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.
Rafael is certainly welcome to introduce a Bill. It will be a new experience for him, rather than just grandstanding.What's the problem, according to your link congress has the power to do it and there is legal precedent, upheld by a unanimous decision by the supremes. But Cruz can't do it with an EO like your dear leader tries to do.
And you also show your ignorance when you claim that Obama has tried to make new law with EOs. He cannot, and has not tried to. He has affected how existing law is enforced. That is the extent of the power of an Executive Order.
Now - why don't you already know that?
Maybe you should stick to Halakha. Here in the U.S. our Constitution gives the SCOTUS the authority to rule whether any law that comes before them is Constitutional or not.You're such an ignorant turd. That's why debate is impossible.I thought he (and you) was the one who always wants to uphold the Constitution?Here's someone who's ACTUALLY trying to do defang SCOTUS:The motherfucker threatened to abolish SCOTUS
Ted Cruz Threatens To Take Away The Supreme Court’s Power To Decide Marriage Equality Cases
What? Cruz proposed to not make Americans subject to judges as rulers? The f'ing gall!
Doesn't the Constitution say that SCOTUS Justices are the final arbiters of whether a law is un-Constitutional?
And that's an Article, not an Amendment, correct?
There is nothing in the Constitution awarding the Supreme Court that power. They took it on themselves with Marbury v Madison.
That's it. Period.
Clause 2, Section 2.Please cite which clause fo the Constitution does this, you ignorant prick.Maybe you should stick to Halakha. Here in the U.S. our Constitution gives the SCOTUS the authority to rule whether any law that comes before them is Constitutional or not.You're such an ignorant turd. That's why debate is impossible.I thought he (and you) was the one who always wants to uphold the Constitution?Here's someone who's ACTUALLY trying to do defang SCOTUS:
Ted Cruz Threatens To Take Away The Supreme Court’s Power To Decide Marriage Equality Cases
What? Cruz proposed to not make Americans subject to judges as rulers? The f'ing gall!
Doesn't the Constitution say that SCOTUS Justices are the final arbiters of whether a law is un-Constitutional?
And that's an Article, not an Amendment, correct?
There is nothing in the Constitution awarding the Supreme Court that power. They took it on themselves with Marbury v Madison.
That's it. Period.
Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders
It's still the use of legal discretion. Prosecutors have it in determining whether to prosecute a crime, and the POTUS has it in determining whether to enforce.Obama is a prosecutor? Wow, who knew?If Obama will not enforce a law then he effectively legalizes whatever the law criminalized. That is making law.
You remain an idiot who thinks he's smart. The saddest type.
Please show me where conservatives have railed against prosecutorial discretion, because that's all this is.
You stupid ignorant prick,an EO is not the document a prosecutor issues.
What bill was that?Also as far as Cruz introducing a bill, the last one he introduce passed both houses unanimously and your dear leader signed it.
It will as soon as someone appeals.Maybe you should stick to Halakha. Here in the U.S. our Constitution gives the SCOTUS the authority to rule whether any law that comes before them is Constitutional or not.You're such an ignorant turd. That's why debate is impossible.I thought he (and you) was the one who always wants to uphold the Constitution?Here's someone who's ACTUALLY trying to do defang SCOTUS:
Ted Cruz Threatens To Take Away The Supreme Court’s Power To Decide Marriage Equality Cases
What? Cruz proposed to not make Americans subject to judges as rulers? The f'ing gall!
Doesn't the Constitution say that SCOTUS Justices are the final arbiters of whether a law is un-Constitutional?
And that's an Article, not an Amendment, correct?
There is nothing in the Constitution awarding the Supreme Court that power. They took it on themselves with Marbury v Madison.
That's it. Period.
But if congress says the lower courts can consider a matter, it will never make it to the supremes.
It will as soon as someone appeals.Maybe you should stick to Halakha. Here in the U.S. our Constitution gives the SCOTUS the authority to rule whether any law that comes before them is Constitutional or not.You're such an ignorant turd. That's why debate is impossible.I thought he (and you) was the one who always wants to uphold the Constitution?What? Cruz proposed to not make Americans subject to judges as rulers? The f'ing gall!
Doesn't the Constitution say that SCOTUS Justices are the final arbiters of whether a law is un-Constitutional?
And that's an Article, not an Amendment, correct?
There is nothing in the Constitution awarding the Supreme Court that power. They took it on themselves with Marbury v Madison.
That's it. Period.
But if congress says the lower courts can consider a matter, it will never make it to the supremes.
What bill was that?Also as far as Cruz introducing a bill, the last one he introduce passed both houses unanimously and your dear leader signed it.
This is an academic question, not tethered to reality. Like the Kobayashi Maru. There is always some way to work a case up the judicial ladder.If the lower court can't consider a matter
Oh, I thought it was going to be a re-naming of a post office in Reagan's honor. But this is close.What bill was that?Also as far as Cruz introducing a bill, the last one he introduce passed both houses unanimously and your dear leader signed it.
What's wrong smarty pants, is your google broke?
Senate votes to bar Iran's UN pick from entering US | Fox News
There is no such thing as "Clause 2 Section 2" in citing the Constitution. Cites are by Article, Section, and Clause.Clause 2, Section 2.Please cite which clause fo the Constitution does this, you ignorant prick.Maybe you should stick to Halakha. Here in the U.S. our Constitution gives the SCOTUS the authority to rule whether any law that comes before them is Constitutional or not.You're such an ignorant turd. That's why debate is impossible.I thought he (and you) was the one who always wants to uphold the Constitution?What? Cruz proposed to not make Americans subject to judges as rulers? The f'ing gall!
Doesn't the Constitution say that SCOTUS Justices are the final arbiters of whether a law is un-Constitutional?
And that's an Article, not an Amendment, correct?
There is nothing in the Constitution awarding the Supreme Court that power. They took it on themselves with Marbury v Madison.
That's it. Period.
That's why there are no French speakers in Louisiana?Constitutional Conservatives Support Open Borders
No they don't. We booted out the French and the British then took Texas and booted out the Taco's.
What section of the Constitution gives the POTUS the power to choose which laws he wants to enforce? There is none, you ignorant prick.It's still the use of legal discretion. Prosecutors have it in determining whether to prosecute a crime, and the POTUS has it in determining whether to enforce.Obama is a prosecutor? Wow, who knew?If Obama will not enforce a law then he effectively legalizes whatever the law criminalized. That is making law.
You remain an idiot who thinks he's smart. The saddest type.
Please show me where conservatives have railed against prosecutorial discretion, because that's all this is.
You stupid ignorant prick,an EO is not the document a prosecutor issues.
Wow, imagine the nerve of a white man running for president after only 3 years of being in public office!Oh, I thought it was going to be a re-naming of a post office in Reagan's honor. But this is close.What bill was that?Also as far as Cruz introducing a bill, the last one he introduce passed both houses unanimously and your dear leader signed it.
What's wrong smarty pants, is your google broke?
Senate votes to bar Iran's UN pick from entering US | Fox News
A showboat bill. OK, that's cool. But it's nothing of consequence.
Cruz is a civil service, elective lightweight. He should have followed Al Franken's lead and kept his fucking mouth closed for the first term, and do a lot of work. Ted Cruz could have done the work. He has a decent brain. But he chose to run for POTUS after 3 years of being in public office, and never having any Executive experience.
You can't hold your own on this forum, you ignorant prick. You get schooled every day by people with nothing better to do than sit here and post. Cruz would destroy you in the first 5 seconds.I would love to debate Rafael Cruz. I'd more than hold my own. Because I've heard his arguments and they are wanting.
Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.
Based on your idea there is nothing the federal government could not do. That goes against the notion of limited enumerated powers, which is the cornerstone of our system.Anyone styling himself a constitutional conservative must support open borders. Those who do not are merely statists as the fed.gov has no power to regulate borders.
Well, I am a constitutional conservative and I don't support open borders. I am not a statist, I am a federalist. It is true the federal government has limited enumerated powers, however they are predicated on national sovereignty. Without borders there is no "federal government" because we are not sovereign.
This argument is as silly as claiming, if you're a constitutional conservative, you must believe the president should live in a tent along the Potomac.... because the constitution says nothing about putting him up in a white house.
