The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: mystery-ak on April 13, 2019, 12:51:12 am
-
Trump Posts Video of Ilhan Omar’s 9/11 Comments: ‘WE WILL NEVER FORGET!’
By Tamar AuberApr 12th, 2019, 5:56 pm
President Trump on Friday released a video montage of the 9/11 attacks interwoven with controversial Minnesota Rep. Ilhan Omar’s comments that trivialized the acts of terror.
“WE WILL NEVER FORGET!,†Trump tweeted in all caps above the video.
video here
https://www.mediaite.com/donald-trump/trump-posts-video-of-ilhan-omars-9-11-comments-we-will-never-forget/ (https://www.mediaite.com/donald-trump/trump-posts-video-of-ilhan-omars-9-11-comments-we-will-never-forget/)
-
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
â€Verified account @AOC
Members of Congress have a duty to respond to the President’s explicit attack today.
@IlhanMN’s life is in danger. For our colleagues to be silent is to be complicit in the outright, dangerous targeting of a member of Congress.
We must speak out.
“First they came...â€
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3_XoLPWkAASXm3.jpg)
-
I used to think Iraq caused 9-11. Now we know it was Ilhan Omar. NEVER FORGET! BUILD THE WALL!
-
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
â€Verified account @AOC
Members of Congress have a duty to respond to the President’s explicit attack today.
@IlhanMN’s life is in danger. For our colleagues to be silent is to be complicit in the outright, dangerous targeting of a member of Congress.
We must speak out.
“First they came...â€
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3_XoLPWkAASXm3.jpg)
I'm confused -- why is what Trump said "outright, dangerous targetting" of Ilhan Omar, but the 2+ years the Democrats have spent calling Trump a threat to democracy and a pro-Russian traitor perfectly acceptable?
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3_XoLPWkAASXm3.jpg)
The problem is that the socialists and the trade unions always spoke against me, the outsider.
(The Jews, well, I've never had anything but good experiences in my interactions with them, inasmuch as there is any monolith.)
-
I used to think Iraq caused 9-11. Now we know it was Ilhan Omar. NEVER FORGET! BUILD THE WALL!
You're clearly confused.
-
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
â€Verified account @AOC
Members of Congress have a duty to respond to the President’s explicit attack today.
@IlhanMN’s life is in danger. For our colleagues to be silent is to be complicit in the outright, dangerous targeting of a member of Congress.
We must speak out.
“First they came...â€
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D3_XoLPWkAASXm3.jpg)
'First they came for the Islamists' just doesn't have that sentimental appeal.
-
Pelosi hits Trump over Omar video: Wrong to 'fan the flames'
By Tal Axelrod - 04/13/19 10:41 AM EDT
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) slammed President Trump on Saturday after he tweeted an edited video of comments from Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) about the 9/11 attacks that have sparked criticism.
“The memory of 9/11 is sacred ground, and any discussion of it must be done with reverence. The President shouldn’t use the painful images of 9/11 for a political attack,†Pelosi said in a statement.
“It is wrong for the President, as Commander-in-Chief, to fan the flames to make anyone less safe,†she added.
<..snip..>
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/438757-pelosi-hits-trump-over-omar-attack-wrong-to-fan-the-flames-to-make-anyone-less (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/438757-pelosi-hits-trump-over-omar-attack-wrong-to-fan-the-flames-to-make-anyone-less)
-
AOC should be expelled from Congress for calling this a threat by Trump on Omar's life. Everyday another outrageous comment by the moron. It's tiresome.
-
You're clearly confused.
@Maj. Bill Martin
@Once-Ler
He is not confused.
He is a Leftist Troll.
He knows exactly what he is saying.
The point is, he just doesn't care.
-
Certainly explains why Omar co-sponsored AOC's Green New Deal, she thought the high speed trains would be used to relocate the Jews.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ltjqPHl.jpg)
-
I used to think ....
@Once-Ler
No,you didn't. Not once.
-
I'm confused -- why is what Trump said "outright, dangerous targetting" of Ilhan Omar, but the 2+ years the Democrats have spent calling Trump a threat to democracy and a pro-Russian traitor perfectly acceptable?
@Maj. Bill Martin
Trump is white,and non-communist. As such,he is an "enemie ob de peep-pulls."
-
Trump is white,and non-communist. As such,he is an "enemie ob de peep-pulls."
@sneakypete In summary that captures the basic meaning.
You can use different wrapping paper, ribbons, card, writing on the card.
But it means what you stated.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
@Once-Ler
He is not confused.
He is a Leftist Troll.
He knows exactly what he is saying.
The point is, he just doesn't care.
@240B
"Confused" was intended to be insultingly dismissive.
-
Certainly explains why Omar co-sponsored AOC's Green New Deal, she thought the high speed trains would be used to relocate the Jews.
Well-played.
-
You're clearly confused.
@Maj. Bill Martin
And you want to allow Congresswoman Omar to sneak across the border and blow up buildings. NEVER FORGET!!!
-
Pelosi hits Trump over Omar video: Wrong to 'fan the flames'
By Tal Axelrod - 04/13/19 10:41 AM EDT
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) slammed President Trump on Saturday after he tweeted an edited video of comments from Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) about the 9/11 attacks that have sparked criticism.
<..snip..>
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/438757-pelosi-hits-trump-over-omar-attack-wrong-to-fan-the-flames-to-make-anyone-less (https://thehill.com/homenews/house/438757-pelosi-hits-trump-over-omar-attack-wrong-to-fan-the-flames-to-make-anyone-less)
Let's see the full video.
-
@Once-Ler
No,you didn't. Not once.
pointing-down
-
@Maj. Bill Martin
And you want to allow Congresswoman Omar to sneak across the border and blow up buildings. NEVER FORGET!!!
I'll add that bit of random nonsense to your prior nonsensical comment that Iraq was responsible for 9/11, then Illhan Omar, then "build the wall". I assume you are attempting to make some kind of sarcastic, clever statement, but your word salad isn't conveying any kind of a coherent point. It's like you're a pull-string toy with the wrong sound box installed.
So whatever little colloquy you have going on in your head that led you to believe your comments are clever...good luck with that!
-
I'll add that bit on nonsense to your prior nonsensical comment thats Iraq was responsible for 9/11, then Illhan Omar, then "build the wall". I assume you are attempting to make some kind of sarcastic, clever statement, but your word salad isn't conveying any kind of a coherent point.
So whatever little colloquy you have going on in your head that led you to believe your comments are clever...good luck with that!
Think of it as a cry to be put on ignore.
-
Think of it as a cry to be put on ignore.
An excellent suggestion...Done!
I don't mind disagreement, but trying to decipher obtuse word salad isn't my thing.
-
An excellent suggestion...Done!
I don't mind disagreement, but trying to decipher obtuse word salad isn't my thing.
And yet Trump is intelligible to you.
-
Good on ya, Mr. Trump.
THIS is how our side "fights back".
-
The President has pinned this tweet to the top of his twitter feed. happy77
Pinned Tweet
Donald J. Trumpâ€
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
WE WILL NEVER FORGET!
Video at link: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1116817144006750209
2:35 PM - 12 Apr 2019
-
The President has pinned this tweet to the top of his twitter feed. happy77
I see a bit of irony here. Trump has every right to respond as he has and is just in doing so, but at the same time he's inviting the same thing to happen again on an even grander scale by allowing our borders to remain open and the blatant invasion to continue.
-
I see a bit of irony here. Trump has every right to respond as he has and is just in doing so, but at the same time he's inviting the same thing to happen again on an even grander scale by allowing our borders to remain open and the blatant invasion to continue.
Holy Mary, Mother of God, woman ... the President is not the one allowing this. Have some mercy on the rest of us ... and give it a damn rest before you force me to comment with total candor on your intellectual acumen.
Just take a bleeping rest. 9999hair out0000
-
Holy Mary, Mother of God, woman ... the President is not the one allowing this. Have some mercy on the rest of us ... and give it a damn rest before you force me to comment with total candor on your intellectual acumen.
Just take a bleeping rest. 9999hair out0000
888mouth 9999hair out0000
-
Holy Mary, Mother of God, woman ... the President is not the one allowing this. Have some mercy on the rest of us ... and give it a damn rest before you force me to comment with total candor on your intellectual acumen.
Just take a bleeping rest. 9999hair out0000
@Right_in_Virginia @libertybele
Good luck with that one. She is a bible-thumping Bush-Bot Republicroid,and those people live in a different reality than the rest of us.
-
@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.
-
@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.
@Maj. Bill Martin
Complete agreement.
-
@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.
@Maj. Bill Martin
Agree. Good post
-
@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.
Trump is our president and to bring up what others would or wouldn't have accomplished is purely making assumptions and predictions. Certainly and without doubt our do nothing Congress does hold responsibility. I never stated that they didn't.
Yes, Trump deserves a huge pat on the back for the way he handled this. I gave him credit. How dare I ruin that moment by pointing out some irony!!
iTrump is still the president and he still has certain authorities granted to him under the Constitution. Also, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, it gives him the authority to ban certain people or groups from coming into this country. It was used under Bush, Clinton, Reagan and even Bammy.
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
Completely shutting down the border is different than allowing commerce, while shutting down all migration into this country. He has the authority to do so.
Trump was very clever and wise in the way that he is handling Omar. That's a given. Yes, and he deserves a pat on the back.
Keeping our borders open allows for the real possibility of allowing terrorists through and another 9-11 could very well occur again. That was the only point that I was making.
Most countries protect themselves when being invaded. We can certainly pretend that everything is just peachy and everything is being done by this President to remedy the crisis at the border. Yes, I realize he's not a king, etc., etc., but his continued hesitations, hollow threats, continued tweets are costing us BIGLY! So ... that I dare not offend anyone who believes everything that Trump has sold them, I should just sit back and say nothing, as our Republic is invaded and watch it become another Europe. Got it. No worries. Trump has everything under control. Gee. I feel better already!
-
@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.
Agree 100%.
-
Trump is our president and to bring up what others would or wouldn't have accomplished is purely making assumptions and predictions.
Well, sure it is. But we make assumptions and predictions all the time in politics because the future is inherently unknown, how people will react to policies is unknown, how courts will react is unknown, etc.. Hell, the entire basis of elections is making assumptions and predictions about what your preferred candidate would do once in office. Criticizing an argument because it includes "assumptions and predictions" is kind of a cop-out. If you want to criticize that argument, then explain why those assumptions and predictions are unreasonable. I believe my assumption/prediction was reasonable because I don't see any of the 2016 candidates -- including Cruz - advocating that he shut down the border. They all oppose it. Nor do I see any other Republican leader of significance advocating that he do that. So it seems pretty reasonable to assume/predict that he's out in front on this issue, and it is other Republicans trying to pull him back.
The reason that is important here is because it begs the question of why people are going after Trump on this, and what they hope to accomplish. If you politically weaken the best guy you've got on an issue, then you're engaging in counterproductive behavior. That is, if your focus is truly on that issue, and you're not just blasting the guy because you dislike him for a whole bunch of other reasons unrelated to the particular issue being discussed.
Trump is still the president and he still has certain authorities granted to him under the Constitution. Also, under the Immigration and Nationality Act, it gives him the authority to ban certain people or groups from coming into this country. It was used under Bush, Clinton, Reagan and even Bammy.
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."
Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm also aware that he's been shot down by the courts when attempting to use that legislation in a manner they deem too broad. You seem to be ignoring that.
-
@sneakypete @libertybele @Right_in_Virginia
... 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.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
-
I'm also aware that he's been shot down by the courts when attempting to use that legislation in a manner they deem too broad. You seem to be ignoring that.
No. Not ignoring the issue at all. Where in the Constitution does it allow or state that judges can control border policy and prevent the president from protecting the country? A judge, doesn't have the power to “issue an order†to enable illegals to come into our country without permission of the president.
-
The President has pinned this tweet to the top of his twitter feed. happy77
Pinned Tweet
Donald J. Trumpâ€
Verified account @realDonaldTrump
WE WILL NEVER FORGET!
Video at link: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1116817144006750209
2:35 PM - 12 Apr 2019
Can you help get this thread back on topic @Cyber Liberty ?
We we already have wall-to-wall immigration threads.
-
The President has pinned this tweet to the top of his twitter feed. happy77
Can you help get this thread back on topic @Cyber Liberty ?
We we already have wall-to-wall immigration threads.
President Trump criticizing Rep. Ilhan Omar for comments a 'good thing': Sarah Sanders
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-trump-calling-rep-ilhan-omar-comments-good/story?id=62384114
-
O'Rourke: Trump inciting violence against Omar by sharing video
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/438821-orourke-trump-inciting-violence-against-omar-by-sharing-video
-
Trump wishes 'no ill will' with Tweet on Muslim lawmaker: White House
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-omar/trump-wishes-no-ill-will-with-tweet-on-muslim-lawmaker-white-house-idUSKCN1RQ0HH (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-omar/trump-wishes-no-ill-will-with-tweet-on-muslim-lawmaker-white-house-idUSKCN1RQ0HH)
-
No. Not ignoring the issue at all. Where in the Constitution does it allow or state that judges can control border policy and prevent the president from protecting the country? A judge, doesn't have the power to “issue an order†to enable illegals to come into our country without permission of the president.
So now you're blaming Trump for not throwing down the gauntlet and defying 200+ years of legal history in this country, and declare Marbury v. Madison invalid? If he did that, the Supreme Court would vote 9-0 against him, and when he defied them, he'd have handed the Democrats the gift of a successful impeachment and conviction, because there is no way in hell you could get 34 Senators to say that the President can thumb his nose at the Supreme Court. And there's a damn good chance lower level officials, including his own cabinet, would refuse to follow that order anyway. You'd accomplish nothing except having Trump impeached and removed from office.
I won't say that's your goal in advocating that, but that's the most likely result.
-
The President has pinned this tweet to the top of his twitter feed. happy77
Can you help get this thread back on topic @Cyber Liberty ?
We we already have wall-to-wall immigration threads.
Good point. Can y'all get off the immigration imbroglio and back on the Original Topic, which was Omar Whatshername?
-
So now you're blaming Trump for not throwing down the gauntlet and defying 200+ years of legal history in this country, and declare Marbury v. Madison invalid? If he did that, the Supreme Court would vote 9-0 against him, and when he defied them, he'd have handed the Democrats the gift of a successful impeachment and conviction, because there is no way in hell you could get 34 Senators to say that the President can thumb his nose at the Supreme Court. And there's a damn good chance lower level officials, including his own cabinet, would refuse to follow that order anyway. You'd accomplish nothing except having Trump impeached and removed from office.
I won't say that's your goal in advocating that, but that's the most likely result.
Good grief I am not advocating having Trump impeached or removed from office for crying out loud. I want him to succeed. Let me repeat that...I want President Trump to succeed. Especially on this issue! That's been my reason for not giving him a free pass on this!
Obviously, we can ping-pong this back and forth --- Is the Supreme Court the final say on the Constitution?
https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/22/supreme-court-not-final-say-constitution/
Again --- does a judge have the authority to direct the President of the U.S. who is Commander In Chief and has the Constitutional Authority to control our military on protecting our borders? Are you telling me that a judge can prevent him from doing so?
Landon v. Plasencia; it was ruled; “An alien seeking initial admission to the United States requests a privilege and has no constitutional rights regarding his application.â€
Illegals can be denied entry. The mobs are not applying for application, nor asylum, they are just being let in! Heck there are reports that they are not even being processed with health screening and are just being let in!
-
Muslims are a violent threat to the whole civilized world,so bleep them and the camels they rode in on.
-
Muslims are a violent threat to the whole civilized world,so bleep them and the camels they rode in on.
Well ... now that we're back on topic ...
C.A.I.R. is Hamas; a front for a terrorist entity formed by the Muslim Brotherhood and as a result we now have Omar sitting in Congress.
-
Obviously, we can ping-pong this back and forth --- Is the Supreme Court the final say on the Constitution?
https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/22/supreme-court-not-final-say-constitution/
Your argument seems to be "no, the Supreme Court is not the final say". And I'm telling you that if the President makes that argument and acts on it, he will be impeached. Whether the argument is correct in some esoteric legal sense doesn't matter. What matters is the political blowback that will come from President Trump saying he can ignore rulings by the Supreme Court.
-
Your argument seems to be "no, the Supreme Court is not the final say". And I'm telling you that if the President makes that argument and acts on it, he will be impeached. Whether the argument is correct in some esoteric legal sense doesn't matter. What matters is the political blowback that will come from President Trump saying he can ignore rulings by the Supreme Court.
Absolute fiction. You are rewriting history it seems.
Didn't happen to Jackson, and it certainly will not happen to Trump.
The SC is NOT the final say in anything.
-
Absolute fiction. You are rewriting history it seems.
Didn't happen to Jackson, and it certainly will not happen to Trump.
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.
-
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 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.
-
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.
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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:
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
"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 (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.
-
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.
-
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 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 (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.
-
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.
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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:
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?
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.