Replies

I dislike mr trump for many reasons.

But the Reason peices is not very accurate.

First there is NO constitutional right or privilege to any citizen or subject of a foreign nation to immigrate or even visit that is up the the American people as expressed by Congress.

Second the freedom of religon does not cover the right to sedition nor treason

So as those that may misunderstand me, trump has threatens the free press by wanting to “liberalize” libel laws to allow the rich and powerful to silence those that would speak against them with Law-Fare (that he threatens almost as matter of course)

His nearly constant contradictory statements make me wonder if his idea of the truth is much the same as b.clinton as anything he says may or may not be “operative” as he sees fit when he sees fit.

To be honest, Trump hasn’t even said exactly what he wants to do to “liberalize the libel laws” but from a practical point of view it looks like if there was a cause for it, he’s been the object of that cause.

Yes, this could narrow down the 1st Amendment, but on the other hand, if we are really concerned about any Amendment we won’t force it as an excuse to do really antisocial things either. (”Hard cases make bad law.”)

If I was being Machiavellian about this I might push for a law against “Vexatious Libel” in the vein of “Vexatious Litigation.” Kind of RICO-izing libel. Which would be a crimp on the 1st Amendment. But it might be hard to resist doing.

I'm about as anti-Trump as they come, but this article has quite a few inaccuracies. In addition to those already pointed out by Bidimus1, the eminent domain claim in this opinion piece is also wrong. In Kelo v. City of New London the Court held, 5-4, that the taking of private property for private use with a substantial public benefit is not a violation of the 5th Amendment, nor when done by States or their subdivisions a violation of the 14th Amendment either.

The Kelo decision was widely questioned. How could the Court's conservatives have upheld it? The answer is: they upheld it because it is the law. The strictures [of lack thereof] placed on eminent domain are legal questions for legislatures to fix. The eminent domain laws of most states are far too loose, and they allow unscrupulous people like Donald Trump to exploit them for personal gain. They should made more favorable to private property owners; that doesn't make the exploiters of the law enemies of the Constitution.

There are lots of reasons to oppose Trump without taking up leftist hysteria as "arguments." The most important is that he's lying about being a conservative, and that's more than enough reason to disqualify him.