In the US, a representative democracy, people typically want to vote for a representative (here the Pres.) who shares their views on issues. The US isn’t going to have a national referendum on Gaza where the people can directly vote.

What ever your view point(s) your time to vote on your issue(s) is during a presidential or midterm election.

The friend of certainty is time. One day perhaps then we won’t even call ourselves Americans. I doubt the 1860s will happen again anytime soon. Maybe something closer in scale to Blair Mountain.

Look to history. We’ve had two. Look at the words explaining the necessity of independence in the declaration of independence. Those were not hollow words but detailed a long series of abuses. Then look to the causes of the Civil War. A perfidious institution anathematic to the very core ideal of the nation, that all men are created equal.

Our times doubtless have our problems but the do not meet nearly the standard set in the past.

wild misinformation ads would be OK too…

Yes. Because the government is not the supreme arbiter of truth. If someone wants to put out an advert saying the sky is yellow they can. Our society functions on the principle that an open market of ideas will result in the best ideas prospering while a closed market of ideas would stifle new better ideas.

No need 1A speaks to that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

No need. America is a nation who’s founder where largely of one religion but they ensured that no one religion should assert itself over others.

And what crime passed by the federal legislature did they commit that wasn’t in violation of the constitution (including BoR) in your opinion? Last I checked 1A is still there.

I’d say pretty good. How often do you see the federal government passing a law that violates the rights of the American people? And when it does how often can you say that there isn’t a constitutional violation in that law?

Additionally you say that like we don’t enjoy many rights that our global peers don’t. Like the right to a trial by jury in civil matters, to confront your accusor in a criminal trial, the many strict protections we have on searches, or the protections on political speech.

So many of the rights that document protect people take as granted. Most every violation of one of those rights can be declared to be because we have yet to enumerate that right or we haven’t followed the rules the constitution imposed on our government.

Having faith in politicians and liking a document designed to ensure the preservation of human rights & liberties are two different things.

Exactly. People forget this about our appellate courts too often. For every can they hear there will be much more lower trial courts hear and will try and relate to the higher court’s case. An appellate court trying to solve every case in front of them in the most fair way ensures more cases will end unfairly.

Tim, dude, seriously. Actively arguing that it is appropriate to preferential treatment or negative treatment towards people on the basis of race. While claiming a law that shows no favors to anyone on the basis of race is like the words of hate groups.

There’s a broad distinction between letting people express themselves in their own free time and supporting systemic race based discrimination. Nobody is stopping straight people from going out and expressing themselves.

You are clearly the one with the bad faith stance. Seriously stop once, and in a moment of humility consider if it is you who might be wrong.

I would recommend you read his concurrence before you make comments as to the nature of his argument. I get it’s a lengthy one at 58 pages but as you seem to suggest in your comment strawmanning people in not a good practice.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/20-1199_hgdj.pdf

But if that’s too long I’ll try and summarize with a few lines from it.

“The Constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all.”

“enunciated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States: that all men are created equal, are equal citizens, and must be treated equally before the law.”

““[o]ur Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, 559 (1896) (Harlan, J., dissenting).”

And here’s the reading of a portion:

https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/roberts13/opinion_announcement_audio/25581

Just as it is wrong for white people to benefit from preferential treatment over black people who were detrimented (such as under slavery or Jim Crow). It is wrong for black people to benefit from preferential treatment over asian people who were detrimented (such as under Japanese interment or the Chinese exclusion act).

CA banned race base admission in the '90s in favor of a system that guaranteed admissions to top percentile students.

Post Students for Fair Admissions, schools can’t use race alone as a plus or minus nation wide. Like California has been doing it for the past 3 decades.

Universities’ recent experiences confirm the efficacy of a colorblind rule. To start, universities prohibited from engaging in racial discrimination by state law continue to enroll racially diverse classes by race-neutral means. For example, the University of California purportedly recently admitted its “most diverse undergraduate class ever,” despite California’s ban on racial preferences.

(THOMAS, J., concurring) (arguing universities can consider “[r]ace-neutral policies” similar to those adopted in States such as California and Michigan, and that universities can consider “status as a first-generation college applicant,” “financial means,” and “generational inheritance or otherwise”)

Thomas goes on and calls out the issue legacy admissions in his lengthy concurrence.

Worse, the classifications that JUSTICE JACKSON draws are themselves race-based stereotypes. She focuses on two hypothetical applicants, John and James, competing for admission to UNC. John is a white, seventh-generation legacy at the school, while James is black and would be the first in his family to attend UNC. Post, at 3. JUSTICE JACKSON argues that race-conscious admission programs are necessary to adequately compare the two applicants. As an initial matter, it is not clear why James’s race is the only factor that could encourage UNC to admit him; his status as a first-generation college applicant seems to contextualize his application. But, setting that aside, why is it that John should be judged based on the actions of his great-great-great-grandparents?

Kinda like that time the king of England took away Massachusetts’ legislatures. But I have a feeling the king here will fair better this go around.

Not sure on all the specifics of CA’s admittance structure, beyond they banned race base admission in the '90s in favor of a system that guaranteed admissions to top percentile students.

But post Students for Fair Admissions DEI measures are still ok. Schools can’t use race alone as a plus or minus but they may choose to favor those from disadvantaged neighborhoods, 1st generation college students, and even good essays that share someone’s experience being a race.

No one argues other. But you rebuke the notion that the war on drugs has any significance on the broader topic. Basing opinions on falsities.

In other words:

it seems fairly dishonest, especially since

schools represent a vast minority of mass killings. Not to mention your baseless assertion that violence in schools must have no relationship to the war on drugs. As if the gangs that move them don’t groom children to sell them for them.

K-12 and colleges/universities are only the setting of ~12.8% of mass shootings.

Your just making speculative hyperbole about a nation a hemisphere away. Isolating any one factor as reducing crime is often near impossible. A downward trend following legislative can just as easily be attributed to other factors like a general decline in criminality over time or due to bettering economic conditions (among countless other factors).

Those other groups aren’t using blanks. If anything this case is an indictment of how poor the industry can be at times with safety.

It’s like comparing the injury rates of commercial flights and those from a parachuting company.

I’m shocked your work doesn’t have some for free. Kits are much cheaper in bulk orders and the benefit to an employer of not having sick people killing production is probably clear.

One job I had had a literal pallet of them. People would grab an entire family’s worth at a time.

That’s been protected as free speech specifically for decades.

use whatever his response was (even a 5a plead) as prima facie evidence

This would get you reprimanded in court at best disbarred at worst. Utilizing the right to remain silent can not be used against you in a court of law. If it could it’d defeat the entire purpose of it by making silence become an admittance of guilt.

Sounds to me like he decided to be dry firing post facto.