primitives discuss President Trump violating Constitution

[franksolich]

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029624884

Oh my.

These clowns get sillier and sillier every day.

louis c (5,599 posts)     Sat Sep 23, 2017, 11:41 AM

Has Trump Violated the Constitution on his Statement to Fire NFL Players?

Donald Trump is the executive branch of the United States Government.

The first Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of Speech". Through many years of precedent, "Congress", has been interpreted by the courts to mean the entire government "shall not abridge the freedom of speech" of American citizens.

The President*, any President, has every right to disagree with anything anyone says. But he (or she) cannot threaten anyone, directly or indirectly, for the free exercise of that right.

Me or you (as long as we don't have authority in the US Government) can absolutely call for the firing of anyone for saying anything we disagree with, but a government official, especially the President, can not.

The NFL and ESPN are regulated by the US Government in many areas. The Chief Executive, or his spokeswoman, calling on the firing of any individual for exercising his or her free speech is an obvious violation of the first amendment, in my opinion.

Doreen (4,676 posts)     Sat Sep 23, 2017, 11:55 AM
 
2. Does trump own the team or co-own it?

Can trump fire JUST ANYBODY?

If trump gets bad service at a restaurant can he fire the person or is that the choice of the owner or manager only?

louis c (5,599 posts)      Sat Sep 23, 2017, 12:22 PM

6. The key word in the 1st amendmet is "Abridge'

bad service is not protected under the first amendment, political speech is. If the waitress told Trump that she didn't vote for him and didn't agree with his policies and was an "employee at will", the owner could fire her. But Trump could not ask her to be fired, as that would be the government "abridging" her freedom of speech.

Every company or organization has to deal with the government on some level. In the case of ESPN, it's the FCC, which Trump is technically in charge of.

The NFL has many government oversight agencies, including OSHA (concussions may come under this agency).

Trump is urging owners to fire individuals for expressing a political point of view. That would cause a "chilling" affect on the employees and the owners and violate the first amendment.

liberal N proud (56,880 posts)      Sat Sep 23, 2017, 11:55 AM

3. Only if a law was passed leading to them being fired

His lawyers would argue he was exercising his freedom of speech.

meow2u3 (21,779 posts)      Sat Sep 23, 2017, 11:58 AM

4. He ran afoul of the law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227

It's a felony that could land him up to 15 years in prison for trying to pressure a private business to fire an employee out of sheer partisan politics.

L. Coyote (42,840 posts)      Sat Sep 23, 2017, 12:25 PM

7. There is applicable law that is violated.

Mc Mike (3,919 posts)      Sat Sep 23, 2017, 12:36 PM

8. Free speech rights only apply to nazis airing their learned viewpoints in places like Berkeley.

Or internal google organizational documents.

Does not apply to ESPN journos or pro sports athletes. Special SS snowflakes like drumpf and his backers need a safe space.

mythology (7,206 posts)      Sat Sep 23, 2017, 01:01 PM

10. That is a huge stretch

First nobody has been fired (Kaepernick doesn't have a job because he's a shitty quarterback). Second he didn't order anybody be fired.

onenote (28,873 posts)      Sat Sep 23, 2017, 02:08 PM

12. "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation"

Not applicable here. Trump didn't say fire all Democrats or those Democrats that kneel during the anthem. He said fire football players that kneel. Last time I checked, the NFL wasn't a political party. And "solely" really means "solely."

louis c (5,599 posts)      Sat Sep 23, 2017, 05:32 PM

13. And if I oppose the President, where is my affiliation?

Come on.

The government can not retaliate against citizens for political speech, "solely". That's what it means.

If you're late for work, insubordinate, have poor work performance, a government official can ask for your removal, even in the private sector. But they can not ask for your firing based "solely" on political speech, which provides the basis of establishing your political affiliation.

onenote (28,873 posts)      Sat Sep 23, 2017, 06:22 PM

14. You're simply ignoring what the law states.

18 USC 227
(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—

(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,

shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

First of all, it doesn't say on the basis of political speech. It says on the basis of partisan political affiliation. You can't stretch one set of words to mean something much different. And while political speech may be an indicator of political "affiliation" -- if, for example, someone states "I am a Democrat" -- it often is not. Is John McCain a Democrat because he has spoken out against the Graham-Cassidy Act?

Second, the law specifically applies only where the government official takes or withholds, or offers to take or withhold, "an official act" or influences, or offers or threatens to influence the "official act" of another.

Official act =“any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.”

Not applicable here.

This provision is very narrowly drawn. The wording is plain and clear. You just choose to ignore the law's plain wording.

louis c (5,599 posts)      Sat Sep 23, 2017, 07:20 PM

15. So, what you are saying is that I am registered in no political party

but I publicly criticize the President, the members of the executive branch of the Federal Government can lobby my private employer to terminate me for no other reason than my political opinion.

(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—

The above means influence "an employment decision" means any employment decision. It then goes on to give other examples

The louis primitive must be a special kind of "retarded."

[zeitgeist]

Interesting article which may explain some of this:



https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/09/23/people-ignore-facts-that-contradict-their-false-beliefs.html


 

[USA4ME]

Yea, louis c primitive, you run with that, son. 

.

[Delmar]

Response to louis c (Original post)Sat Sep 23, 2017, 01:01 PM
mythology (7,206 posts)
10. That is a huge stretch

First nobody has been fired (Kaepernick doesn't have a job because he's a shitty quarterback). Second he didn't order anybody be fired.

Maxine Waters begs to differ.

Response to louis c (Original post)Sat Sep 23, 2017, 11:58 AM
Star Member meow2u3 (21,779 posts)
4. He ran afoul of the law

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/227

It's a felony that could land him up to 15 years in prison for trying to pressure a private business to fire an employee out of sheer partisan politics.

Trump is really racking up the charges.  Hatch Act, Logan Act, TREASON, and now calling football players SOBs. 

If MineralMan was here, he'd tell you that the big Red Wing boot is about to drop.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Louie's cray-cray BS was actually painful to read.

[DLR Pyro]

They're so cute when they try to be constitutional scholars. ...

[BlueStateSaint]

Hmm . . . The 1st Amendment says "Congress shall pass no law."  It does not say "The President shall pass now law."  Why?  Because the President doesn't pass laws, despite what Obama may have done.  President Trump is acting as a private citizen in his opinion.  He can not enforce it in actuality, because Congress didn't pass a law on it.

So, their argument, and so much of their content, is this: 

[Mr Mannn]

desperately grasping at straws.  this is the reality based community?
and DU claims to be so much smarter than the population at large.

[zeitgeist]

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029624884

Oh my.

These clowns get sillier and sillier every day.

The louis primitive must be a special kind of "retarded."

They miss Old Lefty (lawyer)     She would have had them straightened out on the legal fine points in short order. 

[Movie buff- The Sequel]

Never mind that these DUmmies openly cheered when a rodeo clown being seen wearing an Obama mask (Keeping in mind that rodeo clowns have worn masks of sitting US presidents for decades) led to the Secret Service launching a full investigation into the rodeo and the rodeo clown in question being fired and banned for life.

[DumbAss Tanker]

desperately grasping at straws.  this is the reality based community?
and DU claims to be so much smarter than the population at large.

It's reality, Jim, but not as we know it.

[RobJohnson]

All of a sudden DU support the 1st Amendment?

[RobJohnson]

The DUmmies should watch this:




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6kAbMMtcG4

[SVPete]

liberal N proud (56,880 posts)      Sat Sep 23, 2017, 11:55 AM

3. Only if a law was passed leading to them being fired

His lawyers would argue he was exercising his freedom of speech.

mythology (7,206 posts)      Sat Sep 23, 2017, 01:01 PM

10. That is a huge stretch

First nobody has been fired (Kaepernick doesn't have a job because he's a shitty quarterback). Second he didn't order anybody be fired.

Alert! Alert!


 

[zeitgeist]

It's reality, Jim, but not as we know it.

Gratuitous Star Trek quotes always receive a:       

[Skul]

Paging LaserHass!! Paging LaserHass!!!. Please pick up the red emergency telephone.

[DumbAss Tanker]

This BS legal meme is cropping up on FB, if any of you run into morons propagating it, please note that the law they are referring to, it basically forbids officers or employees of the Executive branch, or Congresscritters, from attempting to influence a private entity's employment decisions 'Solely on partisan political' membership/affiliation.

Two things about that, it does not mean on policy ideas or anything else, but literally on the D/R split.  The most obvious reason is to prevent an elected or appointed official from requiring contractors to have nothing but Ds or Rs on the payroll and fire anyone who doesn't conform.

The other important point is that the Prez, VP, and enlisted military personnel are not included in the definition of Executive officers or employees.

In other words, the whole legal cloud castle is just garbage.

[FlaGator]

Whose constitution is Trump accused of violating? Can't be the U.S. Constitution so they must be referring to the constitution of some other country.

[Old n Grumpy]

Whose constitution is Trump accused of violating? Can't be the U.S. Constitution so they must be referring to the constitution of some other country.

It's the US constitution, on the back of page 3. It is all explained in this weeks edition of the Palmer Report.

It clearly states" No President shall make disparaging remarks about the NFL or it's players." this will be considered an act of treason.
It was added by Thomas Jefferson in 1778

[SVPete]

It's the US constitution, on the back of page 3. It is all explained in this weeks edition of the Palmer Report.

It clearly states" No President shall make disparaging remarks about the NFL or it's players." this will be considered an act of treason.
It was added by Thomas Jefferson in 1778

By telegram from our embassy in St. Petersburg, Russia? Technology is so cool!

[Skul]

By telegram from our embassy in St. Petersburg, Russia? Technology is so cool!

It was tweetered, SV.  Telegrams had already fallen in use.