Donald J. Trump (For everyone else except Victor)
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
A non zero number of illegals will almost always exist (in particular because of visa overstayers) but to claim that current numbers are somewhat inevitable is gaslighting.
Trespassers should be shot for example, it should be the norm to shoot to kill on the border, and shoot to sink boats that enter your territorial water without being authorized to do so.
And the rest for illegals when in the country (including significant criminal penalties to people who hire them or rent them houses and so on)
yes, or at the very least allow any citizen (or legal resident) to have standing as virtue of being citizen for constitutional matters under the lens of "the existence of an unconstitutional provision in the country is BY ITSELF a cause of irreparable harm for every citizen if not addressed promptly".
Btw my previous attempt to punish passing unconstitutional provisions was not just to "allow", but basically to make it a routine requirement, to get advisory opinion on the constitutionality of any
Have you ever read the book “Les misérables” or seen the movie ?
I suggest you do .
FWIW you would have made a great “inspector javert” …
She is exactly right. Exactly what I was saying yesterday.
That may be true but I am still waiting for our Italian legal team to explain what novel point of law is in the executive order that remains undecided by the courts.
Admittedly, I am starting to come around on this Luciomtopia ideal of jailing, banning from office and executing any politician who violates our constitutional law. I think I missed some of the merits of his final solution the first time it was proposed.
Luciom is fond of arguing that the SCOTUS hasn't addressed a specific legal argument. But sometimes that's because no one serious has ever bothered to make such a stupid argument.
Luciom is fond of arguing that the SCOTUS hasn't addressed a specific legal argument. But sometimes that's because no one serious has ever bothered to make such a stupid argument.
Do you think there's something inherently bad to have one more question asked and answered even if the answer is very probably already known a priori? i think SCOTUS does take "obvious" cases from time to time , and deliver 9-0 verdicts on them, exactly because some times you need to refresh the precedent (making it stronger, broader, and so on) and/or clarify something to a portion of society.
Luciom is fond of arguing that the SCOTUS hasn't addressed a specific legal argument. But sometimes that's because no one serious has ever bothered to make such a stupid argument.
I don't know where he came up with "legal permanent resident" other than a summary of the case from OYEZ or if it is being used as a term of art somewhere. You would think that 130 years of the rule being all but diplomats, warring invaders and American Indians' and 400 years of common law would be satisfactory.
Curious what it feels like to you libtards to have a "convicted felon" and "insurrectionist" dismantling all the destructive progressive policies, securing the border, and brokering world peace all in his first week on the job.
Do you guy's screech into the mirror every morning and pull your hair out? I'm honestly curious how those with TDS are dealing with living in a world where this President is absolutely winning on such a massive level. What medications are ya'll using to cope living under a tyrant?
I don't know where he came up with "legal permanent resident" other than a summary of the case from OYEZ or if it is being used as a term of art somewhere. You would think that 130 years of the rule being all but diplomats, warring invaders and American Indians' and 400 years of common law would be satisfactory.
Because it was the question asked, not just as summarized by OYEZ , but as described in the opinion (which i linked).
The 400 years of common law were interrupted by the american federal constitution (pre XIV amendment) which didn't apply birthright citizenship to blacks.
So they don't work as precedent, as they were overrulled by a constitution.
The 130 years after Kim do work, if you are an originalist, otherwise they don't. But keep in mind that's not a constitutional precedent. The constitution even under the assumption of my reading doesn't make it illegal to give birthright citizenship to children of illegals. So the fact that it was never illegal, doesn't automatically mean it was a constitutional right.
Smoking has been legal for centuries, but that doesn't mean at some point it would be unconstitutional to ban it right?
Remember also that abortion was found to be a constitutionally protected right even if states had been allowed to regulate it without limits since the USA existed.
So the "wait for now we operated under that assumption for 130 years" doesn't automatically make it a constitutional obligation in all jurisprudencial philosophies.
Curious what it feels like to you libtards to have a "convicted felon" and "insurrectionist" dismantling all the destructive progressive policies, securing the border, and brokering world peace all in his first week on the job.
Do you guy's screech into the mirror every morning and pull your hair out? I'm honestly curious how those with TDS are dealing with living in a world where this President is absolutely winning on such a massive level. What medications are ya'll using to cope living under
I won't lie. It's depressing to come to terms that the **** stains of the world have come out of their holes and are now shoving their white supremecist nazism down our collective throats.
Is it Treason against Italy to be so obsessed with the USA?
Do you idiots even know what it means for something to be a felony or not?
Shithead,
Writing on reddit all day at work can be grounds for dismissal, but it's not a felony you moronic fascist.
I don't have anything against Crossnerd as a person or a poster, but I do as a power-tripping mod and I don't mind if it will cause some consternation when she bans me to protect these *******s.
I don't have anything against Crossnerd as a person or a poster, but I do as a power-tripping mod and I don't mind if it will cause some consternation when she bans me to protect these *******s.
It's not your fault they let Trumpers in the non-Trumper thread anyone could have foreseen this.
Wait, Il Duce, you just made up that part about Reddit! It wasn't in your friend's post. Tricky little fascist.
