The New American Politics thread

[Makarov]

I really don't know anything about how the proposed system would work, but I presume that, like any of the millions of decisions made by administrative bodies and tribunals, no-fly list and no-gun list decisions woild be reviewable by the courts.

[2Stonedbirds]

https://www.aclu.org/know-your-right...re-no-fly-list

This site shows a quick summary of the process you have to go through if you find out you've been put on a no fly list. Doesn't sound like much fun, and the process itself seems like punishment to me.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Hello Mcfly, anybody home?

Speaking to yourself again?

As I explained, to end up on a restriction list you have already been charged, investigated and identified as a risk. You aren't arbitrarily placed on restriction lists. The no-fly restiction list is a different beast because they use sound alikes and associated names. Sometimes people with similar names get caught on the list, and it is a pain in the ass, but it is a necessary evil if you want to try and catch the bad guys.

As I mentioned, I don't know why you are concerned with due process when the the NEO-con drafted Patriot Act can be leveraged to eliminate the due process clause. All it takes is a signature from a judge, but there is a process there to still provide some levels of due process as afforded by the constitution. I mean, here was the faux outrage when this was being drilled down our gullets? The most draconian piece of legislation ever introduced badly registered on the conservative radar, but an enforcement of existing standards is a call to arms? Crazy response.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by New Era

Speaking to yourself again?

As I explained, to end up on a restriction list you have already been charged, investigated and identified as a risk.

No, not at all!

You aren't arbitrarily placed on restriction lists.

Suspicion. That's it. If that ain't arbitrary I don't know what is.

[CliffFletcher]

One of the most peculiar things about the U.S. is how the authors of the constitution are revered as giants among men, to the point of being referred to as Founders, and the constitution is regarded some kind of holy text. It speaks to a deep-rooted religiosity of Americans, and a belief that we live in fallen times and couldn't possibly ever improve on ideas that a bunch of men 200 years ago dreamed up.

Every other developed country in the world has drafted completely new constitutions in the last 100 years, or revised existing constitutions of common laws many times in recent decades to account for changing values and technology. As a Canadian, I have no problem stating that a bunch of jurists today could come with a document just as sound and effective as anything written in the past. To Americans of all political stripes, that statement would be regarded as dangerous lunacy.

[Fire of the Phoenix]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

One of the most peculiar things about the U.S. is how the authors of the constitution are revered as giants among men, to the point of being referred to as Founders, and the constitution is regarded some kind of holy text. It speaks to a deep-rooted religiosity of Americans, and a belief that we live in fallen times and couldn't possibly ever improve on ideas that a bunch of men 200 years ago dreamed up.

Every other developed country in the world has drafted completely new constitutions in the last 100 years, or revised existing constitutions of common laws many times in recent decades to account for changing values and technology. As a Canadian, I have no problem stating that a bunch of jurists today could come with a document just as sound and effective as anything written in the past. To Americans of all political stripes, that statement would be regarded as dangerous lunacy.

They only care about it as an excuse to keep their guns. I don't believe for a second the average gun-toting redneck gives a crap about the constitution or the founding fathers, outside of using them for this ridiculous circular argument. I bet most Americans couldn't even name 1/3 of the amendments in their precious constitution if they were tested.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

No, not at all!



Suspicion. That's it. If that ain't arbitrary I don't know what is.

You are aware there are different restriction lists? A no-fly list is vastly different from the weapon restriction list. For example, a convicted felon will be on restriction list that prevents the purchase of a firearm. Being on that list does not prevent that person from flying. To make this list you must be a felon, having gone through due process.

The no fly list is compiled by the US Terrorist Screening Center and is for people considered a potential threat to aviation. This is different from the Terror Watch list, which is much longer and more restrictive. The no fly is based on those who have been investigated and are considered a credible threat to air travel or aviation systems. The problem with the no fly list is the number of false positives for people that what a common name or sound alike. There is a process for this and it usually is resolve in minutes to hours by producing picture ID and having that ID verified.

The Terror Watch List is a result of collected intelligence of people with known associations with terrorists, terror organizations, or those interests that support terror organizations. This information can be used to inform more than a dozen restriction lists, including the no-fly list. This does not mean that because you are one you are on the other. What it means is you meet the criteria of that specific restriction. Investigation has been done up front and the restriction reflects that.

I think that there should be serious restriction lists and there should be links between them. Someone considered a viable threat to our security should be restricted from obtaining firearms. If you found your way onto one of the lists there is always a reason. If you believe this has happened in error you can get your name cleared and removed from the list by going through the process. People want security, well it Coke with a cost. That cost can be some inconvenience from time-to-time, but better that than giving someone with an axe to grind or deep emotional issues access to a means to hurt or kill dozens of people at a time.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by New Era

You are aware there are different restriction lists? A no-fly list is vastly different from the weapon restriction list. For example, a convicted felon will be on restriction list that prevents the purchase of a firearm. Being on that list does not prevent that person from flying. To make this list you must be a felon, having gone through due process.

The no fly list is compiled by the US Terrorist Screening Center and is for people considered a potential threat to aviation. This is different from the Terror Watch list, which is much longer and more restrictive. The no fly is based on those who have been investigated and are considered a credible threat to air travel or aviation systems. The problem with the no fly list is the number of false positives for people that what a common name or sound alike. There is a process for this and it usually is resolve in minutes to hours by producing picture ID and having that ID verified.

The Terror Watch List is a result of collected intelligence of people with known associations with terrorists, terror organizations, or those interests that support terror organizations. This information can be used to inform more than a dozen restriction lists, including the no-fly list. This does not mean that because you are one you are on the other. What it means is you meet the criteria of that specific restriction. Investigation has been done up front and the restriction reflects that.

I think that there should be serious restriction lists and there should be links between them. Someone considered a viable threat to our security should be restricted from obtaining firearms. If you found your way onto one of the lists there is always a reason. If you believe this has happened in error you can get your name cleared and removed from the list by going through the process. People want security, well it Coke with a cost. That cost can be some inconvenience from time-to-time, but better that than giving someone with an axe to grind or deep emotional issues access to a means to hurt or kill dozens of people at a time.

You can't be giving the guberment that kind of power, next thing you know King George is back and your cheating ex is having sex with a black fella while your kid is playing soccer or some other godless homosexual behaviour. A few thousand dead is well worth the price to keep you safe in your trailer park.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I bet most Americans couldn't even name 1/3 of the amendments in their precious constitution if they were tested.

Quoted for truth. I had a discussion with a decorated marine a couple months back about this very topic. He had the Bill of Rights posted in his office and claimed it was the constitution. I had to explain to him at length the difference between the constitution and the Bill of Rights, and how the Bill of Rights exists in relation to the constitution. The guy wouldn't believe me and accused me of being a "know nothing Liberal." Only when another one of his cohorts, who also believed the same, bothered to look it up on the interwebs did they finally clue in. It is sad the lack of understanding Americans have in regards to their government and civic duties. Their education system is failing them in the grossest way, but they take pride in their ignorance. The founding fathers would be spinning in their graves if they knew how dumb the average American had become. Mind you they instituted the electoral college to safeguard against the lunacy of the people, so maybe they did know which way the country was headed.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

One of the most peculiar things about the U.S. is how the authors of the constitution are revered as giants among men, to the point of being referred to as Founders, and the constitution is regarded some kind of holy text. It speaks to a deep-rooted religiosity of Americans, and a belief that we live in fallen times and couldn't possibly ever improve on ideas that a bunch of men 200 years ago dreamed up.

Every other developed country in the world has drafted completely new constitutions in the last 100 years, or revised existing constitutions of common laws many times in recent decades to account for changing values and technology. As a Canadian, I have no problem stating that a bunch of jurists today could come with a document just as sound and effective as anything written in the past. To Americans of all political stripes, that statement would be regarded as dangerous lunacy.

Manifest destiny.

You might find this article interesting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...unders/385432/

Americans of the second quarter of the nineteenth century were compelled to confront the deficiencies of the Founding. The landmark documents of the Revolutionary era—the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—were scrutinized and found wanting. The abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was so outraged at the Constitution and its framers for fastening slavery upon the American body politic that he damned the federal charter as ‘a covenant with death and an agreement with Hell,’ and publicly burned his copy.

or this one, which is more academic/long winded

Hamilton, Adams, Madison, and Jef-ferson held very different positions on those issues. For example, the Federalists (the political faction that became identified with Hamilton) believed that the government should embrace policies that would spur industrial growth, while Republicans (the political faction that became identified with Jefferson) called for the government to promote a virtuous, agrarian economy. This dispute was not just about culture and mo-rality; rather, it cut to the heart of how the American democracy would function. Should the political economy be an engine for American growth and expansion? Or, was this effort not worth the risk of powerful businesses interests cor-rupting the will of the people?
As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton supported and designed a nation-al bank as a private corporation with stockholders managing the national debt. Jefferson, in turn, argued that the government could not charter such a private institution. These two positions remained at odds for years as question of the national bank solidified itself as one of the most polarizing issues of early American history.

Finally, nothing brought out the passionate disagreements of the founding fathers more than the outbreak of the French Revolution in 1789. Jefferson clamored for moral support for the revolutionaries, whereas Hamilton called for a neutral distance from the upheaval in France. Their respective factions claimed that this was more than a debate over the direction of American foreign policy. Rather, the legacy of the revolution was at stake, and each side charged the other with forsaking it. Federalists accused Republicans of destabilizing the country and leading it to chaos, while Republicans accused Federalists of tolerating and supporting monarchy and tyranny.

Nobody would question that both Hamilton and Jefferson deserve to be called “founding fathers,” but one must use caution in using that term to refer to this intellectually diverse group of people. To gloss over their deep-seated philosophical differences and superimpose on them legacy of ideological purity and unity displays ignorance of history.

Even if founding fathers had all shared one comprehensive political worldview, it would still not be relevant to a modern policy discussion. Today’s world is too radically different from that of the founding fathers; the sweeping technological and social progress since the 18th century has rendered many of their central concerns obsolete. For instance, a principal point of contention between Hamilton and Jefferson was the issue of keeping a standing army. Hamilton believed that it was a necessity for maintaining order, while Jefferson feared that it would lead America down a slippery slope to tyranny. Contemporary social and political norms are so incredibly unlike those of the founding fathers that Jefferson’s fears of a standing army barely resonate at all to the modern reader. A standing army has become an accepted fact of life and Americans would be hard-pressed to imagine their country without one.

Similarly, the founding fathers governed in a political atmosphere that makes little sense to us. No reasonable Americans today would be so outraged over their taxes that they would stage a revolt. But in 1794, when Washington was forced to raise a federal militia to suppress a western Pennsylvanian uprising over a whiskey tax, rebellion was not so unthinkable. In the modern era, taxes are a hegemonic reality, but in the revolutionary era, they were not seen as such.

http://pennpoliticalreview.org/archives/1805

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Fire of the Phoenix

I'm 50/50 on him being a plant for the DNC to be honest. He is just too ridiculous take seriously.

Not the DNC, this is all Bill Clinton, I think this came about when Obama beat her for the democratic ticket, I think the Clintons realized a half competent republican candidate would pose a serious threat to Hillary, that the combination of voter fatigue after a decade of a democratic president along with the fear that a woman immediately after a black president might be a bridge to far for the U.S.

Initially Trump was just anti Obama, in fact in reality he still is, the only political issue he's really had any long term standing on was the birther issue, every thing else has been just dog whistle opportunism. He's studiously avoided any real policy position, he literally has no position on anything politically. He's just destroyed the republicans, that's his only achievement.

I don't doubt it started as a bit of a lark and a cheap publicity ploy for apprentice, but Trump is a New York liberal and close friend of the Clintons, always has been and there's no explanation for why he isn't now.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

It's really unbelievable this guy has any support at all, let alone leading the GOP polls.





http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/02/politi...sis/index.html

Not sure I disagree with him. ISIS was created by the US meddling in Middle East affairs.

Hate to say it, but Saddam was the lessor of two evils. You can go back further than that actually. Should have left Iran alone. Should have built schools and hospitals in Afghanistan after the Soviets left instead of cutting off funding because they didn't need weapons anymore.

The US has created this mess, and Obama with his no holds barred kill them at all costs using JSOC approach has made it worst.

That being said, Trump is a moron.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

He should just stick to making a fool of himself on reality tv.

Constitutional law professor my ass.

Background checks are unconstitutional?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Yes, that's my understanding as well. With no due process, or recourse should you be placed on that list. You get put onto that list based on suspicion. Nothing else.

The no fly list itself is unconstitutional (the Dems argued this vehemently after it was put in place post 9/11) expanding it to include the 2nd amd rights of Americans just makes it a double whammy.

To me anyways. What do you think? Remains to be seen if this provision is pushed through, however Obama has brought this up numerous times in the last couple months. If it is, I expect it to be challenged.

I agree, the 'secretive' no fly list is unconstitutional, but requiring background checks if you want to purchase a weapon is not.

[2Stonedbirds]

Please go back and read the thread Azure, this wasn't about background check but the possibility of expanding a extrajudicial no fly list to include guns.

Speaking to background checks, the FBI has run over 5 million new checks in the last 3 months.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by Azure

I agree, the 'secretive' no fly list is unconstitutional, but requiring background checks if you want to purchase a weapon is not.

If the no fly list in considered unconstitutional, would you agree or not agree that taking those names that exist on said no fly list and curb those individuals from owning a firearm as unconstitutional?

This isn't about background checks. Vast majority of new sales require this, it's nothing new or unconstitutional.

[KootenayFlamesFan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not sure I disagree with him. ISIS was created by the US meddling in Middle East affairs.

Hate to say it, but Saddam was the lessor of two evils. You can go back further than that actually. Should have left Iran alone. Should have built schools and hospitals in Afghanistan after the Soviets left instead of cutting off funding because they didn't need weapons anymore.

The US has created this mess, and Obama with his no holds barred kill them at all costs using JSOC approach has made it worst.

That being said, Trump is a moron.

He specifically mentioned that Hillary created ISIS. That was the part I found particularly ridiculous.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Someone is going to have to explain how restriction lists are unconstitutional? The only way you end up on a restriction list is because of due cause. Not suspicion. Actual due cause with documented proof that the restriction is valid. So how is this unconstitutional? Please identify where in the US Constitution does it state than an individual cannot be placed on a list restricting their access to certain controlled substances or spaces.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Please go back and read the thread Azure, this wasn't about background check but the possibility of expanding a extrajudicial no fly list to include guns.

Speaking to background checks, the FBI has run over 5 million new checks in the last 3 months.

There are obvious loopholes when people buy guns at shows where no background checks are required.

I personally have no problem with firearm ownership if you can show that you are competent enough to safety own and use a firearm. Most people would agree with me, but there are major powers in the US that don't let common sense be used when it comes to gun control.

Overall crime is down, but there are still major issues that need to be addressed.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

If the no fly list in considered unconstitutional, would you agree or not agree that taking those names that exist on said no fly list and curb those individuals from owning a firearm as unconstitutional?

This isn't about background checks. Vast majority of new sales require this, it's nothing new or unconstitutional.

Well obviously if I think one list is corrupt I would agree that using a corrupt list for other purposes is unconstitutional.

I do however agree with across the board comprehensive background checks.