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.
Middle class tax cut
Common sense reform to national monument designations
Reduced importation of terrorists into this country
Record high stock market
Lowest unemployment rate in decades
Makes me wonder what's next? Maybe the wall?
At least a physical barrier in the worst sections across from urban areas.
You will need to explain. Mine was the Constitutional argument. Maybe you didn't recognize it?
Yours was an anti-constitutional argument:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
Yes, this is all mostly meaningless where terrorism is concerned. Many cheering don't consider the big picture either. The president had the absolute right to do this because the federal government controls immigration.
"[T]he absolute right to do this because the federal government controls immigration." You happen to be missing, among other things, the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, which apply to the federal government--which do not provide the President "absolute rights" in the area of immigration law (or anywhere else).
"[T]he absolute right to do this because the federal government controls immigration." You happen to be missing, among other things, the 1st, 5th, and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, which apply to the federal government--which do not provide the President "absolute rights" in the area of immigration law (or anywhere else).
The first has nothing to do with immigration. Nor do the others. Those in other countries are not covered by any of this. I disagree that what Trump did does any good whatsoever but he has the Constitutional ability to do it.
Please, just to make it less confusing, tell us what the 1st has to do with this.
The first has nothing to do with immigration. Nor do the others. Those in other countries are not covered by any of this. I disagree that what Trump did does any good whatsoever but he has the Constitutional ability to do it.
Please, just to make it less confusing, tell us what the 1st has to do with this.
The 1st requires the government to respect the free exercise off religion.
This is more about what the constitution says is law, and how the Democrat party, nee the resistance, via their activist judicial appointees wipe their feet on it.
Every judge you disagree with must be an activist. LOL
The 1st requires the government to respect the free exercise off religion.
Of American citizens. Not of Syrian citizens.
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.
