Author Topic: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video  (Read 1534 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline libertybele

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,327
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #50 on: April 15, 2019, 06:33:05 PM »
I believe the political environment is different today for Trump than it was for Andrew Jackson in 1832.  I also believe that the public's view of the deference to which Supreme Court orders are entitled is different now than it was in 1832.

You don't, so there is no point in discussing this further.

But we do seem to agree that the Supreme Court would not have the final as to whether or not Trump would be impeached. That would belong to Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrat majority.  You have more faith that they'd give Trump a pass than do I.

Nancy and the House would probably impeach him, though, I think Nancy may surprise on that one.  As for the Senate voting for impeachment, doubtful, but with all the RINO's who knows.

As for SCOTUS ruling against Trump and his authority to protect this country; doubtful.
"I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign nation of many sovereign states; a perfect union one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey it laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies." -William Page

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,137
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #51 on: April 16, 2019, 05:45:35 PM »
I believe the political environment is different today for Trump than it was for Andrew Jackson in 1832.  I also believe that the public's view of the deference to which Supreme Court orders are entitled is different now than it was in 1832.

You don't, so there is no point in discussing this further.

But we do seem to agree that the Supreme Court would not have the final as to whether or not Trump would be impeached. That would belong to Nancy Pelosi and her House Democrat majority.  You have more faith that they'd give Trump a pass than do I.
Of course the Supreme Court would not have the final say on impeachment. Where did that come from?

And you seem to somehow believes citizens need to defer to the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority.

That is not how the Constitution was delivered to us.  Bluntly, to succumb to allowing some unelected officials to decide what is good for the rest of us is what the Revolution was about and why the Constitution was specifically created to avoid in the first place.

The ultimate authority in this country is a collection of 38 states acting in unison.  They can fire Congress, Executive, and dissolve the Supreme Court.
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,349
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #52 on: April 16, 2019, 06:45:47 PM »
And you seem to somehow believes citizens need to defer to the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority.

This really isn't germane to my point, and I'm not sure what you mean by "defer to the Supreme Court".  However, I will say that citizens are perfectly free to disagree with Supreme Court decisions if they so choose.  However, if they choose to act on that disagreement in a way that exposes them to criminal liability based on their belief that the Supreme Court got it wrong, then they're going to be "not deferring" from the inside of a prison. Or, in a civil matter, they may find themselves deprived of property and a pauper when the marshals come to clean them out.  In other words, the real issue is whether they defer to the police and civil authorities who will act to enforce the Supreme Court's orders. 

Quote
That is not how the Constitution was delivered to us.  Bluntly, to succumb to allowing some unelected officials to decide what is good for the rest of us is what the Revolution was about and why the Constitution was specifically created to avoid in the first place.

You may be right.  But that has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

Quote
The ultimate authority in this country is a collection of 38 states acting in unison.  They can fire Congress, Executive, and dissolve the Supreme Court.

Okay.  So you're pinning Trump's prospective defiance of a Supreme Court order on the belief that 38 states are going to call an Article V Convention of States, and side with him over the Supreme Court on the issue of immigration.

Exactly how soon after Trump defies that Supreme Court order do you predict that is going to occur?

Offline libertybele

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,327
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #53 on: April 16, 2019, 07:08:07 PM »
Of course the Supreme Court would not have the final say on impeachment. Where did that come from?

And you seem to somehow believes citizens need to defer to the Supreme Court as the ultimate authority.

That is not how the Constitution was delivered to us.  Bluntly, to succumb to allowing some unelected officials to decide what is good for the rest of us is what the Revolution was about and why the Constitution was specifically created to avoid in the first place.

The ultimate authority in this country is a collection of 38 states acting in unison.  They can fire Congress, Executive, and dissolve the Supreme Court.

I agree with you and it is unfortunate that the push for calling a Convention of States has not been accomplished.  An enormous effort should have been made when Trump was first sworn in and when the GOP held the majority.  Since the mid terms some of the states have more liberal legislatures and it may be very risky to do so.

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I thought calling for a Convention of States was to return some of the power of the feds (laws) back to the states.  I wasn't aware that they could dissolve the Supreme Court, fire Congress and the Executive branch.

I really need to further research and rewatch the simulation of a Constitutional Convention that was done a few years ago.

"I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign nation of many sovereign states; a perfect union one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey it laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies." -William Page

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,137
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #54 on: April 16, 2019, 07:09:34 PM »
This really isn't germane to my point, and I'm not sure what you mean by "defer to the Supreme Court".  However, I will say that citizens are perfectly free to disagree with Supreme Court decisions if they so choose.  However, if they choose to act on that disagreement in a way that exposes them to criminal liability based on their belief that the Supreme Court got it wrong, then they're going to be "not deferring" from the inside of a prison. Or, in a civil matter, they may find themselves deprived of property and a pauper when the marshals come to clean them out.  In other words, the real issue is whether they defer to the police and civil authorities who will act to enforce the Supreme Court's orders. 

I will repeat your statement: 
I also believe that the public's view of the deference to which Supreme Court orders are entitled is different now than it was in 1832.
You defer to an unelected court when you believe Executive must adher to all Supreme Court rulings.  They most decidedly are not the supreme law of the land.  The Constitution is.


You may be right.  But that has absolutely nothing to do with my point.

Go back and reread your post #43.  You make a point that No One can defy a Supreme Court ruling.  You treat them preferentially compared to other branches, all of which were elected, not selected.

Okay.  So you're pinning Trump's prospective defiance of a Supreme Court order on the belief that 38 states are going to call an Article V Convention of States, and side with him over the Supreme Court on the issue of immigration.

Exactly how soon after Trump defies that Supreme Court order do you predict that is going to occur?

It is not the Supreme Court which Trump will defy.  It will be a lower court's ruling that clearly is beyond the empowerment that the Constitution provides.  In no manner, shape or form did the Constitution provide a single federal judge the power to over-ride an Executive decision.  It is an assumed power to begin with used by the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of the Constitution, and to let a single judge do so is well beyond any of the Founders's wildest intentions when they agreed to that August document.

Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline dancer

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 31
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #55 on: April 17, 2019, 06:38:11 AM »
@sneakypete @libertybele @Right_in_Virginia

I can understand those who are angry at Trump for not doing something extreme like keeping the government shut down, to try to force Congress to fund a border wall and toughen immigration/asylum laws. I think there should be more of a recognition that the lower courts and Congressional Republicans refused to back him, but maybe those people believe he should have kept everything shut down.  Play legislation chicken, and be willing to fly that car right over the edge if necessary.  Let the FAA grind to a halt and ground all civilian air traffic, stop all military and civilian pay, etc..  Maybe they believe that's what Trump should have done.  I don't, but I at least can recognize the internal logic of that position.

BUT - I don't believe for one second that there was any other GOP candidate running who would have done that, or who would have taken as aggressive a stance both within the media, and using executive powers, as has Trump.  He's gone as far, or beyond, what any other elected Republican President would have done in that regard.  So I'm not sure what is to be gained by tearing him down on this issue.  There isn't anyone electable who is going to be any better on that issue.

The people who should be castigated over this are the ones to whom immigration and naturalization laws are specifically entrusted by the Constitution.  Congress.  Going after the best guy you have on an issue because he isn't able to drag every else over the finish line is unfair, counterproductive, and smacks of having a bias against him completely unrelated to the issue of immigration.

Bravo!   :amen:

Offline libertybele

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,327
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #56 on: April 17, 2019, 07:55:52 AM »
"It is not the Supreme Court which Trump will defy.  It will be a lower court's ruling that clearly is beyond the empowerment that the Constitution provides.  In no manner, shape or form did the Constitution provide a single federal judge the power to over-ride an Executive decision.  It is an assumed power to begin with used by the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of the Constitution, and to let a single judge do so is well beyond any of the Founders's wildest intentions when they agreed to that August document."

Exactly.  Trump is our leader.  He is the Commander in Chief.  He needs to use his Constitutional authority to protect this country.  Instead he decides to keep the border open for another year and is thinking of placing illegals in sanctuary cities which would only increase the illegal population in those cities and possibly ensuring the growth of additional sanctuary cities.  Sure he's thumbing his nose at the leftists, but that doesn't do a darn thing to resolve the crisis at the border; it's only allowing the continued massive invasion into our country.  He's continuing to invite them in; counter productive really.
"I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign nation of many sovereign states; a perfect union one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey it laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies." -William Page

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,349
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #57 on: April 17, 2019, 10:03:05 AM »

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I thought calling for a Convention of States was to return some of the power of the feds (laws) back to the states.  I wasn't aware that they could dissolve the Supreme Court, fire Congress and the Executive branch.

I really need to further research and rewatch the simulation of a Constitutional Convention that was done a few years ago.

It actually only takes two-thirds (34) of the states to call for a Convention.  Whether or not a Convention of States is limited to the subject matter for which it is called, or is able to address any aspect of the Constitution it sees fit, is disputed, and there isn't a clear legal answer because 1) it has never happened before, and 2) the Constitution itself doesn't provide any more detail.

Personally, I think it could address anything it wanted, both as a legal and factual matter.  Because all that Convention actually does is propose amendments to the Constitution.  Any amendments would then have to be ratified by 3/4 (38) of the states before being effective.  I really can't envision the Supreme Court -- or anyone else -- credibly arguing that Amendments that have actually been ratified by 38 states are invalid because they shouldn't have been proposed in the first place.

At least at the present time, the Convention of States seems rather pointless to because getting 38 states to ratify anything is a massive hurdle, and will torpedo anything that is truly controversial.

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,349
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #58 on: April 17, 2019, 10:28:21 AM »
I also believe that the public's view of the deference to which Supreme Court orders are entitled is different now than it was in 1832.

Correct.  I made that point because ultimately, the decision as to whether or not the President would be impeached is up to Congress, which is a political branch strongly influenced by, and reflective of, public opinion.  If 80% of the public believes that the Supreme Court should be the final word on Constitutional interpretation -- regardless of whether they are right or wrong - that makes the impeachment of the President much more likely than it would have been nearly 200 years ago, where the public's opinion of the Supreme Court may have been far different. 

You are talking legal/constitutional theory, which is irrelevant to my point.  I am talking about the political realities -- because that's what is going to determine impeachment.

Quote
You defer to an unelected court when you believe Executive must adher to all Supreme Court rulings.  They most decidedly are not the supreme law of the land.  The Constitution is.

Whether or not the Executive "should" have to adhere to all Supreme Court rulings is irrelevant to the point I have been making in this thread.  I personally do not believe that the President should be required to adhere to every Supreme Court ruling.  But I'm not so self-absorbed that I believe my opinion to be in the majority.  It isn't.  My position is that the political realities/public opinion are such that the President would be impeached if he openly defied a Supreme Court ruling on, say, immigration policy.  That might not be what you or I think should happen, but I'm not arguing "should".  We have had generation after generation go through school being taught that it is up to the Supreme Court to decide what the Constitution means.  Brown v. Board of Education, Miranda v. Arizona, Citizens United, D.C. v. Heller...the list goes on and on.  Our military, our police, etc., all went through those same schools that taught them the Supreme Court is the finally arbiter of the Constitution. 

Whether or not you or I believe that's what people should have been taught is irrelevant.  It is what people believe now, and how members of Congress, including a great many Republicans, would actually vote on impeachment.

I'm going to address the other point you made in a separate post.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 10:30:08 AM by Maj. Bill Martin »

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,349
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #59 on: April 17, 2019, 10:47:50 AM »
"It is not the Supreme Court which Trump will defy.  It will be a lower court's ruling that clearly is beyond the empowerment that the Constitution provides.  In no manner, shape or form did the Constitution provide a single federal judge the power to over-ride an Executive decision.  It is an assumed power to begin with used by the Supreme Court to be the sole arbiter of the Constitution, and to let a single judge do so is well beyond any of the Founders's wildest intentions when they agreed to that August document."

I agree with you at least partially here.  We absolutely agree that a single federal judge should not have the power to issue nationwide injunctions.  I actually have a post somewhere on this site on that exact point.  And there has been a lot written about why that is wrong, and what should be done about it:

https://www.heritage.org/testimony/the-role-and-impact-nationwide-injunctions-district-courts

The problem is that it may not be a Constitutional issue.  The Constitution gave to Congress the power to create the lower court system.  It placed no limitation, nor did it give any guidance, on what Congress should do in that regard. And when Congress created the lower courts by statute, it vested them with the "full judicial power" of the United States.  To me, that's the source of the screw-up.    Congress probably never anticipated that lower courts would try to do that, but statutes should be interpreted by what they actually say, not by what people think was meant.

What is needed, badly, is a law that eliminates the ability of federal district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions.  That would solve the problem rather neatly, but based on the hearing that already have happened in Congress on this topic, the Democrats (for obvious reasons) oppose that.

Unless/until that happens, I suppose Trump has the option to defy the ruling by that lower court, and say the government isn't bound by that decision.  I'm pretty tempted to say that he should do that at some point, though I believe he'd ultimately lose on issue in front of the Supreme Court (which would say it is an issue that should be addressed via law, not executive action).  And I'm not sure the people in the federal government he directs to carry out his order despite a court order to the contrary would actually follow through with it.


Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,137
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #60 on: April 17, 2019, 11:41:12 AM »
I agree with you and it is unfortunate that the push for calling a Convention of States has not been accomplished.  An enormous effort should have been made when Trump was first sworn in and when the GOP held the majority.  Since the mid terms some of the states have more liberal legislatures and it may be very risky to do so.

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I thought calling for a Convention of States was to return some of the power of the feds (laws) back to the states.  I wasn't aware that they could dissolve the Supreme Court, fire Congress and the Executive branch.

I really need to further research and rewatch the simulation of a Constitutional Convention that was done a few years ago.
As per the Constitution, the ultimate authority is 3/4 of the states in agreement.

Acting in unison, they can do anything and everything, from rewriting the Constitution to whatever they wish.  Attacking a runaway federal government is the reason this was placed there in the first place.

Difficult to achieve?  Yes.  Impossible?  No.
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline libertybele

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,327
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #61 on: April 17, 2019, 11:51:02 AM »
As per the Constitution, the ultimate authority is 3/4 of the states in agreement.

Acting in unison, they can do anything and everything, from rewriting the Constitution to whatever they wish.  Attacking a runaway federal government is the reason this was placed there in the first place.

Difficult to achieve?  Yes.  Impossible?  No.

Though risky at this point in time, perhaps necessary.
"I believe in the United States of America as a Government of the people, by the people, for the people; whose just powers are derived from the consent of the governed; a democracy in a republic; a sovereign nation of many sovereign states; a perfect union one and inseparable; established upon those principles of freedom, equality, justice and humanity for which American patriots sacrificed their lives and fortunes. I therefore believe it is my duty to my country to love it; to support its Constitution; to obey it laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies." -William Page

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,137
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #62 on: April 17, 2019, 11:52:19 AM »
I agree with you at least partially here.  We absolutely agree that a single federal judge should not have the power to issue nationwide injunctions.  I actually have a post somewhere on this site on that exact point.  And there has been a lot written about why that is wrong, and what should be done about it:

https://www.heritage.org/testimony/the-role-and-impact-nationwide-injunctions-district-courts

The problem is that it may not be a Constitutional issue.  The Constitution gave to Congress the power to create the lower court system.  It placed no limitation, nor did it give any guidance, on what Congress should do in that regard. And when Congress created the lower courts by statute, it vested them with the "full judicial power" of the United States.  To me, that's the source of the screw-up.    Congress probably never anticipated that lower courts would try to do that, but statutes should be interpreted by what they actually say, not by what people think was meant.

What is needed, badly, is a law that eliminates the ability of federal district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions.  That would solve the problem rather neatly, but based on the hearing that already have happened in Congress on this topic, the Democrats (for obvious reasons) oppose that.

Unless/until that happens, I suppose Trump has the option to defy the ruling by that lower court, and say the government isn't bound by that decision.  I'm pretty tempted to say that he should do that at some point, though I believe he'd ultimately lose on issue in front of the Supreme Court (which would say it is an issue that should be addressed via law, not executive action).  And I'm not sure the people in the federal government he directs to carry out his order despite a court order to the contrary would actually follow through with it.
We need no more laws in order to effect what the Constitution provides.

A major problem I alluded to is that Judicial is not the only entity that is allowed to interpret the Constitution.

All branches are equally powerful to do so.

To allow only judicial to do so gives them authority and power to dictate anything they wish with impunity.
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,349
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #63 on: April 17, 2019, 12:22:14 PM »
We need no more laws in order to effect what the Constitution provides.

But the Constitution is silent on the issue of whether the scope of authority for lower courts is the same as for the Supreme Court.  It just left that up to Congress, which screwed up.


Quote
A major problem I alluded to is that Judicial is not the only entity that is allowed to interpret the Constitution.

All branches are equally powerful to do so.

To allow only judicial to do so gives them authority and power to dictate anything they wish with impunity.

You're blending two different points together, so I'd appreciate it if you could clarify:

Are you saying that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to enjoin the application of laws that it believes violate the Constitution, and that Congress and/or the President should ignore the Court if they believe the Court has gotten it wrong?

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,137
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #64 on: April 17, 2019, 12:34:37 PM »
But the Constitution is silent on the issue of whether the scope of authority for lower courts is the same as for the Supreme Court.  It just left that up to Congress, which screwed up.


You're blending two different points together, so I'd appreciate it if you could clarify:

Are you saying that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to enjoin the application of laws that it believes violate the Constitution, and that Congress and/or the President should ignore the Court if they believe the Court has gotten it wrong?
The Constitution is silent on many things.  Even plain language like exists in the second amendment gets distorted by those who have an agenda.

More laws play into the hands of the lawyers and politicians, not the citizenry.  They are restrictions to freedom rather than freedom.

As far as interpretation of the Constitution, Judicial is not the only entity that is empowered to do so.

As an example, the Constitution plainly dictates the Executive defends this nation.  No court could possibly rule otherwise and usurp that authority.  To do otherwise is to subvert our elected leadership to unelected entities, a practice which led to the Revolution and the drafting of our Constitution.

The only time I ever hear of a 'Constitutional Crisis' is when some court somewhere decides to go rogue and Executive ignores it.

Why is it not a 'Constitutional Crisis when a court rules outside its own jurisdiction dictated by the Constitution?

I submit that Executive has every right to ignore any and all court rulings that attempt to restrict the undisputed authority to defend this country codified in our Constitution.

That is not a 'Constitutional Crisis' to ignore a renegade court ruling.  It was a 'Constitutional Crisis' by the court to rule in the first place.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2019, 12:36:31 PM by IsailedawayfromFR »
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,349
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #65 on: April 17, 2019, 12:44:35 PM »


More laws play into the hands of the lawyers and politicians, not the citizenry.  They are restrictions to freedom rather than freedom.

Great.  So you now oppose a law restricting the jurisdiction of lower federal courts.  Well done.

Quote
As far as interpretation of the Constitution, Judicial is not the only entity that is empowered to do so.

As an example, the Constitution plainly dictates the Executive defends this nation.  No court could possibly rule otherwise and usurp that authority.  To do otherwise is to subvert our elected leadership to unelected entities, a practice which led to the Revolution and the drafting of our Constitution.

The only time I ever hear of a 'Constitutional Crisis' is when some court somewhere decides to go rogue and Executive ignores it.

Why is it not a 'Constitutional Crisis when a court rules outside its own jurisdiction dictated by the Constitution?

I submit that Executive has every right to ignore any and all court rulings that attempt to restrict the undisputed authority to defend this country codified in our Constitution.

That is not a 'Constitutional Crisis' to ignore a renegade court ruling.  It was a 'Constitutional Crisis' by the court to rule in the first place.

You rather pointedly failed to answer the question.  Here it is again:

Quote
Are you saying that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to enjoin the application of laws that it believes violate the Constitution, and that Congress and/or the President should ignore the Court if they believe the Court has gotten it wrong?


Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,137
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #66 on: April 17, 2019, 12:53:38 PM »
Great.  So you now oppose a law restricting the jurisdiction of lower federal courts.  Well done.

You rather pointedly failed to answer the question.  Here it is again:
No need, Yes and thanks.
Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline IsailedawayfromFR

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 9,137
  • Sept 11 2001 or March 6 1836
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #67 on: April 17, 2019, 12:57:34 PM »
@Maj. Bill Martin

And one other thing.

If an entity like the Supreme Court is the only entity that can interpret the Constitution, it is THE absolute authority.  It can decide what the Constitution says regardless of whatever anyone else says.

It could say, for instance, it cannot be removed as the Constitution says it, in its interpretation.

Yearning to stay free takes place in many ways at many different times, whether by withstanding planes or bayonets

Offline Maj. Bill Martin

  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4,349
  • I'll make Mincemeat out of 'em"
Re: Trump goes after Ilhan Omar with 9/11 attack montage video
« Reply #68 on: April 17, 2019, 06:14:48 PM »
@Maj. Bill Martin

And one other thing.

If an entity like the Supreme Court is the only entity that can interpret the Constitution, it is THE absolute authority.  It can decide what the Constitution says regardless of whatever anyone else says.

It could say, for instance, it cannot be removed as the Constitution says it, in its interpretation.

To be blunt, I believe you are deliberately dancing around the issues and just rattling off slogans whenever you're asked to be specific and clear.

So, we're done.


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf