Trump Fires Comey

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the 2nd is the only amendment with qualifications, then that would indicate that those qualifications were important. You can't claim originalism, and oppose going against text, and then refer to state constitutions of the 1780s. They aren't part of the constitution.

I doubt very much that the 2nd is the only amendment with qualifications.  I know it is not the only right with a justification clause.  It should be interpreted the same as every other right written with a justification clause.  The Jim Crow / blue wet dream interpretation of the 2nd is entirely inconsistent with how other rights with a justification clause are interpreted.

(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Originalism of the Scalia/Gorsuch type does not work. The world changes, and the constitution must be interpreted in a flexible-enough way to adapt. Guns are not the same as they were in 1787. And remember, the phrase "well-regulated" is built in to the 2nd. Whatever militia has a right to bear arms, it must be well-regulated. That means gun control, and qualifications on which guns the militia members have a right to bear.

The recent supreme court cases reestablishing an individual right is not originalism except in the sense that there has been a return to the original meaning.  There is lots of room to debate the statistics of what results from various types of gun prohibition.  There is no room to debate the meaning of the text, the intent of the authors, the precedents and scholarship.  Those advocating the blue wet dreams deliberately keep themselves ignorant of the history of gun policy.  

(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: The blue wet dream is merely to go back before the right-wing extremist appointed by the 3T charming actor and his faulty decision.

The blue wet dream is a mistaken attempt to cling to the absolutely rotten Jim Crow efforts to deny blacks the benefits of the Bill of Rights.  It wasn't just the 2nd Amendment that was effectively neutered by the Jim Crow supreme court.  The entire Bill of Rights was effectively neutralized.  The gun policy debate is old.  It has been a persistent part of our history.  Your claim that it started recently shows a tremendous ignorance.

(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Another point to insert: it is a false myth that we have freedom of speech in this country. We don't at all.

Huh?  Not part of this discussion.  If you want to start on that elsewhere...  What is it you want to say that you believe you can't?

(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I don't recall the Supreme Court throwing out libel and obscenity laws. The FCC still censors broadcasts. Nor directing bosses and leaders of non-profits not to fire or punish people for saying the wrong things or "airing dirty linen in public."

Since the time of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, there has been a broad principle that a right does not grant one the ability to harm others.  ("Your right to wave your fist around ends where my nose begins."  "You don't have a right to cry 'fire' in a crowded theater.")  Libel and obscenity are considered to be harmful to others, thus freedom of speech does not enable them.  Shooting people also causes harm to others, and the 2nd Amendment does not enable that.  Owning and carrying a gun (keeping and bearing arms) does not harm others, thus the libel and obscenity comparison is generally not applicable.

(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: This is just more conversation derailment into the never-ending gun debate. The point was about a coup or revolution for or against Trump.

Correct.  There is a gun policy thread.  This exchange belongs there.  Feel free to move it and I'll follow.

(05-15-2017, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: As I see it, if Trump violates the constitution, then to violate the constitution to overthrow him would be 2 wrongs not making a right. It depends on how far things go, though. If Trump is able to turn the country into some kind of dictatorship, then if constitutional means are not available to challenge his power, then the constitution is moot, and the people or the military will need to take up or arrange for arms sufficient to remove him. Just where that line is crossed, may be hard to define exactly.

Agreed in principle,  The Declaration of Independence attempts to draw the line of when it is proper to use force to dissolve old and tyrannical forms of government.  I don't think we're across that line yet, but I certainly can't guarantee that Trump can't ever or won't ever cross it.

The Founding Fathers Wrote:We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security. Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

Feel free to keep a running list of 'Injuries and Usupations'.  Actually, some of our existing threads are pretty much doing just that.