Based on Trump's behavior.....

[Alan]

This appeared today in the local paper. All I can say is .... WOW!
ATTACH=CONFIG]1694[/ATTACH]

What does that mean?

[LDAHL]

I think he will be gone by the start of the 3rd year either by resigning or impeachment. His own administration is leaking things about him all the time. For instance, deciding at a dinner with 7 people including his son in law to conduct the bombing. Those types of decisions are always made after a meeting with many experts that know the situation. He has no interest in learning how government works. Obama was a lawyer so he knew the law.

I've heard it said Obama studied the Constitution for the same reason WC Fields gave for studying the Bible. He was looking for loopholes.

[Teacher Terry]

Sorry I hit post twice.

[iris lilies]

What does that mean?

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.

[ApatheticNoMore]

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.

[LDAHL]

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.

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.

[creaker]

I've heard it said Obama studied the Constitution for the same reason WC Fields gave for studying the Bible. He was looking for loopholes.

That's nothing we need to worry about going forward.

[LDAHL]

That's nothing we need to worry about going forward.

There is little evidence he's very familiar with either.

[gimmethesimplelife]

Maybe he'll be like the Half-Governor Palin and resign halfway through his term to cash in on the speaking circuit. That would give him the 2 things he loves: money and a rapturous audience.

I could very much see him doing this, yes. Rob

[Rogar]

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&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news