(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do we handle the potential conflict that requesting citizenship might adversely affect the collection of information on total persons in each state? Because Section 2 covers two issues - apportioning delegates and, if voting rights are abridged, accounting for that in apportioning.

There isnt an issue. One is Constitutional in nature, states 'shall' do such an enforcement -- and that enforcement requires counting.

Being the 'the law is in the words' type moron that I am, whether there is some moral issue in counting is immaterial.

I think your posit of 'potential tension that might adversely affect' underscores the very real differences between the 'lets make up what it ought to mean and do on the fly' school on one hand and the textualism school of Constitutional
interpretation, or for that matter, statutory legal interpretation, does it not?

First sentence requires a count of people. Last portion requires a count of citizens. Full stop.

Posit all you want about the 'potential tension' and things that '*might* adversely affect', neither changes either requirement in the slightest. Wouldnt be the first time a 'living Constitutionalist' argues that the actual words mean *not* their actual words, nor will I surmise it will be the last. Thank you for the wonderful example.

I'm not arguing that these words don't mean what they mean...

My question was what do you if there is a conflict in trying to accommodate both sentences? As you are arguing, the Constitution states we must ask people whether they are citizens. What if that question directly creates a situation where we're unable to accommodate the first sentence? Why is accomplishing the second sentence more important than accomplishing the first?

I'm guessing you say we ignore the conflict because the Constitution doesn't direct us on how to address the conflict?

(07-09-2019 03:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  One more question. If the citizenship question makes illegals not fill out and return the form, what’s wrong with that?

We've cover that explicitly above. The Constitution calls for counting all persons, not citizens.

(07-09-2019 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do we handle the potential conflict that requesting citizenship might adversely affect the collection of information on total persons in each state? Because Section 2 covers two issues - apportioning delegates and, if voting rights are abridged, accounting for that in apportioning.

There isnt an issue. One is Constitutional in nature, states 'shall' do such an enforcement -- and that enforcement requires counting.

Being the 'the law is in the words' type moron that I am, whether there is some moral issue in counting is immaterial.

I think your posit of 'potential tension that might adversely affect' underscores the very real differences between the 'lets make up what it ought to mean and do on the fly' school on one hand and the textualism school of Constitutional
interpretation, or for that matter, statutory legal interpretation, does it not?

First sentence requires a count of people. Last portion requires a count of citizens. Full stop.

Posit all you want about the 'potential tension' and things that '*might* adversely affect', neither changes either requirement in the slightest. Wouldnt be the first time a 'living Constitutionalist' argues that the actual words mean *not* their actual words, nor will I surmise it will be the last. Thank you for the wonderful example.

I'm not arguing that these words don't mean what they mean...

My question was what do you if there is a conflict in trying to accommodate both sentences? As you are arguing, the Constitution states we must ask people whether they are citizens. What if that question directly creates a situation where we're unable to accommodate the first sentence? Why is accomplishing the second sentence more important than accomplishing the first?

I'm guessing you say we ignore the conflict because the Constitution doesn't direct us on how to address the conflict?

So asking people if they are citizens absolutely precludes the question of whether you are a person within the USA...... got it.

Funny, you are trying to bootstrap what, at best, is a maybe conflict into an absolute conflict where one absolutely precludes the other.

The problem is that you are bootstrapping the potential conflict into an absolute conflict --- like a good progressive would and a true 'living law' follower would.

Im not saying 'one ignores conflict' -- I am saying one performs the functions (both of them) that are mandated.

And yes, you are saying that those words dont mean what they expressly are stated as.

You are conflating 'count the people, count the citizens' to 'count the people, count the citizens, but only count the citizens in a manner that precludes a supposed and potential conflict, that conflict that doesnt seem to exist between two ministerial acts until I inject a whole crapload of sociological background into it'.

The first one can be summarized in 6 words. That is, textualism.

Your want/need is a litany that is about 6-7 times the bounds of the first, and wishes to add a hole smorgasborg of concepts and subactions that dont just run against the text itself, but against a good amount of historical record from 1865 surrounding the 14th. That is, living a 'law du jour' (i.e. the progressive panacea to any situation).

Perhaps one day you might realize the difference between the two.

(07-09-2019 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do we handle the potential conflict that requesting citizenship might adversely affect the collection of information on total persons in each state? Because Section 2 covers two issues - apportioning delegates and, if voting rights are abridged, accounting for that in apportioning.

There isnt an issue. One is Constitutional in nature, states 'shall' do such an enforcement -- and that enforcement requires counting.

Being the 'the law is in the words' type moron that I am, whether there is some moral issue in counting is immaterial.

I think your posit of 'potential tension that might adversely affect' underscores the very real differences between the 'lets make up what it ought to mean and do on the fly' school on one hand and the textualism school of Constitutional
interpretation, or for that matter, statutory legal interpretation, does it not?

First sentence requires a count of people. Last portion requires a count of citizens. Full stop.

Posit all you want about the 'potential tension' and things that '*might* adversely affect', neither changes either requirement in the slightest. Wouldnt be the first time a 'living Constitutionalist' argues that the actual words mean *not* their actual words, nor will I surmise it will be the last. Thank you for the wonderful example.

I'm not arguing that these words don't mean what they mean...

My question was what do you if there is a conflict in trying to accommodate both sentences? As you are arguing, the Constitution states we must ask people whether they are citizens. What if that question directly creates a situation where we're unable to accommodate the first sentence? Why is accomplishing the second sentence more important than accomplishing the first?

I'm guessing you say we ignore the conflict because the Constitution doesn't direct us on how to address the conflict?

Interestingly (to me at least), it seems like the Constitution does direct us: Section 5 of the very same amendment states "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

- At a minimum, one might think that Section 5 is a clear grant of authority to Congress to resolve any such dilemmas arising from Section 2 or any other part of the Amendment.

- More generally, one might think that such an explicit grant of authority also implicitly grants (as with the famous "necessary and proper" clause of Article I) a good deal of discretion -- i.e., as long as Congress doesn't essentially obliterate one of the provisions, it has pretty broad discretion to strike whatever balance among them that it thinks appropriate.

Anyway, that's what one might think from the text. On the other hand:
(1) Congress does not always do its job;
(2) Supreme Court jurisprudence on what constitutes a legitimate exercise of Section 5 enforcement power is a bit of a mess; and
(3) Both (1) and (2) are understatements.

Ok, that's my unhelpful digression. Back to your regularly scheduled argument!

(07-09-2019 04:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do we handle the potential conflict that requesting citizenship might adversely affect the collection of information on total persons in each state? Because Section 2 covers two issues - apportioning delegates and, if voting rights are abridged, accounting for that in apportioning.

There isnt an issue. One is Constitutional in nature, states 'shall' do such an enforcement -- and that enforcement requires counting.

Being the 'the law is in the words' type moron that I am, whether there is some moral issue in counting is immaterial.

I think your posit of 'potential tension that might adversely affect' underscores the very real differences between the 'lets make up what it ought to mean and do on the fly' school on one hand and the textualism school of Constitutional
interpretation, or for that matter, statutory legal interpretation, does it not?

First sentence requires a count of people. Last portion requires a count of citizens. Full stop.

Posit all you want about the 'potential tension' and things that '*might* adversely affect', neither changes either requirement in the slightest. Wouldnt be the first time a 'living Constitutionalist' argues that the actual words mean *not* their actual words, nor will I surmise it will be the last. Thank you for the wonderful example.

I'm not arguing that these words don't mean what they mean...

My question was what do you if there is a conflict in trying to accommodate both sentences? As you are arguing, the Constitution states we must ask people whether they are citizens. What if that question directly creates a situation where we're unable to accommodate the first sentence? Why is accomplishing the second sentence more important than accomplishing the first?

I'm guessing you say we ignore the conflict because the Constitution doesn't direct us on how to address the conflict?

So asking people if they are citizens absolutely precludes the question of whether you are a person within the USA...... got it.

Funny, you are trying to bootstrap what, at best, is a maybe conflict into an absolute conflict where one absolutely precludes the other.

The problem is that you are bootstrapping the potential conflict into an absolute conflict --- like a good progressive would and a true 'living law' follower would.

Im not saying 'one ignores conflict' -- I am saying one performs the functions (both of them) that are mandated.

And yes, you are saying that those words dont mean what they expressly are stated as.

You are conflating 'count the people, count the citizens' to 'count the people, count the citizens, but only count the citizens in a manner that precludes a supposed and potential conflict, that conflict that doesnt seem to exist between two ministerial acts until I inject a whole crapload of sociological background into it'.

The first one can be summarized in 6 words. That is, textualism.

Your want/need is a litany that is about 6-7 times the bounds of the first, and wishes to add a hole smorgasborg of concepts and subactions that dont just run against the text itself, but against a good amount of historical record from 1865 surrounding the 14th. That is, living a 'law du jour' (i.e. the progressive panacea to any situation).

Perhaps one day you might realize the difference between the two.

But the conflict does exist - the whole reason the SC pushed the decision back down is because evidence came to light that the Trump admin specifically made the decision to add the citizenship question in order to affect the first sentence - counting the number of people in the country.

You’re being intentionally ignorant in an astounding way by suggesting there is no conflict present.

And if you’re arguing for absolute textualism, how do you square the regulation of any arms? Or any free speech? Or do you disagree with rulings the court has made upholding both types of laws?

(07-09-2019 05:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do we handle the potential conflict that requesting citizenship might adversely affect the collection of information on total persons in each state? Because Section 2 covers two issues - apportioning delegates and, if voting rights are abridged, accounting for that in apportioning.

There isnt an issue. One is Constitutional in nature, states 'shall' do such an enforcement -- and that enforcement requires counting.

Being the 'the law is in the words' type moron that I am, whether there is some moral issue in counting is immaterial.

I think your posit of 'potential tension that might adversely affect' underscores the very real differences between the 'lets make up what it ought to mean and do on the fly' school on one hand and the textualism school of Constitutional
interpretation, or for that matter, statutory legal interpretation, does it not?

First sentence requires a count of people. Last portion requires a count of citizens. Full stop.

Posit all you want about the 'potential tension' and things that '*might* adversely affect', neither changes either requirement in the slightest. Wouldnt be the first time a 'living Constitutionalist' argues that the actual words mean *not* their actual words, nor will I surmise it will be the last. Thank you for the wonderful example.

I'm not arguing that these words don't mean what they mean...

My question was what do you if there is a conflict in trying to accommodate both sentences? As you are arguing, the Constitution states we must ask people whether they are citizens. What if that question directly creates a situation where we're unable to accommodate the first sentence? Why is accomplishing the second sentence more important than accomplishing the first?

I'm guessing you say we ignore the conflict because the Constitution doesn't direct us on how to address the conflict?

So asking people if they are citizens absolutely precludes the question of whether you are a person within the USA...... got it.

Funny, you are trying to bootstrap what, at best, is a maybe conflict into an absolute conflict where one absolutely precludes the other.

The problem is that you are bootstrapping the potential conflict into an absolute conflict --- like a good progressive would and a true 'living law' follower would.

Im not saying 'one ignores conflict' -- I am saying one performs the functions (both of them) that are mandated.

And yes, you are saying that those words dont mean what they expressly are stated as.

You are conflating 'count the people, count the citizens' to 'count the people, count the citizens, but only count the citizens in a manner that precludes a supposed and potential conflict, that conflict that doesnt seem to exist between two ministerial acts until I inject a whole crapload of sociological background into it'.

The first one can be summarized in 6 words. That is, textualism.

Your want/need is a litany that is about 6-7 times the bounds of the first, and wishes to add a hole smorgasborg of concepts and subactions that dont just run against the text itself, but against a good amount of historical record from 1865 surrounding the 14th. That is, living a 'law du jour' (i.e. the progressive panacea to any situation).

Perhaps one day you might realize the difference between the two.

But the conflict does exist - the whole reason the SC pushed the decision back down is because evidence came to light that the Trump admin specifically made the decision to add the citizenship question in order to affect the first sentence - counting the number of people in the country.

You’re being intentionally ignorant in an astounding way by suggesting there is no conflict present.

And if you’re arguing for absolute textualism, how do you square the regulation of any arms? Or any free speech? Or do you disagree with rulings the court has made upholding both types of laws?

The government does not have to accommodate illegal behavior, and if the conflict between one government activity and the next is as a consequence of illegal behavior, said conflict is not the government's responsibility to resolve. Responsibility for the conflict lies with the person whose actions create the conflict, and legally the conflict does not impair the government in its legitimate business. The legal term for this principle escapes me at present.

The IRS can ask persons to report their total income, and if a person does not wish to report their total income because some of it is illegal, the IRS does not have to drop its inquiry out of respect for the person's fear of consequences. This does mean that the IRS may indirectly encourage some people to avoid taxes by one scheme or another, but the IRS is not the party to blame for that.

Quote:President Trump’s allies have invested a great deal in an ongoing examination of the origins of the Russia investigation that is currently being conducted by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz. The idea is that this internal examination will finally reveal that law enforcement acted corruptly by undertaking surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser as part of its investigation into a foreign attack on our political system.

But this whole narrative may have taken a new hit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...45bda4a6ac

Quote:Three attorneys from the Inspector General’s office of the U.S. Department of Justice met in person in early June with dossier author Christopher Steele in Britain, said two sources with direct knowledge of the lawyers’ travels.

The interview with Steele, a former top spy on Russia for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, took place while Trump was in London for a formal state visit with Queen Elizabeth and a meeting with UK Prime Minister Theresa May.

One of the two sources said Horowitz’s investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation. Its completion date is now unclear.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t...SKCN1U410I

Quote:The extensive, two-day interview … delved into Steele’s extensive work on Russian interference efforts globally, his intelligence-collection methods and his findings about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who the FBI ultimately surveilled. …

The interview was contentious at first, the sources added, but investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising. The takeaway has irked some U.S. officials interviewed as part of the probe — they argue that it shouldn’t have taken a foreign national to convince the inspector general that the FBI acted properly in 2016.

… The extensive interview with Steele, and the investigators’ sense that he offered new and important information, may dampen expectations among the president’s allies who’ve claimed that Steele’s sensational dossier was used improperly by the bureau to “spy” on the campaign.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/0...oj-1403318

(07-09-2019 05:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do we handle the potential conflict that requesting citizenship might adversely affect the collection of information on total persons in each state? Because Section 2 covers two issues - apportioning delegates and, if voting rights are abridged, accounting for that in apportioning.

There isnt an issue. One is Constitutional in nature, states 'shall' do such an enforcement -- and that enforcement requires counting.

Being the 'the law is in the words' type moron that I am, whether there is some moral issue in counting is immaterial.

I think your posit of 'potential tension that might adversely affect' underscores the very real differences between the 'lets make up what it ought to mean and do on the fly' school on one hand and the textualism school of Constitutional
interpretation, or for that matter, statutory legal interpretation, does it not?

First sentence requires a count of people. Last portion requires a count of citizens. Full stop.

Posit all you want about the 'potential tension' and things that '*might* adversely affect', neither changes either requirement in the slightest. Wouldnt be the first time a 'living Constitutionalist' argues that the actual words mean *not* their actual words, nor will I surmise it will be the last. Thank you for the wonderful example.

I'm not arguing that these words don't mean what they mean...

My question was what do you if there is a conflict in trying to accommodate both sentences? As you are arguing, the Constitution states we must ask people whether they are citizens. What if that question directly creates a situation where we're unable to accommodate the first sentence? Why is accomplishing the second sentence more important than accomplishing the first?

I'm guessing you say we ignore the conflict because the Constitution doesn't direct us on how to address the conflict?

So asking people if they are citizens absolutely precludes the question of whether you are a person within the USA...... got it.

Funny, you are trying to bootstrap what, at best, is a maybe conflict into an absolute conflict where one absolutely precludes the other.

The problem is that you are bootstrapping the potential conflict into an absolute conflict --- like a good progressive would and a true 'living law' follower would.

Im not saying 'one ignores conflict' -- I am saying one performs the functions (both of them) that are mandated.

And yes, you are saying that those words dont mean what they expressly are stated as.

You are conflating 'count the people, count the citizens' to 'count the people, count the citizens, but only count the citizens in a manner that precludes a supposed and potential conflict, that conflict that doesnt seem to exist between two ministerial acts until I inject a whole crapload of sociological background into it'.

The first one can be summarized in 6 words. That is, textualism.

Your want/need is a litany that is about 6-7 times the bounds of the first, and wishes to add a hole smorgasborg of concepts and subactions that dont just run against the text itself, but against a good amount of historical record from 1865 surrounding the 14th. That is, living a 'law du jour' (i.e. the progressive panacea to any situation).

Perhaps one day you might realize the difference between the two.

But the conflict does exist - the whole reason the SC pushed the decision back down is because evidence came to light that the Trump admin specifically made the decision to add the citizenship question in order to affect the first sentence - counting the number of people in the country.

You’re being intentionally ignorant in an astounding way by suggesting there is no conflict present.

And if you’re arguing for absolute textualism, how do you square the regulation of any arms? Or any free speech? Or do you disagree with rulings the court has made upholding both types of laws?

First, I am not aware of any decision in creation that addresses the verbiage in the last part of 14:2.

Second, perhaps you will denote for us where in the decision that "SC pushed [it] back down [] because evidence came to light that the Trump admin specifically made the decision to add the citizenship question in order to affect the first sentence". Did you even read the fking case? From that characterization it seems you did not.

Third, the Court *did* rule the following:
The section of the Roberts opinion regarding the power to ask the question, the
section being unanimously agreed to, concluded:

Quote:[the enumeration clause] “permits Congress, and by extension the Secretary, to inquire about citizenship on the census questionnaire.”

Note the imperative word there: PERMITS. Period.

So constitutionally, the question is zero fing impediment, notwithstanding your cha cha cha. That means, zero conflict with a provision that might *require* that question.

I am really gd sorry that your world that is so full of such 'trials and tribulations and potentials and lions and tigers oh my'. Had the Court agreed with your thrashings, I doubt they would have used such a gd stark analysis of "[the enumeration clause] *permits* [the question] on the census questionnaire". I see very little footnote material that you seem to bluster on about here.

Quote:You’re being intentionally ignorant in an astounding way by suggesting there is no conflict present.

At least I dont pull **** out of my ass the way that you seemingly have in the last day or two. Example: see above. And again, the pithy (and unanimous) finding that the question is permitted, with zero caveats in that finding, kind of utterly destroys your thesis of such a monumental Constitutional conflict.

That is, until you invent a brand new and hereto unpublished finding by the Court. Which is what you do here.

Quote:[blather about 'arms']

Read Heller lad. Especially the portions that give a pretty good historical context to the term 'arms'. Come back with a book report for us. A good 65 per cent of the ruling is trying to discern what 'arms' means in the context of the Framers.

(07-09-2019 07:39 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:President Trump’s allies have invested a great deal in an ongoing examination of the origins of the Russia investigation that is currently being conducted by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz. The idea is that this internal examination will finally reveal that law enforcement acted corruptly by undertaking surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser as part of its investigation into a foreign attack on our political system.

But this whole narrative may have taken a new hit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...45bda4a6ac

Quote:Three attorneys from the Inspector General’s office of the U.S. Department of Justice met in person in early June with dossier author Christopher Steele in Britain, said two sources with direct knowledge of the lawyers’ travels.

The interview with Steele, a former top spy on Russia for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, took place while Trump was in London for a formal state visit with Queen Elizabeth and a meeting with UK Prime Minister Theresa May.

One of the two sources said Horowitz’s investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation. Its completion date is now unclear.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t...SKCN1U410I

Quote:The extensive, two-day interview … delved into Steele’s extensive work on Russian interference efforts globally, his intelligence-collection methods and his findings about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who the FBI ultimately surveilled. …

The interview was contentious at first, the sources added, but investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising. The takeaway has irked some U.S. officials interviewed as part of the probe — they argue that it shouldn’t have taken a foreign national to convince the inspector general that the FBI acted properly in 2016.

… The extensive interview with Steele, and the investigators’ sense that he offered new and important information, may dampen expectations among the president’s allies who’ve claimed that Steele’s sensational dossier was used improperly by the bureau to “spy” on the campaign.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/0...oj-1403318

Funny, that kind of goes absolutely against the gist of this:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/49222/ins...=position3

which speculates that a someone in the crosshairs of the IG investigation has flipped, and what has led to an extensive re-review and re-interview of more than one or two witnesses.

But, I give both your whack a mole comment and my tidbit pretty much exactly the same weight -- for related reasons.

Cant wait to see your next whack a mole post.

(07-09-2019 05:34 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:51 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 04:35 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 01:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-09-2019 11:09 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  How do we handle the potential conflict that requesting citizenship might adversely affect the collection of information on total persons in each state? Because Section 2 covers two issues - apportioning delegates and, if voting rights are abridged, accounting for that in apportioning.

There isnt an issue. One is Constitutional in nature, states 'shall' do such an enforcement -- and that enforcement requires counting.

Being the 'the law is in the words' type moron that I am, whether there is some moral issue in counting is immaterial.

I think your posit of 'potential tension that might adversely affect' underscores the very real differences between the 'lets make up what it ought to mean and do on the fly' school on one hand and the textualism school of Constitutional
interpretation, or for that matter, statutory legal interpretation, does it not?

First sentence requires a count of people. Last portion requires a count of citizens. Full stop.

Posit all you want about the 'potential tension' and things that '*might* adversely affect', neither changes either requirement in the slightest. Wouldnt be the first time a 'living Constitutionalist' argues that the actual words mean *not* their actual words, nor will I surmise it will be the last. Thank you for the wonderful example.

I'm not arguing that these words don't mean what they mean...

My question was what do you if there is a conflict in trying to accommodate both sentences? As you are arguing, the Constitution states we must ask people whether they are citizens. What if that question directly creates a situation where we're unable to accommodate the first sentence? Why is accomplishing the second sentence more important than accomplishing the first?

I'm guessing you say we ignore the conflict because the Constitution doesn't direct us on how to address the conflict?

So asking people if they are citizens absolutely precludes the question of whether you are a person within the USA...... got it.

Funny, you are trying to bootstrap what, at best, is a maybe conflict into an absolute conflict where one absolutely precludes the other.

The problem is that you are bootstrapping the potential conflict into an absolute conflict --- like a good progressive would and a true 'living law' follower would.

Im not saying 'one ignores conflict' -- I am saying one performs the functions (both of them) that are mandated.

And yes, you are saying that those words dont mean what they expressly are stated as.

You are conflating 'count the people, count the citizens' to 'count the people, count the citizens, but only count the citizens in a manner that precludes a supposed and potential conflict, that conflict that doesnt seem to exist between two ministerial acts until I inject a whole crapload of sociological background into it'.

The first one can be summarized in 6 words. That is, textualism.

Your want/need is a litany that is about 6-7 times the bounds of the first, and wishes to add a hole smorgasborg of concepts and subactions that dont just run against the text itself, but against a good amount of historical record from 1865 surrounding the 14th. That is, living a 'law du jour' (i.e. the progressive panacea to any situation).

Perhaps one day you might realize the difference between the two.

But the conflict does exist - the whole reason the SC pushed the decision back down is because evidence came to light that the Trump admin specifically made the decision to add the citizenship question in order to affect the first sentence - counting the number of people in the country.

You’re being intentionally ignorant in an astounding way by suggesting there is no conflict present.

And if you’re arguing for absolute textualism, how do you square the regulation of any arms? Or any free speech? Or do you disagree with rulings the court has made upholding both types of laws?

I guess my original statement was correct - it is unAmerican for Americans to know how many Americans are in America. OK to know how many people, just not how many Americans. It appears to me that Democrats will support any policy, argue any issue, if they think it gives them electoral advantage. The Ethical Party.

(07-09-2019 07:39 PM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:President Trump’s allies have invested a great deal in an ongoing examination of the origins of the Russia investigation that is currently being conducted by the Justice Department’s inspector general, Michael Horowitz. The idea is that this internal examination will finally reveal that law enforcement acted corruptly by undertaking surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser as part of its investigation into a foreign attack on our political system.

But this whole narrative may have taken a new hit.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/...45bda4a6ac

Quote:Three attorneys from the Inspector General’s office of the U.S. Department of Justice met in person in early June with dossier author Christopher Steele in Britain, said two sources with direct knowledge of the lawyers’ travels.

The interview with Steele, a former top spy on Russia for Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service, or MI6, took place while Trump was in London for a formal state visit with Queen Elizabeth and a meeting with UK Prime Minister Theresa May.

One of the two sources said Horowitz’s investigators appear to have found Steele’s information sufficiently credible to have to extend the investigation. Its completion date is now unclear.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-t...SKCN1U410I

Quote:The extensive, two-day interview … delved into Steele’s extensive work on Russian interference efforts globally, his intelligence-collection methods and his findings about Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, who the FBI ultimately surveilled. …

The interview was contentious at first, the sources added, but investigators ultimately found Steele’s testimony credible and even surprising. The takeaway has irked some U.S. officials interviewed as part of the probe — they argue that it shouldn’t have taken a foreign national to convince the inspector general that the FBI acted properly in 2016.

… The extensive interview with Steele, and the investigators’ sense that he offered new and important information, may dampen expectations among the president’s allies who’ve claimed that Steele’s sensational dossier was used improperly by the bureau to “spy” on the campaign.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/0...oj-1403318

I figured if this was true, CNN and MSNBC would be all over it. So I checked in with them. On Maddow, they are talking women's soccer. On CNN, they are getting Rosie O'Donnell's opinion on the border crisis. (Now that is some real news. Wonder what she said.)

So I went to Fox, and guess what? THEY are all over it. Except they say Steele flipped. I guess time will tell whose glee is premature - AtEase's or Hannity's.

Guess I will pout this in the catch-all thread.

Warning signs[

I believe none of the warning signs are checked for in a background check.

Tariffs working?

This ruling on the Administration's blocking of Twitter followers it's interesting:
https://knightcolumbia.org/sites/default...pinion.pdf

A few thoughts:
- I like this opinion a lot. In particular I think it does a good job addressing the threshold question that is the key to the whole case: whether blocking of Twitter followers constitutes a restriction on speech, and a governmental restriction at that. As the court noted, "Whether First Amendment concerns are triggered when a public official uses his account . . . will in most instances be a fact‐specific inquiry." Opinion at 20. It was undoubtedly helpful in this case that "The facts in this case are not in dispute as the case was resolved below on stipulated facts." Id. a 4 n.1. That makes for a really clean opinion.

When I first heard about the decision, I was curious as to how the court had addressed the threshold inquiry. Having read the opinion, I think they did it well -- succinctly but persuasively.

- Once the threshold question was answered, the end result was, as the opinion notes, fairly straightforward: "Once it is established that the President is a government actor with respect to his use of the Account, viewpoint discrimination violates the First Amendment." Id. at 21.

- Since the decision was announced, I've seen a number of folks lauding it because it limits something Trump did. Of course, it will equally limit a future president (e.g. a Democrat) from blocking followers based on viewpoints that the president finds objectionable, and it's easy to imagine how distasteful and "block worthy" such viewpoints might seen. Sadly but perhaps predictably, this seemingly obvious observation was unwelcome (to put it mildly) in some quarters. But as the court concluded, "In resolving this appeal, we remind the litigants and the public that if the First Amendment means anything, it means that the best response to disfavored speech on matters of public concern is more speech, not less." Id. at 29 (emphasis added).

- In case anyone's curious, the judge who wrote the opinion was appointed to the Second Circuit by GW Bush, as was one of the other judges on the panel. The third was an Obama appointee. It turns out that every Circuit Judge has a Wikipedia article, and according to those, each of these three judges breezed through confirmation to the Second Circuit: one 88-0, one 100-0, and one by uncounted voice vote, Those were the days!

(07-10-2019 12:26 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Guess I will pout this in the catch-all thread.

Warning signs[

I believe none of the warning signs are checked for in a background check.

Assording to the report*, the "themes observed" among attackers include:
- "mental health symptoms"
- "threatening or concerning communications"
- "elicited concern from others"

Heck, we've seen those signs right here in The Parliament!

*See National Threat Assessment Center, Mass Attacks in Public Spaces - 2018, U.S. Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security (July 2019) at 2, https://www.secretservice.gov/data/press...9_MAPS.pdf

How many of you have msn as your homepage?

(07-10-2019 12:02 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  How many of you have msn as your homepage?

My default browser page is Google. Is there a reason why one would want it to be MSN?

(07-10-2019 12:09 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 12:02 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  How many of you have msn as your homepage?

My default browser page is Google. Is there a reason why one would want it to be MSN?

Nah, I just see msn links posted a lot on this forum and the only reason I can think to be on that website is if one hasn't moved on since it was the internet explorer default in like 1998.

(07-10-2019 09:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Tariffs working?

Definitely working for European retailers!

(07-10-2019 12:52 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(07-10-2019 09:56 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Tariffs working?

Definitely working for European retailers!

No doubt! Here at home, the steel tariffs are theoretically helpful to people in the US who make steel, and are proving painful to the people who use steel. Guess which group is larger...