2016 Presidential Election Thread

You really have no clue, do you?

Ironic post is ironic.

Not to mention all the other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights that are likewise understood to be individual rights and not "state" rights.

The bill of rights were specifically created to protect individual freedoms.Geez, kids at a basic fourth grade level know this.

Those kids, and apparently some Wordforgers are ignorant in that case. Explain the 10th amendment under the individual freedoms framework, T.R. The Bill of Rights is dual purpose, some aimed at individual rights, some aimed at setting a balance between federal and state.

The Supreme Court ruled that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" used the word "people" to refer to what we term "people", not states. In contrast, the Tenth Amendment said that right not given to the federal government, and not prohibited to the states, are reserved for the states or for the people. The framers, coming from state governments, amazingly knew the difference between a state and its inhabitants.

More trouble for Hilary.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/2...oreign-donations-to-foundation.html?referrer=

Consider yourself Bendered.

A non-issue for her die-hard fans and supporters. They can just scream that the Republicans are on a "witch hunt". BTW I think the hunt is over if that's the case. Hillary reminds me of that bitchy nurse in One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest.
Oh wait, I think that's the news headline for that gyro-copter mailman.

I'd go a bit further than that: the Bill of Rights, as originally intended, was solely about setting a balance between federal and state power. The Bill of Rights simply didn't apply to limit state government at all until the Civil War, and literally no one thought otherwise. There was no individual right in the Bill of Rights to free speech, just a limitation on the federal power to restrict free speech; states remained unfettered in their own power to limit individuals' speech under the Bill of Rights, as they remained unfettered in their power to establish state religions, deny bail arbitrarily, impose cruel and unusual punishments, and quarter militia members anywhere they wanted to even during peacetime.

Incorporation doctrine is a mess mostly because the Bill of Rights never listed any rights in the first place.

First Amedment:

Explicit right(s) of the people.

Second Amendment:

At the time this was written, "militia" was understood to be every able-bodied male between sixteen and sixty. Therefore, the people. But even leaving that aside, the right of the people is explicitly spelled out.

Third Amendment:

Not really applicable these days given our society, but again it mentions "the owner" which plainly means an individual. Therefore, a right of the people.

Fourth Amendment:

The very first words of the Amendment declare a right of the people.

Fifth Amendment:

Specifically mentions "persons" twice, which any reasonable interpretation would recognize as referring to "the people."

Sixth Amendment:

Altho the male pronoun is used (understandable given the context of the times when this was written) this Amendment is also quite clearly referring to the rights of an individual, and by extension "the people."

Seventh Amendment:

The first one that does not mention the right of an individual explicitly. However, contextually it very clearly refers to a right of the people since that's who is involved in "suits at common law" and "trial by jury."

Eighth Amendment:

Again, this one does not explicitly refer to the rights of individuals but also again, context makes it plain that that is exactly what it is referencing.

Ninth Amendment:

The Ninth is a curious one. While explicitly mentioning the rights of the people, it does not enumerate any specific rights. Basically a catch-all that says other rights exist among the people even if they're not spelled out in the Constitution. Hence, lots of lawyers arguing lots of cases.

Tenth Amendment:

The Tenth more or less died in the Civil War. Meant to say that the rights and powers delegated to the federal government by the Constitution are the only rights and powers the federal government has. Anything not specifically given to the fed belongs to the several states and/or the people themselves.

So anyway @Liet , there seems to be no shortage of rights enumerated specifically to the people in the Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights. In fact, the common name of the first ten amendments should be a pretty good clue what's being talked about.

...And this was also predictable. I'm sure a few more anti-Clinton books will be out between now and next November.

Well, some of the rights are pretty dumb, like the right to have an attorney. Isn't that about like a right to have genital herpes?

You also can't have troops quartered in your home, even though that would be handy as fuck for a lot of household chores, not to mention added security.

And the prohibition against unusual punishments pretty much stifled whatever innovation was going to occur in the punishment sector.

Isn't there a right to a "speedy trial" mentioned? If by speedy they mean about as fast as plate tectonics, then mission accomplished!

I believe the idea behind that was so the government couldn't just keep someone indefinitely locked up with no legal basis. So they had to hurry up and make their case in order to keep someone in prison or cut them loose.

The right to a speedy trial is often waived by the defendant in order to get more time to prepare their defense. (Although when they don't, it looks like a claim of the right being denied is pretty hard to make stick.)

In my county if you decide to sit it out until your trial versus bond out, you will get a very speedy trial indeed because the county lockup doesn't want to feed & house you.

The clown car just got more crowded:


Carly Fiorina Running for President

Yeah, nobody knows who she is, I doubt she'll make it far. I'm interested in hearing what she has to say though. May the fourth be with her.

I really don't get the people with no real political experience thinking they can run for President.

Wow, it is amazing how easy it is to debunk TR's nonsense and yet he still acts so condescending while being completely wrong.

They don't intend to win. It is just to sell books, get her name out there, and possibly build up a slush fund which she can use to enrich herself a la Sarah Palin. At least Fiorina wrote her own book where as Palin is essentially illiterate and had someone write a book with popular right wing buzz words in it and then just slapped her name on it.

This is basically why Donald Trump keeps running.

You have actual verifiable evidence of this?

I have no idea who she is but her name is sex on a stick baby!

Everything she has said and done.

So not REAL evidence. Simply matters of opinion.

Why not? We elected one President in 2008.

He had over a decade actively involved in politics at the state and national level. You might not like him, but he was not a neophyte. Dumb comments like that might play well in certain circles, but they hardly do anything for your efforts to avoid the partisan hack tag.

Obama had done very little aside from campaign for the next office. His record as a legislator is . . . Unimpressive.