I'm not comparing the protestors' actions, I'm comparing the governments' responses.
The law applies even to people we don't like.
I said this when Trudeau used the EA and I'll say it now; be careful what you allow your side to do because the other side will get to do the same thing when it's in power.
I always do my own thinking based on the actual facts, the Constitution and applicable Federal law. I never lean on the media or polls. I happen to agree with your assessment that Trump has probably gone too far but that conclusion puts him in good company: Examples include Andrew Jackson's handling of Native American removal, Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, and Richard Nixon's actions during the Watergate scandal. More recent presidents, like George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have also faced criticism for their interpretations and uses of executive power (as has Trump).
Thomas Jefferson had no Constitutional authority to buy the Louisiana territory from Napoleon.
Likewise, Washington and his Congress has no authority under the Constitution to start the First Bank of the United States (Madison who opposed Hamilton’s position in favor of a national bank argued against the bank but later changed his position because he needed it during the aftermath of the War of 1812).
Presidential overreach unfortunately is to be expected. There will be no more presidents like Calvin Coolidge.
Finally, FDR’s New Deal was initially struck down by the Supreme Court until he threatened to pack the court.
Daniel - we've had sufficient exchanges on this platform for me to confidently agree that you do your own thinking. Even when we don't agree.
I've thought of Trump as a modern day Jackson for some time now. Sometimes I agree with what he's doing (or at least the goals) and sometimes I don't. The fact that other president have "pushed the boundaries" doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned when we see it today. Intentions matter, but so do processes.
I agree that Trump has gone too far and that processes matter.
Sadly, “good” intentions (so-called) should not matter but have become the story of the U.S. presidency. Wrong actions (that violate individual liberty and the Constitution) can never become lawful because we value the objectives—the First National Bank/the Louisiana Purchase/Civil War/the Reconstruction Amendments/the New Deal/the Draft/the Civil Rights Act of 1964/the Great Society/Obama Care/and many of Trump’s Executive Orders. I would also add that several Constitutional Amendments arguably violate individual rights: the Taking Clause/Prohibition/Income Tax/the Federal Reserve.
The worse offenders have not been presidents but judges and justices. As I have already commented on some of the worst court decisions I will conclude with a quote from Abraham Lincoln (a president who both demonstrated the best and worst behavior):
"Important principles may, and must, be inflexible."
Yes, they are both awful. Thanks for the breakdown.
Comparing Antifa to the Truckers Convoy is like comparing Apples to Oranges… or maybe to a Fish and a Bicycle
I'm not comparing the protestors' actions, I'm comparing the governments' responses.
The law applies even to people we don't like.
I said this when Trudeau used the EA and I'll say it now; be careful what you allow your side to do because the other side will get to do the same thing when it's in power.
I am comparing the peaceful protesters to rioters. That is the difference
Phil,
I always do my own thinking based on the actual facts, the Constitution and applicable Federal law. I never lean on the media or polls. I happen to agree with your assessment that Trump has probably gone too far but that conclusion puts him in good company: Examples include Andrew Jackson's handling of Native American removal, Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus, and Richard Nixon's actions during the Watergate scandal. More recent presidents, like George W. Bush and Barack Obama, have also faced criticism for their interpretations and uses of executive power (as has Trump).
Thomas Jefferson had no Constitutional authority to buy the Louisiana territory from Napoleon.
Likewise, Washington and his Congress has no authority under the Constitution to start the First Bank of the United States (Madison who opposed Hamilton’s position in favor of a national bank argued against the bank but later changed his position because he needed it during the aftermath of the War of 1812).
Presidential overreach unfortunately is to be expected. There will be no more presidents like Calvin Coolidge.
Finally, FDR’s New Deal was initially struck down by the Supreme Court until he threatened to pack the court.
Daniel - we've had sufficient exchanges on this platform for me to confidently agree that you do your own thinking. Even when we don't agree.
I've thought of Trump as a modern day Jackson for some time now. Sometimes I agree with what he's doing (or at least the goals) and sometimes I don't. The fact that other president have "pushed the boundaries" doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned when we see it today. Intentions matter, but so do processes.
In this case, I think he's gone too far.
I agree that Trump has gone too far and that processes matter.
Sadly, “good” intentions (so-called) should not matter but have become the story of the U.S. presidency. Wrong actions (that violate individual liberty and the Constitution) can never become lawful because we value the objectives—the First National Bank/the Louisiana Purchase/Civil War/the Reconstruction Amendments/the New Deal/the Draft/the Civil Rights Act of 1964/the Great Society/Obama Care/and many of Trump’s Executive Orders. I would also add that several Constitutional Amendments arguably violate individual rights: the Taking Clause/Prohibition/Income Tax/the Federal Reserve.
The worse offenders have not been presidents but judges and justices. As I have already commented on some of the worst court decisions I will conclude with a quote from Abraham Lincoln (a president who both demonstrated the best and worst behavior):
"Important principles may, and must, be inflexible."
The goal of the Trudeau government was to escalate the protesters into violence.