Speak for yourself, not for me please.
In the First Amendment.
Er - yes, in order to do something, you have to do something.
See above.
I kind of suspect that “Trump is bombing CNN headquarters” would bump impeachment proceedings to the top of the agenda.
I’m not even sure what this means, so I’ll leave it alone.
Regards,
Shodan
The president has no constitutional authority to order any police or military action, except as the Congress has delegated such authority. Congress has done a whole lot of such delegation, but when it comes down to it they’re the ones who decide if we have a military at all, for example.
The First Amendment forbids the Congress from making any law that would abridge freedom of the press. The Congress cannot delegate their authority in order to violate the First Amendment, even if such delegation is to the president. If the president were to act to restrict the press, a lot of existing delegation of powers would suddenly become unconstitutional, and thus the president would no longer have the delegated power he now has.
k9bfriender, no law is sufficient without people in positions of authority to enforce it. The Trail of Tears was an unconstitutional and illegal act.
You appear to be looking for some sort of guarantee that simply having a law written somewhere, (or a judicial opinion published), will invoke a divine or magical intervention to make the world behave.
It ain’t gonna happen.
The Jim Crow states operated under “Separate but Equal” for 58 years while rarely providing equal access or accommodation to black people. After the Brown v Board of Education decision in 1954, it still took until the early 1970s for the Federal government to actually find ways to enforce that decision most of the time. (Little pockets of resistance continue to pop up in small towns, from time to time.)
You have already been provided the reasons why Trump could not get away with closing down CNN (and taking several other actions). That is as good as it is going to get. Let it go.
That is the best I have seen. That makes sense.
Didn’t mean to hijack, but when it was said that it is unreasonable to consider Sander’s remarks in the context of the first amendment, I wondered if there was anything the executive could do that would be considered int he context of the first, as it’s not actually mentioned. I then got more concerned that no one really did have a good answer there. Posse comitatus only covers army and air force, Shodan’s repeating of “First Amendment” was making me more nervous, as the first doesn’t mention the executive branch at all. Leaving it all in the hands of congress to stop the executive branch did not fill me a with a great boost of confidence.
But, given what you’ve said here, I guess that makes more sense, thank you, I will sleep better tonight.
OK I’ll let you speak for you. But if it’s not compelling it will stand that she needs to go back to arkansas or where ever.
We all know what her job is and what she’s said. She is not speaking competently, or conscientiously in her job, and she’s lying, or buttressing lies, and gaslighting the press.
Why don’t you characterize it for you. I’ll listen.
I think she’s done a satisfactory job thus far and I was not especially unsettled by her “I think that’s something highly inappropriate” remark. It didn’t strike me as anything near the ‘thou shalt not question …’ characterization that it has received around here.
So, if someone tells you that something is “highly inappropriate”, you don’t take that as them meaning that you shouldn’t do it?
This may be the disconnect. I would take that pretty straightforwardly.
If your boss says that your dress is “highly inappropriate”, is he just expressing his opinion, or is he telling you not to wear that tie anymore?
I did take her comments as a directive not to do the thing that she said was inappropriate, is that not how you took it then? If so, what did you take that phrase to mean?
This reminds me of the “I hope” thread with comey…
A poor characterization would be to take Kelly’s comment of “Chance Phelps was killed under my command right next to me, and it’s worth seeing that if you’ve never seen it.” out of context, and wonder why he likes watching people killed under his command.
I think we’re responding to the smaller cuts because we think they are emblematic, and we feel like we are on a steep slope. It doesn’t take that many more to get to a thousand from here.
I don’t think I’m being over reactive in needing a much better performance from her. I think that many of her predecessors would have been humiliated and fired over some of this.
I don’t know how someone could do a satisfactory job in being the spokesman for a liar, though. Even if it was the best they could do.
I take it as them telling me that they think I shouldn’t do it anymore. They’re free to express their opinion on the matter, and I’m free to ignore it. There are plenty of people here that would tell me it was “highly inappropriate” to vote for Trump. I would take that to mean they wished I wouldn’t, but they’re not trying to dictate to me who I can or cannot vote for.
Depends. Did I wear it to a board meeting at work, or did he run into me at the mall on a weekend? Is Sarah Huckabee Sanders your boss? She isn’t mine, so I don’t see how this analogy is relevant to the situation we’re discussing.
No. For example, as a general rule, I think burning the American flag in protest is “highly inappropriate”. That doesn’t mean I’m going to stop someone from doing it (assuming it’s their own flag), or that I’m issuing a directive not to do it. Like above, I see it as someone expressing their suggestion / preference that I not engage in that behavior.
What is ‘this’? The “I think that’s something highly inappropriate” remark? Or is there some greater ‘this’ that you’re referring to (of which I’m apparently unaware)?
Perhaps. Like I said earlier in this thread to iiandyiiii, I can understand how, given the larger context around Trump’s attitudes towards free speech and the press, this raises red flags for certain people.
Not answering for who you asked, but for myself, “Should not” does not equal “Shall Not”. If my boss says that, that’s a “Shall Not”. It’s mandatory, because he has the authority to issue “Shall Not” decrees on how I dress on the job.
What authority does Sanders have to issue “Shall Not” decrees to the press? What authority does Trump have to issue such decrees?
Answer: None. Those, are therefore “Should Not” statements. Requests, in other words, that the press is free to ignore.
I cannot see a difference between “it is in appropriate to do this” and “You should not do this.” If I told you it was inappropriate to say the word “cunt,” would you not interpret me as saying you shouldn’t say teh word “cunt”? Because I would very much be telling you that you should not be saying it.
The idea that it’s inappropriate to criticize our leaders is anti-democratic, anti-American bullshit. It is never inappropriate to criticize someone because of their military rank or position in government.
It’s why I find this whole flag thing so offensive. Those who try and act like criticizing our country is some horrible sin worry me. What country did they grow up in where they think that is acceptable? Do they want to live in a dictatorship, where you must pledge fealty to all your leaders and never say anything bad about them?
I know people like to make fun of liberals as not supporting freedom of speech. But that’s exactly what I’m doing here. I’m supporting the actual moral concept underlying it: the fact that we have a right–nay–a patriotic duty to criticize those in power we think are doing the wrong thing.
If we ever actually buy into the concept that doing so is “inappropriate,” then our country falls. If you really fought for our freedoms, then you should fight for people to be able to tell you to your face that you are wrong.
That’s when you will have earned my respect. Otherwise, you’re just a guy who liked killing people, who didn’t actually stand for anything America actually stands for.
Let me provide an alternative example:
Imagine a gay couple were walking through the park holding hands, and some religious fundamentalist stopped them and said “that is highly inappropriate”. Would you hope that the gay couple’s response would be:
A) “Oh, shit, we’re sorry. I guess we won’t do that anymore.”
or
B) “WTF? It’s none of your business who’s hand I hold. Get out of my face!”
?
Should not is proscriptive. Shall not is not.
Have you ever been told “you should not…” and taken it as optional?
The press is not free to ignore the white house. Just the opposite in fact. They and we are all prisoners of this.
But the bigger point is that you are glossing over the attempt to manipulate a free press, by saying that we are free to ignore it. Is this funny haha?
YES!
NO! Wrong! The press is absolutely free to ignore the White House. How many times has Trump called CNN “Fake News”? Does that mean they were somehow mandated to retract the stories they’d published? Of course not!
Even if she is doing all of those things, whose Constitutional rights are being violated?
Threats to the constitution are not always unconstitutional. Isn’t that why we have other laws too?
I don’t think we can afford to wait for a CV to do anything. YMMV.