President blocked by court.

I'm confident the SC is going to step in, and step on these puny rat bastard commie "judges".
 
The courts are the check on the executive and legislative branches.

The case will works its way through the courts.
 
Let me get this straight? .... :cool:

Obama signs an illegal executive order into law.

Trump wants to 86 it.

But a federal judge upholds the illegal executive order.

Now the President is forced to keep it as the law.

Am I missing something here?? ..... :dunno:
 
Last edited:
Let me get this straight? .... :cool:

Obama signs an illegal executive order.

Trump wants to 86 it.

And a federal judge upholds the illegal executive order.

Am I missing something here?? ..... :dunno:
You go out and break the law and see what happens to you
 
The courts are the check on the executive and legislative branches.

The case will works its way through the courts.

DACA is not a law ... Nor is it associated with a law passed by Congress.
It would be kind of hard for the courts to rule on the elimination of what isn't a law to start with.

.
 
  • DACA was an executive action under President Barack Obama
 
Let me get this straight? .... :cool:

Obama signs an illegal executive order into law.

Trump wants to 86 it.

But a federal judge upholds the illegal executive order.

Now the President is forced to keep it as the law.

Am I missing something here?? ..... :dunno:
Exactly. To me, that judge should be charged and disbarred for being guilty of what is illegal activity.

God bless you and our leader always!!!

Holly
 
Let me get this straight? .... :cool:

Obama signs an illegal executive order into law.

Trump wants to 86 it.

But a federal judge upholds the illegal executive order.

Now the President is forced to keep it as the law.

Am I missing something here?? ..... :dunno:
Take it slowly.
Trump issued an illegal EO.
 
The courts are the check on the executive and legislative branches.

The case will works its way through the courts.

DACA is not a law ... Nor is it associated with a law passed by Congress.
It would be kind of hard for the courts to rule on the elimination of what isn't a law to start with..
The federal judiciary is also a check on the executive, as I wrote above.
 
The courts are the check on the executive and legislative branches.

The case will works its way through the courts.

DACA is not a law ... Nor is it associated with a law passed by Congress.
It would be kind of hard for the courts to rule on the elimination of what isn't a law to start with..
The federal judiciary is also a check on the executive, as I wrote above.
So Daca should not exist at all since they knew it was illegal to begin with
 
Let me get this straight? .... :cool:

Obama signs an illegal executive order into law.

Trump wants to 86 it.

But a federal judge upholds the illegal executive order.

Now the President is forced to keep it as the law.

Am I missing something here?? ..... :dunno:
Take it slowly.
Trump issued an illegal EO.


So following the law is illegal in your world?
 
So Daca should not exist at all since they knew it was illegal to begin with

It isn't necessarily illegal ... It is not law.

It is an Executive Order which doesn't have to meet the same requirements as law ... Because it isn't law.
Executive Orders are often written and subsequently reviewed in a context associated with a law ...
Because they usually come into play when a law passed by Congress is flawed ... Or details for implementation were not accounted for.

DACA is not like that ... Because it was never associated with a law passed by Congress.

.
 
Checks and balance says that they president does not have the right to do everything he wants so Obama breaking the law with his executive order to keep a criminal in America
 
Checks and balance says that they president does not have the right to do everything he wants so Obama breaking the law with his executive order to keep a criminal in America

I am not sure President Obama was breaking the law ...
As much as using his powers to circumvent and undermine legislation that was already law (and had been).

Much like Eric Holder did as Attorney General.
He instructed law enforcement not to weigh drugs confiscated during drug busts where minorities were involved.
In not weighing the drugs ... Weight limits associated with mandatory sentencing requirement established in legislation passed by Congress would not apply.

He had the power to do what he did.
Doing so would be considered gross negligence in performing his duty to enforce the law.
Where that may not be illegal ... It is a sign of a piss poor crooked job for political reasons that could be considered suspect.

In any case ...
If you trust anyone in Washington DC and don't suspect they are piss poor crooked tyrants ...
Then you might want to leave the rock you live under and look for better real-estate .

.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top