AG Jeff Sessions - “everyone that enters the country unlawfully is subject to being deported."

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

Go back to Britain, Steelfoot. You don't belong on my land mass.

Are you referring to those who crossed the Bering Strait?

First Americans

No....but they belong here more than Steelfoot does.

And you, by your own definition.

Except I'm mestizo.

 

[Steelfoot]

We understand your abject humiliation about your undeniable congenital inferiority, Paid-Row.

Much as we try not to look down on you and your kind, we find it impossible.

We don't mean that in a negative way.

Know what we mean?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

We understand your abject humiliation about your undeniable congenital inferiority, Paid-Row.

Much as we try not to look down on you and your kind, we find it impossible.

Know what we mean?

You're just mad I could take your job.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

My IQ is 135. I guarantee you I look down on you, boy.

 

[Steelfoot]

My IQ is 135. I guarantee you I look down on you, boy.

How many points did you add as your "minority bonus?"

We're guessing about 50 points, plus-or-minus.

Know what we mean?

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

The SCOTUS has ruled that they do, that doesn't mean they have the right to be here, but you can't deny an illegal charged with a crime due process anymore than you could for a citizen.

The Supreme Court has no authority to write laws, The constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states." Until congress writes a law giving rights to illegals or the states amend the constitution to give rights to illegals - they have none.!

You are a legal ignoramus.

They have the authority to interpret the Constitution (Marbury V. Mason Madison) .

Star Chamber

Free men would nullify MvM. First, judicial review had nothing to do with Marbury's case against Madison. So it was obiter dictum and therefore not legally binding. Second, SCROTUS committed the logical fallacy of petitio principii when it interpreted the Constitution as giving it the power to interpret the Constitution. Third, if there had been any validity to the Court's usurpation of power, they would have been exercising it from the very beginning in 1789, instead of waiting until 1803. Only slavish wimps who like to get pushed around accept SCROTUS's veto power over the people's laws. That branch of government has always been just another layer of political-elitist tyranny.

Lol so now you're arguing against centuries old stare decisis? Ya good luck with that.

Stare decisis is for RINOs.

The SCOTUS has ruled that they do, that doesn't mean they have the right to be here, but you can't deny an illegal charged with a crime due process anymore than you could for a citizen.

The Supreme Court has no authority to write laws, The constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states." Until congress writes a law giving rights to illegals or the states amend the constitution to give rights to illegals - they have none.!

You are a legal ignoramus.

They have the authority to interpret the Constitution (Marbury V. Mason Madison) .

Star Chamber

Free men would nullify MvM. First, judicial review had nothing to do with Marbury's case against Madison. So it was obiter dictum and therefore not legally binding. Second, SCROTUS committed the logical fallacy of petitio principii when it interpreted the Constitution as giving it the power to interpret the Constitution. Third, if there had been any validity to the Court's usurpation of power, they would have been exercising it from the very beginning in 1789, instead of waiting until 1803. Only slavish wimps who like to get pushed around accept SCROTUS's veto power over the people's laws. That branch of government has always been just another layer of political-elitist tyranny.

Lol so now you're arguing against centuries old stare decisis? Ya good luck with that.

Stare decisis is for RINOs.

So what exactly do you think is the roll of the SCOTUS if not to exercise judicial review?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

My IQ is 135. I guarantee you I look down on you, boy.

How many points did you add as your "minority bonus?"

We're guessing about 50 points, plus-or-minus.

Know what we mean?

Who is 'we' faggot? You have multiple personality disorder or something?

 

[Steelfoot]

We understand your abject humiliation about your undeniable congenital inferiority, Paid-Row.

Much as we try not to look down on you and your kind, we find it impossible.

Know what we mean?

You're just mad I could take your job.

Nah, Paid-Row, we don't operate a leaf blower.

Know what we mean?

 

[Steelfoot]

My IQ is 135. I guarantee you I look down on you, boy.

Who is 'we' faggot? You have multiple personality disorder or something?

Your kind could never comprehend how things are in the Caucasian world.

Know what we mean?

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

We understand your abject humiliation about your undeniable congenital inferiority, Paid-Row.

Much as we try not to look down on you and your kind, we find it impossible.

Know what we mean?

You're just mad I could take your job.

Nah, Paid-Row, we don't operate a leaf blower.

Know what we mean?

That's right...you flip burgers. I could take that job from you too, homo.

 

[OffensivelyOpenMinded]

My IQ is 135. I guarantee you I look down on you, boy.

Who is 'we' faggot? You have multiple personality disorder or something?

Your kind could never comprehend how things are in the Caucasian world.

Know what we mean?

No. I don't know what you mean, kook.

 

[Steelfoot]

Paid-Row, you can just barely hang onto your job in the laundry at Days Inn, washing pissy sheets.

Remember your place.

Know what we mean?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

They have the authority to interpret the Constitution .

Where does the constitution say The SC has authority to interpret the constitution??? Answer - it doesn't . That's just a huge power they GRANTED themselves 215 years ago and it needs to end. THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The Supreme Court doesn't write laws. It interprets the law and determines the applicable basis for the law. They determine if the law is constitutional.

Interpreting law amounts to writing law and the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states" THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

]FYI-there is proof of when they were brought here as a child, through when they were registered at a school

HAHAHA. You stupid jackass. You can buy forged school documents on every street corner. If that doesn't work the invaders say they were home-schooled. THINK

 

[Care4all]

]FYI-there is proof of when they were brought here as a child, through when they were registered at a school

HAHAHA. You stupid jackass. You can buy forged school documents on every street corner. If that doesn't work the invaders say they were home-schooled. THINK

even home schooled children are documented as such in the system, and the govt agency vetting them simply calls the school to verify when they began going there for the ones who did attend... just saying....all of that can be verified

 

[mudwhistle]

Here is a very small portion of the illegal aliens that have been convicted of sexually abusing children in 2016.
It's okay for them to do this as long and it isn't your kid.

News about #sanctuarycities on Twitter
Steve Hirsch on Twitter

 

[SavannahMann]

The Supreme Court doesn't write laws. It interprets the law and determines the applicable basis for the law. They determine if the law is constitutional.

Interpreting law amounts to writing law and the constitution says "all legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a congress of the united states" THINK

The Federalist Papers outlines the intended role of the Supreme Court.

Federalist No. 78 - Wikipedia

The role of the court as envisioned by the founders is exactly that. The intent from the founders in their own words is available. I'd ask you to think but obviously you are uniquely unqualified for that task as you lack any knowledge of the foundation.

That by the way is why the Congress did not impeach the Supreme Court over Marbury v. Madison. They were aware of what the intent was.

The Constitution is broadly written. It speaks to general principles and ideas. This is again by intent if you bothered to read the documents of the era.

Reading that information would give you the foundation to understand what the founders intended when they wrote about a Militia in the Second Amendment. I'd give you a hint about it but you would point to the text and shout that you don't need to learn, you understand the intent perfectly.

For a self appointed master of Constitutional law and Constitutional history you seem oddly ignorant of the founders intent as expressed by them at the time.

 

[Dragonlady]

As it is, anyone caught here illegally should be deported. The president has no authority to exempt certain people from obeying the law. If that's what you want, then go to congress and get the law changed.

That exactly what Democrats have been trying to do but Republicans like things just the way they are.

Oh and Obama rounded up and deported far more illegals in his 100 days than Trump has.

Too bad they could deport racist assholes such as yourself.

 

[Steelfoot]

Oh and Obama rounded up and deported far more illegals in his 100 days than Trump has.

Such scabrous lying!

Know what we mean?