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

[Steelfoot]

The most efficacious means of cleansing our nation of the dirty unvaccinated border-jumping cucarachas is to round up all Spans and throw their nasty asses out of the USA.

These netherworld beasts are easily identified by their dirty black hair, beady eyes and Third World names like Man-Well, Consuela and Hay-Soos.

Many of the smelly vermin also come attached to a leaf blower.

We will consider letting Salma Hayak back in if she lets us hogface her tits.

Know what we mean?

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Such scabrous lying!

Know what we mean?

Not lying. Here's an article from the National Review which says that Trump isn't doing anything different than Obama, and that the changes Obama made to the legislation and enforcement are what is making Trump's deportations possible.

Yes Obama stopped deporting illegals, other than criminals, in the final years of his administration, but prior to that stay of deportations, Trump deported MORE illegals than any President in the last 30 years.

There’s Nothing New about Trump’s Deportation Policy

In fact, according to ABC News, President Obama deported more illegal immigrants during his tenure than the sum of all deportations throughout the 20th century. (This statistic is based only on “removals,” or individuals deported from within the U.S., rather than “returns,” or individuals sent back to their native country at the U.S. border.)

 

[Steelfoot]

Lies, lies, lies!

Next we'll be hearing that "black lives matter."

Know what we mean?

 

[Dragonlady]

The most efficacious means of cleansing our nation of the dirty unvaccinated border-jumping cucarachas is to round up all Spans and throw their nasty asses out of the USA.

These netherworld beasts are easily identified by their dirty black hair, beady eyes and Third World names like Man-Well, Consuela and Hay-Soos.

Many of the smelly vermin also come attached to a leaf blower.

We will consider letting Salma Hayak back in if she lets us hogface her tits.

Know what we mean?

Yeah, I know what you mean. You mean you're a pig and a racist asshole.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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

.

So why isn't it in the constitution.? Why didn't the FF simply say in the constitution that interpreting the constitution is up to the Courts? THINK

 

[ShootSpeeders]

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

HAHAHA. Show us your evidence that obozo deported anyone. You can't. All you have is obozo says so and obozo proved himself to be a pathological liar. THINK, america-hater.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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 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?

Every JUSTICE in That Clique Only Cares About "Just Us"

To resolve conflicts of jurisdiction. For example, if Texas bans flag burning, it could decree that the Federal government has jurisdiction over the Stars and Stripes, so Texas could only ban the burning of the Lone Star flag. SCROTUS couldn't declare the law unConstitutional based on its peculiar version of the First Amendment.

But we, the people, could let SCROTUS interpret an act of Congress as unconstitutional only as a means of putting it on a national referendum for us to decide. The Justices' decision would not be final. Of course, practically all of their decisions are against the will of the majority. They only use their veto power when Congress has been pressured by the people to pass what doesn't fit into the Star Chamber's ideology.

 

[SavannahMann]

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

.

So why isn't it in the constitution.? Why didn't the FF simply say in the constitution that interpreting the constitution is up to the Courts? THINK

The word ignorant is defined as you don't know. You lack the information. The word stupid means you can't or won't learn.

The answer was in the link I provided you. The good news is that others did follow the link and read the cliffs notes version. A few of them might even read the actual Federalist Papers.

Let's say your view was the one that actually was applied. Then we can shout fire in a crowded theater because The first Amendment says we have freedom of Speech. Each Sunday we would be obligated to attend drill after church because the Second Amendment mandates a well regulated militia.

I could go on and on. But you won't learn. Intent is the point of anything. The reason the Federalist Papers matter is because the Constitution had to be short enough to be embraced by the hearts of men. If it was written the way you demand then it would be like the legal code. What that means is that much like the Tax Code which is now longer than the Bible, the Constitution would be unreadable and unable to be understood by everyone. Well everyone but you.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The reason the Federalist Papers matter is because the Constitution had to be short enough to be embraced by the hearts of men. .

All the FF had to say when they wrote the constitution is "the meaning of this constitution is left to the courts". That's not so long is it.?

 

[SavannahMann]

The reason the Federalist Papers matter is because the Constitution had to be short enough to be embraced by the hearts of men. .

All the FF had to say when they wrote the constitution is "the meaning of this constitution is left to the courts". That's not so long is it.?

You won't learn. the Russian War Minister during World War One was the same way. He forbade teaching of firepower and maneuver saying they were distractions. He had learned his trade as a Lieutenant of the Calvary as a youth and nothing had changed in his mind. He proudly announced that he had not read a military manual in thirty years.

History tells of his downfall. Only he took an entire nation with him. Certainly he was not alone in the responsibility. But he did not help. He was proud of his ignorance and stood sentinel against any change.

There is now some question if John Paul Jones actually said it. But the truth is the quote is right even if inaccurate. Jones supposedly claimed that an officer must have a liberal education among other traits.

Liberal in the era does not mean what it does today. In context it means an education in philosophy, science, arts, and many other subjects. The reason is obvious to most of us. The more knowledge you possess in your mind the better you can understand a situation or question and the better decision you can make.

Without that foundation your decision might be right. But it is more likely that your choice will be wrong.

Your argument has been made many times. It is utterly discredited by history. As I said before. Congress had the power to impeach the Justices if they had overstepped but did not. The Congressmen of the era had read the arguments in the Federalist Papers and agreed with Alexander Hamilton.

The first Amendment begins with "Congress shall pass no law". But what is really stopping them? Like the Biblical Prohibition on bearing false witness. What is there to stop them? In the Biblical question it is the punishment of hellfire and damnation. Being cast away from God. But what stops a Confressman from voting to stifle free speech, or the press, or religion?

Many of the rights you enjoy including the right to free speech is because the Supreme Court interpreted the given laws and found them to be unconstitutional.

The police can't best a confession out of you. Not because the Constitution says no, but because the Supreme Court threw the conviction out when it did happen.

The Constitution without the Supreme Court is like the Ten Commandments. Rules without any enforcement are just suggestions. I'd even go so far as to say that the Nation would have collapsed without the Supreme Court certainly before we found ourselves at the Bicentennial celebration.

Every game needs a referee. Every contest needs a judge. There must be someone deciding what the rules are, and what is fair and just. The Supreme Court has made many decisions I disagree with. I could start with Kelo and go down a long list. But without that court we would not be the United States today.

The system is not perfect. I can list many things that are wrong with it. But just blowing it up without any idea of what we will build on its ashes is suicide for no reason.

None of this will matter to you. None of it will impress you or cause you to reconsider your childish ideals.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

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.

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?

Every JUSTICE in That Clique Only Cares About "Just Us"

To resolve conflicts of jurisdiction. For example, if Texas bans flag burning, it could decree that the Federal government has jurisdiction over the Stars and Stripes, so Texas could only ban the burning of the Lone Star flag. SCROTUS couldn't declare the law unConstitutional based on its peculiar version of the First Amendment.

Not since the ratification of the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine through the due process and equal protection clauses.

But we, the people, could let SCROTUS interpret an act of Congress as unconstitutional only as a means of putting it on a national referendum for us to decide. The Justices' decision would not be final. Of course, practically all of their decisions are against the will of the majority. They only use their veto power when Congress has been pressured by the people to pass what doesn't fit into the Star Chamber's ideology.

Lol the will of the majority does not trump the Constitution, only a RINO trotskyist supports a tyranny of the masses, by your logic if there is a national referendum, to say, ban all guns then that would override the 2nd amemdment, neither the Congress nor the masses can pass such a statute or referendum because luckily we have 3 separate coequal branches of government and the SCOTUS would strike that down.

 

[SavannahMann]

The most efficacious means of cleansing our nation of the dirty unvaccinated border-jumping cucarachas is to round up all Spans and throw their nasty asses out of the USA.

These netherworld beasts are easily identified by their dirty black hair, beady eyes and Third World names like Man-Well, Consuela and Hay-Soos.

Many of the smelly vermin also come attached to a leaf blower.

We will consider letting Salma Hayak back in if she lets us hogface her tits.

Know what we mean?

 

[Steelfoot]

"Dragonlady, post: 17115201, member: 41417"
Yeah, I know what you mean. You mean you're a pig and a racist asshole.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````

No offense, but are you a spik?
We can't help suspecting.
Know what we mean?

 

[Dragonlady]

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

HAHAHA. Show us your evidence that obozo deported anyone. You can't. All you have is obozo says so and obozo proved himself to be a pathological liar. THINK, america-hater.

I already posted the link, Asshole. I'm not posting it a second time.

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

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?

Every JUSTICE in That Clique Only Cares About "Just Us"

To resolve conflicts of jurisdiction. For example, if Texas bans flag burning, it could decree that the Federal government has jurisdiction over the Stars and Stripes, so Texas could only ban the burning of the Lone Star flag. SCROTUS couldn't declare the law unConstitutional based on its peculiar version of the First Amendment.

Not since the ratification of the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine through the due process and equal protection clauses.

But we, the people, could let SCROTUS interpret an act of Congress as unconstitutional only as a means of putting it on a national referendum for us to decide. The Justices' decision would not be final. Of course, practically all of their decisions are against the will of the majority. They only use their veto power when Congress has been pressured by the people to pass what doesn't fit into the Star Chamber's ideology.

Lol the will of the majority does not trump the Constitution, only a RINO trotskyist supports a tyranny of the masses, by your logic if there is a national referendum, to say, ban all guns then that would override the 2nd amemdment, neither the Congress nor the masses can pass such a statute or referendum because luckily we have 3 separate coequal branches of government and the SCOTUS would strike that down.

The whole point of the Supreme Court is to ensure that minorities are NOT subject to the tyranny of the majority, and that their rights are protected.

The 2nd Amendment example you've given is a very good one given that the overwhelming majority of the American population is now in favour of gun control.

 

[SavannahMann]

"Dragonlady, post: 17115201, member: 41417"
Yeah, I know what you mean. You mean you're a pig and a racist asshole.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````

No offense, but are you a spik?
We can't help suspecting.
Know what we mean?

I think you are an asshole too. I'm a pasty faced white boy. Technically I qualify as a "redneck" under the classic definition. I'm a working class white boy. That's how they got the name. Their necks were burned from working in the fields all day.

You are not a redneck. The proper term to describe your heritage and class is White Trash. Hope this helps. Next time you fill out the form for food stamps just check the other block and write white trash.

 

[Rambunctious]

Illegal border crossings down 50%. Trump's magic is working despite the Obama appointed Judges. The Dems are losing future voters by the thousands. And they don't like it...

 

[Steelfoot]

"Dragonlady, post: 17115201, member: 41417"
Yeah, I know what you mean. You mean you're a pig and a racist asshole.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````

No offense, but are you a spik?
We can't help suspecting.
Know what we mean?

I think you are an asshole too. I'm a pasty faced white boy. Technically I qualify as a "redneck" under the classic definition. I'm a working class white boy. That's how they got the name. Their necks were burned from working in the fields all day.

You are not a redneck. The proper term to describe your heritage and class is White Trash. Hope this helps. Next time you fill out the form for food stamps just check the other block and write white trash.

You are obviously a shrieking, mincing, squatting fagbo jizz eater.

Know what we mean?

 

[SavannahMann]

"Dragonlady, post: 17115201, member: 41417"
Yeah, I know what you mean. You mean you're a pig and a racist asshole.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````

No offense, but are you a spik?
We can't help suspecting.
Know what we mean?

I think you are an asshole too. I'm a pasty faced white boy. Technically I qualify as a "redneck" under the classic definition. I'm a working class white boy. That's how they got the name. Their necks were burned from working in the fields all day.

You are not a redneck. The proper term to describe your heritage and class is White Trash. Hope this helps. Next time you fill out the form for food stamps just check the other block and write white trash.

You are obviously a shrieking, mincing, squatting fagbo jizz eater.

Know what we mean?

Yes. I know what you mean. You are making the assumption that I am gay because I don't have your narrow vision.

Yet oddly it doesn't bother me. I don't care if someone is gay. It is none of my business. I have enough to worry about that who is sleeping with whom doesn't even register. But please continue. I might read an original insult from you eventually.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

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.

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?

Every JUSTICE in That Clique Only Cares About "Just Us"

To resolve conflicts of jurisdiction. For example, if Texas bans flag burning, it could decree that the Federal government has jurisdiction over the Stars and Stripes, so Texas could only ban the burning of the Lone Star flag. SCROTUS couldn't declare the law unConstitutional based on its peculiar version of the First Amendment.

Not since the ratification of the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine through the due process and equal protection clauses.

But we, the people, could let SCROTUS interpret an act of Congress as unconstitutional only as a means of putting it on a national referendum for us to decide. The Justices' decision would not be final. Of course, practically all of their decisions are against the will of the majority. They only use their veto power when Congress has been pressured by the people to pass what doesn't fit into the Star Chamber's ideology.

the will of the majority does not trump the Constitution, only a RINO supports a tyranny of the masses; by your logic if there is a national referendum, to say, ban all guns then that would override the 2nd amendment, neither the Congress nor the masses can pass such a statute or referendum because luckily we have 3 separate coequal branches of government and the SCOTUS would strike that down.

Let Me Speak to the Organ Grinder, Not His Monkey

If you say so. But it's not even you spouting that anti-democratic garbage. It's what your Masters tell you to say.

We, the people, are not included in their governmental Trinity, so it is nullified. You can make up all the scare stories you want in your bootlicking of the oligarchy, but it just proves how you desperately want to feel superior to the majority of Americans, which is treason. Your pathetic plutocratic propaganda piles up three layers of tyranny on us, the people.