In the US, a representative democracy, people typically want to vote for a representative (here the Pres.) who shares their views on issues. The US isn’t going to have a national referendum on Gaza where the people can directly vote.
What ever your view point(s) your time to vote on your issue(s) is during a presidential or midterm election.
Shit take that the judges must be bribed because politicians have enacted unpopular laws. The problem is the legislature here.
wild misinformation ads would be OK too…
Yes. Because the government is not the supreme arbiter of truth. If someone wants to put out an advert saying the sky is yellow they can. Our society functions on the principle that an open market of ideas will result in the best ideas prospering while a closed market of ideas would stifle new better ideas.
No need 1A speaks to that:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
No need. America is a nation who’s founder where largely of one religion but they ensured that no one religion should assert itself over others.
And what crime passed by the federal legislature did they commit that wasn’t in violation of the constitution (including BoR) in your opinion? Last I checked 1A is still there.
I’d say pretty good. How often do you see the federal government passing a law that violates the rights of the American people? And when it does how often can you say that there isn’t a constitutional violation in that law?
Additionally you say that like we don’t enjoy many rights that our global peers don’t. Like the right to a trial by jury in civil matters, to confront your accusor in a criminal trial, the many strict protections we have on searches, or the protections on political speech.
So many of the rights that document protect people take as granted. Most every violation of one of those rights can be declared to be because we have yet to enumerate that right or we haven’t followed the rules the constitution imposed on our government.
Having faith in politicians and liking a document designed to ensure the preservation of human rights & liberties are two different things.
and gets updates automatically when moving.
In any good democracy the government doesn’t know where you moved to until you tell them. Hence the need.
Up until the 1880s pretty much all Americans ballots weren’t private. Some states still technically aren’t private.
CA banned race base admission in the '90s in favor of a system that guaranteed admissions to top percentile students.
Post Students for Fair Admissions, schools can’t use race alone as a plus or minus nation wide. Like California has been doing it for the past 3 decades.
Universities’ recent experiences confirm the efficacy of a colorblind rule. To start, universities prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination by state law continue to enroll racially diverse classes by race-neutral means. For example, the University of California purportedly recently admitted its “most diverse undergraduate class ever,” despite California’s ban on racial preferences.
(THOMAS, J., concurring) (arguing universities can consider “[r]ace-neutral policies” similar to those adopted in States such as California and Michigan, and that universities can consider “status as a first-generation college applicant,” “financial means,” and “generational inheritance or otherwise”)
Thomas goes on and calls out the issue legacy admissions in his lengthy concurrence.
Worse, the classifications that JUSTICE JACKSON draws are themselves race-based stereotypes. She focuses on two hypothetical applicants, John and James, competing for admission to UNC. John is a white, seventh-generation legacy at the school, while James is black and would be the first in his family to attend UNC. Post, at 3. JUSTICE JACKSON argues that race-conscious admission programs are necessary to adequately compare the two applicants. As an initial matter, it is not clear why James’s race is the only factor that could encourage UNC to admit him; his status as a first-generation college applicant seems to contextualize his application. But, setting that aside, why is it that John should be judged based on the actions of his great-great-great-grandparents?
It isn’t just as your previous comment on if Elon filed for eminent domain wasn’t because that wasn’t the subject that comment was addressing.
The comment I originally addressed was on them buying land to stop it from being used. Which CAH did to prevent a Trump admin from building a border wall. I was pointing out how that their actions in that matter didn’t suit their intended purpose because of the governments ability to seize private land with compensation for public use.
No I was talking about the base idea of buying land on the border to prevent Trump from building a wall while he was in office.
The US federal government could simply file for eminent domain on the land (pay the holder what they (feds) deem fair value) and build the wall CAH planned to disrupt.
Biden added: “Jill and I are grateful to the Secret Service for getting him to safety. There’s no place for this kind of violence in America. We must unite as one nation to condemn it,”
You might want to reread the syllabus of the opinion. They differentiate between actions that may be official and ones that can’t. About halfway down pg 4.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. If it explicitly says the president can do something any law stopping him from doing that would be unconditional and voided, at least as applied.
Otherwise it would be like they amended the Constitution without going through the correct process.
Just because national security is the domain of the Executive doesn’t mean they can use lethal force on anyone they wish in any scenario they wish in lieu of effecting arrests for alleged crimes.
I don’t think assassinations of political rivals would be covered under the president’s constitutional duties.
You’re correct went back and reread it:
On weapons with these standard trigger mechanisms, the phrase “function of the trigger” means the physical trigger movement required to shoot the firearm. Pg. 7
Although it sounds like there maybe be edge cases where specially designed firearms are treated differently if they lack a traditional mechanism.
In that scenario the button is the trigger. Trigger is being used not to describe a curved piece of metal you put your finger on but the input device. The oral arguments had a lot around that issue.
See the reply below
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solicitor_General_of_the_United_States
For anyone who thinks this is significant or controversial.