Scalia was just as much of a judicial activist as any liberal version who ever lived. He had no more interest in the “original intent” than the man in the moon. Rather, he imposed his preferred sociopolitical dogma on the Constitution, just like almost every other justice. It’s a bit like biblical archaeology. I think they often already know their preferred outcome before they ever even hear a case. It’s just a matter of going out and finding the cherry-picked sentence fragments which support their position and hoping like hell four other people agree to form a majority. Frankly, the founding fathers didn’t necessarily agree on the semantic meaning of the terms in the first place. Indeed, consider the “big government” question. We’ve been fighting over that from the moment the ink was dry. While the Constitution was, in fact, a triumph of big government in comparison to the previous document (i.e. the Articles of Confederation), the backlash against that idea began immediately. Certainly, some passages are unambiguous or the boundaries of possible meaning can be derived from contemporary dictionaries and grammars but there’s plenty to fight over and many portions of the text have been politicized since the document was ratified.
In case you missed it, I was being sarcastic in my previous post. I’m in full agreement with you that Scalia was a judicial activist. Despite his claims, he had no special insight into what the authors of the Constitution were thinking. He just took his own opinions and declared that they were also the opinions of the authors.
Trump is waiting for the movie to come out.
There’s no right to trial by jury if your parking ticket is less than $20. I know that few are, but in some small towns such do exist.
Cruel punishment is only unconstitutional if unusual. I fear this would mean the Trump administration is covered 
Of course, in real life, as pointed out, what matters is not the wording of the Constitution, but the case law. Even a mostly GOP court might not accept a defense that torture of US citizens is OK if it recently became common. And no court will fully enforce the seventh amendment right to a jury trial.
I don’t think this is true. I know of at least one case where the state tried to argue that while it conceded its punishments were cruel, they were common practice so they didn’t qualify as unusual. The judge ruled that the Constitution prohibited punishments that were cruel and punishments that were unusual - they didn’t have to be both.
The 7th Amendment has never been held to apply to the states, so you don’t have a (constitutionally-protected) right to a trial by jury over a parking ticket of any amount if it’s in the 50 states. Edit: Parking tickets also aren’t suits at common law, I don’t think, so even in DC and the territories I don’t think you would.
<nitpick>
The Constitution spells out requirements to enact a treaty but is noticeably silent on required steps to cancel a treaty. Several different means have been used to do so, but not all involved the legislature.
Trump or Clinton would be in good company if either unilaterally cancelled a treaty. Lincoln and FDR both did so.
Cite: Abrogation of Treaties by the United States (pdf link) by Kendrick A. Clements
</nitpick>
Silly argument to say “she’s pushing for a law that’s unconstitutional”. Isn’t that how we change the constitution? Women asking for the right to vote were also “unconstitutional” but if all we ever did was exactly what that document said we would NOT be the country we are today.
It’s called witnessing. Teh Democrats and teh gummint is teh evil. Tehy need to be more like Ted Cruz.
Actually no, my OP never encourages anyone to vote for Trump. In other threads, I’ve been clear that I oppose Trump and I’m trying to talk his supporters out of supporting him.
It is not a binary choice between Trump and Clinton. We can vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. We can stay home on election day. We can cast write-in votes for Ralph Wiggum or Cthulu. All are better options than the major-party candidates.
Voting for any of those candidates makes it more likely that Trump wins, and it’s perfectly clear that none of those candidates can win. How are those better options?
It allows people to remain “pure”, since we all know that voting is all about “you” rather than about the country.
A voter has exactly three choices:
[ul][li] Make it slightly more likely that Trump becomes President.[/li][li] Make it slightly more likely that Clinton becomes President.[/li][li] Have no effect on the race for President.[/li][/ul]
Your claim is that the third choice is superior to each of the first two choices. This claim seems … odd.
I’d like to thank ITR for providing rock solid evidence that Clinton has read the constitution. The Flag Protection Act of 2005 is so carefully worded to be within constitutional limits that there is no other reasonable conclusion.
I was undecided between Clinton and Trump, but ITR has convinced me that Clinton has read the constitution and Trump has not. Now my mind is made up. Clinton all the way.
I don’t quite see how all third-choice votes help Trump. Surely there are a few disaffected Trump supporters who are voting for Johnson instead (or Cthulhu) thus helping (to a very small degree) Clinton get elected.
Also the “protest” or “send a message” effect isn’t totally vacuous. If Johnson gets a couple of million votes, that’s worth taking note of. (It gives both major parties a population to target in campaigning.)
Eh, you’re probably right that third party votes are more helpful to Clinton. However, gaming one’s vote is dangerous. We have already seen how this can play out.
There is zero message to be learned from the major parties from Stein or Johnson votes. The Republicans can’t even learn not to nominate a racist: for them to nuance their platform in a little more libertarian bent is beyond their capabilities. And for Dems to add in a little more Green? What, by adding a vaguely anti-vax statement to the platform? Forget it.
Nonsense. Despite the anti-Hillary hate, she’s a competent politician. Any attempt to try and equate Clinton and Trump is ridiculous. She’s not just a better option than Trump, she’s also a better option than Johnson or Stein (or Ralph Wiggum or Cthulhu).
Objectively better? If only it were that easy. If your politics are aligned wit Johnson or Stein, then Clinton is not necessarily a better option.
Man, I don’t know. A well-educated lawyer that lies, cheats, steals and generally thinks she’s above the law yet cushions her rhetoric in fanciful free colleges, all for the people, etc (when it’s all bullshit) is just as dangerous as a know-nothing evil demagogue.
Neither of them is worthy of the Presidency, they are equally shameless, evil and lying sacks of shit.
ANYONE at ANY level of government that did what she did WRT state secrets and the mishandling of that information via email would have been fired, jailed, disgraced. court-martialed, whatever. The fact that she’s so fucking cavalier about being above the law just galls me on a level that I cannot get over. She broke the fucking law, the Obama-controlled FBI meekly absolved her of her bullshit and the beat goes on.
And NONE of that has ANYTHING to do with Trump and his equally pervasive bullshit lies of evil. There is no equating them, they are both bad choices and evil, corrupt and dastardly to the very cores of heir essence.
Fuck them both.