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.
Yes, Yes ofcourse. It"s is not in the Constitution. The framers were not real focused in immigration and certainly not undocumented migantsDACA was blocked. Where the fuck you been?
Federal judge blocks new DACA applications
A federal judge in Texas on Friday ruled that Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, the Obama-era program shielding certain undocumented immigrants from deportation, is illegal and blocked new applicants.www.google.com
DACA is illegal.
It's in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4. The Constitution gives Congress the power to create naturalization laws. The president doesn't have that power, hence, DACA is unconstitutional.Yes, Yes ofcourse. It"s is not in the Constitution. The framers were not real focused in immigration and certainly not undocumented migants
The fucking irony...lol. The party that wants to ban guns is predicting that Barret will strip us of our rights.“So just how bad will Barrett be? Could her confirmation mean the end of Roe v Wade and the federal right to an abortion in America? Is marriage equality in danger? Is it possible she could criminalize birth control? Is America on its way to becoming a Divine Republic? Are we going to look at The Handmaid’s Tale and realize it was a documentary?” ibid
Yes to all the above – the right to privacy in particular is in jeopardy.
In Barrett’s America we’ll see the balkanization of citizens’ rights and protected liberties, where our rights are no longer inalienable, subject to the capricious whims of fear, ignorance, and hate, and our liberties are no longer protected, easily violated by Republican lawmakers pursuing authoritarian conservative dogma and minority Republican rule, the people no longer able to seek relief through the judicial process.
That's how laws work and why they're written down. The government can't just make shit up, because a law doesn't do what it wants it to do.OK I get it. You're a Constitutional Texuralist. You must visit Scalia's grave on a regular basis That is kind of like a religious fundamentalist. If it is not specifically stated it can't be valid. A ridgid and unyeilding way of thinking that I have no use for. Forunatly for the country most Judges, Justices and legal scholars do not agree, otherwise we would be stuck in the 18th century
The framers of the constitution knew that they could not possible forsee all of the issues that would later arise. They had the wisdome to draft a a living and breathing document that could be adopted to changing times. That we there are many unenumerated rights such as same sex marriage that flow from the rights that are stated in the constitution
You bleat about leftist Justices interpreting the Constitution. But the fact is that Justices on both the right and the left make mistakes and issue opinions that are not solidly grounded in Constitutional law . No all decisions favor the left. Even before Trump stacked the court, they gutted the Voting Rights Act. I'm sure that you were upset about that. LOL
Give the fact that we often have a congress that is stuck in the mud, having an activist court is often the only way that anything will ever get done.
I have come to the conclusion that this is not anargument that can be won by either of us because our positions are deeply rooted in our divergent philosophies on the Constitution. Since Texturalism is a view that is reccognised by some scholars as valid, we are both right to a point. The difference is that you approach is not well suited to the realities of our times and there is a certain arrogance to it that totally disregards the human consequences of government actions.
We also have vastly differing political orientations which further complicates things . I think that we are done here. However, I am curious about why you think the SCOTUS exists at all if all that they can do in interpret the law or the Constitution and hve no power to act on it.
Good thing for the 2nd Amendment. Right?With the judicial process no longer available to the American people to safeguard their rights and protected liberties, the only means afforded to citizens to seek relief from the tyranny of Republican rule is through the political process.
But the political process will take decades, during which time Americans will needlessly suffer the violation of their rights and protected liberties by the authoritarian right.
You see. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that your hard line textural interpretationm of the Constitution lacks concern for the human element. I could go on about how the DACA kids consider themselvs American and know no other country or culture but I won't because you don't give a shit.It's in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4. The Constitution gives Congress the power to create naturalization laws. The president doesn't have that power, hence, DACA is unconstitutional.
You are just cherry picking clauses to support your bigoted agenda and not even doing it very well
Naturalization Power: Overview | Constitution Annotated ...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: [The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; . . . Naturalization has been defined by the Supreme Court as the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen. 1.
Naturalization Clause Overview | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
An annotation about Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States.constitution.congress.gov
And of course you alone know exactly what the 2nd means and what the founders-who lived in an era of single shot flint locks and when Militias were formed to controll slaves- intended. Remarkable!Good thing for the 2nd Amendment. Right?
See post 340. I have nothing further to add. You still have not answered the question tht I posed: If the court hase no power to act on their interpretation of the constitution and apply it to issues that the framers could not have immagines....WHY does the court exist?That's how laws work and why they're written down. The government can't just make shit up, because a law doesn't do what it wants it to do.
"Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. I bet you would become a textualist in a fucking heartbeat if the court redifined "involuntary servitude"
The court doesn't have the power to apply any ok ol' definition to the words in the Constitution. The only mechanism in which to change the Constitution, is an Article 5 convention. The fact that Article 5 is the only way to change the Constitution is irrefutableThe gun proof that the Founders never intended for any single branch of government to make changes.
Who wants to ban guns.? That is just bullshit. We want common sense gun control. Cut the bullshit.The fucking irony...lol. The party that wants to ban guns is predicting that Barret will strip us of our rights.
The Leftists want to ban guns and/or make gun ownership too expensive, or too complicated. That's called "infringement". You try to call it common sense gun control, but it's infringement and the goal is the abolition of gun ownership. Anyone who says it is isn't is either stupid, or lying.Who wants to ban guns.? That is just bullshit. We want common sense gun control. Cut the bullshit.
The court exists to say: "does that law conflict with the Constitution?". If "yes", it's the job of the court to strike the law down. A perfect example: states that are "may issue" gun permits and only the well connected are able to obtain a permit.See post 340. I have nothing further to add. You still have not answered the question tht I posed: If the court hase no power to act on their interpretation of the constitution and apply it to issues that the framers could not have immagines....WHY does the court exist?
Also you have duck you claim that case law does not have the force of law, despit the fact that I presented numerous examples of court decisions that can be and are enforced in the real world which you apparently do not live in
I sure do. Don't you? Militias weren't formed just to control slaveAnd of course you alone know exactly what the 2nd means and what the founders-who lived in an era of single shot flint locks and when Militias were formed to controll slaves- intended. Remarkable!
Naturalization has one definition under United States law and it means to make a foreign alien a citizen. Only Congress can makes laws and the law specifically what it takes to become a citizen. No where in any United States code does it say that the president can naturalize illegal aliens.You see. This is exactly what I was talking about when I said that your hard line textural interpretationm of the Constitution lacks concern for the human element. I could go on about how the DACA kids consider themselvs American and know no other country or culture but I won't because you don't give a shit.
The fact is that you people manipulate the Constitution to serve your xenophobic, conservative agenda. You just don't want thiose people here. You ignor the fact that DACA in and of itslf does not convey citizenshit. It only buys them time to pursue a path to citizenship - to be natruralized-which is provided for in the Constitution\
You are just cherry picking clauses to support your bigoted agenda and not even doing it very well
Do you ever actually think about what you're saying? It appears that all you can do is to regurgitate right wing talking points that have been fed to you by the likes of Tiucker Carlson. I am not stupid and I am not lying biut I'm beginning to think that you are both.The Leftists want to ban guns and/or make gun ownership too expensive, or too complicated. That's called "infringement". You try to call it common sense gun control, but it's infringement and the goal is the abolition of gun ownership. Anyone who says it is isn't is either stupid, or lying.
Holy fucking shit! What! After all of this time that you were saying that the court can only "review" NOW you are saying that the court can strike down a law that conflicts with the constitition. It was improper for them to strike down the laws banning same sex and interracial marrige but it's OK to strike down a laws restricting the ownership of guns!! How hypocritical!! Do you realise whhat an ass you just made of yourself? You have utterly destroyed any credabilty that you might have had, which was not a lot to begin withThe court exists to say: "does that law conflict with the Constitution?". If "yes", it's the job of the court to strike the law down. A perfect example: states that are "may issue" gun permits and only the well connected are able to obtain a permit.
Another great example is the $200 tax stamp applied to NFA weapons. The court has already ruled that a right can't be taxed, which makes the tax stamp null and void
Interesting how you totally ignore the point that I made-that DACA does not convey citizenship -and just mindlesslyrepeat what you said beforeNaturalization has one definition under United States law and it means to make a foreign alien a citizen. Only Congress can makes laws and the law specifically what it takes to become a citizen. No where in any United States code does it say that the president can naturalize illegal aliens.
It circumvents the law, a power that a president doesn't have.Interesting how you totally ignore the point that I made-that DACA does not convey citizenship -and just mindlesslyrepeat what you said before
When did I say it's improper to strike down laws banning gay marriage? Post a link quoting me saying that. Or, admit you're talking out of your ass.Holy fucking shit! What! After all of this time that you were saying that the court can only "review" NOW you are saying that the court can strike down a law that conflicts with the constitition. It was improper for them to strike down the laws banning same sex and interracial marrige but it's OK to strike down a laws restricting the ownership of guns!! How hypocritical!! Do you realise whhat an ass you just made of yourself? You have utterly destroyed any credabilty that you might have had, which was not a lot to begin with
