Bay 12 Games Forum

Quote from: anewaname on March 20, 2024, 11:31:36 am

The point I was making about "Colorado had the right to bring the case forward because the federal government did not" is similar to the point Texas is making with their new immigration law. Texas is saying that they have the right to enforce border law because the federal government is not. Are these both examples of a state taking action to enforce federal laws when the authority was already delegated to the federal level?

No. Colorado did not have any right to bring the case forward because it was intruding on a power specifically provided to Congress by the Constitution, with no obligation on the part of Congress in any way created. Since Congress had made no law in any way providing for Donald Trump to be removed from any ballot, no state could act to enforce any such law, nor does any state have the power to make such law on its own (which, besides, Colorado never attempted to do, as the legislature was never involved). If Congress had made such a law, states would in fact be obliged to enforce it; similarly, if Congress has made laws providing for border enforcement, which they have, states have the responsibility to enforce them, just as the Executive does as well. The difference is that Texas is following the established law while Colorado was not.

If things were as you say, the Colorado case would have been stopped before it left Colorado's Supreme Court. Why wasn't it?

Congress was authorized the power to decide "yes or no", but they also failed to start or to conclude the process. Why didn't Congress tell Colorado "hey this is our job, you need to stop..."?

Texas... Texas is challenging the federal level. Don't try to tell me that Texas is following all the federal laws.

Quote from: anewaname on March 13, 2024, 08:23:54 am

The SCOTUS decision ensured that Trump would remain on the ballot. The SCOTUS decision did not disagree with the Colorado decision.

Considering the Colorado decision was to have Trump removed from the ballot and any votes cast for him tossed, it absolutely disagreed. It's the central issue.

I used the wrong word there... I intended "The SCOTUS decision did not disagree with the Colorado decision conclusion". I agree that the Colorado "decision" to remove Trump from the ballot was reversed by SCOTUS, but the Colorado "conclusion" that Trump was an insurrectionist and officer was not reversed. Trump clearly intended to bring violence to others for personal gain, and you have not acknowledged that...

===========

Quote from: anewaname on March 13, 2024, 08:23:54 am

What position of mine are you trying to attack? What position of yours are you trying to defend?

Quote from: anewaname on December 21, 2023, 01:12:37 am

Due process was followed in Colorado. The case was an attempt to remove him from the ballot and the defense failed to prove that Trump had not "engaged in an insurrection" and or that the sitting president is not an officer of the US. So, the 14th, which protects against abuses by state-level government against individuals, isn't an issue. In no way did Colorado need to wait for a federal charge and conviction against Trump to complete. The state has the right to adjudicate its own laws and their own constitution, just as the loser in the case has the right to appeal to the federal courts in an attempt to overturn the state courts.

Quote from: anewaname on December 21, 2023, 11:38:25 pm

If SCOTUS claims the sole authority to enforce 14A §3 lies at the federal level, it creates the obligation at the federal level for that authority to be exercised regarding the Colorado case. Colorado had the right to bring the case forward because the federal government did not.

SCOTUS ruled that Colorado has no right enforce the insurrection clause whatsoever. (This is mostly because Congress can waive the penalty after the election, however? I think they sidestepped ruling on the other issues, but they were clear that the 14th wasn't meant to give States more power after the war.) They didn't seem too favorable on the president being an "officer of the US", either.

The point I was making about "Colorado had the right to bring the case forward because the federal government did not" is similar to the point Texas is making with their new immigration law. Texas is saying that they have the right to enforce border law because the federal government is not. Are these both examples of a state taking action to enforce federal laws when the authority was already delegated to the federal level?

If there is just a small amount that you are worried about, a tile will be cleaned if you construct something there (a floor is a good choice), and remain cleaned if you remove the construction.

Not really Ukraine but it was here...

Yeah... every time someone says Ukraine should submit, I think of how that person would react to similar coercions in their life, like maybe the Pope should study up on how the Nazis treated the Roman Catholics in Germany after they had the European Jews mostly locked up, and he should also consider how long the temporary sanctity of Vatican City would have lasted if those fighting the Nazis had stopped fighting and left Italy to the Germans.

Maybe you shouldn't fight back when someone tries to use verbal and physical threats to coerce you into letting them rape you.

Maybe you shouldn't fight back when someone decides to tax you every week for some of your food money.

Maybe you shouldn't fight back when someone says that they need some work done and they want you to wear a collar while you do it for them.

I understand people who submit because their family is directly being threatened, but if you don't fight back, the coercion will not stop and the choke collar will only get tighter.

A politician is an elite... that politician's role is to represent a group of elites and to give the public a good impression of those elites.

You cannot gain political power if you deviate far from the Overton window of what most common people will accept. The Russian people have been trained for centuries to have certain cultural views of sub-Russians and glorious military conquests, so Navalny would never deviate from those common Russian views in his quest to gain political power. He had to stay within the Overton window on those topics, which is why "anti-corruption" was his primary focus. I did not say Navalny was a nice guy or he wanted to be friends with Ukraine. He wanted political power and he was attempting to stir up "Russian nationalism" to fight against "Russian corruption", which is exactly how the current Ukrainian political groups took power from the groups that administered Ukraine 20 years ago.

The two differences between Ukraine's current politicians and those from 20 years ago are that the new ones commit fewer political murders and have fewer family/business ties to Russia. If you compared your perception of how corrupt Ukrainian politicians are today, to your perception of the corruption from 20 years ago, about what is the ratio? These new politicians included "anti-corruption" in their political platform, but do you really think they reduced corruption significantly? Maybe there is 20% less corruption and fewer political murders of commoners?

Well, he did decide to speak poorly about Putin from within Russia... that is wacky.