PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: JeffDG on July 17, 2016, 10:08:24 AM
-
Presidential candidate promises to overrule court ruling that said that criticizing said candidate was a constitutional right...oh, sorry, that's not from Turkey after all.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-citizens-united_us_578a42cfe4b08608d334c7bd?section=politics
Remember: Citizens United was actually a ruling that the group Citizens United were permitted to release a movie about Hillary.
-
My apologies Jeff. I just knew this was going to be an anti-Trump thread.
-
My apologies Jeff. I just knew this was going to be an anti-Trump thread.
Perhaps you suffer from a serious case of "confirmation bias". I post plenty of anti-Hillary stuff, but because the anti-Trump is what you can't handle hearing, you notice it.
At least you haven't retreated into a safe-space like Lucifer.
-
She's welcome to propose anything she wants. Getting it passed is a whole other story and it's not likely to happen. She may manage to get it through Congress but she won't get 3/4 of the States to ratify it.
-
She's welcome to propose anything she wants. Getting it passed is a whole other story and it's not likely to happen. She may manage to get it through Congress but she won't get 3/4 of the States to ratify it.
Exactly! I actually applaud the progressives for once trying the way that the constitution actually spells out to bring about change. No more feel good legislation, no more endless court battles, no more activist judges, just put it to the vote.
Of course all this political grandstanding is to get support and votes. Everybody wants to hear about all the dynamic action the new president is going have in the "first one hundred days". It's a load of hooey and only the dumbest voters buy it. She can chuck her amendment idea out there and she knows it will go nowhere, but she can just moan on about obstructionist Republicans then. It will also become a debate topic so she can try to illustrate how Trump and the conservatives are just in the pockets of big money.
-
She's welcome to propose anything she wants. Getting it passed is a whole other story and it's not likely to happen. She may manage to get it through Congress but she won't get 3/4 of the States to ratify it.
So when Hillary says she is going to introduce a Constitutional amendment, she gets a pass because she probably won't the the votes anyway. But when Trump says he might be in favor of parts of some liberal legislation, people pretend he is going to single handedly repeal the 1st, 2nd and 5th amendments.
-
The issue with saying of Clinton "She doesn't have the votes anyway" is that she sees no need to use Article V for amending the Constitution. She prefers Article III amendments.
-
So when Hillary says she is going to introduce a Constitutional amendment, she gets a pass because she probably won't the the votes anyway. But when Trump says he might be in favor of parts of some liberal legislation, people pretend he is going to single handedly repeal the 1st, 2nd and 5th amendments.
Neither of them get a pass. I haven't heard Trump suggest amending the Constitution at all, however. Besides, I don't actually think Hillary is genuine about amending the Constitution. The precedent has been set by President Obama that he doesn't need to use Congress to change laws or write new ones, he can just do whatever he wants and I have no doubt that Hillary would do the exact same thing. I think Hillary's suggestion that she wants to amend the Constitution is a talking point to make her sound like she knows what she's talking about to gain votes; she knows it'll never pass and then will just use that pen and phone like her predecessor did.