• 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!

Trump On Constitution: It Doesn't Necessarily Give Us The Right To Commit Suicide

Was wondering if anyone else noticed this bit from The Donald when he was interviewed on 60 Minutes. It is clear that he has a big enough ego to disregard Constitutional restrictions when in office. Shouldn't this concern constitutional conservatives?

For me, I'm voting against Clinton, not for Trump. His follies are not nearly as seriously delinquent as hers blatant disregard for all law.
 
I'm in a hurry this morning, but I would like to continue the conversation.

At least Sergeant Chip Frederick was convicted for actions at AG. Philip Zimbardo, author of The Lucifer Effect and head of the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment in the 70's was called to interview and testify on behalf of Frederick. I'm pretty sure there were others, but don't have the time to research right now.

You reiterated the standard item of anti-American propaganda that U.S. servicemen engaged in torture at Abu Ghraib. I challenged you to identify any person convicted of the crime of torture for his actions there. You can't do it, and no amount of chattering about some professor's testimony, books, and experiment can change that fact.

Comparing to Articles I through IV, there is no section 2 to Article VI. Yes, somebody is certainly confused, or at least not paying attention.

Whatever anyone chooses to call the text in Article VI that is headed by [2], it is still the Supremacy Clause--which you pointed to and then tried to deny you had. And the actions at Abu Ghraib did not involve either the Supremacy Clause or any other part of the Constitution.
 
You reiterated the standard item of anti-American propaganda that U.S. servicemen engaged in torture at Abu Ghraib. I challenged you to identify any person convicted of the crime of torture for his actions there. You can't do it, and no amount of chattering about some professor's testimony, books, and experiment can change that fact.



Whatever anyone chooses to call the text in Article VI that is headed by [2], it is still the Supremacy Clause--which you pointed to and then tried to deny you had. And the actions at Abu Ghraib did not involve either the Supremacy Clause or any other part of the Constitution.

I pretty much suck on the computer sir, but even I can put "prosecutions for torture at Abu Ghraib" into Google, and get back many articles. CNN published one naming 11 different soldiers who were prosecuted for such crimes. Besides Frederick, a few other names are Graner, England, Harman.

You are making this awfully easy. :lol:
 
I pretty much suck on the computer sir, but even I can put "prosecutions for torture at Abu Ghraib" into Google, and get back many articles. CNN published one naming 11 different soldiers who were prosecuted for such crimes. Besides Frederick, a few other names are Graner, England, Harman.

You are making this awfully easy. :lol:

If it is so easy, why don't you just name the persons who were convicted of the crime of torture for their actions at Abu Ghraib? Who was charged with what is irrelevant--simply being charged with an offense proves nothing about a person's guilt.
 
i asked you for delegated power...i got nothing

I think you are being willfully ignorant. You seem intent on refusing to understand the feds have been charged with enforcing equal protection which by law does delegate a great deal of power over citizen 'rights' 'liberties' and pursuit of happiness.

Article 1 is all I need to swat your willful ignorance to the side. it empowers the Feds to suppress 'rebellions' which is certainly limiting the 'liberties'. The Necessary and Proper Clause is a barn door out for the Feds to limit 'liberties'. The article allows the feds to regulate commerce, money and bankruptcies... many conservatives howl over that loss of liberty.

But it's in the Constitution.

Article 2 sets up Federal Courts that certainly 'infringe' liberty- Congress can create and the federal courts enforce laws that many feel infringe on their 'liberties'

The 16th allows for direct federal taxation of income

The 18th was Prohibition- certainly infringed on 'liberty'.

So your citing Madison's OP-ED works and not addressing the ENTIRE Constitution was a fail from the git-go. A barstool argument that doesn't hold up to the real world...

But nice attempt at both dodging the facts and willful ignorance.

I have to ask- where did you get this no delegating stuff from??? :peace
 
I think you are being willfully ignorant. You seem intent on refusing to understand the feds have been charged with enforcing equal protection which by law does delegate a great deal of power over citizen 'rights' 'liberties' and pursuit of happiness.

Article 1 is all I need to swat your willful ignorance to the side. it empowers the Feds to suppress 'rebellions' which is certainly limiting the 'liberties'. The Necessary and Proper Clause is a barn door out for the Feds to limit 'liberties'. The article allows the feds to regulate commerce, money and bankruptcies... many conservatives howl over that loss of liberty.

But it's in the Constitution.

Article 2 sets up Federal Courts that certainly 'infringe' liberty- Congress can create and the federal courts enforce laws that many feel infringe on their 'liberties'

The 16th allows for direct federal taxation of income

The 18th was Prohibition- certainly infringed on 'liberty'.

So your citing Madison's OP-ED works and not addressing the ENTIRE Constitution was a fail from the git-go. A barstool argument that doesn't hold up to the real world...

But nice attempt at both dodging the facts and willful ignorance.

I have to ask- where did you get this no delegating stuff from??? :peace

it is people like yourself, which do not understand constitutional law which why american government is out of balance and have the problems it does.

first : i stated the founders mansion and hamilton from the federalist saying the federal government had no power in the lives of the people, and that is 100% true!, meaning congress cannot make laws in the lives liberty and property of the people.

the federal government acts by law, if no laws are made in the personal lives of the people, then government has no authority over them and cannot violate their rights because it cannot act!

Madison’s federalist 45 states….. it is states powers which concern the lives liberty and property of the people

hamilton federalist 84 states, ……the federal government cannot regulate the people or their private business.

second.... i asked you for a delegated power [power listed in the constitituion] concerning the government having power in the people's lives

all the delegated powers of congress are known as General powers, meaning they are not defined.

one power of congress is to create a navy, however it is not possible to create a navy just using the delegated power of the constitution.

Necessary and Proper Clause means, the federal government can create federal laws from the General delegated navy power of article 1 section 8, it does not grant congress the power to create any law they want to, because that would not be a federal system, but a national system of government, and we have a federal government.

the congress's powers were limited by the states when they created the constitution, which created the federal government.

the states did not give the federal government power over them, there is no supremacy by the federal government over the state governments....as provided by article 1 section 8 clause 17

commerce in the constitution is AMONG THE STATES, meaning the congress has interstate commerce power to regulate among the state governments, not regulate the people, the federal government does not have intrastate powers to regulate inside of states.
 
Last edited:
if the congress has no delegated power in the lives of the people, then it cannot make laws on the people, it cannot violate their rights, the federal court system was set to you hear cases, of states vs Citizens, states vs states, not the federal government vs Citizens.

the bill of rights does not apply to the state governments in the beginning of our nation...Barron vs Baltimore 1833

i asked you for a delegated power which involves the federal government in the lives of the people, you gave me the 14th.......this shows you have no understanding of the law.

the 14th passed in 1868 and it granted the federal government a new power, the power to prohibit state governments from discriminating against u.s. citizens......... not citizen vs citizen

in 1873 the USSC ruled in the Slaughterhouse case, and they ruled using the new 14th and the court stated

1. that the federal government has NO!, repeat NO! police powers inside of a state and cannot regulate the american people.

2. that u.s. [c]itizens in the 14th are former freed slaves .......not state [C]itizens

in the constitution of the founders, every time you see the word [C]itizen of the u.s., the word is capitalized, it means a state [C]itizen, [c]itizens of the u.s. per the 14th are United States citizens [former freed slaves] and federal subjects .

U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873) "The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress."


the constitution is about federalism, the separation of powers, all powers delegated in the constitution are federal, all of powers which exist but not delegated concern the lives liberty and property of the people remained state powers.

it was not until the 20th century, that the 16th amendment was created and that the USSC reversed it decision of 1873, and gave the federal government power over the people per the FDR period in history

americans lived well over 100 years without the federal government in their lives, as compared to the shorter time of it being involved in their lives.
 
Last edited:
If it is so easy, why don't you just name the persons who were convicted of the crime of torture for their actions at Abu Ghraib? Who was charged with what is irrelevant--simply being charged with an offense proves nothing about a person's guilt.

I just did name a few of them. If you're really curious, and/or seeking the truth, you would check out the CNN article I referenced. They claim 11, and list all their names.

BTW, and I'm probably addressing a rock here, those 11 pleaded guilty to a variety of charges.

Article VI Section 2 :lamo
 
I just did name a few of them. If you're really curious, and/or seeking the truth, you would check out the CNN article I referenced. They claim 11, and list all their names.

BTW, and I'm probably addressing a rock here, those 11 pleaded guilty to a variety of charges.

Article VI Section 2 :lamo

You reiterated a staple of anti-American leftist propaganda by claiming that people had committed torture at Abu Ghraib. You have shown everyone here you can't back up that claim. I challenged you to name even one person who was ever convicted of the crime of treason for his actions at Abu Ghraib, and you cannot do it.
 
You reiterated a staple of anti-American leftist propaganda by claiming that people had committed torture at Abu Ghraib. You have shown everyone here you can't back up that claim. I challenged you to name even one person who was ever convicted of the crime of treason for his actions at Abu Ghraib, and you cannot do it.

You asked:
If it is so easy, why don't you just name the persons who were convicted of the crime of torture for their actions at Abu Ghraib?

Since that was answered pretty easily, now you say:
I challenged you to name even one person who was ever convicted of the crime of treason for his actions at Abu Ghraib

Actually, no, you didn't.
 
I honestly don't think he's read the Constitution, much less understands it. But, maybe that's just me.

I think you're right on the money.

I don't think Trump can read big words like, "Constitution".
 
You think He taught what was wrong with the Constitution from a Marxist perspective and who's the sucker?

Is he a Marxist Muslim terrorist from Kenya as well? Is he the AntiChrist? How about one of the lizard people? What a load.

FB_IMG_1471999136221.jpg
 
You reiterated a staple of anti-American leftist propaganda by claiming that people had committed torture at Abu Ghraib. You have shown everyone here you can't back up that claim. I challenged you to name even one person who was ever convicted of the crime of treason for his actions at Abu Ghraib, and you cannot do it.

To a person in denial, like yourself, nothing that conflicts with his worldview can EVER be 'proved'. Selective amnesia about those heady days of the Bush Administration is rampant in this country. Sad, but typical of the human condition. :peace
 
Was wondering if anyone else noticed this bit from The Donald when he was interviewed on 60 Minutes. It is clear that he has a big enough ego to disregard Constitutional restrictions when in office. Shouldn't this concern constitutional conservatives?

So you think Hitlary would uphold the Constitution better? We are looking at the lesser of two evils in this election, and when it comes to evil, the Clintons win hands down....
 
So you think Hitlary would uphold the Constitution better?

This thread is about Trump's views of the Constitution, not Clinton's.


We are looking at the lesser of two evils in this election,

Isn't that every election?
 
This thread is about Trump's views of the Constitution, not Clinton's.




Isn't that every election?
You are at the same time validating and avoiding the question...
 
This thread is about Trump's views of the Constitution, not Clinton's.




Isn't that every election?

This one is for the record books. Last time, we had two choices, either of which I'd gladly vote for over either of the two running this time around.
 
You are at the same time validating and avoiding the question...

I am not a Clinton supporter and I do not plan on voting for her, so I don't see how the question is relevant to me.
 
I am not a Clinton supporter and I do not plan on voting for her, so I don't see how the question is relevant to me.

I will take that as your admission you feel unqualified to give an educated answer. I accept that.
 
I will take that as your admission you feel unqualified to give an educated answer. I accept that.

Your reading comprehension skills are lacking. I said I am not a Clinton supporter. I have no interest in defending her. She is one of the last public figures I would trust when it comes to Constitutional issues. So go ask someone who DOES support Clinton. :doh

Are you done derailing the thread?
 
Anyone who commits suicide must understand that they will suffer for millennia. As a Jew I believe in G-d's mercy and most Rabbis believe that suffering will not be eternal.

People should be prevented from killing themselves.
 
He hasn't proven ONCE that he read any of our founding documents. Its freaky!
 
Back
Top Bottom