Sorry I hit post twice.
Last edited by Teacher Terry; 2-5-17 at 12:44pm. Reason: I have sent this message twice.
All it means is that librarians in the People's Republic of Madistan have decided to perform a civic duty by hosting groups of people who will rage and shake and cry, somethng to do with Donald Trump, but nothing will be accomplished.
Free Speech reigns and all that, but I am so very thankful I am no longer working. The morning after the Presidential election would have been our weekly administrative meeting at work, and I am sure opining about the bleak road ahead would have consumed this meeting.
Last edited by iris lilies; 2-5-17 at 1:24pm.
The best you can say about the Constitution (mostly talking about the Bill of Rights and a few following amendments here) is that it's better than nothing but that's not saying much.
Because just because something is a clear violation of the Constitution. at least from a layman's (and from some lawyers) perspective, doesn't mean it will EVER be stopped. It might continue uh indefinitely. Take Obama's signed NDAA law on indefinite detention without trial, you can read the whole progress of a case against it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama), but clearly even though you and I reading the Bill of Rights would say it is clearly unconstitutional, it's clearly still there.
So maybe there is no point AT ALL in talking about what you are so sure the Constitution will protect because you aren't at all sure what will be ruled legally. Mind you you can at best say: it is possible this might be overthrown as un-Contitutional but then again it might not. And if you think you have a case nothing wrong with consulting a lawyer - but the outcome will be determined by the progression of the case and not by what you think will be ruled unConstitional - and remember like in that case different jurisdictions will disagree on what is and is not legal and the Supreme Court doesn't have to take the case.
Trees don't grow on money
I think you're right that constitutional safeguards (or any laws) are only as good as our willingness to observe and defend them. When a president decides not to enforce the parts of the emigration law he finds politically uncongenial; or an activist judge decides a particular outcome is so important he makes a creative interpretation to legislate from the bench; or when a legislature passes ambiguous laws and lets the executive or the administrative bureaucracy decide what it means, that chips away at the rule of law.
Plenty of despotic regimes have had beautifully written constitutions that only the very brave or insane would ever invoke. I don't think we're close to that point, however.
The web of intelligence gathering must be extremely complex. I think the NYT and Washington Post might be on a fishing trip hoping to hoping to strike gold with another Watergate type breakthrough, but this is still pretty interesting. Trump's Trumpbles are not over quite yet.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&click Source=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)