Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
My lawns have always been awesome, so no crab grass for me. And, for the Constitution, SCOTUS generally does a decent job. Citizens and Hobby Lobby are bad decisions but will be changed in the next twelve years.Nothing is more organic than piling a bunch of shit on it. Next thing you know you are growing crab grass.The Constitution and the process with it indeed informs us through its narrative to be that is organic and changing.
What supreme court ruling would that ignore or contradict?You don't pay attention much, do you?Citation?Ignoring, of course, his attempts to do so with the rights of law-abiding gun owners.Almost like he understands- unlike you- that a President cannot use an executive order to ignore a Supreme Court ruling.
Most recently...
Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority
My lawns have always been awesome, so no crab grass for me. And, for the Constitution, SCOTUS generally does a decent job. Citizens and Hobby Lobby are bad decisions but will be changed in the next twelve years.Nothing is more organic than piling a bunch of shit on it. Next thing you know you are growing crab grass.The Constitution and the process with it indeed informs us through its narrative to be that is organic and changing.
Obama set the standard for creating law with the executive pen & phone after all.
What say you?
"A supreme Court ruling does NOT equate to the law of the land." How does one argue against such utter stupidity?A supreme Court ruling does NOT equate to the law of the land. It simply determines the constitutionality of the case before it. Campaign finance laws could EASILY be changed by a willing congress & president.Obama set the standard for creating law with the executive pen & phone after all.
What say you?
So you are saying that Obama could overturn Citizen's United through Executive Action?
If you are saying he cannot- well then Obama would agree- since he is openly against the Citizen's United Ruling- but has issued no executive order to counter it.
Almost like he understands- unlike you- that a President cannot use an executive order to ignore a Supreme Court ruling.
Every single ruling has been to interpret the constitutionality of an already existing law. Those very laws do get repealed or changed. For instance congress CAN repeal Obamacare DESPITE its scotus stamp of approval."A supreme Court ruling does NOT equate to the law of the land." How does one argue against such utter stupidity?A supreme Court ruling does NOT equate to the law of the land. It simply determines the constitutionality of the case before it. Campaign finance laws could EASILY be changed by a willing congress & president.Obama set the standard for creating law with the executive pen & phone after all.
What say you?
So you are saying that Obama could overturn Citizen's United through Executive Action?
If you are saying he cannot- well then Obama would agree- since he is openly against the Citizen's United Ruling- but has issued no executive order to counter it.
Almost like he understands- unlike you- that a President cannot use an executive order to ignore a Supreme Court ruling.
Obama set the standard for creating law with the executive pen & phone after all.
What say you?
What law did President Obama create with his pen and his phone?
Where to begin.
Amnesty for illegals, exemptions for his own law he passed in Obamacare, signing the NDAA which condons arrest without representation and unconstitutional.
Woops, I forgot, the Constitution has a pile of shit on it and is growing refuse now.
The Constitution and the process with it indeed informs us through its narrative to be that is organic and changing.
So you are saying that Obama could overturn Citizen's United through Executive Action?
If you are saying he cannot- well then Obama would agree- since he is openly against the Citizen's United Ruling- but has issued no executive order to counter it.
Almost like he understands- unlike you- that a President cannot use an executive order to ignore a Supreme Court ruling.
So you are saying that Obama could overturn Citizen's United through Executive Action?
If you are saying he cannot- well then Obama would agree- since he is openly against the Citizen's United Ruling- but has issued no executive order to counter it.
Almost like he understands- unlike you- that a President cannot use an executive order to ignore a Supreme Court ruling.
Is a Supreme Court ruling more powerful than a federal law?
Obama has used his pen to go against federal immigration laws. The DOJ has sued states for trying to follow those laws when they should be going after the sanctuary cities.
Your argument destroys your premise.What supreme court ruling would that ignore or contradict?You don't pay attention much, do you?Citation?Ignoring, of course, his attempts to do so with the rights of law-abiding gun owners.Almost like he understands- unlike you- that a President cannot use an executive order to ignore a Supreme Court ruling.
Most recently...
Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority
SCOTUS is nothing but a rubber stamp.
That is why FDR tried to replace SCOTUS with the Court packing scheme once they declared his New Deal policies unconstitutional. That is why Progs love the guy.
So it is a chia rock, because it does grow.The Constitution and the process with it indeed informs us through its narrative to be that is organic and changing.
Nonsense. It is written in stone, with an intentionally difficult process mandated to change it.
Focus. We are talking about SCOTUS. And the executive pen.My lawns have always been awesome, so no crab grass for me. And, for the Constitution, SCOTUS generally does a decent job. Citizens and Hobby Lobby are bad decisions but will be changed in the next twelve years.Nothing is more organic than piling a bunch of shit on it. Next thing you know you are growing crab grass.The Constitution and the process with it indeed informs us through its narrative to be that is organic and changing.
Which do like better, a $18 trillion debt, mass illegal immigration, an economy in a death spiral, mass shootings all over the US, an Executive Agreement, that should have been a treaty via Congress, that gives bilions to Iran who sponsers terrorism all over the world, or perhaps ignoring the selling of dead baby parts by PP?
Do tell.
Actually, the rate of abortions would not change at all if Roe v. Wade were overturned and the issue was sent back to the states.Not only that, I will make them pay to not have it!
Pen, schmen. I'll outlaw abortion like you won't believe.
Yes, the entire nation will pay dearly for outlawing abortions.
Abortion has become so socially acceptable that most states would keep it legal.
Other states would legalize it for rape, incest and "health of the mother". And just like in the past, "health of the mother" will be so loosely interpreted that, for all intents and purposes, it will be abortion on demand.
That's how it was before Roe v. Wade.
The rate of abortions after Roe v Wade only went up slightly, and only for a few years, and has since declined back to pre-Roe levels.
Roe v. Wade is a mirage.
If abortions are made illegal by federal law then states cannot legally provide abortions any longer.
What supreme court ruling would that ignore or contradict?You don't pay attention much, do you?Citation?Ignoring, of course, his attempts to do so with the rights of law-abiding gun owners.Almost like he understands- unlike you- that a President cannot use an executive order to ignore a Supreme Court ruling.
Most recently...
Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority
SCOTUS is nothing but a rubber stamp.
That is why FDR tried to replace SCOTUS with the Court packing scheme once they declared his New Deal policies unconstitutional. That is why Progs love the guy.
Actually, the rate of abortions would not change at all if Roe v. Wade were overturned and the issue was sent back to the states.Not only that, I will make them pay to not have it!
Pen, schmen. I'll outlaw abortion like you won't believe.
Yes, the entire nation will pay dearly for outlawing abortions.
Abortion has become so socially acceptable that most states would keep it legal.
Other states would legalize it for rape, incest and "health of the mother". And just like in the past, "health of the mother" will be so loosely interpreted that, for all intents and purposes, it will be abortion on demand.
That's how it was before Roe v. Wade.
The rate of abortions after Roe v Wade only went up slightly, and only for a few years, and has since declined back to pre-Roe levels.
Roe v. Wade is a mirage.
If abortions are made illegal by federal law then states cannot legally provide abortions any longer.
True, but any candidate who says they will outlaw abortions at the federal level will never be elected.
Your argument destroys your premise.What supreme court ruling would that ignore or contradict?You don't pay attention much, do you?Citation?Ignoring, of course, his attempts to do so with the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
Most recently...
Obama weighs expanding background checks through executive authority
SCOTUS is nothing but a rubber stamp.
That is why FDR tried to replace SCOTUS with the Court packing scheme once they declared his New Deal policies unconstitutional. That is why Progs love the guy.
Because it was not a rubber stamp, FDR tried to pack it, and John Garner Nance his VP and Sam Rayburn of the House said "no."
