I would say it doesn’t. Nothing prohibits the President from saying that.
I don’t defend him, brohan. I will point out that he has plenty of reason(precedent) to believe he can do many things. I don’t think he’s right; but, I’m not going to go out of my way to criticize him when he wants to overstep his bounds to do something I agree with, when other have overstepped their bounds to do shitty things.
The powerfullest.
No is saying he can’t say it. It’s that he shouldn’t say it. He also doesn’t understand that he doesn’t have that power. But just words and all.
So the Constitution is important unless it’s for something you agree with and it doesn’t matter if he oversteps because he wouldn’t be the first? You do you.
Freedom is important. The Constitution itself was a pretty big power grab(We are all aware of that, right?).
Again: I’m not going to go out of my way to criticize him for overstepping his bounds to do something with which I agree, while others have been permitted to overstep their bounds to do things with which I disagree. That’s stupid.
Edit: A man’s right to his property is far more important than administrative rules that are frequently ignored.
Lincoln gets credit for freeing slaves, even though his war resulted in the deaths of 600,000 men and was definitely NOT fought for the purpose of freeing slaves. You can’t even question his war in America without being dismissed as a racist extremist.
I’d say Trump should be able to bluff restrictions off of private businesses in states run by folks that don’t like him.
I honestly don’t care with your stance too much. But if he ignores the Constitution (a power grab anyways) because others have then why does any of it matter. A President can take all guns even if the the Constitution seems to permit it. After all some people would be for that and others have overstepped. Too me you wouldn’t have much of a leg to stand on should you be against it. To me it seems like it either matters or it doesn’t.
I also don’t care if states secede. I also don’t care if a state decides to secede and the federal government helps the other states kick their ass. Wouldn’t be the first time.
I think it’s weird to use the reasoning others have done it. That seems pretty silly. People before us have done all sorts of things that most would say is awful. To defend something new based on “well wouldn’t be the first time” seems shaky and lazy thinking.
I ONLY use the Constitution to argue against gun control because that seems to be a pretty widely-accepted argument.
If the Constitution is one day amended to permit (more) gun control, I’m not going to agree or support (even more) gun control.
What does this mean? Are you drinking?
It’s midnight here of course. I can work from home mostly so of course I’ve had whiskey. Got about two hours ahead of me probably and my little one has been sleeping through the night.
I don’t see what was confusing. If Trump ignores the Constitution here and you’re fine with it under the rationale that others have done so why abide by anything in it? To me the stance options would either be it matters all the time or never.
That’s been the federal government’s stance since way before any of us were born. It’s been accepted that it can be violated to do shitty things that have violated INDIVIDUAL rights, so I’m not going to bitch too much when it’s violated to reinstate individual rights(I also doubt that it will be).
Allow yourself to explain:
I…have no idea.
The Constitution definitely does NOT seem to permit that…
Youve just summed up American politics since Teddy Roosevelt. It’s just a piece of paper if the people are apathetic.
Do you care about abuse of power though? We’ve discussed a variety of topics on this forum and you dont strike me as someone who cares all that much about the constitution.
But it’s just words, why do you seem upset?
Why did the confederate states secede? Did it have to do with the economics of banning slavery? Were the violations of states rights characterized as slavery issues? People can say it was a state’s rights issue, not a slavery issue, but when the state’s rights issue was slavery, it was therefore kinda about slavery.
About what? I have a hard time believing someone that can frequently find his way back to a website’s forum is dumb enough to not understand there’s a difference between laws passed(actions) and words spoken(words).
The war was not fought to free slaves. Read up on the Corwin Amendment.
The Corwin Amendment was about slavery.
No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.
It basically says that the federal government can’t pass labor laws (abolishing slavery) that apply to states.
Yes. And the U.S. was on board with ratifying it-permanently-in order to prevent Southern States from leaving. The war was fought to bring States back-not to free slaves.
And why did the confederate states leave? Did it have to do with slavery?
Yes, at least partly. That is not why the war was fought. You seem to be missing that. The war was started by the U.S., whose purpose was to force the Confederate States to return. I’m done with this derail. Worship Lincoln if you want.
That’s why the GOPers would absolutely not lose their shit whenever someone would even allude to the phrase “gun control”, because just words, right?
I understand that part. You are saying that the war was fought to bring the states back and not about slavery. I am just pointing out that the reason the confederate states left in the first place was slavery.
I used to think slavery was only a small part of the war. I now believe the war would have never occurred if slavery did not exist in the US, or if the government did not try to abolish it.
This is a discussion of states rights and the federal government. I don’t see it as a derail.
I like Lincoln. I think he is one of the best US Presidents. He made unpopular decisions based on what he thought was right. I don’t worship him though.
No, not “just words.” There is plenty of gun control on the books here. The actions have already happened.
By the way, if Mississippi invaded the United States to start the war then the document you posted would make sense as an explanation for the war.
I believe I have a big track record of being against corruption in all forms so honestly I think you’ve got me wrong. Not just with government but with business as well.
My line of questioning was based more along the lines of if someone thinks the Constitution is the be all end all how could they be ok with Trump saying or doing that? Especially if the argument is based around well everyone else has done it before.
