The Courts will be "the decider" on illegal immigration enforcement (employment, working)

[Lakewooder]

So questioner if they have unlimited resources is our only alternative to take up arms?

[DontH8Me]

Originally Posted by Lakewooder

So questioner if they have unlimited resources is our only alternative to take up arms?

I think 'questioner' is fishing for controversy. From the OP, it appears that they are promoting the "we can't beat em, so let's join em" roll-over-and-play-dead stance. Interestingly, this is not the first thread they started with something controversial, and then disappear and not respond to other posters' questions and comments.

[Ozark-Baby]

Originally Posted by DontH8Me

I think 'questioner' is fishing for controversy. From the OP, it appears that they are promoting the "we can't beat em, so let's join em" roll-over-and-play-dead stance. Interestingly, this is not the first thread they started with something controversial, and then disappear and not respond to other posters' questions and comments.

Right and it shows all over this group.

[crittersitter]

Originally Posted by cousinsal

I think it's going to come down to the States, cities, counties making their own laws, as they have been doing. And, I think that eventually, that will work against illegal immigrants whether they have supporters or not. In cities, or counties, or states, you have local government, which is more powerful for that particular area, and they don't CARE what the federal government is saying, or what some group like LaRaza has to say.

Do not dispair. We will win in the end, and save our country, piece by piece.

I agree, the states and localities will have a lot to do in this. But I still think a president that supports the measures to implement the laws and secure the borders would be a big plus.

Also, I love your optimistic attitude. I hope and pray we will save our country too.

[questioner2]

Originally Posted by DontH8Me

I think 'questioner' is fishing for controversy. From the OP, it appears that they are promoting the "we can't beat em, so let's join em" roll-over-and-play-dead stance. Interestingly, this is not the first thread they started with something controversial, and then disappear and not respond to other posters' questions and comments.

What more do you want me to say? The courts control everything in America. If you disagree with a government decision take it to court. The same reason it takes 20 years of court appeals to build a new highway. We need to elect a President who will appoint judges who support elected representatives decisions and stop being so activist.

[Greatday]

Originally Posted by questioner2

What more do you want me to say? The courts control everything in America. If you disagree with a government decision take it to court. The same reason it takes 20 years of court appeals to build a new highway.

Then, go to work to change the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights

[madicarus2000]

Originally Posted by questioner2

We need to elect a President who will appoint judges who support elected representatives decisions and stop being so activist.

So you don’t like checks and balances, is that what you’re saying? If elected representatives created laws saying people of mixed races shouldn’t marry, then judges should not overrule those laws as unconstitutional? That would be judicial activism? Then why bother with a judicial branch if everyone should just follow the elected representatives decisions.

By the way, since it is just the legislative branch that should be supported, does that mean the president no longer gets to veto legislation? After all, he too should support the elected representatives. Right?

So you just want one branch, a legislative branch with all the authority and decision making and the other two branch are just “yes” men/woman.

[User 2]

Originally Posted by madicarus2000

.....a legislative branch with all the authority and decision making and the other two branch are just “yes” men/woman.

We could try that for a time, I suppose.... (not that I would prefer it), but....



Presently we have an executive branch with all the authority and decision making, and the other two branches are just “yes” men/woman.
.
..

[DontH8Me]

Originally Posted by madicarus2000

So you don’t like checks and balances, is that what you’re saying? If elected representatives created laws saying people of mixed races shouldn’t marry, then judges should not overrule those laws as unconstitutional? That would be judicial activism? Then why bother with a judicial branch if everyone should just follow the elected representatives decisions.

By the way, since it is just the legislative branch that should be supported, does that mean the president no longer gets to veto legislation? After all, he too should support the elected representatives. Right?

So you just want one branch, a legislative branch with all the authority and decision making and the other two branch are just “yes” men/woman.

I say whoever doesn't like the way the three branches of our government operate, go find one that better suits their mood and stay there.

Interesting that User 2 is responding for questioner2 . Their very names are such a koinkidink....

[madicarus2000]

Originally Posted by DontH8Me

I say whoever doesn't like the way the three branches of our government operate, go find one that better suits their mood and stay there.

I wonder, if they see a car being driven poorly on the road, do they blame the car or the driver? Would they suggest the driver get a new car?

I may not like what politicians do, but I wont destroy the whole system to change it, I’ll just vote to change the politicians. When you change it to accommodate the politican, you end up losing more when someone you don’t want in power gets there.