(December 21, 2020 at 1:53 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: And that's why I said what I said. Better responses when you read the post you quote.

The quote "The Constitution isn't a suicide pact," has typically referenced cases where presidents ignored the law and forged ahead with something that was not constitutionally supported, such as Jefferson's purchase of the Louisiana territory and Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.

"typically"? Really?

Now Trumps says Martial Law = Fake News, but several WH insiders have reported that it was discussed and debated.

Yep, discussing it on CNN right now. The Secret Service will have to throw a net over him soon.

(December 21, 2020 at 5:17 pm)Spongebob Wrote:

(December 21, 2020 at 1:53 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: And that's why I said what I said. Better responses when you read the post you quote.

The quote "The Constitution isn't a suicide pact," has typically referenced cases where presidents ignored the law and forged ahead with something that was not constitutionally supported, such as Jefferson's purchase of the Louisiana territory and Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.

I hate it when people bring up Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus in the case of Trump.

Lincoln's suspension was not because he got election results he didn't like. Suspending Habeas Corpus was constitutionally basically a last resort in the case of war in terms of sedition or foreign bodies attacking us.

Trump would suspend Habeas Corpus, not because of sedition or a foreign country attacked us, but because he lost.

---

(December 21, 2020 at 1:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 21, 2020 at 12:54 pm)Brian37 Wrote: We can call Trump's words "just words" all we want, but people are listening to him and acting on what he says.

Just now on Twitter a Representative basically said that if Biden gets inaugurated it will be the end of our democracy. Trump's words unfortunately matter, and his supporters are repeating his nonsense, and selling that conspiracy long term is what can destroy our democracy.

It isn't just Flynn, but many others in his circle, and tons of GOP politicians across the country. 126 House members signed onto a frivolous lawsuit too. It is a collective climate that makes Trump dangerous.

So much for your First Amendment, then.

Boru

It isn't a matter of silencing free speech. Nobody is advocating that. 

Incitement is not protected speech, and it should not be coddled when coming from seats of political power.

If free speech were always absolute then those fighting to keep slavery were right. If free speech were always absolute then it would be legal to sell alcohol to those under 18.

You also cannot shout "FIRE" in a theatre. It is worse when Politicians do that. 

Trump and his sycophants are not protecting free speech, they are inciting for no good reason other than the fact he lost.

(December 21, 2020 at 7:29 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(December 21, 2020 at 5:17 pm)Spongebob Wrote: The quote "The Constitution isn't a suicide pact," has typically referenced cases where presidents ignored the law and forged ahead with something that was not constitutionally supported, such as Jefferson's purchase of the Louisiana territory and Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.

I hate it when people bring up Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus in the case of Trump.

Lincoln's suspension was not because he got election results he didn't like. Suspending Habeas Corpus was constitutionally basically a last resort in the case of war in terms of sedition or foreign bodies attacking us.

Trump would suspend Habeas Corpus, not because of sedition or a foreign country attacked us, but because he lost.

---

You misunderstood my comments.  I wasn't comparing Lincoln to Trump in any way whatsoever.  I was referring to the comment, "the constitution is not a suicide pact".  Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus is directly attributed to that logic, sometimes you have to break the constitution to keep from destroying the country.

(December 21, 2020 at 8:10 pm)Spongebob Wrote:

(December 21, 2020 at 7:29 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I hate it when people bring up Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus in the case of Trump.

Lincoln's suspension was not because he got election results he didn't like. Suspending Habeas Corpus was constitutionally basically a last resort in the case of war in terms of sedition or foreign bodies attacking us.

Trump would suspend Habeas Corpus, not because of sedition or a foreign country attacked us, but because he lost.

---

You misunderstood my comments.  I wasn't comparing Lincoln to Trump in any way whatsoever.  I was referring to the comment, "the constitution is not a suicide pact".  Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus is directly attributed to that logic, sometimes you have to break the constitution to keep from destroying the country.

Lets face it, ultimately the Constitution are still words to attempt to create a sense of order.  It isn't perfect, but it was the best attempt I know of to move from the Ides of March to peaceful transfer of power.

You are correct, Lincoln most certainly did have to do what he did to preserve our nation.

The insanity is that Trump and his sycophants stupidly think they are doing the same thing.

(December 21, 2020 at 7:29 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(December 21, 2020 at 5:17 pm)Spongebob Wrote: The quote "The Constitution isn't a suicide pact," has typically referenced cases where presidents ignored the law and forged ahead with something that was not constitutionally supported, such as Jefferson's purchase of the Louisiana territory and Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus.

I hate it when people bring up Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus in the case of Trump.

Lincoln's suspension was not because he got election results he didn't like. Suspending Habeas Corpus was constitutionally basically a last resort in the case of war in terms of sedition or foreign bodies attacking us.

Trump would suspend Habeas Corpus, not because of sedition or a foreign country attacked us, but because he lost.

---

(December 21, 2020 at 1:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: So much for your First Amendment, then.

Boru

It isn't a matter of silencing free speech. Nobody is advocating that. 

Incitement is not protected speech, and it should not be coddled when coming from seats of political power.

If free speech were always absolute then those fighting to keep slavery were right. If free speech were always absolute then it would be legal to sell alcohol to those under 18.

You also cannot shout "FIRE" in a theatre. It is worse when Politicians do that. 

Trump and his sycophants are not protecting free speech, they are inciting for no good reason other than the fact he lost.

Of COURSE it’s about silencing free speech. What Flynn did - and all he did - was to mention the powers afforded to the President since 1807. You immediately labeled that ‘sick seditious shit’.

Quote:‘...if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.’ - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Boru

(December 21, 2020 at 9:24 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(December 21, 2020 at 7:29 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I hate it when people bring up Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus in the case of Trump.

Lincoln's suspension was not because he got election results he didn't like. Suspending Habeas Corpus was constitutionally basically a last resort in the case of war in terms of sedition or foreign bodies attacking us.

Trump would suspend Habeas Corpus, not because of sedition or a foreign country attacked us, but because he lost.

---

It isn't a matter of silencing free speech. Nobody is advocating that. 

Incitement is not protected speech, and it should not be coddled when coming from seats of political power.

If free speech were always absolute then those fighting to keep slavery were right. If free speech were always absolute then it would be legal to sell alcohol to those under 18.

You also cannot shout "FIRE" in a theatre. It is worse when Politicians do that. 

Trump and his sycophants are not protecting free speech, they are inciting for no good reason other than the fact he lost.

Of COURSE it’s about silencing free speech. What Flynn did - and all he did - was to mention the powers afforded to the President since 1807. You immediately labeled that ‘sick seditious shit’.

Quote:‘...if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other, it is the principle of free thought—not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.’ - Oliver Wendell Holmes

Boru

Um no, Flynn wasn't defending dissent, he was defending blind loyalty.

Flynn would have defended the King if he had been alive during the Revolutionary war.

(December 21, 2020 at 9:31 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(December 21, 2020 at 9:24 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Of COURSE it’s about silencing free speech. What Flynn did - and all he did - was to mention the powers afforded to the President since 1807. You immediately labeled that ‘sick seditious shit’.



Boru

Um no, Flynn wasn't defending dissent, he was defending blind loyalty.

Flynn would have defended the King if he had been alive during the Revolutionary war.

Where did I say Flynn was defending dissent? And even if he was defending blind loyalty, it STILL isn’t seditious.

If you’re going to disagree with me, try to make sure you’re disagreeing with something I actually said.

Boru