Does winning an election override the Constitution?

[BULLDOG]

Judges have anointed themselves as dictators. Do you approve Judges doing that?

Please give examples. A silly accusation on your part means nothing without showing proof of your claim

 

[excalibur]

Where doe the constitution stand on that. Quote where in the constitution backs up your claim, or accepted precedent.

Quote where the Constitution gives such authority to inferior courts.

 

[excalibur]

The courts, based on their interpretation of the constitution disagree with you. The constitution assigns interpretation to the courts.

Where in the Constitution can we find that?

 

[BULLDOG]

The Constitution isn't being violated, nor are any laws...

View attachment 1115439

If congress passed laws to allow trump's behavior like they did for Clinton, this discussion would be over. Pass some laws and try again.

 

[BULLDOG]

It's called the US Code.

You know where to find it, right?

I've posted it half a dozen times already.

No idea where. The code include much. You need to be more specific.

 

[Robert W]

Please give examples. A silly accusation on your part means nothing without showing proof of your claim

I mistook you as a true student of what is happening in courts around the USA.

 

[Oddball]

If congress passed laws to allow trump's behavior like they did for Clinton, this discussion would be over. Pass some laws and try again.

These are the same laws passed by Clinton, dumb fuck....No more are needed.

 

[excalibur]

Please give examples. A silly accusation on your part means nothing without showing proof of your claim

An illegal was given an order of removal, except to Guatamala where he expressed fear of his life, so we removed him to Mexico. The guy left Mexico, returned to Guatamala(!) and a judge has ORDERED we bring him back to the USA.

 

[BULLDOG]

Can you show where, in the constitution, it says that district courts can stop a president?

• • Article III of the U.S. Constitution: Grants federal courts the authority to hear cases involving constitutional and federal law disputes.
  • The Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Allows courts to review executive agency actions and block them if they are deemed "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."
  • Nationwide Injunctions: Federal district courts have issued injunctions to halt executive orders, particularly when they are challenged as unconstitutional. This has been a contentious issue, with debates over whether lower courts should have such broad authority.
  • Recent Supreme Court Cases: The Supreme Court has been weighing whether lower courts should retain the ability to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential actions, particularly in cases involving immigration and birthright citizenship.
    

 

[BULLDOG]

The Constitution died long ago.

More childish MAGA whining.

 

[BULLDOG]

Where in the Constitution can we find that?

• • Article III of the Constitution: Establishes the judicial branch and grants federal courts the power to hear cases arising under the Constitution and federal laws.
  • Marbury v. Madison (1803): This landmark Supreme Court case established the principle of judicial review, affirming that courts have the authority to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws or executive actions that violate it.
  • The Supreme Court’s Role: The Court has consistently interpreted its role as the final arbiter of constitutional questions, ensuring that laws and executive actions comply with constitutional principles.
    

 

[Oddball]

• • Article III of the U.S. Constitution: Grants federal courts the authority to hear cases involving constitutional and federal law disputes.
  • The Administrative Procedure Act (APA): Allows courts to review executive agency actions and block them if they are deemed "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."
  • Nationwide Injunctions: Federal district courts have issued injunctions to halt executive orders, particularly when they are challenged as unconstitutional. This has been a contentious issue, with debates over whether lower courts should have such broad authority.
  • Recent Supreme Court Cases: The Supreme Court has been weighing whether lower courts should retain the ability to issue nationwide injunctions against presidential actions, particularly in cases involving immigration and birthright citizenship.

That says the Supreme Court, not the district court in East Buttfuck, Nevada.

 

[BULLDOG]

I mistook you as a true student of what is happening in courts around the USA.

Student or not, you should back up your claim or admit it's just more made up MAGA bullshit.

 

[Robert W]

More childish MAGA whining.

More childish MAWA whining.

 

[JLW]

The Constitution isn't being violated, nor are any laws...

View attachment 1115439

Where your meme is wrong, or rather incomplete, is that habeas corpus is still available is some circumstances under INS Section 235(b)(1). Specifically,

Habeas Corpus Proceedings

Under INA § 242(e)(2), an alien may challenge an expedited removal order in habeas corpus proceedings, contesting the legality of his or her detention. The habeas court's jurisdiction, however, is limited to whether (1) the petitioner in the habeas action is an alien; (2) the petitioner was ordered removed under INA § 235(b)(1)'s expedited removal provisions; and (3) the petitioner can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is an LPR, refugee, or asylee.

Challenges to the Expedited Removal System

Under INA § 242(e)(3), an alien subject to an expedited order of removal may challenge the validity of the expedited removal system by filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The district court's review is limited to determining whether (1) the expedited removal statute or its implementing regulations is constitutional; and (2) a regulation, written policy directive, written policy guideline, or written procedure issued by DHS to implement expedited removal is consistent with the statute or other laws. The lawsuit must be brought within 60 days after implementation of the challenged statutory provision, regulation, directive, guideline, or procedure.

 

[Man With A Plan]

This is a valid question given that trump and his supporters claim he was elected to deport people, and that judges who rule against him are wrong because the people elected trump. They have gone so far as to call judges communists simply for ruling against trump.
Does trump's election override the constitution and the courts?

Trump is getting rid of the people that you on the left let into the country ILLEGALLY which is something the American people overwhelmingly want to happen...but somehow that is overriding the Constitution? I guess being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry?

 

[Robert W]

Student or not, you should back up your claim or admit it's just more made up MAGA bullshit.

For a bullshitter, you sure have nerve.

 

[JLW]

Student or not, you should back up your claim or admit it's just more made up MAGA bullshit.

Robert W. has nothing. He just talks out his ass.

 

[Robert W]

. They have gone so far as to call judges communists simply for ruling against trump

Let's all take a look for your proof!!!!

 

[excalibur]

• • Article III of the Constitution: Establishes the judicial branch and grants federal courts the power to hear cases arising under the Constitution and federal laws.
  • Marbury v. Madison (1803): This landmark Supreme Court case established the principle of judicial review, affirming that courts have the authority to interpret the Constitution and strike down laws or executive actions that violate it.
  • The Supreme Court’s Role: The Court has consistently interpreted its role as the final arbiter of constitutional questions, ensuring that laws and executive actions comply with constitutional principles.

This is what you stated in a previous post: "The constitution assigns interpretation to the courts."

I don't see that in the Constitution.

In fact, it isn't in the Constitution. You're rattling off about 'Marbury' isn't the Constitution.