Hillary's Attack On the Constitution

[Dashinka 24,999]

Ok, this is an opinion piece, but from what I have been seeing and hearing, it does accurately portray Hillary's position regarding SCOTUS and the first two amendments.

Donald Trump is no legal scholar, but at Wednesdays presidential debate he showed a superior grasp of the U.S. Constitution than did Hillary Clinton. Amid the overwrought liberal fainting about Mr. Trumps bluster over accepting the election result (see below), Mrs. Clinton revealed a view of the Supreme Court that is far more threatening to American liberty.

Start with her answer to moderator Chris Wallaces question about the role of the courts. The Supreme Court should represent all of us. Thats how I see the Court, she said. And the kind of people that I would be looking to nominate to the court would be in the great tradition of standing up to the powerful, standing up on our behalf of our rights as Americans.

Where to begin with that one? The Supreme Court doesntor shouldntrepresent anyone. In the U.S. system thats the job of the elected branches. The courts are appointed, not elected, so they can be nonpartisan adjudicators of competing legal claims.

Mrs. Clinton is suggesting that the Court should be a super-legislature that vindicates the will of what she calls the American people, which apparently excludes the powerful. But last we checked, the Constitution protects everyone, even the powerful. The law is supposed to protect individual rights, not an abstraction called the people.

The Democrat went downhill from there, promising to appoint judges who would essentially rewrite the First and Second Amendments. Asked about the 2008 Heller decision that upheld an individual right to bear arms, Mrs. Clinton claimed to support reasonable regulation. She said she criticized Heller because it overturned a District of Columbia law intended merely to protect toddlers from guns and so they wanted people with guns to safely store them.

Toddlers had nothing to do with it. What Mrs. Clinton calls reasonable was an outright ban on handguns. The D.C. law allowed the citys police chief to award some temporary licensesbut not even the police officer plaintiff in the case could persuade the District to let him register a handgun to be kept at his home.

Anyone who did lawfully possess a gun had to keep it unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, ensuring it would be inoperable and perhaps useless for self-defense. As Antonin Scalia wrote for the Heller majority, Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the Districts handgun ban.

If Mrs. Clinton supports such gun restrictions, then she thinks an individuals right to bear arms is meaningless. If the Justices she appoints agree with her, then they can gradually turn Heller into a shell of a right, restriction by restriction, even without overturning the precedent.

Then theres the First Amendment, which Mrs. Clinton wants to rewrite by appointing Justices she said would stand up and say no to Citizens United, a decision that has undermined the election system in our country because of the way it permits dark, unaccountable money to come into our electoral system.

Citizens United is the 2010 Supreme Court decision that found that unions and corporations can spend money on political speechin that specific case for a movie that was critical of Mrs. Clinton. The Democrat seems to take the different view that while atomized individuals might have the right to criticize politicians, heaven forbid if they want to band together to do it as a political interest group.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillarys-new-constitution-1477005997

[smilesammich 10,727]

never ends. yes, hillary is coming to take all the guns. funny i thought obama was going to do that but he just didn't get around to it? why is it so hard for some of you to see how you allow misinformation to soothe your bloated fears? the 2nd amendment is not going to be "gutted" ffs. more likely, the nra will continue to lobby and make things quite easy for themselves to continue profiting off our gun violence. or gun accidents..or suicides.

[Dashinka 24,999]

Considering how much Trump attack we get here in CEHST, I thought it appropriate to add a little Hillary criticism.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Considering how much Trump attack we get here in CEHST, I thought it appropriate to add a little Hillary criticism.

make it legit criticism, though. there's plenty of it to be had.

[millefleur 5,047]

make it legit criticism, though. there's plenty of it to be had.

OK, so let's get into the more clearly debatable areas.

Can someone please explain to me why Hillary thinks a no-fly zone in Syria is a good idea?

I just want to understand if this is as bad of an idea as people or saying or if it's being blow out of proportion. Not here to criticize until I fully understand the reasoning behind it.

[Teddy B 17,252]

OK, so let's get into the more clearly debatable areas.

Can someone please explain to me why Hillary thinks a no-fly zone in Syria is a good idea?

I just want to understand if this is as bad of an idea as people or saying or if it's being blow out of proportion. Not here to criticize until I fully understand the reasoning behind it.

Like most of the conflicts in the ME, it's a lose/lose situation for the US. If the US establishes a no fly zone in Syria, in the long run it will save civilian lives on the ground, but it may actually increase civilian casualties in the beginning because the US would need to take out some Syrian air defense systems which are located in populous areas. It also increases the possibility of causing a military conflict with Russia. It's a double edged sword.

[smilesammich 10,727]

OK, so let's get into the more clearly debatable areas.

Can someone please explain to me why Hillary thinks a no-fly zone in Syria is a good idea?

I just want to understand if this is as bad of an idea as people or saying or if it's being blow out of proportion. Not here to criticize until I fully understand the reasoning behind it.

that's a good start.

as a hippie who wants peace i personally dont agree w/ no fly zone (putting off the inevitable) but i feel her approach is simply more of the same and criticism is blown out of proportion but only when considering the other outcome, which would be trump's non plan (except for saying he'd get er done). i don't personally feel trump has the ability to bring stability, peace, or understanding to any foreign situation we might feel obliged to take part in, because his ego would be the biggest talking head in the room.

[Teddy B 17,252]

that's a good start.

as a hippie who wants peace i personally dont agree w/ no fly zone (putting off the inevitable) but i feel her approach is simply more of the same and criticism is blown out of proportion but only when considering the other outcome, which would be trump's non plan (except for saying he'd get er done). i don't personally feel trump has the ability to bring stability, peace, or understanding to any foreign situation we might feel obliged to take part in, because his ego would be the biggest talking head in the room.

Trump has the ability to set US foreign relations back 60 years in a very short time.

[millefleur 5,047]

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the whole Syria thing in general. I honestly don't see Assad stepping down/vaporizing anytime soon...and let's say, if he did fall/disappear/vanish/etc.....wouldn't it just be like Iraq, Part II? If the US then pulled out, there would be a power vacuum (minus Assad) and then another can of worms would open up?

I just don't get what the goal is because it's pretty darned obvious that Assad/Russia are NEVER going to stop supporting each other. And Russia is willing to throw it's economy into the toilet/sacrifice their own people in order to do what Mr. P wants. Yes, it's that bad here.

So, in that case, maybe Hillary's "no fly zone" sounds sort of like some kind of temporary fix or improvement to the situation, but it won't actually solve anything in the long run. Am I correct in my thought here?

[smilesammich 10,727]

maybe we americans need to stop thinking we can always hop in and 'fix or improve' situations. history shows, we actually accomplish the opposite.

[Teddy B 17,252]

I have a hard time wrapping my head around the whole Syria thing in general. I honestly don't see Assad stepping down/vaporizing anytime soon...and let's say, if he did fall/disappear/vanish/etc.....wouldn't it just be like Iraq, Part II? If the US then pulled out, there would be a power vacuum (minus Assad) and then another can of worms would open up?

I just don't get what the goal is because it's pretty darned obvious that Assad/Russia are NEVER going to stop supporting each other. And Russia is willing to throw it's economy into the toilet/sacrifice their own people in order to do what Mr. P wants. Yes, it's that bad here.

So, in that case, maybe Hillary's "no fly zone" sounds sort of like some kind of temporary fix or improvement to the situation, but it won't actually solve anything in the long run. Am I correct in my thought here?

I think the odds are that it will make matters worse in the long run in a number of ways.

maybe we americans need to stop thinking we can always hop in and 'fix or improve' situations. history shows, we actually accomplish the opposite.

Funny we never seem to learn this lesson. What's the definition of insanity again?

[millefleur 5,047]

I think the odds are that it will make matters worse in the long run in a number of ways.

So back to the Hillary criticism on this matter.....is she advocating for a "no fly zone" in order to prop up her image as some kind of "doer" in the world of foreign affairs? Does she have anything personally to gain from it? I'm just kind of failing to see why she would drive this point home so hard if a lot of people, including the Dems, aren't that keen on it.

If we put aside all the other Hillary scandals/the obvious reasons why people don't trust her, I suppose the "no fly zone" is my biggest beef with Hillary at the moment. It's kind of unsettling to think about how the situation could get worse if she were in power. A lot of people are saying Trump would be the "safer bet" in this case, you know I'd like to believe it, but I remain skeptical. Saying he wants to be buddy-buddy with Russia is one thing, doing it is a whole different matter.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Considering how much Trump attack we get here in CEHST, I thought it appropriate to add a little Hillary criticism.

When criticism starts off praising Herr Komrad Rump's grasp of the Constitution it tends to lend itself to criticism.

[Teddy B 17,252]

So back to the Hillary criticism on this matter.....is she advocating for a "no fly zone" in order to prop up her image as some kind of "doer" in the world of foreign affairs? Does she have anything personally to gain from it? I'm just kind of failing to see why she would drive this point home so hard if a lot of people, including the Dems, aren't that keen on it.

If we put aside all the other Hillary scandals/the obvious reasons why people don't trust her, I suppose the "no fly zone" is my biggest beef with Hillary at the moment. It's kind of unsettling to think about how the situation could get worse if she were in power. A lot of people are saying Trump would be the "safer bet" in this case, you know I'd like to believe it, but I remain skeptical. Saying he wants to be buddy-buddy with Russia is one thing, doing it is a whole different matter.

My opinion, I think Hillary may be supporting the no fly zone in an attempt to separate herself from Obama who opposes it and has also been seen as passive (if not weak) by some in a military capacity. It may be a way of trying to win over some of the moderates who lean towards the right, which is what she needs to do to secure more votes for the presidency. Her position on it could very well change once she's in office.

I do not see Trump as a safer bet for anything. He's an egomaniac with an itchy trigger finger. The type of guy who beats his chest and makes loud grunting noises when there are no real threats, but when faced with reality he will wet his pants.

[Dashinka 24,999]

My opinion, I think Hillary may be supporting the no fly zone in an attempt to separate herself from Obama who opposes it and has also been seen as passive (if not weak) by some in a military capacity. It may be a way of trying to win over some of the moderates who lean towards the right, which is what she needs to do to secure more votes for the presidency. Her position on it could very well change once she's in office.

I do not see Trump as a safer bet for anything. He's an egomaniac with an itchy trigger finger. The type of guy who beats his chest and makes loud grunting noises when there are no real threats, but when faced with reality he will wet his pants.

I thought they (the Clintons) were distancing themselves from Obama when Bill went out and criticized ObamaCare?