Trump says fuck your rights.
In a pre-taped interview on Fox News scheduled to air Wednesday night, Trump was asked by an audience member what he would do to address “violence in the black community” and “black-on-black crime.” Trump responded by proposing that “stop-and-frisk” policing, in which an officer is empowered to stop an individual and frisk them for weapons or any other illegal contraband, be adopted nationwide.
Suck my balls.
3) Fix the judiciary. I find it hard to believe that the founders made the process of amending the Constitution as time consuming and exact as it is and then turned around and wanted nine (or six at the beginning) guys in black robes to makes changes to it based on their interpretation rather than the actual words of the Constitution (and the federalist papers).
Eh, if anything, I'd up: (i) the number of justices in there and drop the number of losers in Congress or (ii) take away lifetime appointments from the Supreme Court. You need some group of arbitrators to adjudicate disagreements between the writers, enforcers, and victims of our "sell out to the highest bidder" legal system. My problem with using "the words" literally is that people suck balls at vocabulary, words always have subtext injected by the authors (which is important in some cases, so you want to note it), and language changes with time. That last bit is perhaps the most important. Example for the DoI: "All men are created equal..."
Back when that was written, the authors meant men who were white, Protestant, heterosexual, financially well-off, and landowners. The way the Constitution was written at the time reflected that ideology. If you missed any of those checkboxes (especially that first one), lots of luck. Ninety years later, it's no mistake Abe quoted this line and reinterpreted it so that race was removed from the equation. Now, this isn't reinterpretation of a law. That happened
here and it happened because of
this. That was originally intended to defang the Dred Scott v. Sanford case. The text of the first and most vague (and therefore controversial) part:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That covers a lot more than just Reconstruction politics but perhaps the authors didn't intend it to be used in any other way. So what? I find nothing philosophically objectionable about the content and it sets base minimums for behaviour if a region wants to be part of the union.
Ninety years after its original inception, it was used in Brown v. Board of Education to destroy Plessy v. Ferguson. That finally struck off most every qualifier from the "all men are created equal..." list except one -- t3h g4y. In 2015, 5 of 4 justices used their imagination and common sense to good effect. The other 4 had their heads thoroughly up their assholes and demonstrated the dangers of narrow, limited vision.
Roberts chided the majority for overriding the democratic process and for using the judiciary in a way that was not originally intended.
Yeah, and I bet Washington and Jefferson didn't think about Larry Flynt when they stumped for freedom of speech. Does that make it any less valid for Larry to use it as a defense two centuries later and have nine dudes in robes effectively decide what art is and whether it's obscene or worthy of expression?
He [Justice Antonin Scalia] claimed there was "no basis" for the Court's decision striking down legislation that the Fourteenth Amendment does not expressly forbid
This is the kind of narrow-ass thinking to which I was referring. Because it hasn't been explicitly and directly declared, we have a gaping chasm of logic that invites breaking the spirit of the law while adhering to the letter. Then again, Scalia's brain had been damn near calcified since the '70s, so I shouldn't be surprised his ability to absorb new ways of thinking was nonexistent.
Thomas argued that the only liberty that falls under Due Process Clause protection is freedom from "physical restraint". Furthermore, Thomas insisted that "liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement" such as a marriage license.
Freedom from physical restraint and nothing else? Fuck you. Furthermore, if liberty is freedom from gov't action, then all kinds of laws go out the window and Jim Crow's back in town. Also, did he just call marriage a government entitlement? Like some shit they bestow upon certain people if they meet certain criteria?
Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition", Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition. Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.
You're fucking kidding me. First, the states have a vested interest in banning gay marriage so their populations ... what, don't decline? Then, you turn around and use the same vague, Nostradamus-esque, could-be-taken-any-fucking-way language that you're bitching about from the majority. Rights and liberties deeply rooted in this nation's history? You mean like slavery, open bigotry against immigrants, indentured servitude, and the freedom to ingest any intoxicant you want in the privacy of your own home? Do you mean rights and liberties like those?
As for the Constitution, it's a combo of Feddie and anti-Feddie ideas. One of the major anti-Feddie complaints about direct and explicit interpretation of words is that it invites writing lists and accounting for every legal/logical possibility that could arise (which is a style many of the first ten amendments utilize). That's precisely what most people suck at and some insanity is bound to slip through the cracks.
Clarify the "commerce clause" to emphasize and limit lawmaking to direct interstate commerce rather than anything that sort of kind of touches on interstate commerce. I'd bet this would place about 80% of our federal laws and regulations on the chopping block.
Like this. The words:
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
If you interpret "regulate" in the strict dictionary/legal definition to mean "control, manage, or supervise," then that's it. There's no wiggle room for the states. But any sane person with a scrap of right brain grey matter can immediately surmise, "Well ... you can pretty much make anyone do anything if you control their wallet." Strict interpretation is like zero tolerance for new or novel Constitutional scholarship.
