Political Thread XX

[Malcador]

Not the publishing but the actions, situations, and motivations described inside it could be called any of those things.

Is vague enough about the actions though, you can read it that they spend effort talking back decisions they feel (and very well could be) bonkers. Which should be as it is, one would expect one's staff to use their brains rather than be drones. The bit about meetings veer off course was pretty funny - sounds like what I have to go through weekly with clients

[smjjames]

What do you think about going Parliamentary system? Theres already a foundation for it (Congress was modelled after the British Parliament after all), though I'm not knowledgeable in how picking a PM works in two chamber Parliaments (varies from country to country), so, that specific would have to be worked out.

 

Anyways, as I mentioned earlier, Congress is going to have to assert itself first, which means that a Republican (just for example) controlled Congress would have to actively assert themselves against a Republican President.

 

Also, the State governments already ignore the Federal government to a good extent (marjuana legislation anybody?) and they definetly fight back at Presidents they don't like (California under Trump and Texas under Obama), but The Constitution only allows them so much power. So, I'm not sure what you mean by 'State governments ignoring the Federal government', or rather, I'm not sure what actions you're referring to that State governments should ignore. The land use rights by ranchers comes to mind as probably the primary complaint, along with eminent domain. I'm not saying that you're wrong that the State governments should ignore the Federal government, just asking what you mean specifically as they already do to a good extent.

Edited September 6, 2018 by smjjames

[Amentep]

If publishing an opinion piece in a newspaper could be called treason or even sedition it is past time for another revolution

 

I wasn't advocating for either, just thinking that treason wouldn't be the right charge.

 

civilian sedition is more obscure, so am understanding confusion, but most provisions require attempts to interfere with government by force. 

 

however,

 

 

thankfully, the US scaled back sedition provisions following the trials o' eugene debs and others.  post 1921 sedition is a bit less broad and in almost all cases requires force or advocating force... and even advocating force ain't enough as actual use o' force would need be a predictable and immediate result o' the advocacy for there to be a crime. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Thanks, I seemed to remember that sedition was scaled back, but couldn't find online how, so when thinking about it sedition seemed a 'better' fit to the actions if one were to charge anyone for such a thing than treason.

[Guard Dog]

James what we think of other forms of government really does not matter. It can't be done here. The only way to meaningfully change our form of government (peacefully) is a Constitutional Convention. I think you understand the United States as a unified political entity would not survive a Constitutional Convention today.

[Guard Dog]

I've been listening to the Kavanaugh hearings. Mostly what you'd expect. But If I was there I'd give Lindsey Graham a high five and take him out for a beer over the theoretical scenario he just outlined concerning how Roe was decided.

[Gfted1]

Cory Booke Releases Racial Profiling Info On Brett Kavanaugh.

[Malcador]

I've been listening to the Kavanaugh hearings. Mostly what you'd expect. But If I was there I'd give Lindsey Graham a high five and take him out for a beer over the theoretical scenario he just outlined concerning how Roe was decided.

Better than yesterday's then, Graham was bemoaning partisanship in the process and then later asked Kavanaugh what he told his kids the day before

[Gromnir]

 

If publishing an opinion piece in a newspaper could be called treason or even sedition it is past time for another revolution

 

I wasn't advocating for either, just thinking that treason wouldn't be the right charge.

 

civilian sedition is more obscure, so am understanding confusion, but most provisions require attempts to interfere with government by force. 

 

however,

 

vid (edited to decrease clutter)

 

thankfully, the US scaled back sedition provisions following the trials o' eugene debs and others.  post 1921 sedition is a bit less broad and in almost all cases requires force or advocating force... and even advocating force ain't enough as actual use o' force would need be a predictable and immediate result o' the advocacy for there to be a crime. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Thanks, I seemed to remember that sedition was scaled back, but couldn't find online how, so when thinking about it sedition seemed a 'better' fit to the actions if one were to charge anyone for such a thing than treason.

 

 

if you are genuine interested...

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385

 

major changes were made initial by Congress in 1921.  Court clarified in 1957 and multiple times during vietnam era.

 

sedition is one o' those weird crimes which, for the most part, is wholly unnecessary from a logic perspective.  same fundamental objection many folks have for hate crimes applies equal to sedition and treason.  if david beats up paul w/o cause, we charge him with assault and/or battery.  if david beats up paul 'cause paul is from laos, then we charge david with a hate crime too.  hate itself ain't a crime, but if you commit a crime with a particular frame o' mind, we enhance punishment.  more than a few scholars and ordinary persons is disturbed by the notion the government is able to punish viewpoint o' a person.  punish the crime, not the idea.

 

works same for sedition in that there pretty much needs be an underlying crime.  burn down a warehouse is likely gonna get you an arson charge.  burn down a warehouse to hurt the government is sedition.  unnecessary.  charge folks with the underlying crime w/o all the viewpoint baggage.  steal or destroy presidential documents is a crime.  'course the chief executive alleged destroys documents frequent, so might not be the best option. 

 

regardless, if you are genuine interested, you may now looks at the sedition sections o' the code. enjoy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Guard Dog]

Yeah I have a real problem with asking a judge, jury, & prosecutor to make a judgement on the severity of a crime based on the motive of the offender. You cannot get into another person's head. A killing based on racial prejudice isn't any more horrible than a killing during a robbery. The victim is no less dead.

 

In other news Richard Durbin is a jackass. Hearing him bemoan the Trump administration as the genesis of executive overreach and disregard for limitations is just stupidity incarnate. The last President thought it would be OK to have us killed by executive order. He was cool with that then.

 

Judge Kavanaugh what do you mean you can't recall one e-mail someone sent you 18 years ago? That's very convenient isn't it?

Edited September 6, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Gfted1]

Trump Administration Anonymous Letter Contains 'Threat'. Delicious.

[Malcador]

Bit of a reach by the staffers to think that, but the SS (hah) does have to look at every minor thing, right ?

[Gfted1]

Bit of a reach by the staffers to think that, but the SS (hah) does have to look at every minor thing, right ?

 

Of course they do. That and it warms the c0ckles of my heart to watch squealers "whistle blowers" get their comeuppance. 

[Malcador]

Really ? Why (not tied to this case, though not even sure this counts as whistle blowing, anyway) ? Whistle blowing a good thing, particularly when the State is involved.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Malcador

[Hurlshort]

Yeah I have a real problem with asking a judge, jury, & prosecutor to make a judgement on the severity of a crime based on the motive of the offender. You cannot get into another person's head. A killing based on racial prejudice isn't any more horrible than a killing during a robbery. The victim is no less dead.

 

 

Motive is looked at in every case though. There is a big jump from manslaughter to murder. 

 

Also you don't have to delve to deep into the head of a racially or gender motivated killer. They tend to be more than happy to share their motives on social media and often have nice tattoos to make it really clear.

 

edit: I do agree somewhat with you. Hate crime laws are an attempt to change a culture where lynch mobs and racial injustice was common place. At some point we should be far enough along as a society to not need them. I'm not sure if we are there, but I'd like to believe it.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Hurlshot

[Gfted1]

Really ? Why (not tied to this case) ? Whistle blowing a good thing, particularly when the State is involved.

 

"Whistle blowing" is the new term to try to get yourself out of trouble for spilling secrets. Aside, what makes you feel the "whistle blower" has any credibility?

[Hurlshort]

I'm curious how many insiders and former insiders it will take before Trump supporters actually believe that things are not going well in the administration. I mean, my guess is it doesn't matter how many, but I do wonder if there is a tipping point.

[Gromnir]

Yeah I have a real problem with asking a judge, jury, & prosecutor to make a judgement on the severity of a crime based on the motive of the offender. You cannot get into another person's head. A killing based on racial prejudice isn't any more horrible than a killing during a robbery. The victim is no less dead.

 

 

well, to be fair, we do such all the time... in sentencing.  once we decide there is a crime, then the finder o' fact considers motives to determine severity o' punishment.  after suffering years o' physical and emotional abuse from her father, a girl, tried as an adult, knowing and premeditated kills her rapist father. converse, change the scenario and have the rapist father kill his daughter 'cause the chicken pot pie she served him burned his mouth.  severity o' sentence is likely to be different for the two murderers, but the question as to whether or not a defendant is a murderer avoids questions o' quality o' motive.

 

as to op-ed, am not doubting this administration, as misguided as they is, will try every angle to get fbi or secret service to investigate op-ed author.  the secret service angle is actual not a bad ploy as they got extreme latitude when it comes to investigating threats to the executive branch.  initial looks transparent, but you never know.  no doubt the nytimes is frothing at the possibility o' an ss investigation.  turn this into a drawn out court battle over freedom o' press and whatnot? this kinda thing puts otherwise obscure newspaper editors into history books. turn a bunch o' folks into martyrs?

 

marginalize and investigate quiet?  sure.  the more the administration rails, the bigger they make the story... and end result, best case, is some senior white house official is paraded in front o' cameras and microphones where he then must explain, in scorching detail, all the reasons for his/her op-ed. 

 

@ hurl.  motive is different than intent... except when they are not.  am knowing it seems like a minor thing, but determining if a defendant has legal sufficient intent for manslaughter as posed to first degree murder (or second in some jurisdictions... can be confusing) is not actual same as determining motive.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps evidence o' motive typical is gonna be relevant to proving intent.  show david's motive for killing paul were for money and paul did in fact die by david's hand, has a tendency to prove david had sufficient intent for more than manslaughter.  david were contemplating killing paul for some time and had a plan and whatnot? then intent is much easier to prove.  proof o' intent, converse, doesn't necessarily show motive.  show that david were out o' ammo and needed to go to walmart and purchase bullets before killing paul is likely gonna be enough to show requisite intent for more than manslaughter, but such doesn't inherent help determine motive, yes?

 

am knowing we ain't clarifying well, but in this format...

Edited September 6, 2018 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

 

Yeah I have a real problem with asking a judge, jury, & prosecutor to make a judgement on the severity of a crime based on the motive of the offender. You cannot get into another person's head. A killing based on racial prejudice isn't any more horrible than a killing during a robbery. The victim is no less dead.

 

 

Motive is looked at in every case though. There is a big jump from manslaughter to murder. 

 

Also you don't have to delve to deep into the head of a racially or gender motivated killer. They tend to be more than happy to share their motives on social media and often have nice tattoos to make it really clear.

 

edit: I do agree somewhat with you. Hate crime laws are an attempt to change a culture where lynch mobs and racial injustice was common place. At some point we should be far enough along as a society to not need them. I'm not sure if we are there, but I'd like to believe it.

 

The difference between manslaughter and murder isn't motive, it's intent. Altogether different. Motive is an element to be considered as far as someone's guilt is concerned. And it's not the end all even then. Plenty of offenders have been convicted when motive is unknown and plenty who have had motive have been acquitted lacking other evidence.   

 

And while some. maybe even most, offenders charged with hate crimes made their motives clear not all do. But philosophically I have a problem with one killing being considered more heinous than another. If someone murders a member of your family does it really matter WHY they did it or THAT they did it. The dead are just as dead.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

Prediction: The Op-Ed will turn out to be written by someone NOT in the administration. LOL, wouldn't THAT be a lit match in the hay barn!

 

@Gromnir, you beat me by three minutes! Motive should be considered as part of punishment I agree. But not in determining the severity of the crime. As far as the state is concerned the question should be "Did this person do X?" not "Did this person do X because Y?" Just my $.02. Governments, even here, are not well known for applying the law fairly or evenhandedly when it comes to prosecutions. The less wiggle room they have the better. I'm all for more discretion on the other side of the process.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Guard Dog

[Malcador]

Prediction: The Op-Ed will turn out to be written by someone NOT in the administration. LOL, wouldn't THAT be a lit match in the hay barn!

Nah, doubt the NYT or any organization would be that reckless. Is probably Pence

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Trump wrote it himself.

[Gromnir]

 

Prediction: The Op-Ed will turn out to be written by someone NOT in the administration. LOL, wouldn't THAT be a lit match in the hay barn!

Nah, doubt the NYT or any organization would be that reckless. 

 

am gonna agree.  this is a no-lose situation for the nytimes... just so long as they didn't alter the op-ed and assuming they were truthful 'bout the author being a "senior official in the Trump administration." 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[HoonDing]

Kakistocracy.

[Malcador]

Trump wrote it himself.

It's written too well for that.

[Guard Dog]

 

Trump wrote it himself.

It's written too well for that.

 

That's it. Malc wins. Just close the thread now!