Impeachment

[MaryL]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin Constitutionally? Impeaching Donald Trump on such scant evidence, that's Ok, but sanctuary cites created without the consent of the people nobody questions THAT? Something is broken when we can scrutinize the president , but not the constitutionality of creating "Sanctuary cities"...without our consent, foreknowledge or vote to the benefit of groups or persons unknown. I wonder just how strong- or flimsy, the Constitution really is in the real world.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Agree.

 

[Montrovant]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin Constitutionally? Impeaching Donald Trump on such scant evidence, that's Ok, but sanctuary cites created without the consent of the people nobody questions THAT? Something is broken when we can scrutinize the president , but not the constitutionality of creating "Sanctuary cities"...without our consent, foreknowledge or vote to the benefit of groups or persons unknown. I wonder just how strong- or flimsy, the Constitution really is in the real world.

Who says the Constitutionality of sanctuary cities cannot be scrutinized?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin Constitutionally? Impeaching Donald Trump on such scant evidence, that's Ok, but sanctuary cites created without the consent of the people nobody questions THAT? Something is broken when we can scrutinize the president , but not the constitutionality of creating "Sanctuary cities"...without our consent, foreknowledge or vote to the benefit of groups or persons unknown. I wonder just how strong- or flimsy, the Constitution really is in the real world.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

There was more than enough evidence to warrant Trump’s impeachment; the failure rests solely with a partisan Republican Senate that refused to remove from office a Republican president.

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with states and local jurisdictions making the perfectly appropriate, lawful, and Constitutional decision to not enforce Federal immigration law.

Indeed, it’s neither the role nor responsibility of local jurisdictions to enforce Federal immigration law; and it’s un-Constitutional for Federal authorities to attempt to compel local jurisdictions to enforce Federal laws – including immigration law.

Moreover, there is no such thing as a ‘sanctuary city’ – the notion is a myth:

‘There is much confusion about the term “sanctuary city.” The term is often used derisively by immigration opponents to blast what are best described as community policing policies. Critics claim that these cities and states provide “sanctuary” to undocumented immigrants, but research shows that the opposite is true. In fact, community policing policies are about providing public safety services, not sanctuary, to both immigrant residents and the entire community. Crime experts, including hundreds of local police officers, have found that cities with community policing policies continue to work closely with DHS and have built bridges to immigrant communities that have improved their ability to fight crime and protect the entire community.’

Debunking the Myth of "Sanctuary Cities"

There is much confusion about the term “sanctuary city.” The term is often used derisively by immigration opponents to blast what are best described as community policing policies. Critics claim that these cities and states provide “sanctuary” to undocumented immigrants, but research shows that...

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

 

[MaryL]

Lets don't over intellectualize this. I am seeing poor Americans being minimalized, losing their homes and jobs over 30 years, this isn't hypothetical or what liberals like to call "anecdotal". Sanctuary Cities where NEVER on any ballot or approved by local constituency, its hurts US, WE never wanted this, or approved of it. That makes sanctuary cities... questionable...think about it.

 

[fncceo]

There was more than enough evidence to warrant Trump’s impeachment

These guys disagree with you...

The thing about evidence is ... it has to convince those who aren't already pre-disposed to being convinced.

 

[Augustine_]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin Constitutionally? Impeaching Donald Trump on such scant evidence, that's Ok, but sanctuary cites created without the consent of the people nobody questions THAT? Something is broken when we can scrutinize the president , but not the constitutionality of creating "Sanctuary cities"...without our consent, foreknowledge or vote to the benefit of groups or persons unknown. I wonder just how strong- or flimsy, the Constitution really is in the real world.

It's a government by, of, and for the people. But most certainly not just your people.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin Constitutionally? Impeaching Donald Trump on such scant evidence, that's Ok, but sanctuary cites created without the consent of the people nobody questions THAT? Something is broken when we can scrutinize the president , but not the constitutionality of creating "Sanctuary cities"...without our consent, foreknowledge or vote to the benefit of groups or persons unknown. I wonder just how strong- or flimsy, the Constitution really is in the real world.

Who says the Constitutionality of sanctuary cities cannot be scrutinized?

Actually, that’s already happened:

‘Under the Constitution, state and local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law. In cases like Printz v. United States (1997) and New York v. United States (1992), the Supreme Court has ruled that the Tenth Amendment forbids federal “commandeering” of state governments to help enforce federal law. Most of the support for this anti-commandeering principle came from conservative justices such as the late Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Printz.’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/11/26/federalism-the-constitution-and-sanctuary-cities/

Conservatives hostile to immigrants and immigration are in no position to complain, of course, given the case law that supports the right of state and local jurisdictions to refuse to enforce Federal immigration laws was written by conservative justices on a conservative Supreme Court.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lets don't over intellectualize this. I am seeing poor Americans being minimalized, losing their homes and jobs over 30 years, this isn't hypothetical or what liberals like to call "anecdotal". Sanctuary Cities where NEVER on any ballot or approved by local constituency, its hurts US, WE never wanted this, or approved of it. That makes sanctuary cities... questionable...think about it.

Nonsense.

Lawmakers who implement appropriate, lawful, and Constitutional policies with regard to immigration act at the behest of the people who voted them into office.

If the people object to those policies, they’re at liberty to vote those lawmakers out of office.

 

[MaryL]

There was more than enough evidence to warrant Trump’s impeachment

These guys disagree with you...

View attachment 328650

The thing about evidence is ... it has to convince those who aren't already pre-disposed to being convinced.

All those people that thought slavery was great, all those that thought the Earth was flat. Groups scare me, just by their very nature. Like Groucho once said, any group that would have me as a member...

 

[fncceo]

There was more than enough evidence to warrant Trump’s impeachment

These guys disagree with you...

View attachment 328650

The thing about evidence is ... it has to convince those who aren't already pre-disposed to being convinced.

All those people that thought slavery was great, all those that thought the Earth was flat. Groups scare me, just by their very nature.

Unfortunately for you, if you want to pass laws in THIS country ... you need to convince groups.

There are countries where you only have to convince one person ... would that be more to your liking?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lets don't over intellectualize this. I am seeing poor Americans being minimalized, losing their homes and jobs over 30 years, this isn't hypothetical or what liberals like to call "anecdotal". Sanctuary Cities where NEVER on any ballot or approved by local constituency, its hurts US, WE never wanted this, or approved of it. That makes sanctuary cities... questionable...think about it.

This also runs counter to the fundamental tenets of representative democracy, where not every issue or policy decision is determined by referendum.

The thread premise is ridiculous sophistry and fails as a consequence.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear MaryL
I believe CCJones answered your question indirectly.
That type of liberal political interpretation of the Constitution as justifying violations
is WHY we don't have consistent Constitutional law enforcement. People like CCJ just
don't believe those policies are illegal, and in this case, even exist. (Same with arguments
that ACA mandates violated freedom of choice in health care. CCJ also believes no choices
were violated or taken away by forcing taxpayers under penalty to buy insurance or pay tax fines.)

With the liberal half the country interpreting the Constitution as optional, in order to use the govt for politically projecting their beliefs and opinions
through the system of legislatures and courts, the policies pushed by Liberals, Democrats and Progressives are NOT bound by Constitutional limits on govt.
They are only limited by what can be voted in by majority rule, issued by court order, and not struck down by judicial ruling.
So in order to STOP unconstitutional violations (such as Sanctuary cities and overreaching LGBT policies that don't belong in govt),
the opponents must not only SUE in court but WIN their cases and obtain a ruling that strikes down the unconstitutional policy!

The legal costs are prohibitive, as well as the monopoly on judges and lawyers by connections with campaign funding through parties and political donors.

Perhaps if the Libertarians, Republicans and Constitutionalists would unite, the combined
efforts could compel enforcement of Constitutional rules and process.

But this would likely take place through the MEDIA by public pressure and education on Constitutional law enforcement.

If it could be pursued through the courts, one Libertarian lawyer HAS offered to set up "class action lawsuits"
for citizens suffering the wrongful death of a loved one to lax immigration policies in Sanctuary cities.

And I would gladly team up with other Constitutionalists to due Democratic Party members for damages
and debts caused by a string of unconstitutional violations where govt was abused to establish political beliefs
that violated the rights and beliefs of other citizens, discriminated by creed, and regulated on the basis of religion.

If the only standards the Democrats will listen to are court orders and rulings,
then if lawsuits are required, the Party responsible for incurring that cost should have to pay for those legal costs as well.
Had they LISTENED when citizens objected to their policies as unconstitutional, and refrained from violating those beliefs,
the wrongs, debts and damages could have been prevented. But to require lawsuits and court rulings before agreeing
to cease and desist from violating civil rights of others, that added cost to taxpayers should be part of the grievances and restitution owed.

 

[Montrovant]

Dear MaryL
I believe CCJones answered your question indirectly.
That type of liberal political interpretation of the Constitution as justifying violations
is WHY we don't have consistent Constitutional law enforcement. People like CCJ just
don't believe those policies are illegal, and in this case, even exist. (Same with arguments
that ACA mandates violated freedom of choice in health care. CCJ also believes no choices
were violated or taken away by forcing taxpayers under penalty to buy insurance or pay tax fines.)

With the liberal half the country interpreting the Constitution as optional, in order to use the govt for politically projecting their beliefs and opinions
through the system of legislatures and courts, the policies pushed by Liberals, Democrats and Progressives are NOT bound by Constitutional limits on govt.
They are only limited by what can be voted in by majority rule, issued by court order, and not struck down by judicial ruling.
So in order to STOP unconstitutional violations (such as Sanctuary cities and overreaching LGBT policies that don't belong in govt),
the opponents must not only SUE in court but WIN their cases and obtain a ruling that strikes down the unconstitutional policy!

The legal costs are prohibitive, as well as the monopoly on judges and lawyers by connections with campaign funding through parties and political donors.

Perhaps if the Libertarians, Republicans and Constitutionalists would unite, the combined
efforts could compel enforcement of Constitutional rules and process.

But this would likely take place through the MEDIA by public pressure and education on Constitutional law enforcement.

If it could be pursued through the courts, one Libertarian lawyer HAS offered to set up "class action lawsuits"
for citizens suffering the wrongful death of a loved one to lax immigration policies in Sanctuary cities.

And I would gladly team up with other Constitutionalists to due Democratic Party members for damages
and debts caused by a string of unconstitutional violations where govt was abused to establish political beliefs
that violated the rights and beliefs of other citizens, discriminated by creed, and regulated on the basis of religion.

If the only standards the Democrats will listen to are court orders and rulings,
then if lawsuits are required, the Party responsible for incurring that cost should have to pay for those legal costs as well.
Had they LISTENED when citizens objected to their policies as unconstitutional, and refrained from violating those beliefs,
the wrongs, debts and damages could have been prevented. But to require lawsuits and court rulings before agreeing
to cease and desist from violating civil rights of others, that added cost to taxpayers should be part of the grievances and restitution owed.

Do you honestly believe that Republican, conservative politicians have adhered strictly to the Constitution, and it is only Democratic, liberal politicians who have ignored it?