Noem confuses a constitutional right with its abuse. Imagine my surprise.

[buckeye]

An empty-headed person in charge of the Department of Homeland Security.
Let that sink in.

We are talking about someone entrusted with safeguarding our borders, defending against cyberattacks, protecting critical infrastructure, and responding to national emergencies — and yet they're more preoccupied with their public image than the responsibilities of the office.

This isn't just about partisanship or personal dislike. It's about what should be the unacceptable reality that someone lacking depth, sound judgment, or even the basic intellectual capacity to manage a gas station is sitting atop one of the most sensitive, consequential agencies in the U.S. government.

Whether it’s a governor playing photo-op politics or a national official fumbling through staged talking points, the stakes are too high. You don't put someone in charge of Homeland Security — or any vital public role — because they look good on camera or poll well.

Leadership should be earned through competence, vision, and accountability. Not vanity.

Not branding.

And certainly not ignorance.

Did you support Secretary Mayorkas? Did you think he did his job honorably and honestly?

 

[buckeye]

The point is here, now, and in our lives.

Biden is gone and will not be a distraction from the Orange idiot's acts.

No, slow horse, the point is that you supported allowing our borders to be effectively dissolved for 4 years and now want to point fingers at our current Secretary for a comment she made. At least she's enforcing the law and protecting our borders.

 

[buckeye]

So it's always just a matter of interpretation.

No, it's not. Our founders clearly labeled it a right.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No, slow horse, the point is that you supported allowing our borders to be effectively dissolved for 4 years and now want to point fingers at our current Secretary for a comment she made. At least she's enforcing the law and protecting our borders.

I supported nothing of the sort. I am fine with deportation as long as the rule of law is followed. Noem is an ineffective bully (much like Patel) and not much more.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Might as well get a cleaning woman to take Maxine's Chair on the Banking Committee. She had absolutely no idea what was going on. She lacked the intelligence to even know what she didn't know. It would be like a gnat trying to understand calculus. I remember when she trying to grill billionaire Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. He couldn't hide his disdain for her. He even motioned to her how to use her gavel. Democrats get laughable people to run stuff. Think about 0bama trying to run the country. He had no experience running anything or producing anything. Ever. He was by far the least qualified candidate for the presidency while Trump is by far the MOST qualified. It showed in both cases. Trump did a fantastic job. 0bama was a disaster.

So tell us what made him more qualified, be specific. Give us a list of all these great qualifications.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Perhaps we need to start looking at the Second Amendment the same way.

I just went over this. The people of the United States are more likely to have those rights "guaranteed" protected by the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution violated than to have the "privilege" of habeas corpus suspended.

Far too many seem to be focused on the wrong thing.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

That is clearly a right and its called such.

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.

And you don't think it's infringed upon in any way?

 

[buckeye]

I supported nothing of the sort. I am fine with deportation as long as the rule of law is followed. Noem is an ineffective bully (much like Patel) and not much more.

It seems you denied that there even was a problem under Biden with unrestricted illegal immigration. I'd call that ignorance quite supportive of unrestricted illegal immigration, slow horses. You're kind of sleazy, IMHO.

What a silly statement. The party is fine. There is no unrestricted illegal immigration. There is unrestricted lying by MAGA.

Post in thread 'Proof That J6 Was a Set-Up, Why Does FBI Not Want “We Gotta Fill Up the Capitol!” “Scaffold Commander?”'

Dec 29, 2023

Their party is destroying itself. Look at how up in arms the citizens of NYC and Chicago are now they have to deal with unrestricted illegal immigration like Texas has had to deal with.

What a silly statement. The party is fine. There is no unrestricted illegal immigration. There is unrestricted lying by MAGA.

• John Edgar Slow Horses

 

[buckeye]

And you don't think it's infringed upon in any way?

By what?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

By what?

By "the government" - any of them.

 

[buckeye]

By "the government" - any of them.

I'm not an attorney. But I know when the Founders wanted something to be known as a right, that's what they called it and its not negotiable.

 

[MagicMike]

No, it's not. Our founders clearly labeled it a right.

It wasn't even until the 2008 Heller vs. District of Columbia case that the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment to even say that individuals have a right to posess firearms.
So yeah....it's TOTALLY a matter of interpretation....and this "right" has only existed for 17 years.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If this was the Biden administration MAGA would be condemning Noem loudly as a DEI hire.

DEI, like affirmative action provided opened doors by providing previously excluded opportunities to women as well as minorities with white women being the demographic who benefited the most from both.

So while the Trump admin is busy scrubbing government websites and removing mention or indications of Black people all throughout the country & history, we have on display here Kristi Noem.

If the goal of Trump et al is truly to rid the government of DEI hires because they were allegedly not hired based on merit, then how do they explain Noem's existence as head of the Department of Homeland Security? And why is she still there if they're getting rid of all things DEI?

It's people like HER that give DEI a bad name, not Black people, nor should it be treated as a 4-letter word anyway which leads to my next point, I just discovered this tidbit:
How power bypasses competence in modern governance.

Let’s break this down in a clear way:

---

1. The Federal Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)​

Yes, it still exists — technically.
But it was crippled for years.

• From 2017 to 2022, the MSPB had no quorum because Trump never fully staffed it.
• That meant it couldn’t hear appeals or enforce merit-based protections for federal employees.
• Over 3,500 cases were backlogged by the time the Biden admin restored quorum in 2022.

So while the board exists, for half a decade it might as well not have.
Why that matters: The federal merit system is supposed to ensure that government employees are:

• Chosen for their qualifications
• Protected from political retaliation
• Evaluated based on performance, not ideology

The gutting of the MSPB meant career civil servants lost their last line of defense, while cronies were placed without oversight.

2. Why Political Appointees Don’t Take Civil Service Exams​

The civil service exam (or equivalent assessments) applies mostly to:

• Career civil servants
• Competitive service positions

But political appointees (like cabinet secretaries, White House staff, and executive agency heads) are in the Excepted Service, specifically Schedule C or Presidential Appointments.
That means:

They’re exempt from competitive hiring rules — including exams, merit rankings, or objective qualifications.

Presidents can appoint:

• CEOs with no public experience
• Billionaire donors
• Media personalities
• Loyalists with no domain expertise

…and there’s no test, no credential gate, and no formal vetting beyond background checks and Senate confirmation.
That’s how we got:

• Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education (never taught, dismantled public schools)
• Ben Carson at HUD (a neurosurgeon who thought poor people should just stop being poor)
• Rick Perry at Energy (he forgot the department existed during a debate)

---

3. How Can the Public Object When Someone Is Unqualified?​

You're right — we should have recourse. But here’s how it really works:

Method	Practical Effect
Public Comment	Mostly symbolic unless there’s massive volume or media heat
Senate Confirmation Hearings	Only works if Senate is not controlled by same party
Inspector General Complaints	Can expose wrongdoing, but not remove someone for incompetence
Civil Service Protections	Do not apply to political appointees
Voting	Indirect — you have to vote out the person who appointed them

So while you, the public, may recognize that someone is clearly unqualified, there’s no formal competency bar for high-level executive appointments.

And that’s not a flaw.
It’s a feature of how patronage still rules American governance.

What Is the Patronage System?​

The patronage rule refers to the practice of giving government jobs or contracts to people based on their political loyalty or connections, rather than merit or qualifications.

In other words:

“You helped me get elected, so now you get a job — even if you’re not the best person for it.”

---

Where It Came From​

This practice dates back to the spoils system in the 1800s, where elected officials filled government positions with their friends and supporters.

Eventually, reformers realized this was:

• Undermining the quality of government service
• Corrupting public trust
• Driving out qualified, career professionals

That’s why we got:

• The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act (1883): Said some jobs had to be awarded based on merit and competitive exams.
• Civil service protections: Developed to insulate certain positions from political turnover.

---

In Legal Terms​

The modern patronage rule usually shows up in litigation when someone claims:

“I was fired (or not hired) because I didn’t support the ruling political party or didn’t have the right political connections.”

In U.S. constitutional law, this can violate the First Amendment — because:

• Government jobs shouldn’t require political loyalty
• You shouldn’t be punished for your political beliefs or associations

This was a major issue in the case Elrod v. Burns (1976) and Branti v. Finkel (1980) — where the Supreme Court said:

You can’t fire a public employee just because they’re affiliated with the wrong political party — unless the position is inherently political.|

---

Why It Still Matters​

Even though patronage hiring is limited by law, it still exists in loopholes and informal practices, such as:

• Political appointments
• Temporary contracts (to bypass civil service)
• Privatization of roles that used to be protected
• “Favor hires” in agencies that should be nonpartisan

That’s especially true at the federal level when administrations change — and was openly exploited under Trump, where loyalty often replaced competence in key roles.

 

[buckeye]

It wasn't even until the 2008 Heller vs. District of Columbia case that the Supreme Court interpreted the Second Amendment to even say that individuals have a right to posess firearms.
So yeah....it's TOTALLY a matter of interpretation....and this "right" has only existed for 17 years.

You think what you like. This is America, after all. But it sure doesn't make it much more than your opinion.

The Founders clearly called the RIGHT to bear arms a right and not a privilege. The SC was simply reinforcing what our Constitution says. That is their job, you know.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I'm not an attorney. But I know when the Founders wanted something to be known as a right, that's what they called it and its not negotiable.

​

The Right:​

“Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech.”

This is what I meant:

Sounds absolute, right?

Here's a classic example of how the U.S. government acknowledges that the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are not absolute:

The Limitation:​

But the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that freedom of speech is not absolute.
For example:

You cannot legally yell “fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no fire, because it could cause panic and physical harm.

This comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ opinion in Schenck v. United States (1919), which introduced the concept of “clear and present danger.”

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man infalsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

So — your speech is protected, unless:

• It incites imminent violence (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969)
• It's obscene (Miller v. California, 1973)
• It’s defamatory (libel or slander)
• It creates national security risks (like publishing classified intel)

---

Other Examples of Rights Being Limited​

Freedom of Religion (1st Amendment)​

You can believe whatever you want — but:

You can’t sacrifice animals in public or deny your children medical care during a life-threatening emergency just because your religion says so.

Right to Bear Arms (2nd Amendment)​

You have a right to own guns — but:

You can’t bring a weapon into an airport, federal courthouse, or onto school grounds in most jurisdictions.

Protection from Search & Seizure (4th Amendment)​

You’re protected — but:

Police can search your car without a warrant if they have probable cause, or search your home without a warrant if there are exigent circumstances (e.g., someone screaming inside).

So What Does It​

When courts say:

“Rights are not absolute,”
They mean:
Your rights are balanced against the safety, order, and interests of the broader society.

But as you already know — that language can also be twisted.
Sometimes the “public interest” is just an excuse to:

• Silence dissent
• Target people by race or ideology
• Punish political threats

So while rights are legally limited, you’re completely justified in pointing out that those limits are enforced selectively, and often weaponized against the people who need rights the most.

 

[Stryder50]

Habeas corpus (/ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔːrpəs/ <a href="File:En-ca-habeas corpus.ogg - Wikipedia" title="File:En-ca-habeas corpus.ogg">ⓘ</a>; from Medieval Latin, lit. 'you should have the body')<a href="Habeas corpus - Wikipedia"><span>[</span>1<span>]</span></a> is a legal procedure by which a report can be made to a court alleging the unlawful detention or imprisonment of an individual, and requesting that the court order the individual's custodian (usually a prison official) to bring the prisoner to court, to determine whether their detention is lawful.
....
Habeas corpus has certain limitations. The petitioner must present a prima facie case that a person has been unlawfully restrained.
....

Habeas corpus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.......................
So a person is in our country without legal permission to be here, has no documentation identifying themselves and/or showing they have permission to be here.

This has been established as a crime, breaking a law.
Hence they are not "unlawfully restrained".

 

[Mac1958]

I used to giggle whenever I would hear people referring to Hegseth & Noem, et al as engaging in cosplay, now all I can say is wow and shake my head.

This whole thing is at a point where all you can do is just stare at it and shake your head.

 

[struth]

An empty-headed person in charge of the Department of Homeland Security.
Let that sink in.

We are talking about someone entrusted with safeguarding our borders, defending against cyberattacks, protecting critical infrastructure, and responding to national emergencies — and yet they're more preoccupied with their public image than the responsibilities of the office.

This isn't just about partisanship or personal dislike. It's about what should be the unacceptable reality that someone lacking depth, sound judgment, or even the basic intellectual capacity to manage a gas station is sitting atop one of the most sensitive, consequential agencies in the U.S. government.

Whether it’s a governor playing photo-op politics or a national official fumbling through staged talking points, the stakes are too high. You don't put someone in charge of Homeland Security — or any vital public role — because they look good on camera or poll well.

Leadership should be earned through competence, vision, and accountability. Not vanity.

Not branding.

And certainly not ignorance.

And she’s done a fantastic job, in mere months she’s actually did what the xiden admin claimed whet were powerless to stop over four years, and that’s the surge on the border

 

[struth]

She didn't "screw up" the question. She doesn't know the answer, and probably still doesn't understand it, in context.

Even though I was unaware that habeas corpus is contained in Article 1 of the Constitution, I knew she didn't know what she was talking about as soon as she said "habeas corpus is the right of the president...." "The president" is "the government" and the government is who the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution protects us from ("the people of the United States").

HC isn’t in the bill of rights

Maybe you should stop, when you clearly are clueless on the topic

 

[buckeye]

​

The Right:​

This is what I meant:

Sounds absolute, right?

Here's a classic example of how the U.S. government acknowledges that the rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are not absolute:

The Limitation:​

But the Supreme Court has ruled repeatedly that freedom of speech is not absolute.
For example:

This comes from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ opinion in Schenck v. United States (1919), which introduced the concept of “clear and present danger.”

So — your speech is protected, unless:

• It incites imminent violence (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969)
• It's obscene (Miller v. California, 1973)
• It’s defamatory (libel or slander)
• It creates national security risks (like publishing classified intel)

---

Other Examples of Rights Being Limited​

Freedom of Religion (1st Amendment)​

You can believe whatever you want — but:

Right to Bear Arms (2nd Amendment)​

You have a right to own guns — but:

Protection from Search & Seizure (4th Amendment)​

You’re protected — but:

So What Does It​

When courts say:

But as you already know — that language can also be twisted.
Sometimes the “public interest” is just an excuse to:

• Silence dissent
• Target people by race or ideology
• Punish political threats

So while rights are legally limited, you’re completely justified in pointing out that those limits are enforced selectively, and often weaponized against the people who need rights the most.

1. It's completely improper to cut and paste from somewhere else without acknowledging your source. Why do you not know this? We all know the Dementia Patient is a plagiarist. Why are you?

2. Of course there are limits on ALL rights. Good grief, who said there weren't? I can buy a gun, but I can't pull it out at business meeting and act threatening with it. We are a civilized nation, or used to be. Why do leftists always go to black and white thinking? Sometimes I think you're all 7 years old in your maturity stage.

3. What you are doing is trying to silence me. You're not going to but its your aim by plagiarizing and thinking you're making a point. Which you're not. Of course there are limits on rights, that doesn't mean they don't exist anymore. Guess what? There's also responsibilities attached to every right. And if you fail in your responsibilities, you lose your rights. Leftists never talk about responsibilities attached to rights. Back to the black and white thinking you just exhibited.

4. WE ALL NEED OUR RIGHTS. To say some people need rights more than others is simply ignorant of what rights are. Donald Trump needs his rights respected just as much as you need yours respected.

Again, good grief.