Trump says he would require schools to teach patriotism

[trouble13]

All fine and good, but I will repeat my question once more: HAS THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY EVER OVERSTEPPED ITS AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET LAW BY EXTENDING ITS POWER IN ORDER TO ESSENTIALLY CREATE LAW? Will you say here and now that it never has?

Judical activism is a problem that is not exclusive to any party. Im all for putting a stop to it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[code1211]

You're conflating patriotism and political awareness. For instance, none of the countries that opposed the Iraq war taught patriotism at school; their opposition was the product of political awareness, not of patriotism. You seem to think that since the Iraq invasion was detrimental to the U.S, the people that supported it were unpatriotic. This, however, is a fallacy, as those that supported the war assumed that they were doing the patriotic thing. The apt description of this reality is that a misguided citizenry perverted patriotism, and the remedy of that would be to spread political awareness.

Absolutely right! We are singing in the same choir.

Patriotism would lead people to assert the ideas of the Republic which is a nation of laws and not men. Our country has, sadly, departed from that sometime between the Declaration of War in WW2 and the intervention in Iraq.

Patriotism would demand that any, ANY, conduct of war would require a Declaration of War. However, that would require that our spineless, groveling, bottom feeders that weasel about trying to gain lifetime positions as governing autocrats would have had to actually take a position and, therefore, responsibility for their acts.

Instead, they applied the kind of ole' problem avoidance that keeps them off the horns of any dilemma you care to cite. Cowardly a-holes!

IF we are a nation of laws, and THAT is what the Founders intended, THEN we follow the laws and not the expediencies. Expediencies is all that our leaders now follow.

IF we were taught patriotism instead of cynicism, we, as a country, would hold our pit viper representatives to higher standards of behavior. Instead it is a continual gravitation of the lowest common denominator.

THAT is how we end up with Crooked Hillary vs. Crazy Donald as the opposing tickets from our Two Party System.

EVERY PART of that sentence is a departure from what the Founders envisioned.

 

[code1211]

Trump is returning to the middle? oh dear.

Also, I don't subscribe to the twaddle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. For all I know, the enemy of my enemy could be a much worse enemy of mine. My repudiation of Trump and his movement has nothing to do with the establishment and the two parties.

Are you referring to what Trump says his movement is or to what Hillary says Trump's movement is?

It seems important to understand what it is that you are repudiating.

 

[Gaztopian]

Absolutely right! We are singing in the same choir.

Patriotism would lead people to assert the ideas of the Republic which is a nation of laws and not men. Our country has, sadly, departed from that sometime between the Declaration of War in WW2 and the intervention in Iraq.

Patriotism would demand that any, ANY, conduct of war would require a Declaration of War. However, that would require that our spineless, groveling, bottom feeders that weasel about trying to gain lifetime positions as governing autocrats would have had to actually take a position and, therefore, responsibility for their acts.

Instead, they applied the kind of ole' problem avoidance that keeps them off the horns of any dilemma you care to cite. Cowardly a-holes!

IF we are a nation of laws, and THAT is what the Founders intended, THEN we follow the laws and not the expediencies. Expediencies is all that our leaders now follow.

IF we were taught patriotism instead of cynicism, we, as a country, would hold our pit viper representatives to higher standards of behavior. Instead it is a continual gravitation of the lowest common denominator.

THAT is how we end up with Crooked Hillary vs. Crazy Donald as the opposing tickets from our Two Party System.

EVERY PART of that sentence is a departure from what the Founders envisioned.

I still disagree with your conception of patriotism, but I can still acknowledge the nobility and candor of your sentiment.

 

[Thoreau72]

Judical activism is a problem that is not exclusive to any party. Im all for putting a stop to it.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I understand your point, for sure, but the sort of judicial activism I like to see is that kind in which constitutional governance is supported and defended, and unconstitutional legislation is struck down quickly. Alas, such activism is most rare. Can't think of a single example right now.

Instead we have the pernicious judicial activism that has brought us ACA, the Kelo decision and the Citizens United decision.

 

[trouble13]

I understand your point, for sure, but the sort of judicial activism I like to see is that kind in which constitutional governance is supported and defended, and unconstitutional legislation is struck down quickly. Alas, such activism is most rare. Can't think of a single example right now.

Instead we have the pernicious judicial activism that has brought us ACA, the Kelo decision and the Citizens United decision.

I absolutely agree. The court has 2 roles.

1. It plays referee between the two parties that have a dispute. Its role is to make sure both parties are playing by the rules. It is not their function to decide what the rules are. Thats the function of legislature.

2. Their other role is to make sure the legislature is legal in the frame of the constitution. You brought up aca and i agree that was a poor decision by the court. I think the mandate is a constitutional violation and interuppting it as a tax to get around that was wrong. What they should of done is kicked the law back to congress and told them to rewrite it as a tax and allow it go through the legislative procedure again.

When i discuss the precedent set by this with people who defend it. They are typically left leaning and anti gun. I ask them how they would like if the nra got a dominant majority in congress and passed a mandate that everyone must own a gun or pay a tax. Thats the door judical activism opened with their ruling. They can mandate anything now and call the penality for not complying a tax.

The courts essentially surrendered everyones personal independence over to gov control. The people who supported this better hope the gov never decides it wants to control something they dont want it control because they gave up their voice to oppose it

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Ahlevah]

To stand as a nation, we must remember the bad as well as the good because both the bad and the good is what we are.

America did something good? When? I thought they took that out of the history books.

 

[Somerville]

America did something good? When? I thought they took that out of the history books.

Haven't read a history book lately, have ya?

 

[Praxas]

Are you referring to what Trump says his movement is or to what Hillary says Trump's movement is?

It seems important to understand what it is that you are repudiating.

Trump's movement is and has always been about Trump first. I don't see any difference in that regard with Clinton too for what's it is worth. Trump and Clinton want power.

 

[code1211]

Trump's movement is and has always been about Trump first. I don't see any difference in that regard with Clinton too for what's it is worth. Trump and Clinton want power.

I don't think anyone could support the thought that either one of these megalomaniacs are not power junkies.

I do appreciate the changes in both as the campaign moves forward. In my first successful sales presentation, I laid out the case for the benefits of doing the deal and the customer agreed to buy. I almost blurted out, "You will!!??!?"

I get the impression that Trump went through that stage after he got the nomination. Now he is changing the way he presents what he says. Hillary has ALWAYS morphed into whatever the focus groups demand.

I'm interested by Hillary suddenly NOT being a Globalist and Trump suddenly embracing amnesty.

It's almost like they have no closely held ideals or principles and are willing to say anything to get elected.

 

[jpn]

Trump's a clown. Who cares what he says? He just lies and lies. Here are 15 false statements made by Donald Trump just yesterday:

https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/777184934201028608

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I have read the case summaries for EVERY SINGLE DECISION in that list. Have you?

Incidentally....your OPINION about what is "vague" or "nonsensical" has absolutely zero bearing on the actions of the Federal judiciary in these cases. Also, I might point out that it makes no difference if existing law was overturned or not....what is important and what we are discussing here, or so I thought, was the ACTIONS (including THE ATTEMPTED ACTIONS) of activist judges who've sought to legislate as opposed to simply interpret the constitutionality of existing or otherwise proposed law.

Whether I agree with the results of judicial activism is irrelevant. The Brown ruling in 1954 was also judicial activism....but the outcome was absolutely good and necessary.
Roe v. Wade on the other hand...also judicial activism....but in an area and to a degree which I feel was detrimental to the democratic process and to the jurisdiction of state law.

The simple question....which you seem to be cleverly evading is, HAS THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY EVER OVERSTEPPED ITS AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET LAW BY EXTENDING ITS POWER IN ORDER TO ESSENTIALLY CREATE LAW? By challenging me to "give an example" and by waving off this extensive list of court decisions that I have provided, as insignificant, I can see your mind is made up and it is pointless for me to try and argue this further. If you truly believe that the Federal courts, including the SCOTUS, have always acted within their constitutionally prescribed jurisdictions.......I pity you. You cannot possibly be this obtuse?

If you want to talk about the constitution being used by "activist judges" you need to look at three cases in particular

Marbury v Madison

Gibbons v Ogden

And Mcculloch v Maryland.

 

[FluffyNinja]

If you want to talk about the constitution being used by "activist judges" you need to look at three cases in particular

Marbury v Madison

Gibbons v Ogden

And Mcculloch v Maryland.

I agree. However, those decisions are quite old, from when our nation was in its infancy. I simply chose to include more modern decisions.

 

[Unitedwestand13]

I agree. However, those decisions are quite old, from when our nation was in its infancy. I simply chose to include more modern decisions.

But I chose those three decisions because They establish the precedent of activist Justices.

 

[FluffyNinja]

But I chose those three decisions because They establish the precedent of activist Justices.

okay, I'll not argue that point

 

[DA60]

What happens if you fail a Trump Patriotism course?

Expelled?
Sent to Gitmo?
Shot?

 

[cpwill]

Regardless of my views on Trump and his candidacy, the fiction he's selling his supporters is absolutely astounding. When did the U.S stop being one nation? did something happen to American culture of which I'm unaware? are Americans defecting en masse? to whom is American apologizing? This is just crudely amazing. Most if not all of what Trump says, does, or proposes is based on an alternate reality that contrasts ours, yet it strikes the core of his supporters, making their idolatry of Trump mightier and fiercer.

Well, for example, we apologized to Syria just this weekend for doing what they do to civilians and our own allies on a daily basis.

 

[Praxas]

Well, for example, we apologized to Syria just this weekend for doing what they do to civilians and our own allies on a daily basis.

Since our target on the airstrike was not the Syrian Army, you don't think we should apologize? Since when is apologizing for a mistake bad?

 

[cpwill]

Since our target on the airstrike was not the Syrian Army, you don't think we should apologize?

No, I don't. We should offer to swap apologies, they can apologize for gassing their own damn civilians, and we'll apologize for hitting their unit.

Since when is apologizing for a mistake bad?

When it gives an IO victory to murderous dictators.

 

[Praxas]

No, I don't. We should offer to swap apologies, they can apologize for gassing their own damn civilians, and we'll apologize for hitting their unit.


When it gives an IO victory to murderous dictators.

So you prefer ego to diplomacy got it. I am very happy folks are fighting to keep such an ego maniac like Trump from getting in the White House. Admitting mistakes isn't weakness it's reality. The only thing that happens when one doesn't apologize for a mistake is they look idiotic and egotistical.

 

[cpwill]

So you prefer ego to diplomacy got it

You are confused. I prefer smart diplomacy to weak and idiotic diplomacy. The people we are dealing with don't interpret apologies as a "sign of strength", but obsequiousness. If you do not shape your diplomatic responses to events to import that reality, you are encouraging bad behavior.

 

[Praxas]

You are confused. I prefer smart diplomacy to weak and idiotic diplomacy.

Than it ain't Trump because he is completely ignorant on foreign policies. So I guess you're voting third party or Clinton than right?

 

[cpwill]

Than it ain't Trump because he is completely ignorant on foreign policies. So I guess you're voting third party or Clinton than right?

That would be correct - I am probably voting for Evan McMullin, the former CIA operations officer and policy director for the House Conference.

 

[Rosie1]

Trump wants schools to teach patriotism...scary. But, wait, I'm confused. Aren't most of his policies as genuine as his university?

 

[Velvet Elvis]

So, wait....does that mean Hillary will want government schools to teach how to hate the United States?