Licensing for the 2nd Amendment is bad, but for the 1st?

[Woobie]

The first part of your post does not apply to POTUS. The second part is pure opinion.

In many cases it is.

Correct, it can often be permanent, with regard to classified information. But the day you leave the government, you can say and do all kinds of things you couldn't before.


But hey, what's your opinion? Does Trump get to threaten the Bill of Rights with impunity? Is 1A not as sacred as 2A? Is it ok to verbalize subversion of the constitution, as long as you caucus with the right party? If you're going to give Trump a pass on this, I can see where you picked up the Blue Falcon moniker.

 

[BugI02]

Not a straw man. Many federal employees relinquish rights while employed by .gov. Military members lose all kinds of rights, those in possession of classified information can't talk about it, and so forth. It's just part of the gig. It isn't permanent, but there are certain things you just can't do when your paycheck says U.S. Treasury. And no matter how much of a distorted purist view you want to take on this, you really don't want POTUS spouting off whatever comes to mind. "**** China, we're gonna nuke the NorKs" might be something we all want to say from time to time, but it isn't something we need someone who speaks for the country voicing out loud. And no matter how tongue in cheek, or "figurative" (the classic Trumpist cop-out), there are some things better left unsaid. A desire to limit 1A protected activities is definitely on that list. He might have a right to say what he did. But he should be censured by Congress.

Originally Posted by RonaldReagan

Preparing for his regular radio broadcast Saturday, President Reagan reportedly made a joke about national security, saying: ''My fellow Americans. I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes.''

Yep, totally

 

[Woobie]

Yep, totally

I'll bet a lot of soldiers in West Germany didn't find that very funny.

I can forgive a well-placed joke, but the Oval Office is for big boys, not clowns or charlatans.

 

[BugI02]

Incorrect. The only criteria governing fitness for the oval office are age and citizenship. The Oval Office is for whomever we choose to put there via free elections

Do you not think it significant that the framers imposed no experience requirement? Is it not possible that these men, brilliant in so many things, also were aware of the undesirability of career politicians

 

[Woobie]

Incorrect. The only criteria governing fitness for the oval office are age and citizenship. The Oval Office is for whomever we choose to put there via free elections

Do you not think it significant that the framers imposed no experience requirement? Is it not possible that these men, brilliant in so many things, also were aware of the undesirability of career politicians

Where did I say there were constitutional restrictions beyond age and citizenship?

And in that light, while I would not disagree with what you said, it isn't really germain to the topic.

 

[BugI02]

I'll bet a lot of soldiers in West Germany didn't find that very funny.

I can forgive a well-placed joke, but the Oval Office is for big boys, not clowns or charlatans.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

taxpayers cannot "fire" an elected official, in the same way that a hired employee can be fired (though from what I understand, such firing is extremely difficult for someone hired into the public sector). There are constitutional provisions for removing an elected official from office, including (depending on the office) impeachment by other elected officials, and recall elections.

Likewise, I do not believe that public-sector employees are made to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution as a condition for employment, in the same manner that an elected official is constitutionally/statutorily required to swear, as a condition for taking office.

Actually taxpayers have more power when it comes to "firing" an elected official compared to just an employee of the govt. They can fire them by not renewing their contract, aka voting them out of office. Can't really do that with your local postman for instance, or pretty much any govt employee.

For the feds.

An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331
https://archive.opm.gov/constitution_initiative/oath.asp

Yep, totally

Slight difference between a jest made in what was thought to be private, and one intentionally put out for public consumption. Reagan didn't know the mike was hot.

I'll bet a lot of soldiers in West Germany didn't find that very funny.

I can forgive a well-placed joke, but the Oval Office is for big boys, not clowns or charlatans.

I agree.

Do you not think it significant that the framers imposed no experience requirement? Is it not possible that these men, brilliant in so many things, also were aware of the undesirability of career politicians

Why do you think if they were aware of the undesirability of career politicians they put no term limits in place?

 

[BugI02]

[snip] Why do you think if they were aware of the undesirability of career politicians they put no term limits in place?

Mechanism already exists to deal with careerism once in office [vote them out, as you mentioned earlier in the same post]

If they had imposed an experience requirement, they immediately drastically limit the field of potential candidates. Not to mention, what experience can adequately prepare you to be POTUS? Remember, Andrew Jackson was a Senator as well as a Representative from TN and peeps like to conflate him with Trump

 

[Woobie]

Sounds like a commentary on who should be President, or even on what the Founders desired. Doesn't look at all like an enumeration of constitutional qualifications.

 

[BugI02]

Objection sustained. My intent was to indicate the Oval Office is quite egalitarian. Intimations that it might currently be occupied by a 'clown' or a 'charlatan', or a 'boy' of insufficient size, are just your opinion and valued as such

Time will tell

 

[Woobie]

Objection sustained. My intent was to indicate the Oval Office is quite egalitarian. Intimations that it might currently be occupied by a 'clown' or a 'charlatan', or a 'boy' of insufficient size, are just your opinion and valued as such

Time will tell

I agree. I won't pass judgement on him until his actions are all in the record books. My comment about qualification was more general. But I'll happily point out poorly chosen words or individual deeds right now, and I think this is definitely an example of something he should never say. I suspect it gives us a window into his true feelings about (or ignorance of) the constitution. But I'll let that suspiscion lie until we see some actions to confirm or deny.

 

[BugI02]

Well said, sir. I must admit you could be right as it is difficult to know what truly lies in the heart of another

My opinion is it is the reckless talk of frustration (like talk of eliminating jihad by eliminating Islam, in which I am not without guilt) coupled with a lack of the instinctive self-censorship of the career politician and an apparent lack of full understanding of just how bully his pulpit truly is

He has never had to watch what he says before and is not in the habit. "There, but for the grace of God ..."

 

[Woobie]

Well said, sir. I must admit you could be right as it is difficult to know what truly lies in the heart of another

My opinion is it is the reckless talk of frustration (like talk of eliminating jihad by eliminating Islam, in which I am not without guilt) coupled with a lack of the instinctive self-censorship of the career politician and an apparent lack of full understanding of just how bully his pulpit truly is

He has never had to watch what he says before and is not in the habit. "There, but for the grace of God ..."

Agreed on all points, especially the last one

 

[BugI02]

Given that Tillerson truly abased himself following the "moron" controversy, I see two main hypotheses that fit the facts

1) Tillerson and Mattis, among others, stay on out of a sense of duty to country as a line of defense against disaster to limit the worst excesses of a dysfunctional administration

2) While frustrated by some of the amateurish mistakes made by the current administration, Tillerson and Mattis stay on because the 'dysfunctional administration' is just the latest attempt by the MSM to de-legitimize the Trump whitehouse by any means possible. Thus, the secretaries actually believe the current administration offers the chance to correct things that the previous one got wrong and wish to stay where their contributions can be the most effective

I prefer #2 but can't make an evidence based case to eliminate either one, although it's easier to believe an overarching sense of duty to country about Mattis than Tillerson. The fact that I feel that way mainly because he came from the ranks of business is likely evidence of personal bias

 

[jamil]

Apparently freedom of speech applies to all, but our president?

As a politician, the president’s freedom to speak is only limited by political capital. He could do a lot better in that regard than he’s done so far. I really wish he would stop acting like an ******* and more like a president. The political capital he earned with me for Gorsuch and deregulation has been all but spent on his many unforced errors, failures in healthcare, and stupid tweets, and generally acting like an *******.

I’ve said many times, if a sane candidate ran against him in a primary or general election I’d drop Trump like a used rubber.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Trump was out of line, IMHO. It's the same argument I've said before, referencing LEOs.

As a man or woman, the person has the rights we all have. Free speech, etc. As an officer, a representative of government, that officer has authority and powers to influence behavior. He or she may choose one or the other to use, never ever both at the same time.
Admittedly, I think I've said it far better this time than in the past, where I've said that when you put that piece of metal on your shirt, you have authority and powers, but no rights. When you take it off, you have rights, but no authority or powers.

Kut, you suggested several quotes. I would ask for speculation; if a published story in a newspaper in 1794 or so was demonstrably, patently false and intentionally misleading in the factoids it contained, how would our Founders have reacted?

As for Mr. Lucas, I completely support his proposal as a method of shining light on the hypocrisy of the media. If he actually files and actively pursues its passage into law, I will have to give that great thought, as it is then an infringement upon a 1st Amendment right, protected against action by the states in the 14th Amendment. It is not correct to infringe elsewhere to protest a current, present infringement, and I strongly suspect that Mr. Lucas, who is ardently libertarian, will file the bill, but not actively pursue its passage. I further suspect that if the bill gains traction and heads toward passage, he will kill it himself before it is signed into law. Please note the lower case L on the word libertarian, as it is essential to my comment.

I think if he was interested in making his point, he would push for that bill to become law, but would do so with a built-in sunset clause, making it law for one month, July 1-August 1, and give the next legislature the power to, one time only, bring it back for the duration of the legislative term. Or perhaps, have the legislation pass and be enforceable from July 1- November 30 of 2018, the campaign season and immediate post-election period running up to the midterm elections. Maybe allow someone to write what they want, but to mass-distribute for profit by the writer requires licensure. I support the idea only to highlight the hypocrisy,

Blessings,
Bill

 

[2A_Tom]

I can see where you picked up the Blue Falcon moniker.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/325th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

• 1st BN Red Falcons
• 2nd Bn White Falcons
• 3rd BN Blue Falcons

I can forgive a well-placed joke, but the Oval Office is for big boys, not clowns or charlatans.

You can forgive? That is mighty nice of you. All you've got is name calling.

We get it Trump can do no good. You are as bad as the MSMBS.

BTW I never defended him on this. I just think he is making fools of all those running around with their hair on fire, and I like it.

 

[jamil]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/325th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

• 1st BN Red Falcons
• 2nd Bn White Falcons
• 3rd BN Blue Falcons

You can forgive? That is mighty nice of you. All you've got is name calling.

We get it Trump can do no good. You are as bad as the MSMBS.

BTW I never defended him on this. I just think he is making fools of all those running around with their hair on fire, and I like it.

I can forgive, and therefore not withold my vote, for some offenses. That naturally implies that I have limits to what I’m willing to overlook given whatever positives Trump has delivered on or may deliver on.

 

[Woobie]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/325th_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)

• 1st BN Red Falcons
• 2nd Bn White Falcons
• 3rd BN Blue Falcons

You can forgive? That is mighty nice of you. All you've got is name calling.

We get it Trump can do no good. You are as bad as the MSMBS.

BTW I never defended him on this. I just think he is making fools of all those running around with their hair on fire, and I like it.

Man, that was an unfortunate choice of unit name! Regardless, supporting someone while they attack the Bill of Rights is simply anti-American. I swore to support and defend the constitution, not a man. And I swore to obey the lawful orders of the President and appointed officers, not agree with their anti-1A ramblings.

That is quite speculatory to suggest I think Trump can do no good. I've been pretty even-handed with Trump, and defended him on this board. He's done some stuff I highly regard. But I just don't write blank checks to politicians. And in this he is wrong.

You think he is making fools of the media. I think he is making fools of those who justify everything he does by making him out to be the world's biggest troll. If that's what he really is, then congratulations. He got me. Now it's time to grow up and scrap Obamacare and fix the tax code. But I don't think he's just trolling folks. I think there are certain issues where he is batting for the other team, and his sycophants are falling for his BS hook, line and sinker.

 

[2A_Tom]

In 8 years in the Army I never heard that used in that manner. It surprises me since inter unit rivalry was rampant in the 82D.