Lindsey Graham "defender" of The Constitution...

[Hingle McCringleberry]

http://www.forbes.co...nemy-combatant/

 

These people should be impeached for failing to uphold their oath of office, just by mentioning doing something like this. We are on thin ice with the killing of Americans overseas, now this. I guess Holder wasn't far off with the drone attacks...

 

EDIT: Or we can dig up FDR, and he can send the Muslims to internment camps.

[QMany]

For Senator Graham to spend the past few weeks arguing that background checks for terrorists, criminals or anyone else who want to purchase a gun at a gun show violates the Second Amendment to our Constitution only to turn around and seek to strip an American citizen of his constitutional due process rights is nothing short of the epitome of hypocrisy and beyond abhorrent.

What's new?

[Count 'Bility]

I would comment on this but my f'ing head just exploded?

 

Ah what the hell. Are these people really leading our country?

[ZRod]

I would comment on this but my f'ing head just exploded?

 

Ah what the hell. Are these people really leading our country?

Yup! That guys a f'ing snake.

[strigori]

I would comment on this but my f'ing head just exploded?

 

Ah what the hell. Are these people really leading our country?

'Leading' is not the word for it

[Junior]

These people love to defend certain amendments of the constitution. The 2nd, occassionally the first, but only ones they really like.

[Hingle McCringleberry]

These people love to defend certain amendments of the constitution. The 2nd, occassionally the first, but only ones they really like.

 

 

Most people are that way... Freedom of speech is awesome, until Westboro shows up.

 

Guns rights, heck yeah fill your boots, until someone takes a hunting rifle and makes it look scary.

 

Due process? All the time, every time, unless you're an American living overseas, then we can kill you with the stroke of a pen, and a drone.

 

Miranda rights, due process, etc... Yeah until you set off a bomb in Boston, then they are willing to scrap the entire thing, and its not just him, how many people made comments along the lines of "I wish they just would of shot him", or, "why do we give him medical help when he would of killed all of us".

 

I'm not defending what he said, just pointing out that a large number of us seem willing to toss out parts of The Constitution when needed.

[QMany]

These people love to defend certain amendments of the constitution. The 2nd, occassionally the first, but only ones they really like.

 

 

Most people are that way... Freedom of speech is awesome, until Westboro shows up.

 

Guns rights, heck yeah fill your boots, until someone takes a hunting rifle and makes it look scary.

 

Due process? All the time, every time, unless you're an American living overseas, then we can kill you with the stroke of a pen, and a drone.

 

Miranda rights, due process, etc... Yeah until you set off a bomb in Boston, then they are willing to scrap the entire thing, and its not just him, how many people made comments along the lines of "I wish they just would of shot him", or, "why do we give him medical help when he would of killed all of us".

 

I'm not defending what he said, just pointing out that a large number of us seem willing to toss out parts of The Constitution when needed.

 

I understand what you are trying to convey, but the Constitution was signed 225 years ago. I don't think anyone (except Lindsey Graham) wants to "toss out parts of the Constitution." More and more, it is impossible to be an Originalist and interpret this document literally. Situations have changed, threats have changed. Without some form of "living Constitution" that evolves, a strict interpretation would have decided many cases differently, including Brown v. Board of Education, for example.

[Someone]

To his credit, Lindsey is one of the first openly gay men to serve in the US Senate.

 

[Hingle McCringleberry]

including Brown v. Board of Education, for example.

 

I've thought about this, I am just someone who is trying to study and understand how this all works, not a lawyer by any means. If we look at the text of the 14th Amendment, it seems to me that it does not support the States having the ability to restrict a persons liberty. SCOTUS was correct, and this decision expanded an individuals liberty, by curtailing the powers vested to the States, through the equal protection clause. The argument that the act of separation causes damage makes sense, also the government itself cannot say they view people equally when they allow and practice segregation.

 

I am not alone in this thinking. Scalia has given at least two interviews where he was asked about this, and he has stated both times that he would of gone along with the court. Others have written that the people spear heading the 14th did in fact want desegregation in the South.

 

As a side note here is a great video of Scalia and Breyer. https://tv.azpm.org/s/3641-a-conversation-on-the-constitution/

 

 

I don't think anyone (except Lindsey Graham) wants to "toss out parts of the Constitution."

 

I was a little tongue in cheek with that, but statements about Westburo, and the Boston bombers, having their rights stripped can be found very easily. I dont think most people actually mean it, its just an emotional response.

 

 

Situations have changed, threats have changed. Without some form of "living Constitution" that evolves

 

I can't completely disagree with this. My thoughts are when, where, and how much, should they apply the "living" solution. If it comes down on the side of the individual, and expands personal Liberty it is hard to disagree. What worries me is Justices changing their mind like the Nebraska weather, or agreeing to remove protections of individuals from the government, because they have been declared Terrorists, or an enemy combatant.

 

Online privacy is another area. We all know its a public forum of some sort, but how, and when should we expect a reasonable right to privacy. If someone flashes their boobs on a public street they cannot assume people wont take pictures of it and use it later. But a girl takes a picture of her boobs in her bathroom and posts the pic online to Facebook, who then owns that photo, what right to privacy does she have? Same with sites like this, or Reddit. It will be interesting to see where, and how, they draw those lines.

[Junior]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/25/jon-stewart-fox-news-shre_n_3153921.html

 

The only amendment worth defending is the 2nd, apparently.