Do You Really Want Me to Rule the Country?

[WuWei]

@Samson_Corwell

@SixFoot

Well stated, and no, I don’t want 9 unelected old men telling everyone how to live.

If they overturn a state’s gun control law, correct or not, they are actually telling people how to live.

The Social Contract was ratified.

[conan]

That’s some weird logic there buddy…allowing greater freedom isn’t telling anyone how to live…specially where the BoR’s are concern. It prevents goverment from interfering with our freedoms.

[WuWei]

@Samson_Corwell

@SixFoot

Well stated, and no, I don’t want 9 unelected old men telling everyone how to live.

If they overturn a state’s gun control law, correct or not, they are actually telling people how to live.

@conan brings up a good point. Does such a ruling require you to be armed?

[SixFoot]

You should’ve thought that through a little better, Samson. Some rewording and you’ll be a little closer to what you’re actually trying to say.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

@Nemesis

I read the interview earlier this morning and thought it was excellent.

My position has remained consistent that the President gets to pick and with very few exceptions his selection should be approved.

The way the Republicans treated Obama in his final year with his choice was shameful and probably fuelled some of the ire against Kavanaugh.

I find it amusing on this site how posters immediately say a judge is out of control or legislating from the bench when they rule in a way they don’t agree with. And to be honest its more cons who do this than liberals.

The SC interepts the constitution, we might not agree with their decisions but we need to respect them.

I just wish posters on here would be more honest, the majority of us are not constitutional scholars and most of our understanding of the constitution is from google. Mine is from google and reading.

FYI I have found when researching any subject research from a point of view that is contrary to the position you hold. You will learn more and avoid confirmation bias.

You do not need to be a constitutional scholar to understand the constitution, if you did we would only require constitutional scholars to swear oaths to uphold and defend it since it would be ridiculous to require an oath to support and defend something you cannot be expected to comprehend.

Am I wrong or haven’t you argued that a very narrow ruling about an open air California mall having to let people peacefully solicit or use their speech in the common areas that has been walked back every time it is revisited to mean that YouTube should be forced to carry Infowars?

Or was that someone else?

[zantax]

Yes, you are wrong.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

Yes, you are wrong.

Really?

Not even in this thread?

Apple removes Alex Jones and Infowars podcast from iTunes

Some good news for the day . His brand of conspiracy mongering has become a real problem, politically and culturally. If he wants to keep spewing his vomit, let him. But these platforms don’t have to let him do it in their space. Hopefully other companies will follow suit (Facebook and YT in particular), but i’ll take what I can get. I’m sure Ted Cruz will be along shortly to tell everyone how unfair this decision is.

[zantax]

Nope. Missing quite a bit of nuance. They can ban him, they just have to give up immunity from liability as a non-publisher if they are going to exercise editorial control, like a publisher.

[WildRose]

No they aren’t, they are telling you that you can make up your own mind and live as you see fit.

[WildRose]

And once again they were expressly excluded at the time the 14th was drafted, they were not US citizens an neither were their children. It took an act of congress to change that.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-in-1924-all-indians-made-united-states-citizens/

Full citizenship rights were not conferred on Indians until 1924.

[tnt]

@WildRose

They are also subjects of a foreign state and under their jurisdiction as are their children born in the US.

yeah, and the Taliban was recognized as the legitimate leader of Afg.

You are wrong. Stop now.

[Jezcoe]

@zantax

Nope. Missing quite a bit of nuance. They can ban him, they just have to give up immunity from liability as a non-publisher if they are going to exercise editorial control, like a publisher.

That is no where near what you were arguing in that thread.

Glad to see that there is evolution.

[zantax]

No, that’s exactly what I was arguing. Some of my posts from that thread

@zantax

Meh, free speech is a prohibition against government suppressing speech, not twitter.

@zantax

Umm, his speech has been infringed upon, just not unconstitutionally.

And when I was talking about Pruneyard, that was in reference to state constitutions which in some cases have much broader speech protection than the US constitution. Nowhere in that thread did I intimate my understanding of the US constitution meant youtube could not ban Alex Jones. Which is not to say there can be no legislative action prohibiting it or removing their protection from liability as a content aggregator as opposed to a publisher.

[Jezcoe]

Keep reading.

It changes.

[zantax]

Nope, reviewed the whole thread and every post I made, nowhere did I assert the first amendment of the US constitution prohibited it.

[adroit]

@WildRose

And once again they were expressly excluded at the time the 14th was drafted, they were not US citizens an neither were their children. It took an act of congress to change that.

That only is relevant to Indians on Indian land. You lack a basic understanding of the subject.

[WildRose]

No it wasn’t, it didn’t specify those on the reservations, that came later with the “Indians Not Taxed” language in subsequent legislation.

[zantax]

Well no, the Indians were singled out for a reason, because they were a people who were in the country who didn’t owe exclusive allegiance to the US. They were in essence foreign nationals born on US soil who owed allegiance to their tribes and not the US government. IE they were not under the complete political jurisdiction of the US.

[adroit]

@zantax

Well no, the Indians were singled out for a reason, because they were a people who were in the country who didn’t owe exclusive allegiance to the US. They were in essence foreign nationals born on US soil who owed allegiance to their tribes and not the US government. IE they were not under the complete political jurisdiction of the US.

Only when they were residing on their lands. Indians residing on US soil apart from their tribe were under our complete jurisdiction. Saying otherwise is complete gibberish, especially within the context of Trumbull’s quotes.

[wayoutwest]

You do realize that dog your chasing is your own tail, right? lol