FBI scheduling interviews with 6 lawmakers who encouraged military members to refuse 'illegal orders'

[SweetTea]

Explain what cities have done to impede them.

You mean like this? Not allowing ICE in certain areas certainly impedes them from enforcing the law.

https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/dep...25/october/city-property-executive-order.html

So the question remains, what legal authority does Trump have to kill drug runners in the Caribbean?

He is protecting the country by preventing illegal and deadly drugs from being brought to our shores. See how easy that was?

 

[Marener]

You mean like this? Not allowing ICE in certain areas certainly impedes them from enforcing the law.

https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/dep...25/october/city-property-executive-order.html

There’s no obligation for the city to allow federal agents to use city property. There’s a difference between impeding and not assisting.

He is protecting the country by preventing illegal and deadly drugs from being brought to our shores. See how easy that was?

This isn’t a legal argument. What law or section of the constitution gives him the authority to do so?

It’s easy because it’s lazy.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[Zincwarrior]

what are you talking about?

yOUR CRAZY ARGUMENT.

 

[dblack]

The main thing is to impose authoritarian rule with an iron fist. Arrest any politicians or judges who don't kiss Trump's ass. The jackboot crowd loves that shit.

 

[struth]

yOUR CRAZY ARGUMENT.

yeah, no you aren't addressing my arguments at all.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Latrine duty?

/——/ Latrine duty at DNC headquarters would be fair.

 

[SweetTea]

There’s no obligation for the city to allow federal agents to use city property. There’s a difference between impeding and not assisting.

This is kind of like saying that placing a ban on ammunition is not the same as banning guns.

You guys are always on the wrong side of every argument. Why on earth would you be ok states/cities doing all they could not to assist or even impede federal law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration law? It sure seems like you guys don't really want any border control.

This isn’t a legal argument. What law or section of the constitution gives him the authority to do so?

You mean to blow up boats? LOL, yeah there isn't a "blow up the boats" law and there isn't a "don't blow up the boats" law. Article II gives him permission as cartels are a national security threat. Again, this would all need to be adjudicated, but it is not patently illegal.

 

[JohnDB]

 

[Delldude]

No....the prosecutor doesn't investigate.

They have the ability to and do in conjunction with others.

Many of these investigations you expect to be fast tracked can take some time in the making. You rush you lose.

 

[Marener]

This is kind of like saying that placing a ban on ammunition is not the same as banning guns.

Not even close. If the cops want to search your house without a warrant, are you impeding them by saying no.

You guys are always on the wrong side of every argument. Why on earth would you be ok states/cities doing all they could not to assist or even impede federal law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration law? It sure seems like you guys don't really want any border control.

This may come as a surprise to you but a lot of people don’t like deporting people who are just working jobs and not committing anything other crimes.

You mean to blow up boats? LOL, yeah there isn't a "blow up the boats" law and there isn't a "don't blow up the boats" law. Article II gives him permission as cartels are a national security threat. Again, this would all need to be adjudicated, but it is not patently illegal.

What part of article II gives him the authority to blow up boats?

 

[Seymour Flops]

These democrats are hoping for some young service person to pull a "chelsea" manning by disobeying orders and then claiming that they are justified.

The democrats and their allies in the media will make that service person a hero and won't give a f*** when that person goes to prison.

They would love it if the service person got hung.

 

[d0gbreath]

Still not a good look.

None of them are fashion models.

 

[SweetTea]

Not even close. If the cops want to search your house without a warrant, are you impeding them by saying no.

They have a federal warrant.

This may come as a surprise to you but a lot of people don’t like deporting people who are just working jobs and not committing anything other crimes.

Yes, those people surprise me. That is like saying that it is ok for someone to trespass as long as they cut the grass. It isn't.

What part of article II gives him the authority to blow up boats?

It stipulates that the President is the Commander and Chief of the Army and the Nav, therefore he has the authority to neutralize threats to the US, including drug boats.

 

[Marener]

They have a federal warrant.

Usually not. Big topics in “sanctuary cities” were detainers which are not warrants. Immigration judges are not article III judges so their orders are not binding.

Yes, those people surprise me. That is like saying that it is ok for someone to trespass as long as they but the grass. It isn't.

People are understanding of the human desire to improve the quality of life and safety for their families. We respect hard work.

It’s not surprising at all.

It stipulates that the President is the Commander and Chief of the Army and the Nav, therefore he has the authority to neutralize threats to the US, including drug boats.

That’s not at all inherent to the authority as commander in chief.

Who declares war?

 

[SweetTea]

People are understanding of the human desire to improve the quality of life and safety for their families. We respect hard work.

Yes, people are, but adults, as opposed to idealist children, understand that there are right and wrong ways to go about it. Sneaking across the US border is not the right way to do that. If we don't bother enforcing immigration laws, what is the point of having a border at all? Without a border, we don't have a country. Maybe that is the ultimate goal of people like you or maybe you are just too naive to understand that would be the ultimate outcome.

That’s not at all inherent to the authority as commander in chief.

Yes, it most certainly is. Do I really need to provide examples of past Presidents acting militarily on their own accord using Article II as the justification.

Who declares war?

Congress

 

[Zincwarrior]

These democrats are hoping for some young service person to pull a "chelsea" manning by disobeying orders and then claiming that they are justified.

I imagine they were hoping Trump or the MAGAs would freak out, just like what happened.

It stipulates that the President is the Commander and Chief of the Army and the Nav, therefore he has the authority to neutralize threats to the US, including drug boats.

Only Congress has the ability to declare War. A nonsupine Congress would have already invoked the War Powers Act.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I imagine they were hoping Trump or the MAGAs would freak out, just like what happened.

Maybe they are actually that childish. You know them better than I.

Only Congress has the ability to declare War. A nonsupine Congress would have already invoked the War Powers Act.

But they have not, so there's nuthin' illegal about what Trump is doing. Instead of trolling "the MAGA's" maybe try to win an election?

 

[SweetTea]

Only Congress has the ability to declare War.

Who said anything about declaring war? The President can absolutely use the military to protect threats to the US without declaring war.

 

[Delldude]

I imagine they were hoping Trump or the MAGAs would freak out, just like what happened.

Only trouble there is the dems are on the defensive.

A nonsupine Congress would have already invoked the War Powers Ac

No need to. They previously authorized the actions.