-
-
-
Well said.
-
If you uphold the three he said isn't that what you get?
-
It seems just that simple, eh? Keep your religion out of my life. I wanted to emphasize it.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Because on the ballot it says 'R' by your name. You directly benefit from a party (as you pointed out in your last tweet) that doesn't seem to care too much about these virtues.
-
Pot to kettle much?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You sound just like
@AP4Liberty!Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Unfortunately there is no way to do that with trump and today’s GOP. They are dedicated to destroying all three of those things.
-
Someone has not been watching their medication.
-
No, she's spot on
-
Right because those oh so righteous Dems would never wage illegal wars, run unconstitutional domestic spying programs, pass unconstitutional social programs, steal from government trusts, assault the 4th-8th Amendments, erase the 10th Amendment from existence, etc... righhhhhht
-
Good thing I'm not a democrat then
-
Freedom includes being free from having politicians stealing your stuff.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Very well. The right to privacy as implied in the 14th amendment has been a bedrock of an entire section of constitutional law since 1966. The constitution does not say the words right to privacy. Which direction is constitutional?
-
The 4th amendment says people are to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and effects from unreasonable searches. Where do you read email in there? Which way is constitutional?
-
Congress has 22 enumerated powers. 23 is whatever is necessary and proper. Does a national health care system qualify? The agriculture department? Air force?
-
The 8th amendment bans cruel and unusual punishment. Does the death penalty qualify? Whose liberty are you concerned with?
-
The death penalty is certainly not unusual, looking both across time and around the globe. Can it be executed “non-cruelly”? I’d argue yes (argument not provided here). Has it been cruelly employed in the past? Absolutely
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How about this to start with: - Emoluments Clause - Tariffs with no “threat to national security” at stake - Campaign Finance Law - Federal anti-nepotism statute
-
There's no legal precedent for any of these except tariffs. But the president unilaterally setting taxes isn't a crime, it's merely unconstitutional.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.