The Democratic Party Would Like to Abolish the Constitution
Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry told Breitbart News Daily on Thursday that the “Democratic Party would like to abolish the Constitution” to further its political ideology.
Jeff Landry first discussed Louisiana Gov. Jon Bel Edwards, whom Landry argues has pushed his agenda through executive fiat rather than through legislation. Landry, however, has stopped his executive encroachment through various lawsuits as attorney general.
Landry told Breitbart News Daily, “The governor embarked on the same establishment style politics and the fact that he started to govern via executive fiat. One of his first executive orders was basically to create a protected class for the LGBTQ population. It was something that the Louisiana legislature had rejected a number of times. It was completely problematic and was based upon a test, and not an objective one. So we took him to court, and we won, we took him to court, and we beat him in the district court. We beat him at the appellate level and the state Supreme Court.”
“Executive fiat is not part of our democracy,” Landry added.
Landry continued, “We have a legislative branch that creates the law and the executive carries it out. When it works in that fashion, America works.”
The Louisiana attorney general then cautioned that he remains distraught by the left’s attacks against Americans’ right to bear arms.
Landry told Breitbart News Daily, “I am very concerned about the attacks on the Second Amendment by the Democratic party. Absolutely if they had the chance, they want your guns. They would love to confiscate the guns of law-abiding Americans.”
The Louisiana conservative then suggested that the Americans are beginning to understand that freedom works and subsequently the left is freaking out.
“People are beginning to understand American freedom again,” Landry argued. “I think the left is understanding that we got this going the right way. We’re going down the path of socialism and communism which is exactly what the Democratic Party stands for.”
Breitbart News Daily hosts Alex Marlow and Matthew Boyle then mentioned Thursday night’s live town hall event, the “Masters of the Universe: Big Tech vs. Free Speech and Privacy,” in Louisiana on Thursday night.
Landry contended, “At the end of the day the Democratic party would like to abolish the Constitution and get rid of the Bill of Rights that just infringes on their political ideology.”
Facebook’s reputation plummeted after reports revealed that the data analytics firm Cambridge Analytica used the social media platform to gain access to the personal data of more than 50 million users. A recent Reuters poll suggests that only 41 percent of consumers trust Facebook to comply with American privacy laws.
“It was perfectly fine for Barack Obama to do the same thing,” Landry explained.
Landry concluded, “The fact that all of the data was used that Google and Facebook openly shared it to the Obama campaign. But all of a sudden, when conservatives or the Republican party has an opportunity to access that data and win with it legally, it’s problematic.” http://www.breitbart.com/radio/2018/04/05/exclusive-louisiana-ag-jeff-landry-the-democratic-party-would-like-to-abolish-the-constitution/
Tags
Who is online
37 visitors
“The Louisiana attorney general then cautioned that he remains distraught by the left’s attacks against Americans’ right to bear arms.
Landry told Breitbart News Daily, “I am very concerned about the attacks on the Second Amendment by the Democratic party. Absolutely if they had the chance, they want your guns. They would love to confiscate the guns of law-abiding Americans.”
The Louisiana conservative then suggested that the Americans are beginning to understand that freedom works and subsequently the left is freaking out.
“People are beginning to understand American freedom again,” Landry argued. “I think the left is understanding that we got this going the right way. We’re going down the path of socialism and communism which is exactly what the Democratic Party stands for.”
Breitbart News Daily hosts Alex Marlow and Matthew Boyle then mentioned Thursday night’s live town hall event, the “Masters of the Universe: Big Tech vs. Free Speech and Privacy,” in Louisiana on Thursday night.
Landry contended, “At the end of the day the Democratic party would like to abolish the Constitution and get rid of the Bill of Rights that just infringes on their political ideology.”
Like how they have openly expressed the desire to ignore the 2nd Amendment and take away people's legally bought guns without due process?
Oh wait, that was Trump.
Like How the Democrats want to ignore the Emoluments clause of the Constitution?
Ooops, that was Trump too.
Oh I know, like how the Democrats want the standing armies to enforce domestic laws in direct violation of the Constitution.
Hmmm, no that was Trump too.
You mean like how they are obstructing justice by firing all the people that are investigating them?
Wait, still Trump.
How about how Democrats are taking away American citizen's right to vote, as granted by the Constitution, by creating racially motivated "voter ID laws".
How they are managing that in Republican controlled states I'll never know.
Every country has a right to deploy its military on its own borders. We have a standing army and it’s not all based abroad so it has to be somewhere in the country. It’s not going to enforce laws on citizens.
This is a stinking, steaming pile of Republican. There is no protected class of people. What would be protected would be sexual orientation and gender identity, which applies to all people, Gay or straight, CIS or trans, and intersexxed. It is most definitely not unconstitutional.
Breitbart appeals to people who prefer emotions and belifs over facts and logical thought.
Yep, Breitbart appeals to really dumb and bigoted people.
Be careful around that crapola. You would not want to get any of that olde toxic gop on you...
Some Republicans Acknowledge Leveraging Voter ID Laws for Political Gain
It's illegal! You expect them to put something out that is so blatantly illegal that it will be overturned by even the most extreme right wing court? They hide the racism by making laws that "by some fluke" just happens to effect minorities more than the general white population.
Does the phrase Jim Crow laws mean anything to you? Conservatives know that they do not win elections where there is a high turnout of voters, so they do everything that they can to disenfranchise citizens from exercising their constitutional right to vote.
The recent Republican claims of a required photo ID are just another way to disenfranchise the poor and minorities who have a harder time getting to the DMV and paying for a photo ID, despite the fact that there is no evidence that a photo ID reduces what is an already statistically insignifant in-person fraud level.
Nobody with any knowledge of statistics would claim that voter fraud is a problem.
All anyone has to do it to fill out a voter registration card to be able to vote. It is the job of the election bureau to verify that the information is correct. A voter cannot be forced to go to the DMV during office hours and pay $12 for a photo ID to exercise a constitutional right. My other is obviously a US citizen and served in the Korean War as a nurse and yet they tried to say that she was not a citizen because when I took her to get her photo ID the DMV tried to claim that her birth certificate wasn't valid. She was born on a farm in the late 1920s well before there was a standardized BC form. Her BC is little more than an index card with my grandparent's names on it, her name, the Dr/midwife name, and a time and date. The fact that she was reaching Social Security and had her US Army discharge papers were not sufficient. We had to drive to her county of birth and get a notarized form before they would issue a photo ID to allow her to vote and cash checks.
There is no in-person voter fraud that is compelling enough to disenfranchise people by forcing them to pay for a photo ID to exercise their constitutional rights.
Only for people who watch Fox News.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is still not being obeyed in some states that try to disenfranchise voters by erecting roadblocks to registration or by making it difficult to cast a ballot by having to stand in line for hours on a workday.
The GOP is claiming that state-issued photo IDs are necessary to vote so they must be forced to pay for them. To do otherwise is an unfunded mandate.
Those are not constitutional rights. Voting is a constitutional right that cannot be infringed.
I had a photo ID, other than my driver's license, that was issued by the state w that was not accepted to vote. It was my college ID from a state university. They claimed that it didn't have my birthdate so it wasn't acceptable. The fact that my student ID number was my SSN didn't matter to them.
And your point is what, exactly? How does it relate to the topic of the article given that a CA driver's license can't be used by any undocumented person to register to vote.
It is the job of the Bureau of Elections to verify the person's registration as valid. You are not required to speak English to vote.
They have to provide an SS # and a state-issued ID. A DL issued under AB60 can't be used to register to vote since there won't be an SS# recorded with it, nor are undocumented persons automatically registered when the DL is issued as citizens are.
Your irrational concerns were debunked long ago, even back in 2015 when CA first passed its motor voter law. Nothing has changed since then given that an SS# is still required to register to vote in CA. You could have looked that up those facts yourself but you chose instead to spread bogus right-wing memes.
I have helped those who lost all their documents in fires, tornadoes, due to being evicted, divorce and many other reasons get the documents they need to participate in modern day life. If a poor person living far from where they were born loses all of their identification documents starting from scratch to get their papers is a long frustrating and expensive process. Even if one lives right where the were born it is difficult and costs a lot more than the fees including transportation, lost hours at work and other costs. For those without resources and a lot of determination it is easier to just find other ways to operating. In any case the issue is much more complicated than you contend. I have told this before but my ancient and relatively prosperous mother never had a birth certificate. She attended college, it is amazing what a college ID counted for back then, and traveled overseas as a military bride but was never required to produce a birth certificate until about twenty years ago in order to get her first passport. She had to get a lawyer and go to court and have a judge issue her a provisional birth certificate. Poor old folks in rural areas are being disenfranchised and that is a crime. It differs from state to state but nobody should be denied their right to vote especially not the old or the poor. Just sayin...
Why are you still trying to beat a dead horse? I live in Calif and every time I registered to vote after moving to a new county I had to produce my B-I-R-T-H C-E-R-T-I-F-I-C-A-T-E, and proof of residency in the way of a utility bill , rent receipt or some other document to verify my residence. A CA drivers license is not acceptable proof of citizenship or residency. It can only be use as a photo ID at the voting venue.
I don't know how things are done where you live, but, here if Calif that is how it is done. Nuf said.
Where did I suggest that it was a right for aliens to vote?
That should have read my mother.
I value my right to typo, as often as possible.
That may be true but it won't get them very far on this issue. In fact it would be very risky for anyone to try to get a DL or register to vote and give a bogus SS number since both the DMV and the secretary of state crosscheck the ID data with SS. They'd be arrested and if they were undocumented they'd be deported.
Why would undocumented aliens attempt to vote when there is no benefit for them to do so? We cant get more than 60% of American citizens to vote on a regular basis, so why would illegals try to vote when doing so gets them arrested and then deported?
Think before you make these wild claims based on emotions.
there is no way you are that naive...
hmmmm lets think about that for awhile... I know the answer is there somewhere... LOL
No, it's really not. If they really wanted to stay in this country illegally, they would not be calling attention to themselves by trying to vote.
A single state and federal level representative doesn't have the authority to change immigration laws. Trying to vote when you don't have a green card is a fast way out of the country. It just doesn't make sense to take that risk for the little reward that might be possible.
So do a lot of legal citizens. As well as phony ID's, drivers licenses and even passports. So what is your point? That only illegals have such things? What a fantasy world you must live in.
Time for that mirror again!
Glad you are taking another look at yourself. Introspect is good for the soul.....or so they say.
WTF R U oddly enuff even a tempting to say with this extremely sad case of fraudulent flatulence done gone natural, like a monument, forming momentum, for things never designed to absorb the inertia of the shit that's going to very shortly, interrupt the entire whirled spinning down like a torrid autumn , when no ones around, to sSpring to action beforte the Fall of Summers next Winter, Green with N V
So... I want to abolish the Constitution Heartland? I'm a liberal not an anarchist. Would you remove the words "well regulated" from the second amendment if you could?
Probably not Stevie but, he would try to remove "Free Press" from the First Amendment.
The article is a stinking, steaming pile of horseshit. There is nothing true about it. It was written just to make truly stupid and ignorant people get excited and riled about lies about Democrats about things that they supposedly want to do that they do not. Unfortunately there will always be people so moronically stupid enough to believe it.
I agree with some part of what you wrote.
"It was written just to make truly stupid and ignorant people get excited and riled up".
Looks like it worked,
Indeed. And it’s not an opinion article but a news article reporting on the sage and wise comments of an elected official.
Author called Off Topic - {SP}
It got someone worked up enough to seed it.
It is an article about an opinion...
when an elected official has an opinion? that is news.
when people like us have an opinion? not so much.
Cheers
It's a conservative politician who made a wild accusation about what democratic politicians want, with absolutely nothing to support his strawman claim. Democrats didn't say that they want to repeal the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
If Democrats want to repeal the Constitution and the Bill of Rights then why is it the supposedly far-left ACLU that defends our rights from government overreach?
I agree with legalizing drugs and then treating the problem medically as an addiction because criminalizing addiction isn't working. Nobody is banning nativity scenes. They, along with other religious monuments and ideas are to be kept on private property where they are protected religious belief, as per the strict separation of church and state.
I have been a card-carrying member of the ACLU since 1992.
It's not a surprise that conservatives and theocrats oppose civil rights.
What is that supposed to mean? I support the US Constitution and I defend our civil rights.
For 2x $20.00 you can also be a member of the ACLU and defend our rights. Freedom can't protect itself.
You should consider joining the ACLU if our rights are important to you. I love the reaction that I get when people see their blue card in my purse.
Hmmm, let's see what the ACLU is up to today.
Oh, wow, they're defending something and, someone who the Communists said they wanted to get rid of. Seems your argument doesn't hold water.
Here is a partial list of the Christians that the ACLU have defended.
Her comments came straight out of the Heartland Institute propaganda mill that provides spin/lies for the tobacco industry, the fossil fuel industry and the weapons industry.
Don't get me wrong, this independent liberal/centrist has a collection of fine firearms (at least one for every occasion) and still believes in sensible gun laws that make it harder for criminals, the insane and right wing terrorists to acquire and stockpile them.
Was a member of the NRA years ago until I saw a definite shift in focus from firearms safety instruction for the Boy Scouts to being a shill for the global weapons industry. Gave up my membership many years ago but still receive their fear based propaganda to this day. Seems that any firearms/accessories purchase just puts me back onto the NRA mailing list.
What the NRA is now selling is fear, not education.
We have our own civil rights group the ACLJ.
Civil rights are only a threat to bigots and to totalitarian governments like the kind which the Trump regime seeks to create.
Totalitarian government?
WTF?
LMFAO!!
oh, wait....you were actually SERIOUS??
The ACLJ are not defending the rights of anyone except conservative Christians, unlike the ACLU which also defends the rights of Christians and everyone else.
Founded in 1990 with the mandate to protect religious and constitutional freedoms, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) engages legal, legislative, and cultural issues by implementing an effective strategy of advocacy, education, and litigation that includes representing clients before the Supreme Court of the United States and international tribunals around the globe.
As ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow continued to build his legal and legislative team, the ACLJ experienced tremendous success in litigating cases at all levels of the judiciary – from the federal district court level to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Over the last two decades, Sekulow has appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States on numerous occasions, successfully arguing precedent-setting cases before the high Court: Protecting the free speech rights of pro-life demonstrators. Safeguarding the constitutional rights of religious groups to have equal access to public facilities. Ensuring that public school students could form and participate in religious organizations, including Bible clubs, on campus. Guaranteeing that minors could participate in the political process by protecting their free speech rights in the political setting.
Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the ACLJ’s work reaches across the globe with affiliated offices in Israel, Russia, Kenya, France, Pakistan, South Korea, and Zimbabwe. In addition to its religious liberties work, the ACLJ also focuses on constitutional law involving the issues of national security, human life, judicial nominations, and protecting patriotic expression such as our National Motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. https://aclj.org/our-mission/about-aclj
yet the attacks by the democrats on our rights says more than enough. as always.. they say one thing and do the other.
here is but a few examples
(1st)
(2nd) she just wants to disarm America - straight from the horses mouth.
people who attack our bill of rights in any way shape or form can not be trusted to run our country.
This is a much more protective organization than the All Criminals Liberals United is.
The one thing we all miss about President Obama is that he was the best gun salesman of all time.
So you found one person saying something that is outrageous to you, but her idea has no national support. Get over it.
Christians have no lost any religious freedoms in the US. They still have the very same constitutional right to believe in god/gods and to worship as they see fit that everyone else has.
Does the ACLJ defend the religious rights of others groups or don't they think that other religious groups have the very same religious rights that evangelical Christians enjoy?
Are you suggesting that members of the ACLU are criminals or that we support criminal activity?
When has the ACLU ever threatened your constitutional rights
Obama never once tried or even suggesting confiscating your guns or suggested repealing the 2nd amendment. Your life is controlled by fear of what someone who is different may do.
BS.
democrats are always itching to limit our gun rights. it is not even a secret any more.
democrats are always trying to silence opposing views as well... but.. LOL... they are not attacking our rights.... LOL
the good news? the left (the federalists) will always lose
while us batschit crazy, rightwing nutjobs (anti-federalists) will always win in the end.
Cheers
The ACLJ has many times been in court defending its clients and their situation when the opponent was none other than the ACLU, often working in concert with the thugs at the FFRF.
Christians have more than just the right to believe in God and have freedom of worship. We also have the freedom of religious expression and the constitutional right to the free excercise there of of said religious beliefs everywhere in our day to day lives.
When has the ACLU ever threatened your constitutional rights
Though it is a constant boogieman of the right wing the ACLU has never once threatened nor taken away anyone's right's under the Constitution of the United States of America. A lot of people who lost cases that they have brought against them feel different, but they are wrong.
When has the ACLJ ever fought for the religious rights of anyone but evangelical Christians? What constitutional right has the ACLU every tried to deny your or any other Christian?
I also support the Freedom From Religion Foundation, so your comment is a personal attack.
Comment removed, please refer to the new CoC. [ph]
The 2nd Amendment rights have never been considered to be unlimited. It says right in the textural wording that "a well-regulated militia... "
What constitutional rights are being threatened by Democrats? Did the ACLU try to take any rights of your away?
I was unaware that there was any mention, desire or even thought of banning semi-auto handguns. That is news to this lefty progressive.
That is part of the right to believe and worship. Your religious rights are limited where they come into contact with the rights of others because they have the same religious rights, plus their secular constitutional rights that are not subservient to your religious rights or beliefs. You do not have the right to force your beliefs on others or to limit their religious or secular rights because of your religious beliefs.
When have your constitutional rights been threatened by the ACLU or anyone else?
So since I’m an evangelical Christian and Tea Party member whenever a liberal or progressive makes an attack on either group it’s a personal attack on me? Is that where we want to go?
I didn't call you a thug and a criminal, unlike you.
Others on your side called groups I belong to all sorts of names as bad as that or worse. I haven’t yet accused them of calling me those things personally and no I didn’t call you personally anything since I unlike your ideological friends did not say all members of FFRF were thugs and I didn’t say all aclu members were communists or criminals. I mentioned the L as liberals not losers so it would be just as likely I was calling members of that group liberals. If you get your way though, I’ll get to red flag every time anyone here says anything negative about conservatives, Republicans, Christians and and any sub group of the three I might be part of and call it an attack on me personally.
Given your views I have no doubt whatsoever that some of those groups are quite bad indeed and fully deserve the derision and condemnation they receive.
Legitimately criticizing conservatives, Christians or liberals for their statements, policy positions or beliefs is different than calling someone a thug or saying that I support, take part in criminal activity.
Why haven't you answered my question about when the ACLU took away or threatened your constitutional rights? You shouldn't make wild accusations that you cannot defend when someone calls you on them.
Comment removed, please refer to the new CoC. [ph]
I don't remember what I said because I went offline for a or day so I can't refer to the new CoC to figure out what new rule I violated, but I will accept your word that I did something wrong, even though I haven't the slightest idea of what it was and promise that I will do my best not to do whatever it was wrong again, even though I don't know what it was.
That kinda goes without saying if the article is seeded by our friend HA!
And yet, here y'all are.
Right on cue.
skirting the CoC [ph]
Holy shit, they are on to us m'lads and lasses! Quick, everyone meet at the pre-arranged fall-back position (Stinky's Bar on the corner of Church Street and Redemption Drive) to discuss strategy. And as always, the last person too drunk to walk a straight line pays the tab.
Come on ! I had to pay last time...
Well next time, don't be late. And if you are, remember that it takes at least 3 double-shots to catch up to everyone else.
And I paid for the taxi AGAIN!!!!
Next time, spring for two, ya cheapskate.
When I got home, I was wearing someone else's underwear, and two left shoes, neither of which was my own.
Some people can walk a straight line?
And some people can't walk a straight line even sober. (grin)
Steaming pile of offal said article is. Bashing liberal, what else is new under the sun.
I thought Perrie was going to stop allowing all this liberal bashing by HA.
Then it would have to include the bashing of Trump and GOP by the left.
Then there would be no need for a forum at all. Is that what you want?
Or maybe these kind of comments?
Removed for context SP
I believe I deleted the original comment for skirting the CoC
That's warranted.
skirting the CoC [ph]
I review all comments removed and he is moderating fairly.
Quite frankly I haven't the slightest damned idea of what is going to be deleted for violating or skirting (damned dumb rule) the CoC, since the new rules really don't make even a tiny bit of sense to me so I'm just to keep posting the way I usually post and if I get banned then fuck it, I guess it was meant to be.
Lying is protected above all. Incredibly, we are actually required to believe every claim a person makes. The right wing liars can post BS articles to their heart's content and we must show them the utmost respect or it's some kind of violation. I've dropped the personal, direct insults, but any person who supports Donald Trump is a piece of fucking shit just like him. Either that or too damn stupid to be taken seriously at all. That's how I feel, I'll state it any time I want to, and if it gets me banned, so be it.
Nice to know how you really feel about flyover Heartland America and the rural red sections of the large blue states. How do you expect dialogue and discourse to happen if you write off half the people and 3,000 of our 3,500 counties in this country. Like I said elsewhere we have federalism here and a constitutional republic and at least 40% of the electorate and their non voting shared believers are going to be disappointed by the election results virtually every single time. After it’s over the losers become the loyal opposition and for the most part we get over it and move on with our daily lives until the next election cycle.
I agree. The personal attacks part of the CoC is a fucking joke. Skirting? Give me a totally ambiguous break. I'm not changing shit when it comes to my interaction with any type of fascism.
Donald Trump's obvious criminality and unfitness for office has NOTHING to do with left/right politics at all. Every decent honest conservative in the country is speaking out against Trump. This Russia stuff should be getting the right even MORE outraged than the left, if anything, given their intense and constant suspicion of Russia. (Up until Trump of course!)
If Hillary had won and her campaign had one tenth the weird Russia stuff swirling around it that Trump's has, you would be totally losing your shit over it. I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. You guys have no credibility, none whatsoever.
Guess who the first victims of a trade war with China will be? Serves the goobers right.
China has a huge trade surplus with us so they have by far the most to lose. The biggest American losers will be the NY banksters who sold so much of our debt to China when they use their last resort and dump those bonds on the market.
The company that my daughter works for took a significant hit this week because they have a large export business with Asian countries. She doesn't work in production but a few projects that she was involved in might be scaled back or temporarily abandoned.
Trump doesn't understand that he cannot treat foreign countries like he does his employees in international trade. Acting like a 2-bit cowboy will get us hurt.
Bashing liberal, what else is new under the sun.
Because you know he's right! The only thing that is not new is the bashing of Trump and the GOP every day, all day.
No he is not. I am a liberal and I do NOT want the constitution abolished. Sorry, try again.
Since Trump lies and makes idiotic decisions on a daily basis, trashing him is second nature for intelligent folk.
Bashing far right wing fascists is the American way. We fought WWII for that very reason.
Aren't we supposed to defend the constitution against all enemies both foreign and domestic?
Trump and the GOP are domestic defenders of the constitution.
That must explain why they keep losing in court.
THAT is a matter of opinion! In MY Trump and his immediate band of cohorts constitute a very dangerous group of domestic enemies to he Constitution that must be overthrown as quickly as possible before their EPA does even more damage to even more of our country deserts and insults even more of our allies and Trump hands even more of it over to Putin. Starts a Trade War we can not win and will result in a massive recession and likely leads us to a war in Korea just to cause a distraction and take of the front pages that he fucks women by the dozen while married, pays them off to cover it up and then lies about it! To say nothing of it being obvious that Putin is blackmailing him and until we find out what he is blackmailing him with then Putin has Trump and America by the balls!
Overthrown? How? We who support him will use every passive non violent legal means available under the constitution to keep him in office to the next election save for a GOP senate removing him from office for a legitimate reason requiring a 2/3 majority to the extent that the only way to get him out of office will be to overthrow the constitution and have a successful coup. We will defend him using the states and the constitution to the extent that there will be no non violent way possible to remove him from office. His defenders can keep him in office using legal passive and constitutional methods leaving the opposition the choice between respecting the election results or overthrowing the republic.
That the GOP won't impeach or convict Trump says everything you need to know about them.
The Democratic Party Would Like to Abolish the Constitution
Okay I'll bite: Do you really believe this nonsense?
I'll bite. Were Obama's EO's Constitutional? Were Gov Edwards EO's Constitutional?
Chew on that for awhile.
Yum!
Actually was commenting that no one wants to do away with the Constitution (perhaps Mr. Trump might care to), therefore rendering the title nonsensical, which it is in my opinion.
I don't know where you've been, but you have to say that it surely seems like the Democrats want to do away with the Constitution. Let's start with California: They have passed laws to thwart the Federal government from carrying out Immigration laws within the borders of California. That is in direct violation of Article I Section 8 Clause 4 and the Supremacy Clause (Article VI Clause 2). Then, you have Oregon's governor trying to flaunt the Supremacy Clause and Article 1 Section 8 Clause 15 by her refusal to accept an order by the President to call up Oregon's National Guard for aiding in protecting the border as per Title 10 of the US Code. Then, you have all the states that legalized Marijuana for any reason, which violates the Supremacy Clause. Then on top of that the many illegal attempts to create gun control in violation of the Second Amendment.
Great post! I agree 100%. Democrats flout the constitution daily in their effort to hate on President Trump.
Sounds more like a State problem rather than a National one.
I see you ignore all the attempts at gun control, which is National, and the support California's government is getting from other states for their stance against the Federal laws. And, the fact that many states have legalized marijuana despite it still being a class 1 illegal drug in Federal law.
California has been in open rebellion against the federal government on a great number of issues. It wants to coerce the federal government to adopt its fuel efficiency standards and it wants to prevent the federal government from selling federal land to private citizens demanding the right of first refusal to get it.
How exactly does anyone flout the US Constitutional when they disagree of Donald Trump?
Why haven't we been arrested or fined because of our disapproval of Trump?
So intelligent, educated, informed realists thwart ignorant right wing fascist agendas? Go figure.
Those of us who hate trump do so because he brings it upon himself by being a compulsive liar, an ignorant fool as to the job and a piece of lard with low morals and a larcenous bottom line. Just looking at his obviously sick body and mind makes me shudder.
And, where is the evidence that violating the law and the Constitution is the right thing to do? Every politician that has supported the idea of Sanctuary Cities or States has pushed a violation of the Constitution. If you are for the Constitution and for the Bill of Rights, then you must be FOR ALL OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS. So far, I have not seen any reach for powers beyond what is provided by the Constitution and the Law by Trump. I have seen the overreach for powers beyond what is granted in the US Constitution by the state governments that have legalized marijuana in violation of Federal law, refusal to allow National Guard troops being sent to the border by my governor, California refusing to cooperate with immigration law, and all the calls for gun control. Violating the law and the Constitution for no good reason other than political reasons, which is the case in all of those things I listed, is pure evil. So, you admit to supporting actual evil because you want to protest a perceived evil, correct?
LOL. There's nothing unconstitutional about sanctuary cities.
You mean nothing other than his statement that the government can take your guns and we'll worry about due process later, or his irrational attempt to ban transgender folks from the military, or his irrational and xenophobic attempt to ban Muslims from immigrating?
So far your buddy hasn't fared very well in the courts thanks to the US constitution.
This is directed to all above:
I must remind you, that according to the new CoC, no sweeping generalizations are allowed. Please be specific about what you are addressing, and not name calling.
Read Article VI Clause 2, which states that Federal law takes precedence when laws conflict.
Please tell me where he had a Muslim ban in anything other than campaign rhetoric? The travel ban he had that the left characterized as a Muslim ban, only affected less than 14% of the majority Muslim countries in the world. How is that a Muslim ban?
Until recently, like the last decade, transgenderism was considered a mental disease by the Psychiatric community. Which would actually be a medical discharge from the military.
Until someone actually takes the idea and makes it into legislation, his idea about taking guns is a non-story and a non-issue. If someone wrote a bill about it, then I would oppose it. I oppose the similar legislation that was put together here in Oregon and became law.
Ummm.....the only relevance the supremacy clause has here is that the feds not the states enforce immigration law. The states have no enforcement obligation or duty in that regard and they're actually prohibited from doing so under the constitution, per US v AZ. While a state can chose to assist the feds in that enforcement they have no obligation to do so.
The reality is that sanctuary cities and states have perfectly legitimate concerns in this area - they know that the entire community benefits when undocumented persons don't have to fear local cops if they report a crime.
Feel free to ask the courts which have repeatedly ruled against him on this very issue. Maybe your hero shouldn't have used such xenophobic rhetoric when he was pandering to his bigoted base? Or maybe he and his henchmen should have put a little thought into the issue before he issued blatantly unconstitutional executive orders......orders which he's had to rewrite several times now (at least) because they were so incompetently drafted?
.
What it shows is that not only is Trump completely illiterate about US law and the US constitution on the most basic level, but it also shows that his instincts are totalitarian and that he has no respect for due process or civil rights.
.
I'm not sure what "transgenderism" is but that's no longer the case is it? That's what knowledge and science and facts will do, so I can see why conservatives generally oppose such things. In fact the APA, AMA and all other relevant medical organizations have condemned Trump on this issue (and so has the DOD as well as the DoD-commissioned study by Rand). In fact a few days ago the AMA said the following:
.
By the way so far the courts have completely blocked your buddy on this issue thanks to the US constitution. No surprise whatsoever that the Trump regime has refused to say where they got the "advice" which informed their anti-trans policy, given that it has no rational basis. My guess is that it came from the bible-babbling bigot who sits in the VP's chair.
That changed years ago because being transgendered is not a mental illness. Apparently, conservatives only support WASP heterosexual/CIS troops.
What is it about gender identity that so bothers conservatives? People are afraid of what they do not a understand and when they are afraid they tend to stigmatize those who are different as a way to fight back against change. Is it the fact that you do not understand basic concepts of human sexuality or do transgendered people scare you because they question what it means to be male or female? There is a possibility that conservatives have cross-gender feelings and the public openness of trans' people makes it more likely they the subject will be discussed, which conservatives are not likely to want.
That is a matter of opinion. In the opinion of our State Courts we are not Constitutionally required to help the Federal government enforce Federal Immigration laws. It's an issue of States Rights and the Federal of Government is free to take us to court over it. But they won't because they will lose.
The federal government is taking the state to court over the immigration issue due to the supremacy clause. California law went much further than just not wanting to be involved in immigration but compels local businesses and law enforcement to act in a certain way on the issue regardless of their preference on the issue. Thus, several counties and multiple cities are joining the federal suit against the state and some cities are suing the state under the state constitution regarding that issue.
But Randy, it's not going to the California state courts. This one will go direct to the US Supreme Court (disputes between States and the Federal Government get the fast track). How do you think the Supreme Court, as constituted at present, is going to rule?
See US v Arizona for a clue; the court balance hasn't changed since that ruling. The states have no obligation to help the feds enforce immigration law or any other federal law for that matter, and the states are actually prohibited from enforcing immigration law on their own. The most they can do is respond to requests for assistance from the feds, and only if the state chooses to do so.
It means she's much more popular than Trump since she won the popular vote.
what it tells me is she was unpopular in enough states to give the electoral vote to her opponent.
That definitely speaks to a problem in our electoral college but it says nothing about her popularity with the public compared to Trump's. The bottom line is that millions more Americans voted for her and your buddy Trump continues to be the least popular President in US history, or at least since scientific polling began.
Well, when Presidents get ousted from office because of bad polling numbers, then it might be considered important.
Exactly! Trump campaigned in way to win the electoral college as that’s what the law of the land requires to win the election. Trump targeted the blue wall battleground states going for the middle and working class people in them and running against the coastal elites of the NE and left coast. He deliberately effectively reduced his vote in California and New York by running against them to win the other states he won. Hillary spent a lot of time fund raising in those two states during the general election.
Haven’t you heard about their planned civil war to end our influence in American politics?
Are the secret plans for that civil war on Breitbart too? I hope it starts on a Sunday.
I have since seeded an article on the issue and it’s availale from several different sources. I didn’t check Breitbart for it. It’s got an American flag with a gun, clip, ammo, and Bible on it and a caption that says God, guns, and country, what makes America great.
That wouldn't be my picture choice for what makes America great.
I know but you and the other secular progressives were the first people I thought of when I saw that picture to match the article. I happen to think God and the true 2nd amendment post Heller do make America great and we intend to keep her that way.
My picture would be of the born again cultists sitting in their church, armed to the teeth, as a true testament to their faith.
More horse manure from such a reliable "news" organization.....
the avg person on the left does not want to abolish the constitution.
those who give those people marching orders do want to abolish the bill of rights at least in part if not the whole.
ya see... serfs are not allowed to talk back or fight back... this is standard procedure for tyrannical pricks
the moral of the story is simple.
people who attack our bill of rights, even in part, can not be trusted one bit.
If that is true then why is it the liberal ACLU defends the right to do exactly as you say?
the aclu, like the avg democrat voter, does not want to limit our rights
the "people who are currently running the democrat party" would love to abolish or at the least would limit our rights.
Cheers
What constitutional rights do Democrats want to limit or abolish?
Please list them.......
1.)
2.)
3.)
I am a dyed in the wool leftist socialist liberal and I don't want to abolish any parts of the Constitution. So the premise of this "article" is a lie.
Id like to add to the Bill of rights, especially the 1st and strengthen the 4-through the 8th.
I want to add an equal rights amendment that makes the equal proection clause of the 14th even stronger.
Repealing Citizens United and ending all private money in politics is a good start.
The UN Declaration of Human rights is a good start.
Why not strengthen two of the four most important of the bill of rights; the 9th and 10th amendments?
add? what you really mean is limit the 1st to only the bits you like.
enough said
The 9th and 10 far from the most important, except to members of the TEAparty who still have a hard-on for Ayn Rand and libertarian nonsense.
The 1st and the 4th-7th are the most important in my eyes. Capital punishment needs to be abolished by amending the 8th.
Please feel free to guess what my ideas about adding to the 1st Amendment would be.
I'll make a cup of tea while I wait.
Sorry, we can't have a butthurt clause.
sounds unconstitutional to me
More mindless rwnj projection.
The AG of the state of Louisiana is 100% correct in all that he said in the comments covered in the news article.
Hate to break it to some but the constitution is fluid. That is why there are amendments.
too funny...
try passing an amendment and then tell us how fluid it is.
Amendments do pass. Women vote now. Drinking was stopped. Then started again. Black people vote. 18 year old's vote. It changes. Amendments do pass. It is liquid. It is a living breathing thing.
try... amendments did pass
hint: that was then. this is now.
today? there is no way 3/4ths of the states will back any amendment produced by the left = simply not happening.
remember this?
and that was under the most leftwing administration of our lifetimes. the likes of which, (thank god,) none of us will ever see again in our lifetimes.
but hey, just for fun. try it. give it another shot, let us all know how it turns out.
Well if we focus on educating the deplorable's children the next generation might actually understand civics, facts and reality and will vote the worthless GOP out of office. As it is now with the low and no education bigots who support Trump I agree, any positive change cannot happen.
I find it an interesting fact that those tiki torch wielding, confederate flag waving, MAGA hat wearing white supremacists who came out to support Trump and block the removal of a confederate monument are continuing the white supremacist traditions of their ancestors the confederates who actually did tear up the US constitution and wrote their own. And if you know any actual US history you would know what those worthless bigots founded their constitution on.
"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions —African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization."
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition." - Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens
So who is really more likely to try and abolish the constitution? The same bigots from the same States that tried it before.
No it’s not. It has original intent that must be followed. The constitution can be amended. It has two provisions to do so that must be literally followed and it’s not easy to do so. It requires 2/3 of both houses of Congress or 2/3 of all the states to pass a proposed change and 3/4 of all the states to ratify it. The last amendment, the 27th took effect in 1992 after working its way through the states for 200 years. So, since the bill for rights in around 1790 we’ve had 15 amendments make it into current law as two others cancelled each other out. Of course we have the constitution as five black robed persons want it to be where something is done for over 100 to 200 years and then suddenly we were all wrong all that time and it really meant something else 180 degrees different. You don’t need the amendment process for that kind of capriciousness. Thank God the electoral college is embedded in such a way that only an amendment can change it.
The Democrat Party rebellion in defense of slavery?
Apart from the explicitly racist intent you mentioned there's also this bit of Christian Sharia which is completely absent from the US constitution: "... invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the Confederate States of America. "
I wonder if that proves that the Christian "god" is a racist or proves that it isn't because those worthless bigots lost?
It's also amusing that the scope of the ban on bills of attainder and ex post facto laws was dramatically narrowed to just any law "denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves". LOL......it looks like in the Confederate States of AmeriKKKa the bible-babbler's noble effort to keep Terri Schiavo's pudding brain experiment going would have succeeded. Seems like conservatives and bible-babblers haven't changed one bit in over 150 years.
People from both parties have fought for and against slavery, the only consistent is that those who defended slavery considered themselves conservatives, trying to conserve the status quo of slavery. Most of those who fought against the status quo, whether Republican or Democrat, considered themselves liberals fighting for equality. Today we see the same lines drawn, conservatives fighting for their right to discriminate against minorities, LGTBQ Americans and immigrants while liberals fight to protect minorities, LGTBQ Americans and immigrants.
The constitution is what sets us apart from virtually every other government on earth as it attempts to protect the rights of the minority from the abusive will of a majority. There is no reason liberals and progressives would want to abolish the constitution. Only conservatives want to push Christian sharia type laws, discriminate against law abiding tax paying Americans simply because they don't share the conservatives religion or views on who consenting adults are allowed to love and want to take away women's right to choose what's best for their bodies and families would want to abolish the constitution that protects those Americans rights.
Liberals were abolitionists. It was the southern conservative (Dixiecrats) that defended slavery and continued to do so after the war. There were also Republicans that opposed Lincoln.
When do you plan to learn that the platforms of the parties have evolved in the past 175+ years since they were formed?
The existence of the US Supreme Court's power of judicial review guarantees that it is a living document because how they interpret it to keep the country viable changes with both time and societies opinions and needs. The US Constitution would have been irrelevant before the US Civil War if it were otherwise.
Telephone, radio, telegraph, TV and the internet could not have been envisioned in 1790 when the Constitution was being argued so if we go by a literalist interpretation of the 1st Amendment they could not exist. We would only have the right of protected speech in person and it written letter, but that would not work in the age of technology.
The idea that art is protected free speech was a later idea when they accepted the legal opinion that art is free speech in a visual wordless medium.
I disagree. I said nothing about left wing amendments! I said: Amendments do pass. Women vote now. Drinking was stopped. Then started again. Black people vote. 18 year old's vote. It changes. Amendments do pass. It is liquid. It is a living breathing thing.
We must teach our children in civics in school that the Constitution can be amended and that they have the power to do it for very important causes. Not Left or Right, but for American causes!To tell them that it is impossible is to teach them a lie. Far to many men and women died for the Constitution's creation and for it's protection to teach them that one of the most important parts of it is dead just because some people are cynical about it. The Amendment process is very much alive and it's still possible to Amend the Constitution depending on the Amendment. Difficult, yes, but that is how it's supposed to be, but certainly not impossible! Never impossible!
I did.
the point?
write that down. it will be on the test.
With the level of division in the country there is no way to get something 2/3 vote of both houses or of all the states and then if something got that it would take 3/4 of the states, 38 of 50 to ratify it. Only something that has such consensus among almost all the people could happen as it was designed. Only an act of war brought about by someone attacking us could bring that kind of unity at this point.
legalizing weed has a chance. nothing else does... LOL
That will not happen as long as Congress is controlled by the GOP and Jeff Sessions is the Attorney General. Pharmaceuticals, police/prison and other corporations that would be hurt if weed is legal own many more members of Congress than libertarians and liberals.
the states can pass an amendment without congressional and presidential approval
( never been done before... does not mean "can not be done" )
Cheers
Well, this may not be the absolutely dumbest article I've ever read on NT-- but it certainly does come close to it!
So where in the party platform is that little tid bit?
That's a very good point.....if you read the GOP platform it does reveal that they oppose equal protection of the law and want LGBT Americans to be treated as 2nd-class citizens.
Not in this case given that there's a clearly stated policy difference which is evident in how party members vote and campaign on these issues. To claim otherwise is both false and ignorant. The Dems support equal rights for all Americans while virtually all Republicans vehemently oppose that.
The Democrats have an exclusionary Clause in their platform for equal rights when it comes to tea party members, conservatives, businesses, gun owners, and evangelical Christians. They are considered 2nd class citizens or less.
i haven't heard of that - is that in the DNC platform ? i know in the RNC platform it stated they'd like to reverse the SCOTUS ruling for same-sex marriage, so i guess in the conservative's eyes that means LGBT are second class citizens or less, right Heartland ?
from: https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL[1]-ben_1468872234.pdf
now i'm sure you'll show me in the DNC platform where it supports your statement, right Heartland ?
You'll only hear crickets on that one....
Interesting.....maybe you should tell your conservative buddies in the GOP to change their platform so it doesn't seek to deny equal rights to certain minorities, and to expel members who oppose equal rights for all Americans?
Or would that cause the GOP to lose all of its bigoted base?
What constitutional rights have TEAparty members, business owners, gun owners and evangelicals Christians been denied by anyone?
Do evangelical Jews and Muslims also enjoy the same rights as evangelical Christians?
Actually we only consider Koch owned far right fascist tea party members to be bad for America.
Remind you of anybody?
What are you trying to imply?
When do you plan to answer the question that I posed to you and other conservatives in 10.1.8? What constitutional rights have Democrats, liberals or progressives taken from you?
I have to wonder if you are serious when you make these insane claims of persecution, or if this is just another way for you to bump thought strawman threads back to the top of the tracker?
so far that's all that i've heard - which speaks volumes for the policies that that particular poster supports. I guess being in the "heartland" and conservative means you think LGBT citizens should be second class citizens or less
What side is the ACLU on in the case of the Christian baker vs Colorado where the baker didn’t want to be coerced against his will into creating a special order artistic speech design that it and what it celebrates goes against his religious beliefs?
Discrimination in a public business is not and never has been a constitutional right. Maybe he should sell the business and go work for a church that shares similar religious views.
The baker always has his right to believe in god and live as he chooses. He chose to open a business that serves the public, so he cannot now claim that his religious beliefs are a reason to ignore the law and discriminate. The baker has been given multiple avenues of he refuses to serve all people equally but those aren't good enough for him because he wants to weaponize his faith to discriminate in a public business.
A cake is not part of the wedding so it has no religious significance. Can he prove that the gay couple was not Christian?
A bakery is a secular business and the fact that it is incorporated separates the business owner from the business so he cannot claim that he operates a religious bakery.
He can dress as a monk or even the Pope and take a 2-hour break to attended religious services while he bakes the cake h so his religious views are not in any way infringed by the state forcing him to serve all customers equally.
The speech of that cake belongs to the customer who designed it, and not the baker whose job it is to reproduce the cake as the customer designed.
If we give him this religious exception to the secular law then where does it end? Can a man kill someone and claim he has a religious exception to being prosecuted because of the Old Testament teaching of an eye for an eye? Religious beliefs are not and cannot be an exception to secular law because of someones devout religious beliefs. We would have a violent theocracy without the Bill of Rights protections if that happened.
It’s not discrimination as long as he’s willing to sell anyone anything that is in his business when a person walks in to the store. He couldn’t refuse to sell someone a cake 🎂 in the display case nor could he refuse to serve a dessert 🍮 or meal on his menu. He can decline to be made to make something that would violate his beliefs. An identical case happened in Bakersfield, California and the judge ruled in her favor as the baker along like what I said.
Refusing to sell a wedding cake to an LGBT couple when he sold wedding cakes to heterosexual couples is discrimination. If he made custom wedding cakes for heterosexual couples then he must do the very same for LGBT customers, despite his religious beliefs. If his religious beliefs are threatened by treating others equally then he has the problem and not his customers. Your attempt to create loopholes to hide behind is noted.
Protecting the secular constitutional rights of others from religious discrimination is not taking your religious rights away because discrimination is not one of your religious rights.
This decision is Bakersfield will be overturned. The judge willfully ignored state law that protects LGBT customers.
CA law requires full and equal provision of all goods and services. If part of her business is making custom cakes for the general public then the bigoted baker cannot refuse to make a custom cake for Jews, Italians, blacks or gays despite her nutty and bigoted religious views.
Maybe you should read the state's public accommodation law before you comment? After all you *claim* to live in CA......shouldn't you learn how your own state's laws work?
Lampe's ruling relied heavily on the First Amendment to the Constitution.
“The State cannot succeed on the facts presented as a matter of law. The right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment outweighs the State’s interest in ensuring a freely accessible marketplace,” Lampe wrote in his ruling on Monday. “The right of freedom of thought guaranteed by the First Amendment includes the right to speak, and the right to refrain from speaking. Sometimes the most profound protest is silence.”
The case, which has received national attention, began in August when Miller – a conservative Christian – refused to make a wedding cake for Mireya and Eileen Rodriguez-Del Rio.
Miller said it went against her Christian beliefs to make a cake for a same sex couple.
The Rodriguez-Del Rioses made a complaint to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing that Miller had violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act.
The Act prohibits public businesses from denying service to anyone on the basis of a number of characteristics including race, gender, religion or sexual orientation.
Lawyers for DFEH filed suit against Tastries and Miller, who was defended pro-bono by the Freedom of Conscience Defense Fund.
Miller, at a prayer rally before the court hearing on Friday, said God gave her the ability to make beautiful cakes and she is committed to using it in the way she believes God wants her to.
“If we’re not able to follow our conscience we’re no longer able to be who God created us to be,” Miller said. “I am incapable of doing something that would hurt my Lord and Savior.”
In court her attorney, Charles LiMandri, made the argument that Miller’s free speech rights and her right to free expression of religion trump the state’s arguments that she violated a law against discrimination.
“It’s a work of art as far as my client is concerned,” LiMandri said. “In my client’s mind this is a free exercise case."
Lampe, in essence, ruled that Miller’s First Amendment rights trumped the state law she violated.
His argument, however was closely tied to Miller’s role as an artist in producing cakes which – he found – are protected artistic expression.
“A wedding cake is not just a cake in a Free Speech analysis. It is an artistic expression by the person making it that is to be used traditionally as a centerpiece in the celebration of a marriage,” Lampe wrote. “There could not be a greater form of expressive conduct. Here, Rodriguez—Del Rios plan to engage in speech. They plan a celebration to declare the validity of their marital union and their enduring love for one another. The State asks this court to compel Miller against her will and religion to allow her artistic expression in celebration of marriage to be co-opted to promote the message desired by same-sex marital partners, and with which Miller disagrees.”
But Lampe wrote that his ruling was tied closely to the fact that Miller was being asked to create a cake for an event.
And he cautioned that religion does not give businesses a right to refuse service to groups protected by the Unruh Act in other circumstances.
“A retail tire shop may not refuse to sell a tire because the owner does not want to sell tires to same sex couples. There is nothing sacred or expressive about a tire. No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification,” Lampe wrote.
His distinction, he said, is between the act of selling a product to a same-sex couple and creating a product for the same couple.
“The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked,” Lampe wrote. “The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.”
LiMandri expressed his satisfaction with the outcome in a statement Monday evening.
“This is a significant victory for faith and freedom because the judge indicated in his ruling that the State cannot succeed in this case as a matter of law. https://www.google.com/amp/www.bakersfield.com/news/judge-david-lampe-rules-for-tastries-bakery-owner-cathy-miller/article_9116d628-0b55-11e8-9eb5-1fe904759af0.amp.html
Two things. Yes I’m from California until Jefferson wins statehood. The judge ruled exactly as I believe and I hope a majority on the Supreme Court picks up this ruling and makes it national by an identical outcome in the Colorado baker case. This would apply to photographers and florists as well.
Trump should appoint Lampe to the 9th circuit court of appeals immediately. He’d be a breath of fresh air there.
Jefferson will never exist because neither California or Oregon will allow parts of their states to be analyzed by a bunch of libertarians. The state that is created would be a taker state with no supportable industry, other than pot farming and timber.
Get over it.
Nebraska and Idaho have similar size and population and they do just fine. So will we. Our best bet for statehood is when either DC or PR are ready to become states. Since they are overwhelmingly democrat, the only trade off for them becoming states is for rural red areas of existing blue states to become states to even out the senate and electoral college impacts.
What did your response have to do with what you highlighted from my prior post? Didn’t you just love that judges awesome well reasoned decision?
California and Oregon won't let it happen. Jefferson is DOA, so just accept it and move on to another conspiracy theory.
The idea of Jefferson is anti-tax so where do they get the necessary tax income to manage a state from? You can fund a state with bake sales and donations. Idaho is a taker state. Nebraska is funded by Omaha and Lincoln and not the rural areas.
First of all, Republicans will never let DC and or PR become states with out some sort of off set in the senate and the electoral college in PR’s case. We would do just fine as a state. Our combined urban population is likely higher than Nebraska just not almost all in two cities. We’d have Eldorado Hills to Placerville, Roseville to Rocklin to Lincoln, Yuba Ctity Marysville metro, Chico Oriville Paradise metro, and Redding metro. Keeping property taxes where they are , sales taxes where they are, and having no state income tax like Washington does would be enough to fund our state, it’s employees, our proportional share of the state debt and run a surplus. The studies have already been done. If we win a representation lawsuit in court the state may decide to let us go rather than give us the representation we seek. If we win what we seek, we won’t even ask to go anymore and the state would wish us gone. In the meantime don’t expect statehood for PR or DC anytime soon.
Bummer for the judge that his ruling will be reversed, eh? Religion has never been a valid excuse to violate any law, and SCOTUS ruled 50 years ago that religion can't be used as an excuse to ignore a public accommodations law. They've also noted that: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
That isn't even remotely close to factual.
Religious belief is not and has never been an exemption to secular law. We could not have a country with equal religious rights for all people if that was possible.
We weren't discussing religious beliefs or secular law. The poster made the claim that Democrats were for equal rights and that the GOP vehemently opposed them, which is blatantly false.
Not everything has to do with religion. Why do you seem to try to make everything about it?
The GOP does oppose individual rights for those in a minority. Conservatives opposed LGBT marriage because of their relgious belifs, they oppose equal religious rights for Muslims and other minority religions/atheists, and the conservatives side with the baker when he discriminates in public business by refusing to equally serve LGBT couples in the same manner as heterosexual couples. Conservatives oppose a woman's right to choose in favor of their own religious rights.
Conservatives need to understand that their own relgious beleifs do not determine the secualr rights of other people. Minorities do not have to ask permission to exercise their equal rights, despite the wishes or belifs of the WASP male majority.
Not all conservatives are pro life and not all liberals are pro abortion.
Sure it is - in fact the GOP platform clearly states that it opposes equal civil rights for LGBT Americans.
Do you ever tire of creating strawmen? Your arguments are weaker than wet tissue paper. I am on the verge of abandoning having any conversation with you because of your logical fallacies. You are either intentionally ignoring facts or you are intellectually unable to construct a logical argument because of your emotions which appear to override any logical ability you may have.
Conservatives are not pro-life because their concern for the welfare of that child ends as soon as it is born, unlike if they were pro-life they would support the policies to guarantee that child has what it needs to be healthy and live a productive life. The fact that conservatives also support the death penalty is proof that they are not pro-life.
Nobody is pro-abortion because if they were then they would essentially get pregnant just to have an abortion but that doesn't happen. Liberals are pro-choice because we believe that it is only the women's decision whether to carry the child to term and not the government, any man or the religious belief of other people.
All in your mind.
SMDH
Your lack of an logical argument is very obvious, despite your apparent disapproval of my previous statement.
Feel free to ignore my seeds and posts if that’s what you feel you must. You will most certainly not be missed
I can't help what you think.
Logic is a cruel taskmaster that I am required to obey.
His decision was the opposite of well reasoned, despite your agreement with it. That judge is a county judge who is pandering to the conservative base that he needs to be reelected. He is willfully ignoring the state level LGBT protection law because even he knows in his heart that his decision will be overturned on state supreme court appeal. A person's religious beliefs do not exempt them from obeying secular laws.
“. There is nothing sacred or expressive about a tire. No artist, having placed their work for public sale, may refuse to sell for an unlawful discriminatory purpose. No baker may place their wares in a public display case, open their shop, and then refuse to sell because of race, religion, gender, or gender identification,” Lampe wrote.
His distinction, he said, is between the act of selling a product to a same-sex couple and creating a product for the same couple.
“The difference here is that the cake in question is not yet baked,” Lampe wrote. “The State is not petitioning the court to order defendants to sell a cake. The State asks this court to compel Miller to use her talents to design and create a cake she has not yet conceived with the knowledge that her work will be displayed in celebration of a marital union her religion forbids. For this court to force such compliance would do violence to the essentials of Free Speech guaranteed under the First Amendment.” He clearly refers to the Unruh law. A conscience clause exception is granted here and rightfully so. I expect that the five judges on the Supreme Court will agree with this ruling on the federal level for all Americans.
Sounds like the bigoted judge didn't even read the state law in question much less read any of the relevant federal precedents. He's either literally a moron or he was pandering to bigoted morons.
FYI, the state law requires full and equal provision of goods and services, so if the bigoted baker sells custom cake designing & baking as a service then she can't deny that service to a class of persons on a prohibited basis. So if you're hanging your hat on this ruling you'll be very disappointed in the end.
The Judge's decision is nonsense that denies facts.
There is nothing sacred about a cake. The reception is not in any way a religious ceremony and is not required by any religious sacrament.
You still ignore the fact that any free speech protections belong to the customer who designed the cake and not the baker. The customer does not give the baker $700 and tell them to make a cake of your own choosing. The customer designs the cake and the baker must follow that design to the letter or the customer can refuse to pay for it as a breach of contract. The baker is only hired to bring the customers ideas to fruition. The baker doesn't design the cake and he doesn't get to say that who can or cannot buy a cake any more than he can deny to sell something from the cases. The fact that it is a custom design does not in any way exempt the baker from public accommodation protections.
This is a county judge who needs the support of a very conservative county to be reelected. He knows that if he would side with the LGBT couples as per the law that he would be voted out of office at the next term by people who vote because of their emotions instead of following the requirements of the state law.
He is quite aware that this decision will be overturned at a state level but he just wrote his reelection commercial by pandering to socially conservative and legally ignorant constituents.
Bingo.
The Supreme Court will rule on the Colorado case before any appeal of this ruling occurs. Hopefully five of the Supremes will rule as Lampe did.
That's very unlikely since it would run counter to every SCOTUS ruling on this topic since 1878 and it would undermine every public accommodations law in the country including the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and also undermine every housing and employment non-discrimination law.
So good luck with that.
The court has allowed conscience clause exceptions for religious or other beliefs for those opposed to abortion to have to have any role in the performing of one even though it’s an invented constitutional right. It’s also allowed for those with a religious based opposition to being in a union to avoid it and donate dues elsewhere even in closed shop states and sites with organized workers even though union membership is a prerequisite to having a job otherwise. So, there’s two examples where there are religious based exceptions.
Thumper baker has more important issues to worry about in that county than the SCOTUS decision going his way.
The last time a business owner claimed a religious belief exemption to serving someone in a public business it was a unanimous SCOTUS decision but not in their favor.
Newman v. Piggie Park BBQ.
Doctors aren't forced by the state to perform abortions. They choose to do so.
The right to have an abortion is based on our inherent right to privacy from government intervention into our lives. We would not have the 4th Amendment if we didn't have a right to privacy, so it isn't invented, despite your questionable beliefs.
If you don't want to be in a union then quit and go work in a non-union shop. Nobody is forcing you to work anywhere.
Neither example you cited involves any legal obligation whatsoever so you seem to be the Queen of False Equivalencies.
Moreover the real problem the anti-gay bigots face is that their "religious exception" argument has no limiting factor. If the court were to find that the constitution protects such an exception to the law then it would allow widespread discrimination on the basis of race, gender, religion, nationality and all other classes which the states or feds protect.....and it would do so for all kinds on non-discrimination laws. For example your buddy Trump could resume his traditional practice of refusing to rent to blacks.
The bottom line is the court got it exactly right in 1878 when it said: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."