1
36

[–] ding0bait 1 points 36 points (+37|-1) ago 

yes. however, the concept of enforcing the law has become a radical idea-- like telling the truth.

0
11

[–] vacvape 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

The lies are too big to fail.

0
7

[–] meltingpotofhambone 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

FTFY The lies are too big to jail.

0
8

[–] totes_magotes 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

That's because political idiots think you should be governing by your feefees.

3
17

[–] AverageAmerica 3 points 17 points (+20|-3) ago 

We have to many laws. We need to prune the federal power overreach and give power back to the states.

5
2

[–] p0ssum 5 points 2 points (+7|-5) ago  (edited ago)

As someone who lives in North Carolina, we've proven, without question, that states need to be kept in line and cannot be trusted to create just laws. States get drunk with power rather quickly. Just look at the last two years in NC....

0
6

[–] Ravinous 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

The Federal should step in to protect Constitutional Rights and what it can regulate at the federal level given to it in the constitution, namely infrastructure and interstate commerce, such as large businesses and how the practice with various states. As for state issues, that should fall on the blame of the people for not getting involved. It's easier to get into state government and enforce liability to it's citizens but the citizens need to be motivated to do so.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] lissencarak 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

that states need to be kept in line and cannot be trusted to create just laws.

No. I rather have more freedom to choose more politically diverse places with what you would consider "injust" laws. And isn't diversity important for lefties?

0
0

[–] Dietter 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

TSA, CIA, FBI, DEA, ICE, IRS, DEEP, DOD, DOE. Not even close to all of them, looks like it could use a couple more arms.

0
8

[–] Ravinous 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Except the constitution.

He want's to expand Libel to make it easier to accuse it with little argument, thus limiting the 1st amendment and freedom to criticize public figures. He wants to expand the NSA's powers despite the violations of the 4th and 5th. He is pro torture, a violation of the 6th . His expansion of the NSA and various other overreaches of office are a clear violation of the Articles and 10th.

So no, he's not a candidate of Law and Order because he can't support the fundamental ideology of the nation. Sadly none of the candidates do this.

0
2

[–] goatsandbros [S] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Could you link to some sources? It would help the discussion.

0
2

[–] Ravinous 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

0
1

[–] AmaleksHairyAss 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

none of the candidates do this.

What about Stein?

0
0

[–] Ravinous 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Her Veep has much to be desired and she still a bit to Federal Power for me. Probably will vote for her as she is the best out of the 4, but sadly the Green Party, like all third parties doesn't stand much of a chance. Ironically this is the best year for the libertarian party because both D and R candidates are polling so low, but Garry is pro TPP and is more a pro corporatism libertarian than a constitutional state power libertarian. Woooo for complex nuances.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
0

[–] Gorillion 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Did you just invent "Constitutional Fundamentalism"?

1
3

[–] ScreaminMime 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

But.... isn't ObumbledCare... existing... law?

1
4

[–] jasotastic 1 points 4 points (+5|-1) ago 

Let's discuss that. The answer to your question is technically yes. However, the way it was put in place was illegal. The Senate stripped out a House bill and inserted the Obamacare language. (Because the penalty was a tax and only the House can initiate a bill that includes a tax.) Then, the Supreme Court took that language and modified it further. (Which is outside their authority.)

Supporting that would be like saying, "I will enforce every rule you make according to this process." Then someone else comes along and slips a rule in some other way and claims you're a liar because you don't enforce the new rule they wrote on a napkin and taped into the rulebook.

2
-1

[–] goatsandbros [S] 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago 

Sorry, I should have specified, "Existing Constitutionally Justified Law."

0
0

[–] frankenham 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Uhhh.. expanding NSA spying surveillance?

1
3

[–] ComedicGoat 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago 

Enforcing the laws seems too much of a radical thing to do nowadays, what with the useful idiots (tubblrtards, nu-males, SJWs, etc) screaming their stupid heads off and crying oppression each time something so much as makes them unfomfortable.

7
-6

1
3

[–] TheDude2 1 points 3 points (+4|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Basically what the fore fathers wanted. They really only agreed to the position of President as a unified face of the nation with other countries. Not a king, like Obama wants.

6
0

[–] DesperateDan 6 points 0 points (+6|-6) ago 

Not a king, like Obama wants.

Patriot Act.

The time when a certain US President made it legal to incarcerate you indefinitely without charging you with a crime.

Trying to think which President that was. Was it Obama?

0
7

[–] TheDude2 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

He extended it, But yes, it has been fucked up for a long, long time with the Emergency powers act.

I wonder if Don would let the Patriot Act and Emergency Powers Acts to expire. Probably not.

0
1

[–] Gorillion 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Obama was given a fucking pre-emptive Nobel Peace Prize because it was expected he would reverse all that over-reaching bullshit.

0
1

[–] lemon11 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Law-breakers generally don't like laws. Trump was booed for suggesting to hold criminals responsible for their crimes.

load more comments ▼ (4 remaining)