Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Thread Closed 
Trump Administration
Author Message
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,278
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #13021
RE: Trump Administration
(07-23-2020 12:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 11:38 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Many on the left AND the right have suggested that the feds all pull out and let 'whatever happens' happens... and I would begrudgingly support that... so long as there is no cost to the Federal taxpayer for anything associated with it, including insurance premiums for building/business insurance. Now the question would be, just as it would be for say poor people living in public housing in large cities... what if people who own businesses there under the expectation that they would be protected from looting etc. don't want to leave? Even if they do, who will pay to relocate them?

This is addressed by the newly introduced Ted Cruz bill. It would give private parties the ability to sue a local or state government that abdicates their Constitutional duty to protect the citizens from the lawlessness that seems to be adopted by the leftists these days.

Further, the Federal law would strip them of sovereign immunity in these suits, and would provide a 3x damages.

I think the removal of Feds to 'let the cities burn', along with 3x damages, would stiffen the spine of a lot of the shitbird local politicians on actually managing the protests.

It can always be my interpretation...
but just as I see the filing of a weakly worded lawsuit as evidence that my questions about a reaction are valid, I see this as support for the position that the feds feel a legal responsibility to step in when local government fails to protect. It is not in any way 'proof' that the local government has abdicated their responsibility... but it is an acknowledgement that there are financial issues between states and feds at issue here that are the rationale for A response, and why 'doing nothing' is not really an option.

If someone chooses to see this as a 'weakly worded lawsuit', we can discuss that... but it certainly demonstrates a rationale for action.

Portland filed the lawsuit because they want the feds out. They didn't claim the stories were factually true because they can't demonstrate any facts... They instead ask for declaratory statements that actually expand current definitions.

Cruz proposes this bill because the feds either have a legal obligation to step in or they don't... and if they don't... which is what Portland wants... they want citizens negatively impacted by that decision to have recourse against PORTLAND, but not the Feds.

Both of those actions make logical sense.
07-23-2020 12:43 PM
Find all posts by this user
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #13022
RE: Trump Administration
Here's what the US Constitution (aka "that book you carry") has to say:

Article I, Section 8:
The Congress shall have Power...
Clause 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

Amendment XIV:
Section 1: ... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
07-23-2020 01:34 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,534
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #13023
RE: Trump Administration
(07-23-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh **** off with that

Lad, you can expect a post from Rice93 chastising you for your language.

You can’t plead the usual leftist whine of “Mommy, he did it first”.
(This post was last modified: 07-23-2020 01:54 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
07-23-2020 01:53 PM
Find all posts by this user
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,322
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #13024
RE: Trump Administration
(07-23-2020 01:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh **** off with that

Lad, you can expect a post from Rice93 chastising you for your language.

You can’t plead the usual leftist whine of “Mommy, he did it first”.

I don't think that I tend to chastise people for language. Certainly that is the case for cursing.

In terms of "behavior" I may decide to not engage with the right-wingers here who are acting particularly histrionic or insulting. I don't think I typically call them out on it unless they are chastising me about not allowing myself to be goaded into a back-and-forth. I have also responded when you guys are being hypocritical when it comes to clutching pearls about ad homs and condescension directed your way.

I don't try to be the morality police around here (how would I have decided that I had somehow earned that position?). If that's how it comes across I apologize.

Now back to work.
(This post was last modified: 07-23-2020 02:33 PM by Rice93.)
07-23-2020 02:31 PM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,534
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #13025
RE: Trump Administration
(07-23-2020 02:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 01:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh **** off with that

Lad, you can expect a post from Rice93 chastising you for your language.

You can’t plead the usual leftist whine of “Mommy, he did it first”.

I don't think that I tend to chastise people for language. Certainly that is the case for cursing.

In terms of "behavior" I may decide to not engage with the right-wingers here who are acting particularly histrionic or insulting. I don't think I typically call them out on it unless they are chastising me about not allowing myself to be goaded into a back-and-forth. I have also responded when you guys are being hypocritical when it comes to clutching pearls about ad homs and condescension directed your way.

I don't try to be the morality police around here (how would I have decided that I had somehow earned that position?). If that's how it comes across I apologize.

Now back to work.


I don’t if you and Tanq exchange profanities or insults. Just don’t hike your petticoats and leave in a huff. That’s where it becomes hypocrisy.

I was responding to 93’s indictment of me for not calling out right wing posters. That why I expect he will have something to say to you.
07-23-2020 02:39 PM
Find all posts by this user
Rice93 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,322
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 48
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #13026
RE: Trump Administration
(07-23-2020 02:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 02:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 01:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh **** off with that

Lad, you can expect a post from Rice93 chastising you for your language.

You can’t plead the usual leftist whine of “Mommy, he did it first”.

I don't think that I tend to chastise people for language. Certainly that is the case for cursing.

In terms of "behavior" I may decide to not engage with the right-wingers here who are acting particularly histrionic or insulting. I don't think I typically call them out on it unless they are chastising me about not allowing myself to be goaded into a back-and-forth. I have also responded when you guys are being hypocritical when it comes to clutching pearls about ad homs and condescension directed your way.

I don't try to be the morality police around here (how would I have decided that I had somehow earned that position?). If that's how it comes across I apologize.

Now back to work.


I don’t if you and Tanq exchange profanities or insults. Just don’t hike your petticoats and leave in a huff. That’s where it becomes hypocrisy.

It probably doesn't come across over the internet... but it's less "leaving in a huff" and more "ummm... no thanks to this... better ways to spend my time than with what's going on here". I don't think I'm typically the one engaging in insults with Tanq and I know for a fact that I'm not the one who begins down that path. I almost never use profanity here and I don't think that I've ever "directed" any at Tanq.

Quote:I was responding to 93’s indictment of me for not calling out right wing posters. That why I expect he will have something to say to you.

Huh? I am me... I think.
(This post was last modified: 07-23-2020 02:53 PM by Rice93.)
07-23-2020 02:47 PM
Find all posts by this user
georgewebb Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 9,582
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 110
I Root For: Rice!
Location:

The Parliament AwardsDonators
Post: #13027
RE: Trump Administration
(07-23-2020 02:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 01:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh **** off with that

Lad, you can expect a post from Rice93 chastising you for your language.

You can’t plead the usual leftist whine of “Mommy, he did it first”.

I don't think that I tend to chastise people for language.

I do! Profanity in print is bad form, and much too common. This forum is not bad really, but the way many supposedly erudite, supposedly civilized people write on Facebook is awful.
07-23-2020 03:20 PM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,111
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #13028
RE: Trump Administration
(07-23-2020 02:47 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 02:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 02:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 01:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh **** off with that

Lad, you can expect a post from Rice93 chastising you for your language.

You can’t plead the usual leftist whine of “Mommy, he did it first”.

I don't think that I tend to chastise people for language. Certainly that is the case for cursing.

In terms of "behavior" I may decide to not engage with the right-wingers here who are acting particularly histrionic or insulting. I don't think I typically call them out on it unless they are chastising me about not allowing myself to be goaded into a back-and-forth. I have also responded when you guys are being hypocritical when it comes to clutching pearls about ad homs and condescension directed your way.

I don't try to be the morality police around here (how would I have decided that I had somehow earned that position?). If that's how it comes across I apologize.

Now back to work.


I don’t if you and Tanq exchange profanities or insults. Just don’t hike your petticoats and leave in a huff. That’s where it becomes hypocrisy.

It probably doesn't come across over the internet... but it's less "leaving in a huff" and more "ummm... no thanks to this... better ways to spend my time than with what's going on here". I don't think I'm typically the one engaging in insults with Tanq and I know for a fact that I'm not the one who begins down that path. I almost never use profanity here and I don't think that I've ever "directed" any at Tanq.

Quote:I was responding to 93’s indictment of me for not calling out right wing posters. That why I expect he will have something to say to you.

Huh? I am me... I think.

I would agree that 93 is pretty much profanity free -- if not completely.

I do think that when I call you out for a shallow position or a hypocritical position, you tend to conflate it with an insult and move away from the conversation.

I will also note that I done that on a very direct, perhaps too direct basis on occasion. And I will honestly accept that criticism.

And, for the vast most part, when I do tell someone to 'go jump in a lake' (albeit more forcefully), one might be surprised what very stark ad homs precede that emanating from the person I am speaking with. Those direct 'jump in a lakes' are in a 'counter puncher' style, so to speak.

If you note, I dont think I have been as blunt as that with you, for example. I really think there is only one person that I have engaged in that manner.

And, to that poster's good credit, after I stated the reason for my somewhat blunt statement at him, that poster did offer up an apology for some past actions. Which, I now note that I did not even accept, nor note. And I should have at that time, and I guess I will do now.
(This post was last modified: 07-24-2020 06:00 AM by tanqtonic.)
07-23-2020 04:24 PM
Find all posts by this user
westsidewolf1989 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 6,220
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation: 74
I Root For: Rice
Location:
Post: #13029
RE: Trump Administration
When are the troops going to come to the Chinese Consulate in Houston to deport all the employees there, who recently burned documents on the premises? Really need to take a close look at the prioritization of federal troop deployments, as the CCP’s actions through the Houston consulate are of much more dire consequences than anarchists who are rightful citizens of this country.
(This post was last modified: 07-23-2020 11:30 PM by westsidewolf1989.)
07-23-2020 11:25 PM
Find all posts by this user
Owl 69/70/75 Offline
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 80,643
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 3192
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #13030
RE: Trump Administration
(07-23-2020 11:25 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  When are the troops going to come to the Chinese Consulate in Houston to deport all the employees there, who recently burned documents on the premises? Really need to take a close look at the prioritization of federal troop deployments, as the CCP’s actions through the Houston consulate are of much more dire consequences than anarchists who are rightful citizens of this country.

They're not troops.

I do agree that the primary focus needs to be China. Like it or not, we are in Cold War II, and the enemy this time is China. It's time to quit screaming, "Russia, Russia, Russia," and focus on the real enemy, which is China.

As far as Portland, Seattle, et al, my thought is pull out and let them kill each other and loot and plunder, until they either 1) get tired of dying, or 2) have totally destroyed their cities. Serves those mayors and governors right for mollycoddling these ruffians.
07-24-2020 06:02 AM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,111
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #13031
RE: Trump Administration
(07-23-2020 12:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Cruz proposes this bill because the feds either have a legal obligation to step in or they don't... and if they don't... which is what Portland wants... they want citizens negatively impacted by that decision to have recourse against PORTLAND, but not the Feds.

Both of those actions make logical sense.

Nitpick : I wouldnt say an 'obligation'...... An obligation is something one has to do without question.

And I cannot tell you if you mean a legal obligation to 'surge', or a legal obligation as to damages.

The answer is 'no' to either sense.

The issue is whether or not to enforce one or more particular Federal laws (in this case specific assaultive laws on federal property and personnel) --- and a government can absolutely choose to engage in prosecutorial discretion at any of the investigate, arrest, or charging stages.

The corollary question that has to be asked is such failure good policy? I would say not. In this case the issue is mass civil unrest -- government, at all levels, should provide protection to its residents in an unbiased and non-discriminative manner to such types of violence. In our system, there is a legal basis for the federal government to intervene based on the section of the Constitution dealing with 'insurrection' noted above; but that basis is and should be a backstop. As #s noted with the Wuhan virus, the primary response to local issues and violence are the local and state governments.

In the case of Portland, the local sovereigns are *not* providing equal and non-discriminatory protection to residents. The rub is that the one literally receiving zero protection is the Federal presence -- ostensibly because of Orange Man Bad Syndrome.

The Cruz bill correctly notes that every level of government has a very legal obligation to protect its residents --- it is very obvious that for 4 full days Minneapolis and Minnesota failed in that obligation. In Portland, the people who are residents of the areas directly around the courthouse are being 'failed', as has been the Police union whose building was torched. In Seattle, you had a four week lapse of that in a 16 square block area (the autonomy formerly known as CHAZ).

The Cruz bill places the governments who fail to meet the Constitutional obligation of protection firmly in the crosshairs financially for their refusal to execute and provide that Constitutional duty. And the 3x damages 'drafts' the legion of plaintiff attorneys and absolutely incentivizes such private actions.

And no, it's not improper, nor is it ‘fascism’, to protect federal property from riots and revolutionaries.

And in a lighter hearted observation on lad's emotional invocation of 'sovereignty' (and the left's invocation over the last couple of days of 'states' rights' (again, thank you lad, you seem to be a great primary conduit of talking points into this site with a T-20 hours of the mainstream). It seems like just yesterday the left was blasting Confederate “traitors” (actually less than three weeks for lad using that exact language, mind you), but now they (the generic left) and he (lad in particular) are talking “states’ rights” with the enthusiasm of any generic Dixie US Senator from the 1920's.
(This post was last modified: 07-24-2020 06:40 AM by tanqtonic.)
07-24-2020 06:26 AM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,534
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #13032
RE: Trump Administration
(07-23-2020 11:25 PM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  When are the troops going to come to the Chinese Consulate in Houston to deport all the employees there, who recently burned documents on the premises? Really need to take a close look at the prioritization of federal troop deployments, as the CCP’s actions through the Houston consulate are of much more dire consequences than anarchists who are rightful citizens of this country.

As opposed to the illegal aliens who are NOT rightful citizens or residents of this country?
07-24-2020 08:29 AM
Find all posts by this user
Hambone10 Offline
Hooter
*

Posts: 40,278
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 1284
I Root For: My Kids
Location: Right Down th Middle

New Orleans BowlDonatorsThe Parliament Awards
Post: #13033
RE: Trump Administration
Tanq

George presented portions of the Constitution that imply to me an obligation beyond protecting federal installations, but to protect local citizens who are being denied equal protection... you seem to at least somewhat agree if I am reading you correctly. The way I read it which of course is not as an attorney, they have an obligation to protect the rights of those citizens.... using existing laws or passing new laws to do so. So it's not that they have an obligation to surge or pay... those decisions lie within the laws beneath this obligation.... its that they have a legal obligation to protect.... and surging or paying or witholding federal funds as in the 'sanctuary city' issue (as well as many other options) are among the tools at their disposal.
(This post was last modified: 07-24-2020 08:33 AM by Hambone10.)
07-24-2020 08:31 AM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,534
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #13034
RE: Trump Administration
(07-23-2020 02:47 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 02:39 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 02:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 01:53 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 09:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Oh **** off with that

Lad, you can expect a post from Rice93 chastising you for your language.

You can’t plead the usual leftist whine of “Mommy, he did it first”.

I don't think that I tend to chastise people for language. Certainly that is the case for cursing.

In terms of "behavior" I may decide to not engage with the right-wingers here who are acting particularly histrionic or insulting. I don't think I typically call them out on it unless they are chastising me about not allowing myself to be goaded into a back-and-forth. I have also responded when you guys are being hypocritical when it comes to clutching pearls about ad homs and condescension directed your way.

I don't try to be the morality police around here (how would I have decided that I had somehow earned that position?). If that's how it comes across I apologize.

Now back to work.


I don’t if you and Tanq exchange profanities or insults. Just don’t hike your petticoats and leave in a huff. That’s where it becomes hypocrisy.

It probably doesn't come across over the internet... but it's less "leaving in a huff" and more "ummm... no thanks to this... better ways to spend my time than with what's going on here". I don't think I'm typically the one engaging in insults with Tanq and I know for a fact that I'm not the one who begins down that path. I almost never use profanity here and I don't think that I've ever "directed" any at Tanq.

Quote:I was responding to 93’s indictment of me for not calling out right wing posters. That why I expect he will have something to say to you.

Huh? I am me... I think.

Sorry, I was confused. It happens in old age, I hear. See Biden, Joe.

But why do you ccme after me for not jumping on Tanq for his language, then ignore a fellow lefty who does the same. I would think nothing of it if you hadn't brought it up.
07-24-2020 08:39 AM
Find all posts by this user
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,640
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 108
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #13035
RE: Trump Administration
(07-24-2020 06:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 12:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Cruz proposes this bill because the feds either have a legal obligation to step in or they don't... and if they don't... which is what Portland wants... they want citizens negatively impacted by that decision to have recourse against PORTLAND, but not the Feds.

Both of those actions make logical sense.

Nitpick : I wouldnt say an 'obligation'...... An obligation is something one has to do without question.

And I cannot tell you if you mean a legal obligation to 'surge', or a legal obligation as to damages.

The answer is 'no' to either sense.

The issue is whether or not to enforce one or more particular Federal laws (in this case specific assaultive laws on federal property and personnel) --- and a government can absolutely choose to engage in prosecutorial discretion at any of the investigate, arrest, or charging stages.

The corollary question that has to be asked is such failure good policy? I would say not. In this case the issue is mass civil unrest -- government, at all levels, should provide protection to its residents in an unbiased and non-discriminative manner to such types of violence. In our system, there is a legal basis for the federal government to intervene based on the section of the Constitution dealing with 'insurrection' noted above; but that basis is and should be a backstop. As #s noted with the Wuhan virus, the primary response to local issues and violence are the local and state governments.

In the case of Portland, the local sovereigns are *not* providing equal and non-discriminatory protection to residents. The rub is that the one literally receiving zero protection is the Federal presence -- ostensibly because of Orange Man Bad Syndrome.

The Cruz bill correctly notes that every level of government has a very legal obligation to protect its residents --- it is very obvious that for 4 full days Minneapolis and Minnesota failed in that obligation. In Portland, the people who are residents of the areas directly around the courthouse are being 'failed', as has been the Police union whose building was torched. In Seattle, you had a four week lapse of that in a 16 square block area (the autonomy formerly known as CHAZ).

The Cruz bill places the governments who fail to meet the Constitutional obligation of protection firmly in the crosshairs financially for their refusal to execute and provide that Constitutional duty. And the 3x damages 'drafts' the legion of plaintiff attorneys and absolutely incentivizes such private actions.

And no, it's not improper, nor is it ‘fascism’, to protect federal property from riots and revolutionaries.

And in a lighter hearted observation on lad's emotional invocation of 'sovereignty' (and the left's invocation over the last couple of days of 'states' rights' (again, thank you lad, you seem to be a great primary conduit of talking points into this site with a T-20 hours of the mainstream). It seems like just yesterday the left was blasting Confederate “traitors” (actually less than three weeks for lad using that exact language, mind you), but now they (the generic left) and he (lad in particular) are talking “states’ rights” with the enthusiasm of any generic Dixie US Senator from the 1920's.

Or libertarian from January 2009 to January 2017.
07-24-2020 08:57 AM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,534
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #13036
RE: Trump Administration
(07-24-2020 08:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(07-24-2020 06:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 12:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Cruz proposes this bill because the feds either have a legal obligation to step in or they don't... and if they don't... which is what Portland wants... they want citizens negatively impacted by that decision to have recourse against PORTLAND, but not the Feds.

Both of those actions make logical sense.

Nitpick : I wouldnt say an 'obligation'...... An obligation is something one has to do without question.

And I cannot tell you if you mean a legal obligation to 'surge', or a legal obligation as to damages.

The answer is 'no' to either sense.

The issue is whether or not to enforce one or more particular Federal laws (in this case specific assaultive laws on federal property and personnel) --- and a government can absolutely choose to engage in prosecutorial discretion at any of the investigate, arrest, or charging stages.

The corollary question that has to be asked is such failure good policy? I would say not. In this case the issue is mass civil unrest -- government, at all levels, should provide protection to its residents in an unbiased and non-discriminative manner to such types of violence. In our system, there is a legal basis for the federal government to intervene based on the section of the Constitution dealing with 'insurrection' noted above; but that basis is and should be a backstop. As #s noted with the Wuhan virus, the primary response to local issues and violence are the local and state governments.

In the case of Portland, the local sovereigns are *not* providing equal and non-discriminatory protection to residents. The rub is that the one literally receiving zero protection is the Federal presence -- ostensibly because of Orange Man Bad Syndrome.

The Cruz bill correctly notes that every level of government has a very legal obligation to protect its residents --- it is very obvious that for 4 full days Minneapolis and Minnesota failed in that obligation. In Portland, the people who are residents of the areas directly around the courthouse are being 'failed', as has been the Police union whose building was torched. In Seattle, you had a four week lapse of that in a 16 square block area (the autonomy formerly known as CHAZ).

The Cruz bill places the governments who fail to meet the Constitutional obligation of protection firmly in the crosshairs financially for their refusal to execute and provide that Constitutional duty. And the 3x damages 'drafts' the legion of plaintiff attorneys and absolutely incentivizes such private actions.

And no, it's not improper, nor is it ‘fascism’, to protect federal property from riots and revolutionaries.

And in a lighter hearted observation on lad's emotional invocation of 'sovereignty' (and the left's invocation over the last couple of days of 'states' rights' (again, thank you lad, you seem to be a great primary conduit of talking points into this site with a T-20 hours of the mainstream). It seems like just yesterday the left was blasting Confederate “traitors” (actually less than three weeks for lad using that exact language, mind you), but now they (the generic left) and he (lad in particular) are talking “states’ rights” with the enthusiasm of any generic Dixie US Senator from the 1920's.

Or libertarian from January 2009 to January 2017.

Or any southerner from 1830-1860.
07-24-2020 09:03 AM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,111
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #13037
RE: Trump Administration
(07-24-2020 09:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(07-24-2020 08:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(07-24-2020 06:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 12:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Cruz proposes this bill because the feds either have a legal obligation to step in or they don't... and if they don't... which is what Portland wants... they want citizens negatively impacted by that decision to have recourse against PORTLAND, but not the Feds.

Both of those actions make logical sense.

Nitpick : I wouldnt say an 'obligation'...... An obligation is something one has to do without question.

And I cannot tell you if you mean a legal obligation to 'surge', or a legal obligation as to damages.

The answer is 'no' to either sense.

The issue is whether or not to enforce one or more particular Federal laws (in this case specific assaultive laws on federal property and personnel) --- and a government can absolutely choose to engage in prosecutorial discretion at any of the investigate, arrest, or charging stages.

The corollary question that has to be asked is such failure good policy? I would say not. In this case the issue is mass civil unrest -- government, at all levels, should provide protection to its residents in an unbiased and non-discriminative manner to such types of violence. In our system, there is a legal basis for the federal government to intervene based on the section of the Constitution dealing with 'insurrection' noted above; but that basis is and should be a backstop. As #s noted with the Wuhan virus, the primary response to local issues and violence are the local and state governments.

In the case of Portland, the local sovereigns are *not* providing equal and non-discriminatory protection to residents. The rub is that the one literally receiving zero protection is the Federal presence -- ostensibly because of Orange Man Bad Syndrome.

The Cruz bill correctly notes that every level of government has a very legal obligation to protect its residents --- it is very obvious that for 4 full days Minneapolis and Minnesota failed in that obligation. In Portland, the people who are residents of the areas directly around the courthouse are being 'failed', as has been the Police union whose building was torched. In Seattle, you had a four week lapse of that in a 16 square block area (the autonomy formerly known as CHAZ).

The Cruz bill places the governments who fail to meet the Constitutional obligation of protection firmly in the crosshairs financially for their refusal to execute and provide that Constitutional duty. And the 3x damages 'drafts' the legion of plaintiff attorneys and absolutely incentivizes such private actions.

And no, it's not improper, nor is it ‘fascism’, to protect federal property from riots and revolutionaries.

And in a lighter hearted observation on lad's emotional invocation of 'sovereignty' (and the left's invocation over the last couple of days of 'states' rights' (again, thank you lad, you seem to be a great primary conduit of talking points into this site with a T-20 hours of the mainstream). It seems like just yesterday the left was blasting Confederate “traitors” (actually less than three weeks for lad using that exact language, mind you), but now they (the generic left) and he (lad in particular) are talking “states’ rights” with the enthusiasm of any generic Dixie US Senator from the 1920's.

Or libertarian from January 2009 to January 2017.

Or any southerner from 1830-1860.

Or any 'Anti Federalist' from 1789 - 1855.

Or any 10th amendment follower from 1789 - present.
07-24-2020 09:06 AM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,111
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #13038
RE: Trump Administration
I wonder why lad thinks libertarians have only been aware of this from 2009 and ended in 2017?

The funny thing is that *he* is the one calling the concept as one of a 'traitor' ad nauseum. Now he praises the Josannas of 'state sovereignty' as the catch all issue. Kind of darkly funny. But I noticed that instead of addressing his mindless notation of that talking point -- he has bolted away from any further discussion of it.
07-24-2020 09:11 AM
Find all posts by this user
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 58,534
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 854
I Root For: Rice
Location: DFW Metroplex

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #13039
RE: Trump Administration
(07-24-2020 09:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-24-2020 09:03 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(07-24-2020 08:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(07-24-2020 06:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(07-23-2020 12:43 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Cruz proposes this bill because the feds either have a legal obligation to step in or they don't... and if they don't... which is what Portland wants... they want citizens negatively impacted by that decision to have recourse against PORTLAND, but not the Feds.

Both of those actions make logical sense.

Nitpick : I wouldnt say an 'obligation'...... An obligation is something one has to do without question.

And I cannot tell you if you mean a legal obligation to 'surge', or a legal obligation as to damages.

The answer is 'no' to either sense.

The issue is whether or not to enforce one or more particular Federal laws (in this case specific assaultive laws on federal property and personnel) --- and a government can absolutely choose to engage in prosecutorial discretion at any of the investigate, arrest, or charging stages.

The corollary question that has to be asked is such failure good policy? I would say not. In this case the issue is mass civil unrest -- government, at all levels, should provide protection to its residents in an unbiased and non-discriminative manner to such types of violence. In our system, there is a legal basis for the federal government to intervene based on the section of the Constitution dealing with 'insurrection' noted above; but that basis is and should be a backstop. As #s noted with the Wuhan virus, the primary response to local issues and violence are the local and state governments.

In the case of Portland, the local sovereigns are *not* providing equal and non-discriminatory protection to residents. The rub is that the one literally receiving zero protection is the Federal presence -- ostensibly because of Orange Man Bad Syndrome.

The Cruz bill correctly notes that every level of government has a very legal obligation to protect its residents --- it is very obvious that for 4 full days Minneapolis and Minnesota failed in that obligation. In Portland, the people who are residents of the areas directly around the courthouse are being 'failed', as has been the Police union whose building was torched. In Seattle, you had a four week lapse of that in a 16 square block area (the autonomy formerly known as CHAZ).

The Cruz bill places the governments who fail to meet the Constitutional obligation of protection firmly in the crosshairs financially for their refusal to execute and provide that Constitutional duty. And the 3x damages 'drafts' the legion of plaintiff attorneys and absolutely incentivizes such private actions.

And no, it's not improper, nor is it ‘fascism’, to protect federal property from riots and revolutionaries.

And in a lighter hearted observation on lad's emotional invocation of 'sovereignty' (and the left's invocation over the last couple of days of 'states' rights' (again, thank you lad, you seem to be a great primary conduit of talking points into this site with a T-20 hours of the mainstream). It seems like just yesterday the left was blasting Confederate “traitors” (actually less than three weeks for lad using that exact language, mind you), but now they (the generic left) and he (lad in particular) are talking “states’ rights” with the enthusiasm of any generic Dixie US Senator from the 1920's.

Or libertarian from January 2009 to January 2017.

Or any southerner from 1830-1860.

Or any 'Anti Federalist' from 1789 - 1855.

Or any 10th amendment follower from 1789 - present.

what is the old saying? Something like those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it? I think the current "Progressives" illustrate that nicely as they try to recreate the soviet Union.
07-24-2020 09:12 AM
Find all posts by this user
tanqtonic Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 19,111
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 775
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #13040
RE: Trump Administration
(07-24-2020 08:31 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Tanq

George presented portions of the Constitution that imply to me an obligation beyond protecting federal installations, but to protect local citizens who are being denied equal protection... you seem to at least somewhat agree if I am reading you correctly. The way I read it which of course is not as an attorney, they have an obligation to protect the rights of those citizens.... using existing laws or passing new laws to do so. So it's not that they have an obligation to surge or pay... those decisions lie within the laws beneath this obligation.... its that they have a legal obligation to protect.... and surging or paying or witholding federal funds as in the 'sanctuary city' issue (as well as many other options) are among the tools at their disposal.

You are reading me correctly. And if a state fails to provide that protection you correctly note some of the options available.

The Cruz bill goes even further -- a) it empowers private citizens to sue for the damages that the state 'caused' in its failures in the above; an b) it specifically strips states of sovereign immunity from suit and must face those claims that come forward.

In essence the Cruz bill is a the equivalent of the sign in the shop that says 'you break it, you pay for it'.

But there are major political problems with this: a) we all know that a reading of anything legal in the progressive worldview is subject to the 'translation de jour'; and b) you absolutely know that the progressives will never agree that such an obligation exists, and that even if it does, how dare that the defaulting party bear the burden, because, well, Orange Man Bad overrides anything.
07-24-2020 09:45 AM
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.