2016 Presidential Race

Status
Not open for further replies.
It should be pointed out that she did not say that the executive has the authority to regulate the constitution. She said that the second amendment is subject to regulation just like any other constitutional right, which is correct. The word "executive" is never mentioned, and in fact Clinton was talking about historic 2nd amendment regulations in the context of legislative and judicial actions (specifically DC v. Heller, and the "gun tax" of the 90's). It's a bit of a reach to infer that she was somehow tipping her hand on executive gun control in this interview.

Here's the transcript of the section of the interview I'm referring to in its entirety:

Which branch of government regulates the Constitution? My understanding is that Government derives its powers FROM the document.

President Obama has put out less EO's than any 2 term president in the last century.


Executive Orders

How many of those are EOs are currently before Federal judges? Man, FDR went gangbusters on EOs!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Which branch of government regulates the Constitution? My understanding is that Government derives its powers FROM the document.
I would argue that the Supreme Court, by dint of judicial review, can impose regulations on the right enumerated in the constitution. For example, while the first amendment enumerates our freedoms of speech, assembly, redress of grievances et. al., the Supreme Court has said that the first amendment is not without its limits. I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example, but that case was Schenck v. United States in 1919. While the case clarified (instead of explicitly regulated) that certain types of speech created a clear and present danger, I would argue that such judgements are a de facto form of regulation.

Constitution Check: Are there no limits on Second Amendment rights?
 
Last edited:
I would argue that the Supreme Court, by dint of judicial review, can impose regulations on the right enumerated in the constitution. For example, while the first amendment enumerates our freedoms of speech, assembly, redress of grievances et. al., the Supreme Court has said that the first amendment is not without its limits. I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example, but that case was Schenck v. United States in 1919. While the case clarified (instead of explicitly regulated) that certain types of speech created a clear and present danger, I would argue that such judgements are a de facto form of regulation.

Constitution Check: Are there no limits on Second Amendment rights?

I think you're actually defining "to interpret" (to explain meaning) vice "to regulate (to control or direct by rule). We're 100% on the same page though.

Judiciary doesn't make laws (typically) but rather tells us what the Constitution and case law mean. I don't think there are any laws in the document but rather provide proper authority (power to the Branches, states, and people) to create law. No?
 
All this talk of Bernie and Socialism. Let's hear what Vin Scully has to say about the subject...(from 06/17/16 Dodgers-Brewers game)

 
I expect talk about the game, the state of the hot chips at the stadium and the weather from my sports commentators. They can keep their politics at home.
 
US election: Arrested man 'wanted to shoot Donald Trump' - BBC News

US election: Arrested man 'wanted to shoot Donald Trump'

He planned to assassinate Trump in a venue swarming with security by GRABBING A GUN OUT OF A COP'S HOLSTER. And never once did it cross his mind, "Hey, maybe I should develop more muscle mass than a string bean before I try this".

Rambo couldn't pull that shit off yet this noodle-armed cunt thought he had it in the bag.
 
Am I missing something? Can anyone explain Trump's reasoning by bringing HRC's chosen system of belief if any at all? Without making this thread about religion and public office, which I dont want, can anyone explain the political benefit on this one?

None. And that is what has worked for Trump...so far. He's still in attack mode, because that has been what's worked. I actually held out "this much" hope that after canning his campaign manager, we were going to see a reborn Trump who acted, at least somewhat, like a serious candidate for president. Someone who was going to start laying out facts and bring up talking points like, "what difference does it make", etc. Nope. I am very disappointed. If Hilary is smart, (and she is), she will not even respond to this. And if asked, she should just chuckle and do not-so-subtle eye roll.

I just read the article linked below and came here to get an opinion on it, but then I find the last 4 or 5 posts in this thread to pretty much back up the theory of the writer.

http://gawker.com/how-is-donald-trump-going-to-quit-1782312998
 
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm hoping that a viable 3rd party candidate pops out of left field. I honestly don't think I could vote for the baboon in the toupee or for Smeagol in a wig. :wall:
 
I don't know about anyone else, but I'm hoping that a viable 3rd party candidate pops out of left field. I honestly don't think I could vote for the baboon in the toupee or for Smeagol in a wig. :wall:
I mean, this brings up a good point, in line with the earlier post.

Let's say Trump does exit unceremoniously and the GOP decides to field a viable last minute candidate.

What presumptive candidate wins? I feel like thats a short freaking list, and it starts with Paul Ryan. It might end there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top