Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Emergencies Do Not Trump the Constitution

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • aikido7
    replied
    Even in the very best of situations, voting is still an unmitigated failure. The fact that any simple majority of individuals (mob) can determine an outcome that adversely affects the minority (mob rule) is against all natural rights. In the United State today, all who vote harm others so that they might benefit. By voting, they are also sanctioning theft of private property at the point of a gun, and the redistribution of that property to those who did not earn it.
    The right to vote is essential to well-functioning democracy.
    In fact, it is the most enshrined right in the Constitution and is protected by five separate amendments.

    Voting must be important, otherwise factions would not spend so much time on thwarting the vote.
    It is importanst to push back against attacks that attempt to limit the people’s access to the ballot box.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Nell wasn't much of a heroine, anyway - more like a chronic victim

    Leave a comment:


  • Aimiel
    replied
    On a side-note: I mis-spelled 'methamphetamine' by typing, "heroine."

    Original news item.

    Leave a comment:


  • Aimiel
    replied


    That reminds me of a scene in a western, the 'sidekick' had a folded napkin he held to his nose, acting as the bad guy, "Yah-ah-ah."

    Then he put it on his head and said, in a high-pitch voice: "Help! He tied me to the railroad tracks!"

    Then put it to his chin, "I'll save you."

    Then back to the top of his head: "My hero."

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by Aimiel View Post
    With the recent find of drug cartels putting heroine in the tires of brand new cars assembled in Mexico, every road is a 'drug corridor'.
    they're folding up Nell and sticking her in tires?

    Leave a comment:


  • drbrumley
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Aimiel
    replied
    With the recent find of drug cartels putting heroine in the tires of brand new cars assembled in Mexico, every road is a 'drug corridor'.

    Leave a comment:


  • TrumpTrainCA
    replied
    Originally posted by drbrumley View Post
    That's true too. Which is another reason why the supreme court is a joke
    Was the law challenged in SCOTUS?

    If a law is on the books you cannot charge Trump with doing something unconstitutional. He is using the law. I would too. If the law is challenged then that's fine, that's what SCOTUS is for.

    Some people say that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional but every president has used it. If a few dollars for a wall gets people agitated then the War Powers Act should have you in a frenzy. Which one is the bigger deal after all.

    And remember: U.S.C. section 284 gives the president and the Defense Department the power to build the wall anyway. Section 284 provides that the Secretary of Defense “may provide support for the counter-drug activities or activities to counter transnational organized crime” by measures that can include the “construction of roads and fences and installation of lighting to block drug smuggling corridors across international boundaries of the United States.” The DOD’s authority under Section 284 to construct fences appears to extend only to “drug smuggling corridors.”

    This limitation may only permit the construction of the wall in certain places, but there appears to be no statutory definition of what constitutes such a corridor.

    While negotiating for a full wall, which requires congressional authorization, he could proceed to construct the section 284 wall in drug corridors.

    Obviously, opponents would go to court to seek an injunction to stop the construction.

    But, if the president, the DEA and the DOD can provide evidence that the locations for the wall are, indeed, drug corridors, the construction should be allowed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kit the Coyote
    replied
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    the left wasn't complaining that the law was unconstitutional when bammy was using it
    I'm not sure that anything President Obama did directly subverted the checks and balances but you might gather I don't play favorites on this subject. If Obama was abusing it, it is all the more reason to put a stop to it. This is more important than party politics.

    Leave a comment:


  • drbrumley
    replied
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    the left wasn't complaining that the law was unconstitutional when bammy was using it
    That's true too. Which is another reason why the supreme court is a joke

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by drbrumley View Post
    That's right, they do....thereby unconstitutional.

    the left wasn't complaining that the law was unconstitutional when bammy was using it

    Leave a comment:


  • Kit the Coyote
    replied
    Originally posted by drbrumley View Post
    That's right, they do....thereby unconstitutional. Dont need 9 black robed Gods to tell the rest of yall.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
    All the more reason why it needs to be opposed now. We saw the same type of self-inflicted damage to Congress with the War Powers Act. At least there they put some better safeguards in. The Congress should never have allowed a simple veto to allow the President to subvert the intent of the Emergency Powers Act to literally steal Congressional power.

    Leave a comment:


  • drbrumley
    replied
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    sure they can - they do it all the time

    those are the laws that keep the scotus busy
    That's right, they do....thereby unconstitutional. Dont need 9 black robed Gods to tell the rest of yall.

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

    Leave a comment:


  • Kit the Coyote
    replied
    Originally posted by ok doser View Post
    sure they can - they do it all the time

    those are the laws that keep the scotus busy
    Which is the reason we have a SCOTUS.

    Leave a comment:


  • ok doser
    replied
    Originally posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
    I ask you can the Congress pass a simple law that invalidates the Constitution in part or in whole short of an amendment? No, they cannot.
    sure they can - they do it all the time

    those are the laws that keep the scotus busy

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X