What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[jimmy olsen]

A good sign

Twitter

Wow, looks like the Dem in Oklahoma's 37th Senate District special pulled out the win by 31 votes. There'll be a recount but this is a pretty remarkable result in a Trump+39 (yes, +39) district.

[crazy canuck]

Ok so there are rights in the abstract.  But if they are not protected by a constitution and interpreted by a court as being protected then what is their practical effect, other than quibbling on languish?

One practical effect of those rights was to convince the founders of my nation to declare independence and create a constitution.  The rights existed before the constitution did.  I understand that, in  system where Parliament is sovereign, rights are granted by Parliament, but that isn't the case in the US, which is the nation to which Valmy referred.  In the US, the people are sovereign.

Another interesting quibble, but I suppose it is one that grounds the American founding mythology and so I see the reason you feel compelled to make the argument.  But even so, even under your formulation a constitution was still created in order to safeguard those rights which "convinced" the founders.  Too bad the founders were not so convinced when they founded your nation that a civil war was needed to further recognize those rights while a Parliamentary government needed no such conflict.

[Berkut]

Ok so there are rights in the abstract.  But if they are not protected by a constitution and interpreted by a court as being protected then what is their practical effect, other than quibbling on languish?

One practical effect of those rights was to convince the founders of my nation to declare independence and create a constitution.  The rights existed before the constitution did.  I understand that, in  system where Parliament is sovereign, rights are granted by Parliament, but that isn't the case in the US, which is the nation to which Valmy referred.  In the US, the people are sovereign.

Another interesting quibble, but I suppose it is one that grounds the American founding mythology and so I see the reason you feel compelled to make the argument.  But even so, even under your formulation a constitution was still created in order to safeguard those rights which "convinced" the founders.  Too bad the founders were not so convinced when they founded your nation that a civil war was needed to further recognize those rights while a Parliamentary government needed no such conflict.

You really think the American Civil War was a consequence of a poorly chosen form of government?

Are you just TRYING to be a douchebag here? Please tell me this is some good natured trolling and not something you actually believe to be true...

[derspiess]

Actually I believe the American Civil War was a result of ocean acidification.

[garbon]

Civil wars are impossible when you have a parliament.

[crazy canuck]

You really think the American Civil War was a consequence of a poorly chosen form of government?

The claim I am disagreeing with is that rights are not protected by a constitution but somehow have some protection emanating somehow from the sovereignty of the people.

But let hurricane Berkut blow, its what you do.

[Valmy]

A good sign

Twitter

Wow, looks like the Dem in Oklahoma's 37th Senate District special pulled out the win by 31 votes. There'll be a recount but this is a pretty remarkable result in a Trump+39 (yes, +39) district.

Well ok while Oklahoma is the reddest of the red states you need to tap the breaks a bit. I do not know exactly where this district is but in many of the rural districts the Democrats voted for Trump in significant numbers. In many of them Trump won by historic margins. So just because Trump might have won a place by 40 points or whatever it does not mean the Democrats might not normally be getting decent share of the votes. Granted to actually win such a place is pretty rare.

[Valmy]

Ok I did a little research and it looks like it is a suburban district near Tulsa. Just as I thought, though, it normally is a place where Republicans win by 10-15%.

[grumbler]

Another interesting quibble, but I suppose it is one that grounds the American founding mythology and so I see the reason you feel compelled to make the argument.  But even so, even under your formulation a constitution was still created in order to safeguard those rights which "convinced" the founders.  Too bad the founders were not so convinced when they founded your nation that a civil war was needed to further recognize those rights while a Parliamentary government needed no such conflict.

An interesting quibble.  I suppose you believe that the English Civil War was just "fake news," right?  And the near-civil-war in 1688 just made up by those dumb Yanks to justify the name "The University of William and Mary?"  Mere quibbles.  Got it.

*backs up*

*walks away quickly, making sure the strange man is not chasing*

[grumbler]

The claim I am disagreeing with is that rights are not protected by a constitution but somehow have some protection emanating somehow from the sovereignty of the people.

But let hurricane Berkut blow, its what you do.

[crazy canuck]

Another interesting quibble, but I suppose it is one that grounds the American founding mythology and so I see the reason you feel compelled to make the argument.  But even so, even under your formulation a constitution was still created in order to safeguard those rights which "convinced" the founders.  Too bad the founders were not so convinced when they founded your nation that a civil war was needed to further recognize those rights while a Parliamentary government needed no such conflict.

An interesting quibble.  I suppose you believe that the English Civil War was just "fake news," right?  And the near-civil-war in 1688 just made up by those dumb Yanks to justify the name "The University of William and Mary?"  Mere quibbles.  Got it.

*backs up*

*walks away quickly, making sure the strange man is not chasing*

No, I was referring to the more obvious comparator of the Canadian experience and the fact that we obtained both our independence and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms without the need of war.


But I acknowledge the need for you to ignore those inconvenient facts.

Please go back to explaining how rights are protected in the US without a constitution, and if so why it was that your founding fathers, in their wisdom, created a constitution.

[crazy canuck]

The claim I am disagreeing with is that rights are not protected by a constitution but somehow have some protection emanating somehow from the sovereignty of the people.

But let hurricane Berkut blow, its what you do.

I suppose if you cannot explain why you asserted a constitution is not needed to protect rights you must lower yourself to attacking me.  It is your way.

[grumbler]

No, I was referring to the more obvious comparator of the Canadian experience and the fact that we obtained both our independence and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms without the need of war.

Are you making the claim that the Canadian Parliament is sovereign?  Otherwise, i see no relevance whatever to the methods by which Canada obtained independence or the Charter (which, if parliament is truly sovereign, means nothing, anyway).

But I acknowledge the need for you to ignore those inconvenient facts.

I acknowledge the need for you to specify what parliament you are talking about, if you are going to refer to parliaments other than sovereign ones.  I know you find evidence inconvenient, but bear with it.

Please go back to explaining how rights are protected in the US without a constitution, and if so why it was that your founding fathers, in their wisdom, created a constitution.

If you really are this unaware of the existence and benefits of human rights, your ignorance is deeper than I care to counter.  Google "human rights' and find out as much as you would like.  The FF of the US created a constitution in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity.  it's right there in the constitution itself.  Note that absent among these reasons is "creating human rights."  They didn't need to create them; they were pre-existing.

This isn't hard stuff.  Don't they teach ANYTHING about the Enlightenment in Canada?

[Eddie Teach]

Any Canadian trying to talk smack about the US Civil War deserves to face Hurricane Berkut and Typhoon Grumbler. 

[grumbler]

I suppose if you cannot explain why you asserted a constitution is not needed to protect rights you must lower yourself to attacking me.  It is your way.

I suppose that if you cannot counter an argument of mine by quoting me, you can only counter it by creating a strawman argument, like any strange person does.  That's not an attack, that's just an observation.  It is my way.

I have a right to life, which I can protect not only against government, but against other private individuals.  If someone tries to kill me, i may lawfully use force to defend my life.  There is no constitution in the US that gives me this right.  It exists independent of constitutions and even outside the purview of constitutions.

The US constitution expressly acknowledges the existance of such rights in the Ninth Amedment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 

Are you absolutely sure that you are a lawyer?  This is basic stuff.  What law school did you go to that never mentioned that the US system of basic rights was independent of its constitution?