For whatever reason, I always thought you were German. Not that it makes any difference of course.
1 Like
Except, no. They have overstepped their bounds, such as with the recent EO on immigration. Sally Yates got shit canned for standing up to this.
Incidentally, they are actively trying to REWRITE the bill of rights:
They are replacing “the people” with “citizen”
Executive power is broad, but there are indeed checks on what the executive branch can do. Concentration of power was a key issue the founders wished to avoid.
19 Likes
So… dickswinging basically. Sad.
Obama’s “list of countries” was a list of places which Americans should exercise caution when traveling to. Not a list of “terrorist hotbeds” or whatever BS term Sean Spicer’s using today.[quote=“Ezra, post:45, topic:94000”]
The hyperbole about his action being unconstitutional is just that.
[/quote]
Actually, no. His actions are indeed overriding the actual Bill of Rights, which is why they are being challenged in court.[quote=“Ezra, post:45, topic:94000”]
Obama, on the other hand, has broken numerous laws
[/quote]
And now you’re regurgitating actual Breitbart lies. Well done.
20 Likes
Companies can go bankrupt if the whole thing goes on fire (as he should know). Countries can’t. Companies don’t need to care for the welfare of their employees and their relatives. Countries do.
So, I will never understand this “managers are good presidents (or whatevs)” thing. They might be. But it’s not the same thing.
5 Likes
Agreed. Also the federal gov’t doesn’t need to drive other governments out of business via competition.
3 Likes
Exactly. Just as an example, Microsoft might drive Apple out of business (or vice versa). Switzerland can’t drive Nicaragua out of business. Because countries are not companies. Not that hard, people.
3 Likes
Precisely which “bounds” are being exceeded? 8 U.S. Code 1182 allows
this. If you haven’t read the law, then you’re just repeating nonsense
others are putting out. If you have read the law, please point to a
boundary which has been overstepped?
It’s unconstitutional with regards to due process. Just as the ACLU is arguing in court. They will not get away with trying to literally rewrite the bill of rights to justify their actions:
13 Likes
Which rights in the bill of rights were crossed? There is no right of
immigration into this country in the bill of rights.
- The petitioners have a strong likelihood of success in establishing that the removal of the petitioner and others similarly situated violates their rights to Due Process and Equal Protection guaranteed by the United States Constitution;
- There is imminent danger that, absent the stay of removal, there will be substantial and irreparable injury to refugees, visa-holders, and other individuals from nations subject to the January 27, 2017 Executive Order;
- The issuance of the stay of removal will not injure the other parties interested in the proceeding;
- It is appropriate and just that, pending completion of a hearing before the Court on the merits of the Petition, that the Respondents be enjoined and restrained from the commission of further acts and misconduct in violation of the Constitution as described in the Emergency Motion for Stay of Removal.
14 Likes
Wait, what does any of this have to do with breaking the law? I said, “Fascist Putsch”, not, “unconstitutional behavior”. By the time the German fascists had consolidated power, there was nothing illegal about it anymore.
And to some degree, I believe you’re right. if Obama had done a better job of enforcing the law during his tenure, we wouldn’t be dealing with this mess right now.
8 Likes
Trump has established a religious test to enter the country, with preference towards Christians, as he’s openly stated.
He is threatening legal US residents and legal visa-holders with “substantial injury” for being Muslim.
Those don’t violate the Bill of Rights in your view?
15 Likes
17 Likes
Denying entry to legal permanent residents?
14 Likes
Due process does not apply to people seeking to enter this country. Due
process is defined as “fair treatment through the normal judicial
system, especially as a citizen’s entitlement.” This has nothing to do
with judicial process. This is about executive authority, not judicial
authority. Now if these people were arrested, charged and unfairly
convicted, we could talk about due process.
Sometimes the second part can take up to 20 years or so depending on how far apart you space out the prequels.
12 Likes
Due process. Pretty much all of the people detained at the border were here legally, many were green card holders or had legal visas. Despite not being citizens, due process still applies.
21 Likes
These are people who had already been cleared to enter the country and had legal documents to do so.
Due process includes detaining people without charging them.
Honestly, I’m going to trust the ACLU and Sally Yates here, rather than some troll on the internet.
28 Likes
Still doesn’t make any sense. The Senate is about 5 bazillion years old, the Jedi Order even more, but people forget them instantly. Ah, Star Wars. I’ll be a Trek guy to the bitter end.
1 Like
