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.
The way the separation of powers work is that the Supreme Court gets to interpret the laws, if the President or Congress don't like their interpretation they're free to write ones that are clearer or fall within the boundaries of the interpretations of the US Constitution.
It doesn't matter how a law is written if you have activists judges lying about what the law means. Here is what Trump did, and you tell me how this can be misconstrued so badly that the little Commie in Hawaii could interpret this any different way than it's written:
View attachment 155532
Now you tell me that this law can be read any differently than above. Of course it can't. This moron activist judge decided he wasn't going to adhere to this law. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It's just that he is a buddy of Obama's.
I didn't say the Supreme Court don't change laws, interpretation of laws is a very important part of the whole process.
The only difference between a bastardized interpretation and rewriting the law is putting it into words. Other than that, you get the same results either way.
The way the separation of powers work is that the Supreme Court gets to interpret the laws, if the President or Congress don't like their interpretation they're free to write ones that are clearer or fall within the boundaries of the interpretations of the US Constitution.
It doesn't matter how a law is written if you have activists judges lying about what the law means. Here is what Trump did, and you tell me how this can be misconstrued so badly that the little Commie in Hawaii could interpret this any different way than it's written:
View attachment 155532
Now you tell me that this law can be read any differently than above. Of course it can't. This moron activist judge decided he wasn't going to adhere to this law. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It's just that he is a buddy of Obama's.
I didn't say the Supreme Court don't change laws, interpretation of laws is a very important part of the whole process.
The only difference between a bastardized interpretation and rewriting the law is putting it into words. Other than that, you get the same results either way.
Well, it does matter how a law is written. Yes, different judges are going to interpret the law. But again, once you start playing dirty games and when YOU approve of those dirty games, you can't complain when dirty games come back against you.
The way the separation of powers work is that the Supreme Court gets to interpret the laws, if the President or Congress don't like their interpretation they're free to write ones that are clearer or fall within the boundaries of the interpretations of the US Constitution.
It doesn't matter how a law is written if you have activists judges lying about what the law means. Here is what Trump did, and you tell me how this can be misconstrued so badly that the little Commie in Hawaii could interpret this any different way than it's written:
View attachment 155532
Now you tell me that this law can be read any differently than above. Of course it can't. This moron activist judge decided he wasn't going to adhere to this law. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It's just that he is a buddy of Obama's.
I didn't say the Supreme Court don't change laws, interpretation of laws is a very important part of the whole process.
The only difference between a bastardized interpretation and rewriting the law is putting it into words. Other than that, you get the same results either way.
Well, it does matter how a law is written. Yes, different judges are going to interpret the law. But again, once you start playing dirty games and when YOU approve of those dirty games, you can't complain when dirty games come back against you.
And when did any of ours play a "dirty game?"
Remember it was partly conservative judges that forced same sex marriages in states that disapproved of them. It was a so-called conservative that found Commie Care to be constitutional by changing the definition of the penalty to a tax.
I don't recall any dirty games played by Republican appointed judges; especially to this degree where they totally went against a law that was passed by the US Congress and never challenged before.
Hands down, this is judicial legislation. It has nothing to do with the interpretation of anything. The law that I posted can only be interpreted one way.
The way the separation of powers work is that the Supreme Court gets to interpret the laws, if the President or Congress don't like their interpretation they're free to write ones that are clearer or fall within the boundaries of the interpretations of the US Constitution.
It doesn't matter how a law is written if you have activists judges lying about what the law means. Here is what Trump did, and you tell me how this can be misconstrued so badly that the little Commie in Hawaii could interpret this any different way than it's written:
View attachment 155532
Now you tell me that this law can be read any differently than above. Of course it can't. This moron activist judge decided he wasn't going to adhere to this law. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It's just that he is a buddy of Obama's.
I didn't say the Supreme Court don't change laws, interpretation of laws is a very important part of the whole process.
The only difference between a bastardized interpretation and rewriting the law is putting it into words. Other than that, you get the same results either way.
Well, it does matter how a law is written. Yes, different judges are going to interpret the law. But again, once you start playing dirty games and when YOU approve of those dirty games, you can't complain when dirty games come back against you.
And when did any of ours play a "dirty game?"
Remember it was partly conservative judges that forced same sex marriages in states that disapproved of them. It was a so-called conservative that found Commie Care to be constitutional by changing the definition of the penalty to a tax.
I don't recall any dirty games played by Republican appointed judges; especially to this degree where they totally went against a law that was passed by the US Congress and never challenged before.
Hands down, this is judicial legislation. It has nothing to do with the interpretation of anything. The law that I posted can only be interpreted one way.
How about stopping Obama being able to choose a Supreme Court justice. The Republicans said from that point on it was a dirty war, anything goes, fuck you all.
Clearly you don't remember, you're as partisan as they come. Forgetfulness is a part of this.
The way the separation of powers work is that the Supreme Court gets to interpret the laws, if the President or Congress don't like their interpretation they're free to write ones that are clearer or fall within the boundaries of the interpretations of the US Constitution.
It doesn't matter how a law is written if you have activists judges lying about what the law means. Here is what Trump did, and you tell me how this can be misconstrued so badly that the little Commie in Hawaii could interpret this any different way than it's written:
View attachment 155532
Now you tell me that this law can be read any differently than above. Of course it can't. This moron activist judge decided he wasn't going to adhere to this law. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It's just that he is a buddy of Obama's.
I didn't say the Supreme Court don't change laws, interpretation of laws is a very important part of the whole process.
The only difference between a bastardized interpretation and rewriting the law is putting it into words. Other than that, you get the same results either way.
Well, it does matter how a law is written. Yes, different judges are going to interpret the law. But again, once you start playing dirty games and when YOU approve of those dirty games, you can't complain when dirty games come back against you.
And when did any of ours play a "dirty game?"
Remember it was partly conservative judges that forced same sex marriages in states that disapproved of them. It was a so-called conservative that found Commie Care to be constitutional by changing the definition of the penalty to a tax.
I don't recall any dirty games played by Republican appointed judges; especially to this degree where they totally went against a law that was passed by the US Congress and never challenged before.
Hands down, this is judicial legislation. It has nothing to do with the interpretation of anything. The law that I posted can only be interpreted one way.
How about stopping Obama being able to choose a Supreme Court justice. The Republicans said from that point on it was a dirty war, anything goes, fuck you all.
Clearly you don't remember, you're as partisan as they come. Forgetfulness is a part of this.
The way the separation of powers work is that the Supreme Court gets to interpret the laws, if the President or Congress don't like their interpretation they're free to write ones that are clearer or fall within the boundaries of the interpretations of the US Constitution.
It doesn't matter how a law is written if you have activists judges lying about what the law means. Here is what Trump did, and you tell me how this can be misconstrued so badly that the little Commie in Hawaii could interpret this any different way than it's written:
View attachment 155532
Now you tell me that this law can be read any differently than above. Of course it can't. This moron activist judge decided he wasn't going to adhere to this law. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It's just that he is a buddy of Obama's.
I didn't say the Supreme Court don't change laws, interpretation of laws is a very important part of the whole process.
The only difference between a bastardized interpretation and rewriting the law is putting it into words. Other than that, you get the same results either way.
Well, it does matter how a law is written. Yes, different judges are going to interpret the law. But again, once you start playing dirty games and when YOU approve of those dirty games, you can't complain when dirty games come back against you.
And when did any of ours play a "dirty game?"
Remember it was partly conservative judges that forced same sex marriages in states that disapproved of them. It was a so-called conservative that found Commie Care to be constitutional by changing the definition of the penalty to a tax.
I don't recall any dirty games played by Republican appointed judges; especially to this degree where they totally went against a law that was passed by the US Congress and never challenged before.
Hands down, this is judicial legislation. It has nothing to do with the interpretation of anything. The law that I posted can only be interpreted one way.
How about stopping Obama being able to choose a Supreme Court justice. The Republicans said from that point on it was a dirty war, anything goes, fuck you all.
Clearly you don't remember, you're as partisan as they come. Forgetfulness is a part of this.
I'm partisan? You're the one trying to change the subject from a leftist judges ruling to what the Republicans did. Two totally separate issues.
It doesn't matter how a law is written if you have activists judges lying about what the law means. Here is what Trump did, and you tell me how this can be misconstrued so badly that the little Commie in Hawaii could interpret this any different way than it's written:
View attachment 155532
Now you tell me that this law can be read any differently than above. Of course it can't. This moron activist judge decided he wasn't going to adhere to this law. There is nothing ambiguous about it. It's just that he is a buddy of Obama's.
The only difference between a bastardized interpretation and rewriting the law is putting it into words. Other than that, you get the same results either way.
Well, it does matter how a law is written. Yes, different judges are going to interpret the law. But again, once you start playing dirty games and when YOU approve of those dirty games, you can't complain when dirty games come back against you.
And when did any of ours play a "dirty game?"
Remember it was partly conservative judges that forced same sex marriages in states that disapproved of them. It was a so-called conservative that found Commie Care to be constitutional by changing the definition of the penalty to a tax.
I don't recall any dirty games played by Republican appointed judges; especially to this degree where they totally went against a law that was passed by the US Congress and never challenged before.
Hands down, this is judicial legislation. It has nothing to do with the interpretation of anything. The law that I posted can only be interpreted one way.
How about stopping Obama being able to choose a Supreme Court justice. The Republicans said from that point on it was a dirty war, anything goes, fuck you all.
Clearly you don't remember, you're as partisan as they come. Forgetfulness is a part of this.
I'm partisan? You're the one trying to change the subject from a leftist judges ruling to what the Republicans did. Two totally separate issues.
Yes, you're as partisan as fuck, and don't pretend you're not.
I'm not trying to change the subject at all. I'm assuming that the subject isn't the leftist judges making rulings at all, seeing as I said the Republicans play dirty games, and Democrats are playing dirty games. You're the one who brought up the leftist judges, and I'm supposed to follow your lead of forget what we're talking about. Fuck off. We weren't talking about leftist judges, we were talking PARTISAN FUCKING POLITICS and the problems with it.
Well, it does matter how a law is written. Yes, different judges are going to interpret the law. But again, once you start playing dirty games and when YOU approve of those dirty games, you can't complain when dirty games come back against you.
Well, it does matter how a law is written. Yes, different judges are going to interpret the law. But again, once you start playing dirty games and when YOU approve of those dirty games, you can't complain when dirty games come back against you.
And when did any of ours play a "dirty game?"
Remember it was partly conservative judges that forced same sex marriages in states that disapproved of them. It was a so-called conservative that found Commie Care to be constitutional by changing the definition of the penalty to a tax.
I don't recall any dirty games played by Republican appointed judges; especially to this degree where they totally went against a law that was passed by the US Congress and never challenged before.
Hands down, this is judicial legislation. It has nothing to do with the interpretation of anything. The law that I posted can only be interpreted one way.
How about stopping Obama being able to choose a Supreme Court justice. The Republicans said from that point on it was a dirty war, anything goes, fuck you all.
Clearly you don't remember, you're as partisan as they come. Forgetfulness is a part of this.
I'm partisan? You're the one trying to change the subject from a leftist judges ruling to what the Republicans did. Two totally separate issues.
Yes, you're as partisan as fuck, and don't pretend you're not.
I'm not trying to change the subject at all. I'm assuming that the subject isn't the leftist judges making rulings at all, seeing as I said the Republicans play dirty games, and Democrats are playing dirty games. You're the one who brought up the leftist judges, and I'm supposed to follow your lead of forget what we're talking about. Fuck off. We weren't talking about leftist judges, we were talking PARTISAN FUCKING POLITICS and the problems with it.
Well, it does matter how a law is written. Yes, different judges are going to interpret the law. But again, once you start playing dirty games and when YOU approve of those dirty games, you can't complain when dirty games come back against you.
HUH?? Where does that say anything about illegals in our schools??? THINK
I really don't have the desire to get into a conversation about such things with someone who is going to play games like a child.
Remember it was partly conservative judges that forced same sex marriages in states that disapproved of them. It was a so-called conservative that found Commie Care to be constitutional by changing the definition of the penalty to a tax.
.
HUH?? Where does that say anything about illegals in our schools??? THINK
I really don't have the desire to get into a conversation about such things with someone who is going to play games like a child.
HAHAHA. What you mean is you have no answer since there is NOTHING in the constitution about rights of illegals or anyone's educational rights. What we do know is that section 1324 of title 8 of the US code makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here and letting them use our schools obviously violates that law.
HAHAHA. What you mean is you have no answer since there is NOTHING in the constitution about rights of illegals or anyone's educational rights. What we do know is that section 1324 of title 8 of the US code makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here and letting them use our schools obviously violates that law.
The problem here is that you seem to think that something not specifically written in the US Constitution means you don't get it.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that says that you can own a weapon on a Monday. Yet people seem to think it applies to Mondays, how very convenient, but really it says NOTHING about Mondays.
HAHAHA. What you mean is you have no answer since there is NOTHING in the constitution about rights of illegals or anyone's educational rights. What we do know is that section 1324 of title 8 of the US code makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here and letting them use our schools obviously violates that law.
The problem here is that you seem to think that something not specifically written in the US Constitution means you don't get it.
There is nothing in the US Constitution that says that you can own a weapon on a Monday. Yet people seem to think it applies to Mondays, how very convenient, but really it says NOTHING about Mondays.
So tell us where the constitution says anything at all about the "right" of illegal invaders to use our schools. You can't simply invent rights.
So tell us where the constitution says anything at all about the "right" of illegal invaders to use our schools. You can't simply invent rights.
Well, you're the one who posted the name of the Supreme Court case where they actually wrote this down. So why don't you go and have a look?
So tell us where the constitution says anything at all about the "right" of illegal invaders to use our schools. You can't simply invent rights.
Well, you're the one who posted the name of the Supreme Court case where they actually wrote this down. So why don't you go and have a look?
I have and it's not there. The court simply made it up. They did the same thing in roe v wade. They do it all the time.
Well, if you read Plyler v. Doe you'll see they pointed to the 14th Amendment.
"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.
Now, when it says they shall not deny "any person within its jurisdiction", does this mean illegal aliens or does it not mean illegal aliens within the jurisdiction?
Well, if you read Plyler v. Doe you'll see they pointed to the 14th Amendment.
"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.
Now, when it says they shall not deny "any person within its jurisdiction", does this mean illegal aliens or does it not mean illegal aliens within the jurisdiction?
The word "person" means citizen you fool The first seven words of the constitution are "We the people of the united states". That makes it clear the word "person" or it's plural "people" mean citizens. THINK
The word "person" means citizen you fool The first seven words of the constitution are "We the people of the united states". That makes it clear the word "person" or it's plural "people" mean citizens. THINK
Try writing this without insults.
The word "person" means citizen you fool The first seven words of the constitution are "We the people of the united states". That makes it clear the word "person" or it's plural "people" mean citizens. THINK
Try writing this without insults.
Address the point i made. "people" means "citizens". The constitution itself says so. You can see that can't you?
