trump

[T.Lex]

Oh I know. I don't think I worded my sarcastic response in a sarcastic enough manner to make it clear that I think today's polls are probably accurate, and Trump is going to be trounced.

Like gravity, Poe's Law strikes again.

 

[T.Lex]

Off the top of my head 'living document' might do it

Before we start down this path, can you clarify a bit what you mean?

1) I understand "living document" to be shorthand for someone who believes the Constitution should be adapted for modern times, possibly different from how the author(s) intended it. So, would Trump have to use the phrase "living document" or would it be enough for you if he advocated for a change of interpretation to conform to modernity?

2) Would it make a difference if you agreed or disagreed with how he wanted the Constitution interpreted?

I can provide an analogy. Relatively recently, SCOTUS rejected some "living document" style argument in Heller. The majority opinion (and a concurrence) detailed the history of the 2A and overall tried to conform the opinion to the intent of the author(s) - which may have "good" and "bad" results. I say "bad" because some regulations are likely to be supported, because the Founding Fathers tolerated certain regulations.

Let's say for the sake of argument, Trump decides that - even though it is clear that reasonable regulations were intended in the Constitution - that he will have the Constitution interpreted such that every US citizen is allowed to purchase every kind of armament. That would make him popular on INGO, but would be a non-traditional/"living document" interpretation.

Would you put Trump in the "living document" category for that?

 

[daddyusmaximus]

I understand the "living document" theory. Even the Bible has been modernized these days, but the general meaning of the original text hasn't changed. There can be amendments added to the Constitution, like has been done in the past to extend rights of the people, but once you start taking away from the original meaning, taking away rights, or giving special privileges to a limited class, you start down the path of creating a ****storm. IMHO we need to update the Constitution, but only to clarify the original meaning and spirit of the document.

 

[T.Lex]

I understand the "living document" theory. Even the Bible has been modernized these days, but the general meaning of the original text hasn't changed. There can be amendments added to the Constitution, like has been done in the past to extend rights of the people, but once you start taking away from the original meaning, taking away rights, or giving special privileges to a limited class, you start down the path of creating a ****storm. IMHO we need to update the Constitution, but only to clarify the original meaning and spirit of the document.

Well, the Constitution itself describes the process for updating it - by amendment. That is the best/only way to truly do it.

As it relates to Trump, I'm just interested in exploring where Trump stands on this issue of interpreting the Constitution and whether his statements on the topic influence INGO Trump supporters.

 

[BugI02]

When the latest polls show both Clinton and Sanders crushing Trump in the general election, you know the GOP has the wrong candidate representing them.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Sanders

RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - General Election: Trump vs. Clinton

Y'all better be backing Kasich, then. Because Clinton and Sanders are beating your other boy like a drum too.

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton	PPP (D)	Clinton 48, Trump 41	Clinton +7
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton	PPP (D)	Clinton 45, Cruz 42	Clinton +3
General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton	PPP (D)	Kasich 45, Clinton 41	Kasich +4
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders	PPP (D)	Sanders 48, Trump 40	Sanders +8
General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders	PPP (D)	Sanders 48, Cruz 41	Sanders +7
General Election: Kasich vs. Sanders	PPP (D)	Sanders 41, Kasich 44	Kasich +3

 

[T.Lex]

Y'all better be backing Kasich, then. Because Clinton and Sanders are beating your other boy like a drum too.

Is this the Republican Primary Race thread?

Frankly, I like Kasich more than Cruz, but Kasich never really had a chance.

 

[BugI02]

Before we start down this path, can you clarify a bit what you mean?

1) I understand "living document" to be shorthand for someone who believes the Constitution should be adapted for modern times, possibly different from how the author(s) intended it. So, would Trump have to use the phrase "living document" or would it be enough for you if he advocated for a change of interpretation to conform to modernity?

I had to think about this. In general 'living document' to me means that a person believes any and all of the Constitution and the BofR are open to reinterpretation. I envision it as a general statement and not a nuanced one. Upon further review, though, asserting that any part of the Constitution might be open to modernization/interpretation other than through the legal processes contained therein would be a bridge too far

2) Would it make a difference if you agreed or disagreed with how he wanted the Constitution interpreted?

I can provide an analogy. Relatively recently, SCOTUS rejected some "living document" style argument in Heller. The majority opinion (and a concurrence) detailed the history of the 2A and overall tried to conform the opinion to the intent of the author(s) - which may have "good" and "bad" results. I say "bad" because some regulations are likely to be supported, because the Founding Fathers tolerated certain regulations.

I would like to think that it would not. As much as I would like a Constitutional right to privacy I know one does not exist and would not want to see reckless attempts to ammend the document to add one. 2A though for me would be a bad analogy. I believe that 2A has no limits and the founding fathers fully intended for citizens to have access to and to possess the best weapons they could afford up to and including current military weapons. Thus I would view any restrictions as against the intent of the ammendment and any removal of said restrictions as moving in a more Constitutionally sound direction

Let's say for the sake of argument, Trump decides that - even though it is clear that reasonable regulations were intended in the Constitution [what? not sure we are reading the same document]- that he will have the Constitution interpreted such that every US citizen is allowed to purchase every kind of armament. That would make him popular on INGO, but would be a non-traditional/"living document" interpretation.

See above. In this case I would not see it as reinterpreting the Constitution so much as restoring its intent. I do not set much store by 'traditional' interpretation unless it is clearly underpinned by the document. NFA and GCA are 'traditional' interpretations that need to be eradicated as the language of 2A clearly states that there should be no restrictions on a citizens right to keep and bear arms

Would you put Trump in the "living document" category for that?

No, I don't believe I would. If Trump were to get in trouble with me I would expect it to be relative to I, IV, X and maybe VII

 

[T.Lex]

No, I don't believe I would. If Trump were to get in trouble with me I would expect it to be relative to I, IV, X and maybe VII

Ok, maybe Heller wasn't a great example. (But, Heller does allow for reasonable regulation.)

The two main points I get from your response are: 1) Trump need not use the phrase "living document" for you to reconsider your support; and 2) that, while it would be great for Trump's re-interpretation to agree with you, if he advocates a "living document" style reinterpretation of a constitutional principle, you would reconsider your support.

Is that fair? Rather than a hypothetical, I do have a specific example in mind. But, a couple other areas may prove to have the same issue.

ETA: The 7th Amendment?

 

[BugI02]

Its the right to a trial by jury part. The Lewandowski thing may yet become an example. I don't get the sense that he thinks Fields is entitled to her day in court ( I do think Fields 'took a dive' though)

 

[T.Lex]

Its the right to a trial by jury part. The Lewandowski thing may yet become an example

Gotcha. We'll leave that for another thread.

But the other parts, fair characterization of your position? Truly, I'm not trying to trick you with anything, just figuring out if it is even worth engaging in this exercise.

 

[jamil]

To be fair to Trump, he was goaded into making that statement.

Many a Republican's political campaigns have been ruined because they've been goaded into making awkward statements. The politically savvy candidates don't tend to go for it. Shows Trump is weak in that area. But I bet he learns from it.

Y'all better be backing Kasich, then. Because Clinton and Sanders are beating your other boy like a drum too.

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton	PPP (D)	Clinton 48, Trump 41	Clinton +7
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton	PPP (D)	Clinton 45, Cruz 42	Clinton +3
General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton	PPP (D)	Kasich 45, Clinton 41	Kasich +4
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders	PPP (D)	Sanders 48, Trump 40	Sanders +8
General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders	PPP (D)	Sanders 48, Cruz 41	Sanders +7
General Election: Kasich vs. Sanders	PPP (D)	Sanders 41, Kasich 44	Kasich +3

At this point I almost don't care which R it is. They all scare me on some issue or other. Kasich scares me on more issues than Cruz. Trump scares me on more issues than Kasich. I'm just voting for not-democrat.

Is this the Republican Primary Race thread?

Frankly, I like Kasich more than Cruz, but Kasich never really had a chance.

No, it's just one of the many Trump threads. Either way it's fair to discuss which Republican has better support with the general public.

 

[BugI02]

Well, the Constitution itself describes the process for updating it - by amendment. That is the best/only way to truly do it.

As it relates to Trump, I'm just interested in exploring where Trump stands on this issue of interpreting the Constitution and whether his statements on the topic influence INGO Trump supporters.

T. Lex a little off topic (that never happens in a Trump thread, does it?) but of everything I've read in the last few weeks, this guy is best channeling how I feel. It might help you understand what is driving this particular Trump supporter

Why I Support Donald Trump

 

[BugI02]

Many a Republican's political campaigns have been ruined because they've been goaded into making awkward statements. The politically savvy candidates don't tend to go for it. Shows Trump is weak in that area. But I bet he learns from it.




At this point I almost don't care which R it is. They all scare me on some issue or other. Kasich scares me on more issues than Cruz. Trump scares me on more issues than Kasich. I'm just voting for not-democrat.



No, it's just one of the [STRIKE]many Trump threads[/STRIKE] eightfold paths to Trumplightenment. Either way it's fair to discuss which Republican has better support with the general public.

Fixy

 

[Hiker1911]

Y'all better be backing Kasich, then. Because Clinton and Sanders are beating your other boy like a drum too.

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton	PPP (D)	Clinton 48, Trump 41	Clinton +7
General Election: Cruz vs. Clinton	PPP (D)	Clinton 45, Cruz 42	Clinton +3
General Election: Kasich vs. Clinton	PPP (D)	Kasich 45, Clinton 41	Kasich +4
General Election: Trump vs. Sanders	PPP (D)	Sanders 48, Trump 40	Sanders +8
General Election: Cruz vs. Sanders	PPP (D)	Sanders 48, Cruz 41	Sanders +7
General Election: Kasich vs. Sanders	PPP (D)	Sanders 41, Kasich 44	Kasich +3

Not quite!

Here we go:
Based on these 3 candidates/assumptions-Kasich, Cruz, and Trump, we have the question of who can win this fall-assuming other Republican or Republican leaning voters cast their vote for them in this election?

1. Gov. Kasich receives the nomination and goes against Hillary? Kasich loses-he's not electable in this contest. Forget the polling data-No poll can reasonably estimate this scenario in March/April. As things stand, a Republican, establishment candidate will lose against Mrs. Clinton during this election cycle.

2. Senator Cruz receives the nomination and goes against Hillary? Cruz loses-he's not electable in this contest. Forget the polling data-No poll can reasonably estimate this scenario in March/April. As things stand, a Republican, establishment candidate will lose against Mrs. Clinton during this election cycle.

3. Mr. Trump receives the nomination and goes against Hillary? Trump may possibly win-I didn't say it's probable, but it's possible he will win against Mrs. Clinton if he is on the same ballot in November as the Republican candidate.

 

[T.Lex]

T. Lex a little off topic (that never happens in a Trump thread, does it?) but of everything I've read in the last few weeks, this guy is best channeling how I feel. It might help you understand what is driving this particular Trump supporter

Why I Support Donald Trump

Whatevs. I mean, unless he's a member here, I'm only interested for the sake of curiosity.

I mean you. Using your definition of "living document" status: asserting that any part of the Constitution might be open to modernization/interpretation other than through the legal processes contained therein.

If I show you that Trump has done that, would you reconsider your support? I'll even stipulate to the following format for 3 examples: I give you an example, you present your retort, and I offer no argument and move on to the next example.

 

[BugI02]

Whatevs. I mean, unless he's a member here, I'm only interested for the sake of curiosity.

I mean you. Using your definition of "living document" status: asserting that any part of the Constitution might be open to modernization/interpretation other than through the legal processes contained therein.

If I show you that Trump has done that, would you reconsider your support? I'll even stipulate to the following format for 3 examples: I give you an example, you present your retort, and I offer no argument and move on to the next example.

Too obtuse? When I said "...might help you understand what is driving this particular Trump supporter" the particular Trump supporter I was referring to was myself, not the author

 

[BugI02]

"If I show you that Trump has done that, would you reconsider your support? I'll even stipulate to the following format for 3 examples: I give you an example, you present your retort, and I offer no argument and move on to the next example."

Do I have to use logic and be consistent and stuff. That's hard for us Trump voters, you know


Sure, fire away

 

[T.Lex]

Too obtuse? When I said "...might help you understand what is driving this particular Trump supporter" the particular Trump supporter I was referring to was myself, not the author

haha

I did misunderstand that reference - and thought you were talking about the author. But, it doesn't matter, really, for purposes of your assertion that "living document" position might have you change your mind. Or, have you reconsidered that? If Trump would assert modernization, etc., would it cause you to reconsider?

ETA: oops - just saw you post again. Hold on. Will use a new post to start.

 

[jamil]

"If I show you that Trump has done that, would you reconsider your support? I'll even stipulate to the following format for 3 examples: I give you an example, you present your retort, and I offer no argument and move on to the next example."

Do I have to use logic and be consistent and stuff. That's hard for us Trump voters, you know


Sure, fire away

IKR?

 

[T.Lex]

"Do I have to use logic and be consistent and stuff. That's hard for us Trump voters, you know

Nope. Your response is your response, and I'll leave it alone.

We'll start with an easy one. Registering Muslims.

Trump advocated registering (at a minimum) all Muslims until we figure out what motivates terrorism from Islamic countries. He has expressed support for the internment of Japanese during WWII. Since at least 1878, SCOTUS has said that religious opinion and belief should not be regulated - although actions can be. So, human sacrifice (or polygamy) would not be tolerated as religious expression.

But, Trump's policy would create government intervention into a person's religious belief based solely on the modern need to fight terrorism.

To you, is that an example of asserting the 1st Amendment might be open to modernization/interpretation other than through the amendment process?