Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The courts decide what is or isn't constitutional. The President, or a Governor, can tell their AG don't bother defending this one, it's probably unconstitutional. It;' good money after bad and there is no requirement that bad laws be defended by the government. Another party can, if they have standing, defend the law just without the government's help. It's a judgment call and it's entirely legal. Learn how the government works please.He takes an oath to defend the Constitution not to defend probably unconstitutional laws in the courts. In this case that would have just been a waste of time and money. Everyone with a brain knew that POS was going down. It was very obviously unconstitutional.The POTUS takes an oath to uphold the laws and defend the constitution.... not just the ones he agrees with.
Probable constitutionality is not his call, that is the call of the courts. Why then can't Judge Moore decide that gay marriage is probably unconstitutional and as such, refuse to marry gay couples?
And again, I am not defending Judge Moore.. he needs to perform hist duties as prescribed by the law.
No. This has nothing at all to do with "enforcing" a law. It has to do solely with "defending a law in court". Whether they defend a law in court is optional. If they think the law is unconstitutional then there is no reason to waste the time and energy and money defending it.The courts decide what is or isn't constitutional. The President, or a Governor, can tell their AG don't bother defending this one, it's probably unconstitutional. It;' good money after bad and there is no requirement that bad laws be defended by the government. Another party can, if they have standing, defend the law just without the government's help. It's a judgment call and it's entirely legal. Learn how the government works please.He takes an oath to defend the Constitution not to defend probably unconstitutional laws in the courts. In this case that would have just been a waste of time and money. Everyone with a brain knew that POS was going down. It was very obviously unconstitutional.The POTUS takes an oath to uphold the laws and defend the constitution.... not just the ones he agrees with.
Probable constitutionality is not his call, that is the call of the courts. Why then can't Judge Moore decide that gay marriage is probably unconstitutional and as such, refuse to marry gay couples?
And again, I am not defending Judge Moore.. he needs to perform hist duties as prescribed by the law.
I am aware how the government works; presidents do not decide constitutionality of laws. You are the one that needs a basic civics lesson. So then, you'd be fine with a President deciding on his own that a law, any law, pick one you really like, say, Obamacare, is probably unconstitutional therefore don't enforce it?
He chooses what laws to focus on. Nothing alike.If only Judges were able to select what laws they are to enforce, like the POTUS can do.
Sure, some people hate, so it's true that some Jews hate people, things or ideas. Nonetheless, that doesn't absolve you for your clear hatred of Israel and it's citizens, the Jews.There are Jews who also hate, the more correct term, Political Zionism. What are they, Jewish anti-Semites?
Best to hold all politicians and appointees to the standard of upholding the law regardless of their position or party.If only Judges were able to select what laws they are to enforce, like the POTUS can do.
There is only one real nation in that area, Palestine, with many Jews and even more Muslims.Sure, some people hate, so it's true that some Jews hate people, things or ideas. Nonetheless, that doesn't absolve you for your clear hatred of Israel and it's citizens, the Jews.There are Jews who also hate, the more correct term, Political Zionism. What are they, Jewish anti-Semites?
Are you Pro-Palestinian too? Most antisemitics are.
He takes an oath to defend the Constitution not to defend probably unconstitutional laws in the courts. In this case that would have just been a waste of time and money. Everyone with a brain knew that POS was going down. It was very obviously unconstitutional.The POTUS takes an oath to uphold the laws and defend the constitution.... not just the ones he agrees with.
Probable constitutionality is not his call, that is the call of the courts. Why then can't Judge Moore decide that gay marriage is probably unconstitutional and as such, refuse to marry gay couples?
And again, I am not defending Judge Moore.. he needs to perform hist duties as prescribed by the law.
If only Judges were able to select what laws they are to enforce, like the POTUS can do.
Translation: You are correct, DW. I am pro-Palestinian. Death to Israel!!! Fuck the Jews!!!There is only one real nation in that area, Palestine, with many Jews and even more Muslims.
I never support any theocratic state. The religion matters not at all. They are a terrible idea.
I know the history of that region, and its squatter nation, backwards and forwards.Translation: You are correct, DW. I am pro-Palestinian. Death to Israel!!! Fuck the Jews!!!There is only one real nation in that area, Palestine, with many Jews and even more Muslims.
I never support any theocratic state. The religion matters not at all. They are a terrible idea.
Dude, learn some history. There never, ever was a nation called "Palestine". Try to let go of your hate long enough to learn some history.
As for demographics, your hate has obviously blinded you there too:
The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency
Ethnic groups:
Jewish 75% (of which Israel-born 74.4%, Europe/America/Oceania-born 17.4%, Africa-born 5.1%, Asia-born 3.1%), non-Jewish 25% (mostly Arab) (2013 est.
Religions:
Jewish 75%, Muslim 17.5%, Christian 2%, Druze 1.6%, other 3.9% (2013 est.)
Your ignorance of both history and the region belies your boast.I know the history of that region, and its squatter nation, backwards and forwards.
Agreed....just like POTUS and everyone who took an oath in Washington DCThe states and their officers are subordinate to the Federal courts, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law - settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
Agreed....just like POTUS and everyone who took an oath in Washington DCThe states and their officers are subordinate to the Federal courts, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law - settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
Really? When and where did that happen. ??Who are we talking about?Well, if true, I have no problem here.... he should uphold his duties.
But remember folks, that shit works both ways. Many of you on the left have no problem when your side sidesteps their sworn duties in order to "make a statement"
The Obama administration's decision to not enforce DOMA for starters...
Well, if true, I have no problem here.... he should uphold his duties.
But remember folks, that shit works both ways. Many of you on the left have no problem when your side sidesteps their sworn duties in order to "make a statement"
Yep, things like Sanctuary cities.
Agreed....just like POTUS and everyone who took an oath in Washington DCThe states and their officers are subordinate to the Federal courts, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law - settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
Then Justice Moore was simply being subordinate to Hively v Ivy Tech (7th circuit, 2016). Pay attention to that case because it's going to be cited in future cases...The states and their officers are subordinate to the Federal courts, the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law - settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
Derail and straw man. Thanks for playing your partisan song and dance....now let us know winger when the president disobeys an order of the supreme court of the united states.
we'll wait.
