie destroyed fairness when he changed Upper-income Taxation during his tenure. To please his many rich friends who supplied him the money to run for office ...
 
Last edited:
Permit me to link you to the definition of the word that characterizes perfectly your above remark - ad hominem.

Accusing the opposite side of the political-divide in America of being "embarrassments" is just sniping sarcasm. If you want, otoh, to make a cogent accusation that is debatable then go dig for it and write it up here ...

It isn't too hard to cite evidence that those individuals are embarrassments.
 
When he walked on water you guys mocked him because you thought he couldn't swim ! :lol: Only 7.99 years to go try not to have your head explode . :lol: :2wave:

Who cares if Trump can swim, it's the establishment alligators that's gonna chew him up. It'll be a slow agonizing decent into shame and failure over the next 3.5 years OR hopefully much less. It'll be a bloody mess, but a warning to all future narcissistic, megalomaniac, pathological liars who consider running for president.
 
Who cares if Trump can swim, it's the establishment alligators that's gonna chew him up. It'll be a slow agonizing decent into shame and failure over the next 3.5 years OR hopefully much less. It'll be a bloody mess, but a warning to all future narcissistic, megalomaniac, pathological liars who consider running for president.

I think that people who voted for Hillary removed their minds beforehand.
 
Permit me to link you to the definition of the word that characterizes perfectly your above remark - ad hominem.

Accusing the opposite side of the political-divide in America of being "embarrassments" is just sniping sarcasm. If you want, otoh, to make a cogent accusation that is debatable then go dig for it and write it up here.

The US has the highest Income Disparity of any developed nation - meaning it is "unjust and unfair" in its distribution of income. And that does not mean that everybody should be earning the same salary.

Incomes should show progressivity in order to be equitable - but Reckless Ronnie destroyed fairness when he changed Upper-income Taxation during his tenure. To please his many rich friends who supplied him the money to run for office ...

I'm not appealing to anyone's emotions and, insofar as prejudices are concerned, the one I have is one every American should have:

If you don't believe in the Constitution, someone ought to show you the way to the door leaving this country. I can point to Republicans that are embarrassments, but most Republicans claim they believe in the Constitution.

The real reasons that there exists a disparity in income is due to the simple fact that we have too many rules and regulations. We have too many taxes. We have a nation of lazy arse people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond that are content to live in mommy's house playing computer games and wasting all their money on video games, tattoos, drugs and booze.

We have become a nation that puts roadblocks up to discourage people from becoming entrepreneurs. One in 5 Americans gets some kind of government assistance. People are finding it more desirable to be a dependent class instead of an independent class. We had rather keep extensive records on people to lock them out of the American dream than to end the welfare state and put America back to work. Somehow it has become beneath the younger generations to start out at the bottom, working for less but building yourself up. Too many people start at the bottom and never decide to sacrifice in order to better their position so that can live better each year, incrementally.

It's not unusual to see guys who have been delivering pizza, working in fast food / coffee shops, or other entry level jobs for over ten years and having less buying power than they did a decade or more ago. The idea that you take from the haves and give to those who don't want to work hard and sacrifice is NOT a recipe for success.

America became the most financially solvent nation in the annals of history. There was a time when the world relied on us to fight the wars, send in the missionaries, and rebuild those nation destroyed by war. Today we lead the world in the number of people in prisons, the number of obese people and the highest number of divorced people in the world. This is not the fault of the rich. It's the fault of the phony war between Ds and Rs that has about as much sincerity as a WWE wrestling match. BOTH sides are taking us down the road to socialism - be it the POLICE STATE of the right or the Nanny State of the left. They need each other and their plans only go so far before the other side picks up the slack. On eight out of every ten issues, both parties are going the same direction with the Constitution being little more than toilet paper for either party.
 
The real reasons that there exists a disparity in income is due to the simple fact that we have too many rules and regulations. We have too many taxes. We have a nation of lazy arse people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and beyond that are content to live in mommy's house playing computer games and wasting all their money on video games, tattoos, drugs and booze.

No, you are dead wrong, and the above shows your ignorance of the factual evidence.

Progressivity of incomes (or the lack of it) has long been shown in what is called the Gini Index (which is one of several means to measure Income Disparity).

Here is the Gini Index inofgraphic for most of the modern world:
720px-Gini_since_WWII.svg.png


Note that the US has the same value as China. Now, that fact should raise eyebrows in the US. But it doesn't. And why not?

Because too many are just not aware of what Income Disparity means or even that it exists. And, the Rabid-Right Replicants want no change in the Status Quo. Why? Because, as a party, their Money Pot is funded by the rich and the wannabee-rich who disregard the plight of their fellow Americans.

In fact, PotUS Donald Dork wants to lower upper-income tax-rates even further!

Go figure ... or go East. I did, and I now live in the EU that has a far more broad distribution of Income for the betterment of its people. Btw, we also have far less people in jail (one tenth the jail population of the US) - because one of the prime motors of crime anywhere in the world is the inability to "keep up with the Joneses" ...
 
Last edited:
False! See here from "FactCheck.org": Trump's Fanciful Iran Negotiation - excerpt:

Trump lied his way into the presidency, and an Electoral College defied the Popular-Vote and allowed a defeated candidate to win. Hillary was defeated in the Electoral College* and yet won the popular vote by one of the highest margins in history of presidential elections!

Seven months into his tenure and the country is sick, sick, sick of Donald Dork's antics. Moreover, this guy is going to lose the Right both houses of Congress next year. Mark my words ...

*The Electoral College is and always has been a sham democratic election process. It is disproportional and highly manipulable. Uncle Sam would do better to rid himself of this dangerous handicap to a pluralistic democracy ...

The Electoral College defied nothing. It conformed to each states popular vote with only 2 individual rogue exceptions. The total popular vote margin was 20th out of the 58 elections. You exaggeration is Trumpian. Uncle Sam doesn't have the power to change the Electoral College, your blind ignorance appears to be complete--until your reply.
 
No, you are dead wrong, and the above shows your ignorance of the factual evidence.

Progressivity of incomes (or the lack of it) has long been shown in what is called the Gini Index (which is one of several means to measure Income Disparity).

Here is the Gini Index inofgraphic for most of the modern world:
720px-Gini_since_WWII.svg.png


Note that the US has the same value as China. Now, that fact should raise eyebrows in the US. But it doesn't. And why not?

Because too many are just not aware of what Income Disparity means or even that it exists. And, the Rabid-Right Replicants want no change in the Status Quo. Why? Because, as a party, their Money Pot is funded by the rich and the wannabee-rich who disregard the plight of their fellow Americans.

In fact, PotUS Donald Dork wants to lower upper-income tax-rates even further!

Go figure ... or go East. I did, and I now live in the EU that has a far more broad distribution of Income for the betterment of its people. Btw, we also have far less people in jail (one tenth the jail population of the US) - because one of the prime motors of crime anywhere in the world is the inability to "keep up with the Joneses" ...

So, the rest of the world is ignorant just because they disagree with your views? I would say this:

China has been instituting free market principles and trying to hold onto socialism. But, they realize that the free market is the key to their growth:

https://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2013/how-china-became-capitalist

Meanwhile, as China seeks to incorporate free market principles, America has become more and more socialist, discarding the free market ideology and paying a heavy price.
 
Back
Top Bottom