Trump (GOP) Orchestrated Destruction of America

He certainly does. Just wait until,next Monday when he takes out his pen and goes to work reversing all Obamas executive orders

 

Denial of the Right to Vote is a violation of the Rights of the Person.

Three different Federal Appeals Courts have independently, in different cases, already established that the Voter ID laws are racist JIM CROW LAWS so we are forced to assume any REPUBLICAN that supports these JIM CROW voting laws must be a RACIST.

How about this. Both Article I and the 17th Amendment explicitly state that the election of member of Congress is to be based upon the votes of the "PEOPLE" and not just US Citizens. The PEOPLE are all of the permanent resident citizens and non-citizens that the federal government counts under the provisions of Article I of the Constitution.

WHY DO REPUBLICANS OPPOSE THE EXPLICIT ENUMERATION IN THE US CONSTITUTION BY OPPOSING THE RIGHT TO VOTE FOR ALL THE
PEOPLE.​

 

That could be interesting because Donald Trump doesn't have a clue about any of President Obama's executive orders or even the knowledge necessary to reverse an executive order.

It would be an experience to be a fly on the wall on Monday because I'll bet Donald Trump will be the spitting image of Mel Brooks' portrayal of the bumbling idiot Governor William J. Le Petomane in movie Blazing Saddles.

 

Showing some form of ID is not a violation of somebody's rights. Everybody has the right to vote, ID just proves that the person voting as John Smith is actually John Smith and not Jose Lopez.

Do you oppose ID for the purchases of firearms, as well? Since people have a right to bear arms, wouldn't the requirement to show ID fall under the same violation according to your logic? Or wait, let me guess, that's different because the left doesn't like guns as much?

- - - Updated - - -

You guys on the left have been wrong about Trump since day one, including the almost unanimous prediction that he would get crushed by Hillary Clinton. I think you're in for 4-8 years of being proven wrong.

 

And why is that?

 

I applaud you and your post that does nothing to address, much less negate, the points I made.

Does DJT have to follow the polices of BHO? No.
Does DJT have the power to interpret the mission statements of the various departments and form his own policies around same? Yes.
Does DJT have the power to propose/sign legislation with regard to his interpretation of these mission statements and the policies he creates? Yes.
Does DJT have the power to nominate people he believes will effectively implement these laws and polices? Yes.

Does your argument have a leg to stand on? Clearly not.

 

all of those government agencies are communist and have failed because they are underfunded due to Americans being too poor to afford paying taxes for their upkeep.

the capitalists don't want to pay for communism if they are going to create high wage jobs for the peasants, so President Trump must abolish the government with his picks for his tariffs to work without causing a trade war.

President Trumps selections reward the good rich people and penalize the bad rich people.

 

Lots of people have their right to vote constitutionally denied.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board 553 U.S. 181 (200
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/553/181/
The SCotUS disagrees, as did the 7th Circuit. from whence came the appeal to the SC.

Federal law prohibits non-citizens fro voting in federal elections.
Has this law been overturned? No? There you go.

"The People" is not defined anywhere in the constitution.

 

Just because law hasn't been overturned yet does not imply it's Constitutional. It only means it's still enforceable.

The 2005 Indiana voter ID law did not prevent people from casting a ballot in the election. They were allowed to cast a provisional ballot and the photo ID requirement was waived if they signed "an affidavit stating they can’t afford it, or have a religious objection to being photographed. In addition, a person who is 65 years old or older, or disabled."

Since this 2007 case as more evidence of the racial impact of Voter ID Laws and other Republican legislative actions to disenfranchise minorities and poor people has been accumulating Federal Appeals Courts have ordered Texas to remove restrictions in it's 2011 Voter ID law and overturned North Carolina's 2013 Voter ID law and other election provisions. Federal judges have also struck down parts of Wisconsin's 2011 Voter ID law and early voting law and blocked North Dakota's 2014 Voter ID law.

Voting by non-citizens is Constitutional and it was quite common when the States were allowed to discriminate based upon RACE in their voting laws and they limited all voting to White MEN. It was only after passage of the 14th and 1th Amendment that the revocation of the Right to Vote for non-citizens and the prohibitions against non-citizens voting were imposed by statutory law to prevent non-whites from voting. All of the statutory prohibitions against non-citizens voting are "Jim Crow" racist voting laws, including the federal prohibition, and every student of American history knows it.

So if Republicans support the government protecting the Constitutional Rights of the People that allows non-citizens to vote then why aren't Republicans voting to repeal these racist statutory prohibitions against non-citizens voting and also supporting a Constitutional Amendment that universally establishes the "The Right to Vote will not be denied or abridged based by the United States or any State based upon race, color, national origin, ethnic background, religion, gender, social status or other demographic characteristic of the person"

While not explicitly defining the word "people" it does establish who the people are in Article I where the Constitution mandates the counting of the "people" by the federal government every ten years and that is carried out by the US Census. Everyone counted by the US census is one of the People and that count of the People is used for the apportionment of seats to the States in the House of Representatives. Every one of the "People" that are "counted in the State" has a right to vote for the candidates that will be elected to represent them in the House of Representative.

Additionally the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the term "people" refers to anyone subjected to the authority of the United States government regardless of citizenship. Finally, the 14th Amendment establishes that while US citizens have certain privileges and immunities there's no where in the Constitution where it states that Citizens have any special Rights and voting is a Right and not a Privilege that can be limited to US Citizens.

But we know why Republicans oppose the Right to Vote for non-citizens. It's very basic and simply because it's the same reason that there are statutory laws against non-citizens voting. It's because most of the non-citizens AREN'T WHITE MEN and social conservatism in the United States has always been a racist White Supremacist ideology.

So we're back to the Title of the thread because Donald Trump and the (GOP) are unquestionably orchestrating the destruction of the United States with an un-American racist White Supremacist anti-Constitutional agenda that will begin today. It's been reported that Donald Trump already has over 200 Presidential Executive Orders ready to sign that will reverse much of the last centuries advancements in the United States ranging from environmental protection, protections of endangered species, protections of our natural resources, civil rights, education, science, foreign relations, our economy and the ultimate loss of our role in world leadership and respect.

The only real question is where will the US land. Will it be in the 1930's with the "soup-kitchen" poverty and wide-spread racism and discrimination of that era or will we end up in the 1820's with economic slavery replacing racial slavery and the unrestricted power of White Protestant Male Supremacy imposed by a few super-wealthy men.

 

But all of these agencies were political in nature and most were intended to be. And most of these departments need pruning back with the worst excesses being in the EPA and the Department of Energy.

 

Really? So, for example, you'd be happy to drink, fish and swim in polluted water and breathe the smog that the EPA has been instrumental in reducing in your cities? Interesting sentiment.

 

Utter nonsense there is no right for people to vote more than once for people who do not exist to vote or for people that are not citizens to vote. There are also courts that have found voter ID laws to be constitutional. The only reason to be against voter ID laws is that you like fraud and think your side can't win without it.

- - - Updated - - -

However every mud puddle is not a wet land and trying to prevent people from building much of anything anywhere as the EPA has been doing for years is a gross over reach.

 

So how does this address my comments? Do you want your smog, poisoned water and unregulated nuclear industries back? Another Three Mile Island maybe? By all means turn the clock back, but you'll be far worse off for doing so:http://grist.org/article/here-are-4-big-pollution-problems-epa-has-mostly-fixed-already/
https://radiation.zendesk.com/hc/en...egulation-and-safety-of-nuclear-power-plants-

 

Much of the federal government's agencies have gone far beyond waht is needful and often just seem to writing rules just for the sake of writing rule without regard to whether or not these rules are needed let alone necessary. You can't idiot proof the planet r even the country and trying to do so is counter productive and extremely costly.

 

That portion I bolded seems to be largely concerned with Civil Rights, doesn't it? Given that most laws people are concerned with are State affairs the Civil Rights are the part of the Federal Government most people see affecting their lives, and so the most important part of the Justice Department to them, is it not?

 

Yours is the typical response to reigning in abuse, the claim that the world will end.

 

You can do better than that. So, perhaps you can tell me who will oversee your environment if the EPA is shut down?
https://radiation.zendesk.com/hc/en...egulation-and-safety-of-nuclear-power-plants-
Of course you can't.

 

I guess you never heard of of the Montreal Protocol ratified by Ronald Reagan?

 

You mean Ozone rules and CFCs. That was extremely simple we have now gone far beyond that. We are now spending billions to possibly prevent 1 case of cancer a decade in the American Southwest.

 

But it was not counter-productive which is what you claimed. It worked and continues to do so. All the cheering about agencies like the EPA being disbanded is simply thoughtless middle-fingering.

 

False dichotomy fail

 

1st it wasn't terribly counter productive as we had a variety of substitutes for CFCs that worked as well or better well within the allotted time frame. IN fact it was a classic example of how government and industry can work together.

 

No. If you disband the EPA unregulated pollution will return. Fact; and why is it a fact? Because before the EPA you had nobody overseeing environmental concerns and pollution was rampant. You can dispute that if you want to try, but throwing out idiotic comments like 'false dichotomy fail' is pretty infantile if you ask me, and shows how deeply you thought this through.

 

A new President has the right to select whoever he wants for his Cabinet. Keep in mind these are just assistants to the President. They're not the ones with the final responsibility. Supposedly, they are just carrying out the President's orders and implementing his policies.

 

Prior to EPA we didn't have the technological capacity to test for much less than parts per thousand now it's parts per quintillion. Prior to EPA most pollution occurred because no one knew how to find the source especially of residual chemicals that would collect in eddies and back waters far down far down stream from the source simply because we couldn't detect it. Believe me Mr Business man isn't
Interested in poisoning any especially himself.