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

[Yurt]

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.

more lies and more lies....i've argued against you before that art thing, (stealing remember liar)then you went on "vacation"....i was tired of your bullshit long before that and you know it mr. your wife is a lawyer bullshit, you even acknowledged it upon returning from your so called vacation

its clear you know you're wrong here, but instead of maturely admitting it, you simply attack me and ravi...ravi and i may disagree, but we can still get along, we're not rabid like you

you're wrong and it cracks me up that even wiki answers says you're a moron

 

[Ravi]

cornjob...not everyone takes little spats as deadly seriously as you do. Get a grip.

 

[Yurt]

cornjob...not everyone takes little spats as deadly seriously as you do. Get a grip.

no kidding...

but did you like the he slinked away from his claim about the common law....he knows he is wrong, but it would make an "interesting" discussion...

had you said that, he would have created a dozen threads in the flame zone about you running away

 

[Ravi]

cornjob...not everyone takes little spats as deadly seriously as you do. Get a grip.

no kidding...

but did you like the he slinked away from his claim about the common law....he knows he is wrong, but it would make an "interesting" discussion...

had you said that, he would have created a dozen threads in the flame zone about you running away

Now his mind is exploding with the difference between "laws" "law" and "court order". Just him deflecting from the main point way back at the beginning of the thread about the deploying of the National Guard.

Don't know if you read the entire thread, but he claimed that Ike taking over the NG in the Arkansas case that "proves" that Governors have no ability to command their own Guard.

Never making the connection that a Governor cannot order his or her troops to do something that is unconstitutional...in this case, keep the schools segregated.

 

[peach174]

More smoke and mirrors from Obama.

It?s official?National Guard will not be allowed to stop illegal aliens

No! sure would'nt want to do something that would work!!! Then what would the politician's be doing if they passed things that worked? Then they could'nt work on the hill 24/7. Hey..... wait a minute...........

 

[Wry Catcher]

Further to your first point, the cons want to repeal the 14th Amendment now. It doesn't fit with their agenda for the cleansing of America.

the 14th amendment, like many things, has outlived its usefulness.

How do you figure that?

Oviously Del have never read the 14th amendment.

 

[Wry Catcher]

the 14th amendment, like many things, has outlived its usefulness.

How do you figure that?

the citizenship clause was written specifically to prevent the disenfranchisement of former slaves as was done in the dred scott decision. i'm willing to bet that there are no former slaves in danger of disenfranchisement at this point in time.

Sense you are a self appointed Constitutional Authority, please explain the following:

Section one of the 14th Amendment:

All person born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S. and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the U.S.; nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, LIBERTY or property.

What is the original intent of the author(s)? Why did they not compose the underlined and bold phrase thusly: nor shall any State deprive a citizen of .../B] if their intent was to allow a law such as 1070?

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Good Lord, people aren't entitled to agree with "the enemy" occasionally? You seem to spend an enormous amount of time trying to prove you're right about everything no matter how insignificant, searching through old posts to prove a minor point that only YOU care about to begin with. There are pills for paranoia.

 

[ConHog]

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

even wiki answers says you a total moron



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.

Good Lord, people aren't entitled to agree with "the enemy" occasionally? You seem to spend an enormous amount of time trying to prove you're right about everything no matter how insignificant, searching through old posts to prove a minor point that only YOU care about to begin with. There are pills for paranoia.

A) By my estimations no one on this board tends to applaud good points by "the enemy" or call those on "their side" out for stupidity more than me

B) Ravi is the one who made a big deal out of a minor point that she was wrong about not me

C)I am normally right about almost everything, when I am wrong i have no problem saying "I was wrong" I have never read those words typed by ANY person on the left, and damn few on the right, no matter how minor the error
Edited

Pixie

 

[Ravi]

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.

Good Lord, people aren't entitled to agree with "the enemy" occasionally? You seem to spend an enormous amount of time trying to prove you're right about everything no matter how insignificant, searching through old posts to prove a minor point that only YOU care about to begin with. There are pills for paranoia.

A) By my estimations no one on this board tends to applaud good points by "the enemy" or call those on "their side" out for stupidity more than me

B) Ravi is the one who made a big deal out of a minor point that she was wrong about not me

C)I am normally right about almost everything, when I am wrong i have no problem saying "I was wrong" I have never read those words typed by ANY person on the left, and damn few on the right, no matter how minor the error

D) Shut your cum dumpster you old bitch.

It isn't a minor point to claim that Governor's are in charge of their own NG.



And fuck you for being such an idiot toward MM.

If you were ever in the NG, which I seriously doubt, they are well to be rid of you.

 

[Yurt]

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.

Good Lord, people aren't entitled to agree with "the enemy" occasionally? You seem to spend an enormous amount of time trying to prove you're right about everything no matter how insignificant, searching through old posts to prove a minor point that only YOU care about to begin with. There are pills for paranoia.

A) By my estimations no one on this board tends to applaud good points by "the enemy" or call those on "their side" out for stupidity more than me

B) Ravi is the one who made a big deal out of a minor point that she was wrong about not me

C)I am normally right about almost everything, when I am wrong i have no problem saying "I was wrong" I have never read those words typed by ANY person on the left, and damn few on the right, no matter how minor the error

D) Shut your cum dumpster you old bitch.

you're lying trash

 

[ConHog]

Someone is getting their stalk on today

 

[MaggieMae]

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.

Good Lord, people aren't entitled to agree with "the enemy" occasionally? You seem to spend an enormous amount of time trying to prove you're right about everything no matter how insignificant, searching through old posts to prove a minor point that only YOU care about to begin with. There are pills for paranoia.

A) By my estimations no one on this board tends to applaud good points by "the enemy" or call those on "their side" out for stupidity more than me

B) Ravi is the one who made a big deal out of a minor point that she was wrong about not me

C)I am normally right about almost everything, when I am wrong i have no problem saying "I was wrong" I have never read those words typed by ANY person on the left, and damn few on the right, no matter how minor the error

D) Shut your cum dumpster you old bitch.

And you wonder why you're unpopular.

 

[del]

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.

Good Lord, people aren't entitled to agree with "the enemy" occasionally? You seem to spend an enormous amount of time trying to prove you're right about everything no matter how insignificant, searching through old posts to prove a minor point that only YOU care about to begin with. There are pills for paranoia.

A) By my estimations no one on this board tends to applaud good points by "the enemy" or call those on "their side" out for stupidity more than me

B) Ravi is the one who made a big deal out of a minor point that she was wrong about not me

C)I am normally right about almost everything, when I am wrong i have no problem saying "I was wrong" I have never read those words typed by ANY person on the left, and damn few on the right, no matter how minor the error

D) Shut your cum dumpster you old bitch.

 

[ConHog]

Good Lord, people aren't entitled to agree with "the enemy" occasionally? You seem to spend an enormous amount of time trying to prove you're right about everything no matter how insignificant, searching through old posts to prove a minor point that only YOU care about to begin with. There are pills for paranoia.

A) By my estimations no one on this board tends to applaud good points by "the enemy" or call those on "their side" out for stupidity more than me

B) Ravi is the one who made a big deal out of a minor point that she was wrong about not me

C)I am normally right about almost everything, when I am wrong i have no problem saying "I was wrong" I have never read those words typed by ANY person on the left, and damn few on the right, no matter how minor the error

D) Shut your cum dumpster you old bitch.

If I post something as fact, you can almost always take it to the bank

Of course I do make mistakes

 

[saveliberty]

Truth is discarded in favor of ideology frequently on USMB. Taking it to the bank will not result in a deposit.

 

[del]

the 14th amendment, like many things, has outlived its usefulness.

How do you figure that?

Oviously Del have never read the 14th amendment.

*oviously*, you're dumber than a bag of defective hammers.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How do you figure that?

Oviously Del have never read the 14th amendment.

*oviously*, you're dumber than a bag of defective hammers.

oviously. LMAO, you're pitiful.

 

[Wry Catcher]

How do you figure that?

Oviously Del have never read the 14th amendment.

*oviously*, you're dumber than a bag of defective hammers.

Sense you are oBviously a Constitutional Scholar as well as a pedant, please explain:

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Section one of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the U.S. and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the U.S.; nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, LIBERTY or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?
If the intent was to allow a law such as 1070 wouldn't the authors use the word "Citizens" exclusively?

 

[del]

Oviously Del have never read the 14th amendment.

*oviously*, you're dumber than a bag of defective hammers.

Sense you are oBviously a Constitutional Scholar as well as a pedant, please explain:

In re the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;

Section one of the 14th Amendment:

"All persons born or naturalized in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are CITIZENS of the U.S. and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of CITIZENS of the U.S.; nor shall any State deprive ANY PERSON of life, LIBERTY or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any PERSON within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Why in the first two phrases use the word "CITIZENS" and in the last two phrases use the words "ANY PERSON"?
If the intent was to allow a law such as 1070 wouldn't the authors use the word "Citizens" exclusively?

oviously, there is no deprivation of due process in 1070, except in your oviously defective mind.

anyone, citizen or no, in the us is afforded due process via the constitution, that doesn't mean that anyone who's born here of illegal parents should automatically become a citizen.

oviously, you're not the brightest bulb on the tree.