I would think that’s an excellent idea. If you’re on the terror watch list, I should know you’re on the terror watch list. You’re on there for a reason.

New York mayor and current Donald Trump adviser Rudy Giuliani, giving his enthusiastic approval Wednesday to the idea of forcing every Muslim on the FBI’s terrorist watch list to wear electronic monitoring tags to track their every move.

For real. 

Of course, his whole premise is nonsense:

Being on a government list isn’t a good reason to lose your constitutional rights. And this list specifically is a nightmare of civil liberties abuse, incompetence, and bureaucracy.

It has grown to include as many as 1.5 million people (up from “just” 50,000 at the end of George W. Bush’s second term), and about 40 percent of the people listed have no demonstrable ties to any terrorist activity or organization.

That’s because “irrefutable evidence or concrete facts” are not required to put someone on the list. Reasons for listing a person can be as ambiguous as a Facebook post that raises “reasonable suspicion” or being related to someone who might be connected to terrorism.

In fact, 99 percent of submitted names are put on the list, and it’s not difficult to imagine how that might be abused. Worse, because the government has no process for removing people from the list, many stay listed after they are dead or acquitted.

Some of the people mistakenly identified as terrorists include a 4-year-old boy, a Marine veteran, a wheelchair-bound grad student, Rep. Tom McClintock, and Sen. Ted Kennedy.

All this means that Giuliani’s claim that anyone on the list is “on there for a reason” is a shameless and shameful lie.

He couldn’t be more wrong.

Lots of people, including Muslim people, are on that list for no good reason at all.

Needless to say, we cannot expect this blatherskite to bother with such irritating details as he rushes to trample the bleeding remains of due process.

James Winthrop, writing under the pseudonym Agrippa, argues against the Constitution, suggesting that it will lead to the inevitable abuse of federal power: http://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/agrippas-anti-federalist-1

Hey, NRA. About That Second Amendment...

If you don’t happen to have the Bill of Rights memorized, here’s the text of the Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

So, the Amendment’s argument is this: we need to keep the state secure, which requires a functioning militia, which requires the people be allowed to bear arms. Fine.

If we cut out the ambiguous middleman, the word “militia,” it’s clear that the Founding Father’s saw the right to bear arms as essential to the security of the state. However, security is also the only (explicitly stated) reason to protect this right.

So…I don’t see how the amendment necessarily protects the NRA’s objective of “furthering the shooting sports”—that’s a recreational thing, not a security thing, which was (seemingly) the whole point of allowing gun use.

And if recreational gun use can actually undermine national security, limiting the right to bear arms wouldn’t be unprecedented. After all, even the First Amendment is limited by the “clear and present danger” test.

Anyway, I’m just throwing things out there. Do with it what you will.

So I was in my government class and we were watching a video on the creation of the constitution and they were talking about how we have statues and paintings of the founding fathers and that we basically see them as gods and the narrator said “Most of the fathers would blush at the way we see them today” aND THEN A PICTURE OF HAMILTON CAME ON THE SCREEN AND THE NARRATOR SAID “Some would not” AND I FLIPPED BC ITS SO TRUE HAM YOU ARROGANT LITTLE CUTIE