National Guard won't be allowed to stop illegal aliens!

[ConHog]

How pathetic. State and local laws allowed for segregation. The governor could not legally authorize his NG to enforce a law that was declared unconstitutional.

And no, declaring something unconstitutional isn't a court order. It is merely an interpretation of the constitution.

Damn you are stupid. Your claim was that President used the NG to enforce a law. he did no such thing. He used the NG to enforce a court order, as I claimed in my OP.

You are now trying to change that, but your very words are there for all to read. You are now trying to claim you said the same fucking thing I said that the President used the NG to make sure a court order nullifying bad law was enforced." IF that was your original argument why then did you even post to try to correct me?

I'll tell you why, because you clearly thought that there was indeed a LAW in 1957 making segregation in public schools illegal.

Just admit to a mistake and move on...

My kingdom for an honest liberal.......

I never claimed the president used the NG to enforce a law. He took the governor's authority over them away and sent in the MILITARY.

You're so fucked in the head you can't remember what is posted from one page to the next.

Holy shit you are a fucking liar. How do you even live with yourself?

Here is your EXACT post liar.

It was. Dubya changed that with the nonsensical Patriot ACTS
Brainwashed sheep will follow any person they point at and say " He's the boss now"
Aye Aye sir.
An American.not murkin........"officer" serving in the Arizona guard, would tell DC to go fuck itself.
BUT.
You're a nation of gutless fools, hence the collapse.

I know many would like to blame that on BOOOSH as well, but all that law did really was change some technicalites.. In reality a President has always been able to over ride a governer's command of the national guard.

Probably the greatest example of that fact is Little Rock,AR 1957 when then Governer Orval Faubus decided to defy a federal court order and ordered the Arkansas National Guard deployed to prevent black children from attending Little Rock Central High School. well President Eisenhower certainly didn't care for that, so he countermanded those orders and instead ordered that the Guard make sure those children COULD attend the high school. Guess who's orders the Guard followed?

The NG cannot go against the law you stupid asshole. Desegregation was Federal law...what an idiot you are.

Now tell me again how you didn't claim that it was a law .

Lying sack of shit.

 

[Yurt]

How pathetic. State and local laws allowed for segregation. The governor could not legally authorize his NG to enforce a law that was declared unconstitutional.

And no, declaring something unconstitutional isn't a court order. It is merely an interpretation of the constitution.

it can be a court order though....like the cali prop 8 case, it was deemed unconstitutional, but he stayed his order on allowing homosexuals to marry pending appeal

But not in this one particular case. Declaring a law unconstitutional means it is unconstitutional. The stay in the prop 8 case is because that case will go to SCOTUS. In the Arkansas case, SCOTUS has the final word.

oh i see...i thought you were talking in general

i thought scotus ordered the schools desegreted...will review that one

 

[del]

Damn you are stupid. Your claim was that President used the NG to enforce a law. he did no such thing. He used the NG to enforce a court order, as I claimed in my OP.

You are now trying to change that, but your very words are there for all to read. You are now trying to claim you said the same fucking thing I said that the President used the NG to make sure a court order nullifying bad law was enforced." IF that was your original argument why then did you even post to try to correct me?

I'll tell you why, because you clearly thought that there was indeed a LAW in 1957 making segregation in public schools illegal.

Just admit to a mistake and move on...

My kingdom for an honest liberal.......

I never claimed the president used the NG to enforce a law. He took the governor's authority over them away and sent in the MILITARY.

You're so fucked in the head you can't remember what is posted from one page to the next.

Holy shit you are a fucking liar. How do you even live with yourself?

Here is your EXACT post liar.

I know many would like to blame that on BOOOSH as well, but all that law did really was change some technicalites.. In reality a President has always been able to over ride a governer's command of the national guard.

Probably the greatest example of that fact is Little Rock,AR 1957 when then Governer Orval Faubus decided to defy a federal court order and ordered the Arkansas National Guard deployed to prevent black children from attending Little Rock Central High School. well President Eisenhower certainly didn't care for that, so he countermanded those orders and instead ordered that the Guard make sure those children COULD attend the high school. Guess who's orders the Guard followed?

The NG cannot go against the law you stupid asshole. Desegregation was Federal law...what an idiot you are.

Now tell me again how you didn't claim that it was a law .

Lying sack of shit.

tell me what this has to do with ravi's claim that she never said the president used the NG to enforce the law? because as far as i can tell, she didn't.

fail

 

[ConHog]

it can be a court order though....like the cali prop 8 case, it was deemed unconstitutional, but he stayed his order on allowing homosexuals to marry pending appeal

But not in this one particular case. Declaring a law unconstitutional means it is unconstitutional. The stay in the prop 8 case is because that case will go to SCOTUS. In the Arkansas case, SCOTUS has the final word.

oh i see...i thought you were talking in general

i thought scotus ordered the schools desegreted...will review that one

It was Brown vs Board which prompted the 1957 event, a SCOTUS case from 1954, obviously the south was a little slow in complying.

 

[Ravi]

What part of this don't you understand? I posted it before and Jillian also schooled you on history.

I owe you two more neg reps for lying...I'll never be able to keep up.

A court order is not a law you moron. Courts can't pass laws. THEREFOR in my original post when I said that he was ignoring a COURT ORDER I was CORRECT, when you later came along and said he was ignoring a law you were INCORRECT.

Basic civics you dumb bitch.

you're confusing law with laws....they are two technically different terms

a court ruling can and does become law, however, they do not create laws as congress does. its called common law....

Yes, thank you Yurt. The law of the land is that segregation is unconstitutional.

The point being that only in certain circumstances can the federal government take over the NG...and that is how it should be. For state matters it cannot...

 

[ConHog]

I never claimed the president used the NG to enforce a law. He took the governor's authority over them away and sent in the MILITARY.

You're so fucked in the head you can't remember what is posted from one page to the next.

Holy shit you are a fucking liar. How do you even live with yourself?

Here is your EXACT post liar.

The NG cannot go against the law you stupid asshole. Desegregation was Federal law...what an idiot you are.

Now tell me again how you didn't claim that it was a law .

Lying sack of shit.

tell me what this has to do with ravi's claim that she never said the president used the NG to enforce the law? because as far as i can tell, she didn't.

fail

Whatever fuck head, that's exactly what she said. in her own words. Why did he over ride the governor then? for lollipops? it was either to enforce a court order, as I said, or to enforce a law, which Ravi said. If ravi agreed that it was to enforce a court order then why would she have started an argument about it?

 

[Ravi]

Damn you are stupid. Your claim was that President used the NG to enforce a law. he did no such thing. He used the NG to enforce a court order, as I claimed in my OP.

You are now trying to change that, but your very words are there for all to read. You are now trying to claim you said the same fucking thing I said that the President used the NG to make sure a court order nullifying bad law was enforced." IF that was your original argument why then did you even post to try to correct me?

I'll tell you why, because you clearly thought that there was indeed a LAW in 1957 making segregation in public schools illegal.

Just admit to a mistake and move on...

My kingdom for an honest liberal.......

I never claimed the president used the NG to enforce a law. He took the governor's authority over them away and sent in the MILITARY.

You're so fucked in the head you can't remember what is posted from one page to the next.

Holy shit you are a fucking liar. How do you even live with yourself?

Here is your EXACT post liar.

I know many would like to blame that on BOOOSH as well, but all that law did really was change some technicalites.. In reality a President has always been able to over ride a governer's command of the national guard.

Probably the greatest example of that fact is Little Rock,AR 1957 when then Governer Orval Faubus decided to defy a federal court order and ordered the Arkansas National Guard deployed to prevent black children from attending Little Rock Central High School. well President Eisenhower certainly didn't care for that, so he countermanded those orders and instead ordered that the Guard make sure those children COULD attend the high school. Guess who's orders the Guard followed?

The NG cannot go against the law you stupid asshole. Desegregation was Federal law...what an idiot you are.

Now tell me again how you didn't claim that it was a law .

Lying sack of shit.

You're using one post to disprove another and failing mightily.

 

[Ravi]

it can be a court order though....like the cali prop 8 case, it was deemed unconstitutional, but he stayed his order on allowing homosexuals to marry pending appeal

But not in this one particular case. Declaring a law unconstitutional means it is unconstitutional. The stay in the prop 8 case is because that case will go to SCOTUS. In the Arkansas case, SCOTUS has the final word.

oh i see...i thought you were talking in general

i thought scotus ordered the schools desegreted...will review that one

They did...and since there is no higher court there is no authority to segregate. In the Prop 8 case it hasn't been to the highest court. yet.

 

[Yurt]

A court order is not a law you moron. Courts can't pass laws. THEREFOR in my original post when I said that he was ignoring a COURT ORDER I was CORRECT, when you later came along and said he was ignoring a law you were INCORRECT.

Basic civics you dumb bitch.

you're confusing law with laws....they are two technically different terms

a court ruling can and does become law, however, they do not create laws as congress does. its called common law....

The United States federal government (as opposed to the states) only partially has a common law system. United States federal courts only act as interpreters of statutes and the constitution by elaborating and precisely defining the broad language (connotation 1(b) above), but, unlike state courts, do not act as an independent source of common law


Common law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

wrong again....try looking up federal common law

and your own link shows you're a moron...the part above is from the section about federal courts and state laws/decisions

In 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), overruled earlier precedent,[49] and held "There is no federal general common law," thus confining the federal courts to act only as interpreters of law originating elsewhere. E.g., Texas Industries v. Radcliff, 451 U.S. 630 (1981) (without an express grant of statutory authority, federal courts cannot create rules of intuitive justice, for example, a right to contribution from co-conspirators). Post-1938, federal courts deciding issues that arise under state law are required to defer to state court interpretations of state statutes, or reason what a state's highest court would rule if presented with the issue, or to certify the question to the state's highest court for resolution.

Later courts have limited Erie slightly, to create a few situations where United States federal courts are permitted to create federal common law rules without express statutory authority, for example, where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests

 

[del]

Holy shit you are a fucking liar. How do you even live with yourself?

Here is your EXACT post liar.




Now tell me again how you didn't claim that it was a law .

Lying sack of shit.

tell me what this has to do with ravi's claim that she never said the president used the NG to enforce the law? because as far as i can tell, she didn't.

fail

Whatever fuck head, that's exactly what she said. in her own words. Why did he over ride the governor then? for lollipops? it was either to enforce a court order, as I said, or to enforce a law, which Ravi said. If ravi agreed that it was to enforce a court order then why would she have started an argument about it?

eisenhower never used the NG to enforce the law or a court order or whatever you'd like to call it. period, full stop, EOF. sorry

 

[ConHog]

A court order is not a law you moron. Courts can't pass laws. THEREFOR in my original post when I said that he was ignoring a COURT ORDER I was CORRECT, when you later came along and said he was ignoring a law you were INCORRECT.

Basic civics you dumb bitch.

you're confusing law with laws....they are two technically different terms

a court ruling can and does become law, however, they do not create laws as congress does. its called common law....

Yes, thank you Yurt. The law of the land is that segregation is unconstitutional.

The point being that only

in certain circumstances can the federal government take over the NG...and that is how it should be. For state matters it cannot...

Damn you're stupid, laws don't make things constitutional or not. court rulings do that. and federal courts don't make laws, the whole separation of powers thing you know....

Anyway, I'm bored with your stupidity here. I'll catch you on the next lie, which won't be long in coming I guarantee.

 

[Yurt]

A court order is not a law you moron. Courts can't pass laws. THEREFOR in my original post when I said that he was ignoring a COURT ORDER I was CORRECT, when you later came along and said he was ignoring a law you were INCORRECT.

Basic civics you dumb bitch.

you're confusing law with laws....they are two technically different terms

a court ruling can and does become law, however, they do not create laws as congress does. its called common law....

Yes, thank you Yurt. The law of the land is that segregation is unconstitutional.

The point being that only in certain circumstances can the federal government take over the NG...and that is how it should be. For state matters it cannot...

correct

 

[ConHog]

tell me what this has to do with ravi's claim that she never said the president used the NG to enforce the law? because as far as i can tell, she didn't.

fail

Whatever fuck head, that's exactly what she said. in her own words. Why did he over ride the governor then? for lollipops? it was either to enforce a court order, as I said, or to enforce a law, which Ravi said. If ravi agreed that it was to enforce a court order then why would she have started an argument about it?

eisenhower never used the NG to enforce the law or a court order or whatever you'd like to call it. period, full stop, EOF. sorry

Technically true, he used the 101st but he DID federalize ALL Arkansas National Guard troops

 

[Ravi]

you're confusing law with laws....they are two technically different terms

a court ruling can and does become law, however, they do not create laws as congress does. its called common law....

Yes, thank you Yurt. The law of the land is that segregation is unconstitutional.

The point being that only

in certain circumstances can the federal government take over the NG...and that is how it should be. For state matters it cannot...

Damn you're stupid, laws don't make things constitutional or not. court rulings do that. and federal courts don't make laws, the whole separation of powers thing you know....

Anyway, I'm bored with your stupidity here. I'll catch you on the next lie, which won't be long in coming I guarantee.

As Yurt pointed out above, you are confusing laws with law.

I suppose the difference is too much for you to understand.

 

[Yurt]

you're confusing law with laws....they are two technically different terms

a court ruling can and does become law, however, they do not create laws as congress does. its called common law....

Yes, thank you Yurt. The law of the land is that segregation is unconstitutional.

The point being that only

in certain circumstances can the federal government take over the NG...and that is how it should be. For state matters it cannot...

Damn you're stupid, laws don't make things constitutional or not. court rulings do that. and federal courts don't make laws, the whole separation of powers thing you know....

Anyway, I'm bored with your stupidity here. I'll catch you on the next lie, which won't be long in coming I guarantee.

no, you're stupid....that scotus decision is in fact the law of the land regarding that issue....ravi is correct, you as usual are not

 

[del]

Whatever fuck head, that's exactly what she said. in her own words. Why did he over ride the governor then? for lollipops? it was either to enforce a court order, as I said, or to enforce a law, which Ravi said. If ravi agreed that it was to enforce a court order then why would she have started an argument about it?

eisenhower never used the NG to enforce the law or a court order or whatever you'd like to call it. period, full stop, EOF. sorry

Technically true, he used the 101st but he DID federalize ALL Arkansas National Guard troops

to keep farbus from using them- they had no enforcement role.

 

[ConHog]

Yes, thank you Yurt. The law of the land is that segregation is unconstitutional.

The point being that only

in certain circumstances can the federal government take over the NG...and that is how it should be. For state matters it cannot...

Damn you're stupid, laws don't make things constitutional or not. court rulings do that. and federal courts don't make laws, the whole separation of powers thing you know....

Anyway, I'm bored with your stupidity here. I'll catch you on the next lie, which won't be long in coming I guarantee.

no, you're stupid....that scotus decision is in fact the law of the land regarding that issue....ravi is correct, you as usual are not

LOL - IF that is true Yurt, then why did the law need to be codified as such in 1964? Oh that's right because our federal justice system is codified laws, not common laws.

Failure

 

[ConHog]

eisenhower never used the NG to enforce the law or a court order or whatever you'd like to call it. period, full stop, EOF. sorry

Technically true, he used the 101st but he DID federalize ALL Arkansas National Guard troops

to keep farbus from using them- they had no enforcement role.

Absolutely correct, I should have clarified...

 

[Yurt]

Damn you're stupid, laws don't make things constitutional or not. court rulings do that. and federal courts don't make laws, the whole separation of powers thing you know....

Anyway, I'm bored with your stupidity here. I'll catch you on the next lie, which won't be long in coming I guarantee.

no, you're stupid....that scotus decision is in fact the law of the land regarding that issue....ravi is correct, you as usual are not

LOL - IF that is true Yurt, then why did the law need to be codified as such in 1964? Oh that's right because our federal justice system is codified laws, not common laws.

Failure

how anyone can be such a moron is beyond me...

even wiki answers says you a total moron

Answer

Yes and no. Usually the "Supreme Law of the Land" refers to the Constitution of the United States. According to Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution, however, the "Supreme Law of the Land" means "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof." We usually take this to mean enacted laws, or laws made by a legislative body, like Congress, but it can also mean common law, or laws made as a result of judicial decisions.

Supreme Court decisions make common law, which is enforceable and carries the rule of law, so it must also be in compliance with the Constitution. In that sense, rulings by the Supreme Court could be considered part of the "Supreme Law of the Land," as long as they are constitutionally sound.

WikiAnswers - Are rulings by the US Supreme Court considered the 'Supreme Law of the Land'

if you like i can get a more grown up source, but i thought i would use this source as a way of showing just how stupid you really are

 

[ConHog]

no, you're stupid....that scotus decision is in fact the law of the land regarding that issue....ravi is correct, you as usual are not

LOL - IF that is true Yurt, then why did the law need to be codified as such in 1964? Oh that's right because our federal justice system is codified laws, not common laws.

Failure

how anyone can be such a moron is beyond me...

even wiki answers says you a total moron

Answer

Yes and no. Usually the "Supreme Law of the Land" refers to the Constitution of the United States. According to Article VI, Section 2 of the Constitution, however, the "Supreme Law of the Land" means "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof." We usually take this to mean enacted laws, or laws made by a legislative body, like Congress, but it can also mean common law, or laws made as a result of judicial decisions.

Supreme Court decisions make common law, which is enforceable and carries the rule of law, so it must also be in compliance with the Constitution. In that sense, rulings by the Supreme Court could be considered part of the "Supreme Law of the Land," as long as they are constitutionally sound.

WikiAnswers - Are rulings by the US Supreme Court considered the 'Supreme Law of the Land'



if you like i can get a more grown up source, but i thought i would use this source as a way of showing just how stupid you really are

You know Yurtie, this could actually be an interesting discussion, but the fact that you are acting like a baby means I won't participate.

That being said, you and I and everyone else in here knows that Ravi was NOT referring to a court ruling having the effect of law. if she had meant that she would have no reason to correct me when I said a COURT ORDER. We all understand that a court order can be enforced just the same way as a law can be. She instead tried to unsuccessfully argue a LAW was in place, NOT a court order.

The ONY reason you are in here defending her now is because your feelers are hurt over being called a pussy about whining about art's death wish for a week. It certainly isn't because you think Ravi is some great thinker. If you'd like I'd be happy to find numerous posts from you insulting Ravi, so that's some strange bedfellows right there.