Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Until I can waltz into a foreign country (such a Mexico, Columbia, Argentina, Chile, etc...) and just stay there as long as I like, get a job, buy a home, have no documentation, etc, etc, without any legal ramification and without being deported and without being jailed and without having any sort of requirement I need to meet for me to be in that country, I will not support ANY policy that allows foreigners from any of those nations to waltz into my country, adult or child. I believe in fairness and if you give me the finger from across your border, you get a finger right back.
Did Rachel ask people to take up "2nd Amendment Remedies?". I've seen many GOP Government officials and party members claim they were ready to do that. Does Gabby Giffords ring a bell?
Let's not get into this "who kills more" since nearly 3/4 of all political murders in the USA are from the Right - and something like 7% from the left (the remainder, I assume, are weird and unclassified).
No need to discuss... but here are some details on the Giffords shooter from HuffPo, refer to the favorite book section.
Oh, now it's about YOUR PERSONAL interpretation of the Constitution?
Reality Check, We don't each get to do that.
my personal interpretation? you mean the part in the constitution that spells out that congress makes the laws? or do you mean the fact that the founders wanted a body OTHER than the president to make the laws because they did not want a dictatorship?
Quote:
Funny - all the constitutional scholars I listened to yesterday said Obama could do it, Trump could undo it - and Trump could redo it. That's consistent.
what constitutional scholars are these? obama supporters? executive orders were set up to allow the president to inform the executive branch on HOW laws made by congress would be executed, not to make new law, which is in reality what DACA was, new law, and that makes it unconstitutional. if trump were to do the same thing, i would make the same argument.
Quote:
I suppose you have the SCOTUS case on this to prove your statement...or, again, are you on the court and in the Majority who made the decisions (or lack of)...
i havent seen a scotus case decision on presidential executive orders like DACA. however there are ten states lined up to sue the trump administration if he doesnt go through with eliminating DACA, unless congress makes law to make it properly legal.
Quote:
Just because you think or "feel" or are told something is unconstitutional doesn't mean you are correct. Remember - the SCOTUS determined the following:
1. That Blacks, Free or Slave, were not Americans (Dred Scott)
this case was brought before the supreme court in 1857, before the 13th and 14th amendments were ratified, so at the time we had to depend on court decisions regarding citizenship.
Quote:
2. That forced sterilization was constitutional.
when was this case put before the scotus? and what case was it?
Quote:
3. That segregation was constitutional
again what case, and when was it brought?
Quote:
4. That things you and your wife, GF or boyfriend do in your bedroom are unconstitutional
again, case?
Quote:
5. That Child Labor was constitutonal
case?
Quote:
6. That counting the votes of the people was unconstitutional (Gore v Bush)
where did the scotus claim that counting votes was unconstitutional? fact is they didnt. in that case gore was concentrating the vote count is a few counties in florida rather than the entire state, which is where is should have happened. and forgive me for thinking that bush was allowed to protect HIS rights as well.
what the scotus did was slap down the florida supreme court for making new election law from the bench, THAT was what the scotus said was unconstitutional.
Quote:
7. That Corporations are People and unlimited corporate money, power and influence in politics is constitutional.
its called freedom of speech. that was a first amendment case, and sorry if the scotus said that giving money to political causes is a form of free speech. citizens united decision is neither here nor there for me. i believe in free speech, but i also believe in certain limits on free speech, in regards to things like incitement to riot, yelling fire in a crowed theater without cause. for the most part if you say something about just about anything, i may not like it, but i will defend your right to say it. though i may argue with you about it.
but dont you think that corporations also deserve constitutional protections as well? or do you think the owners of these corporations should not get constitutional rights? so let me ask this question of you before you answer, do you have a retirement account, 401(k), IRA, etc.? if so then you ARE an owner in a variety of corporations, which would mean you would be subject to losing your own constitutional protections if you think that corporations dont get them.
If I break the law, I will either get fined or go to jail.
I don't understand people's preference to break the law for illegals and dreamers.
If you want to change the law, then put the proper legislators in Congress and do it legally. Then nobody can say anything.
I think the hidden truth is most people don't want DACA. All of this publicity is a sell job to influence others, mask the facts, and keep Obama's regulation that defies existing law and hacks the legislative process.
These are people who are here against the law. If you don't like it - the change the law the right way. Obama short circuited the process with his regulation, which allows Trump to do his re-wiring of that regulation. ObamaCare is the law of the law BECAUSE it was passed through the proper legislative procedure. The majority doesn't like it - too bad. It's here now until it is changed the proper way. That's the way DACA should be.
This whole fiasco is due to a president who choose to short cut the process to get what he wants, and a sizable portion of the population who are willing to cheat and skirt the law to get what they want. These same people will get mad when someone they don't like is able to skirt the law.
It's actually pretty childish...
Are you rich? do you know people in high places?, are you a college football or basketball star? a prominent member of the community? a politician? a member of the good ole boys club-?
well then-- you qualify for a free get out of jail pass
do not ask me to give you links
Are you rich? do you know people in high places?, are you a college football or basketball star? a prominent member of the community? a politician? a member of the good ole boys club-?
well then-- you qualify for a free get out of jail pass
do not ask me to give you links
Did you read the sentence before my "childish" comment?
I know certain people skirt the law, just like many people want the dreamers to skirt the law. Neither instance is good.
If I break the law, I will either get fined or go to jail.
I don't understand people's preference to break the law for illegals and dreamers.
If you want to change the law, then put the proper legislators in Congress and do it legally. Then nobody can say anything.
I think the hidden truth is most people don't want DACA. All of this publicity is a sell job to influence others, mask the facts, and keep Obama's regulation that defies existing law and hacks the legislative process.
These are people who are here against the law. If you don't like it - the change the law the right way. Obama short circuited the process with his regulation, which allows Trump to do his re-wiring of that regulation. ObamaCare is the law of the law BECAUSE it was passed through the proper legislative procedure. The majority doesn't like it - too bad. It's here now until it is changed the proper way. That's the way DACA should be.
This whole fiasco is due to a president who choose to short cut the process to get what he wants, and a sizable portion of the population who are willing to cheat and skirt the law to get what they want. These same people will get mad when someone they don't like is able to skirt the law.
It's actually pretty childish...
Technically you are correct. Things should be done by the law.
But generally speaking, the laws were put in place by PEOPLE to serve the American people. Some folks are convinced that the people are here to serve the law. It's the other way around.
As for the legislator to change the law (almost any law) - it became impossible. The US is such divided nation, nothing can be agreed anymore. It wasn't limited to Obama. It affects Trump as much as Obama. In spite of the special situation (Republican majority in both houses(!), nothing can be done. It's far beyond the status of "dreamers". This congress cannot decide on debt ceiling, healthcare, budgets. What do you think of that? Did America reach the point of being non governable? And after 2018, the situation may get worse if republicans lose their total majority.
Most people I know support DACA in principle, as in they support giving some kind of leeway to illegal immigrants who were brought here as children (i.e. they didn't choose to break any laws; the circumstances were out of their control).
Deporting some guy who, at the age of 30, decided to just walk in is one thing, but deporting a 20 year old man who's been here since he was 4 is different. He grew up here. America is his home as he's known no other.
As I said, most support what DACA does.
As a legal immigrant, that is my view. If someone was brought here as a child and have no ties to their country of birth, work something out to let them stay. Shipping off someone who has been here since age 3 or 4, and doesn't know their birth country, just seems mean. The parents of said children though, sorry no deal. You were an adult and knowingly broke immigration law and must be held accountable.
Which of those transgressions pull money out of tax payers pockets?
Many of them - perhaps most.
Gamblers break up families and spend money that should go for other things. Many end up broke (on the dole) and some end up having to be treated for addiction. I was robbed at my business from a compulsive gambler.
Pot smokers are generally lazy...not all, but a lot. That means less money and taxes into the systems.
Jaywalkers and anything related to increased traffic cost us ALL - billions a year just for time waiting in traffic, let alone the medical bills for the 30,000 dead and 300K injured in car accidents.
its called freedom of speech. that was a first amendment case, and sorry if the scotus said that giving money to political causes is a form of free speech. citizens united decision is neither here nor there for me. i believe in free speech, but i also believe in certain limits on free speech, in regards to things like incitement to riot, yelling fire in a crowed theater without cause. for the most part if you say something about just about anything, i may not like it, but i will defend your right to say it. though i may argue with you about it.
but dont you think that corporations also deserve constitutional protections as well? or do you think the owners of these corporations should not get constitutional rights? so let me ask this question of you before you answer, do you have a retirement account, 401(k), IRA, etc.? if so then you ARE an owner in a variety of corporations, which would mean you would be subject to losing your own constitutional protections if you think that corporations dont get them.
Call it what you will, but now we have vast corporate dark money flooding our elections. We have entire shadow political bosses like the Kochs fronting org that put billions (and propaganda) toward ruination of society. The seek the ability to pollute more, pay less and in general not pay their fair share of a civil society.
And, no, I don't believe Corporations are People nor should be protected as such under our Bill of Rights. If a HUMAN being in a corporation want to press something, that is a different story.
But, please, don't insult our intelligence. The RESULT of CU is an orgy of dark money never seen before in DC - people who don't have to show their face and names and yet can corrupt and buy the political process...top to bottom.
Let me guess - you are FOR ripping masks off antifa, but against ripping masks off cowardly billionaires who are using corporate money to buy our democracy. Do I have that right?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
