Texas governor says he will ban sanctuary cities

Any federal law that has been represented and ratified by your STATE REPRESENTATIVES....your congress critters, is paramount and enforceable in all 50 states. The time to reject any federal law as in empowering FEDERALISM was before it saw STATE REPRESENTED RATIFICATION. There are no "mulligans" in a standing rule of law.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I propose a test.....a federal District Court for the eastern district of Michigan has ordered that the recount in Michigan begin as of last Tuesday......the Michigan Court of Appeals has just ordered that the recount is enjoined as of Wednesday......which law shall be supreme....
Click to expand...

test is complete.....federal court has issued an order that they agree with the Michigan court and will NOT overturn its decision.......I guess if the state court had the authority under the Constitution, the federal court would have said "oh, the state court of appeals has just told me what to do. Never mind.".......
 
Ralph said:
Any federal law that has been represented and ratified by your STATE REPRESENTATIVES....your congress critters, is paramount and enforceable in all 50 states. The time to reject any federal law as in empowering FEDERALISM was before it saw STATE REPRESENTED RATIFICATION. There are no "mulligans" in a standing rule of law.
Click to expand...

so you're in agreement with Scalia when he opined that ANY act of congress committed to law MUST be considered constitutional?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so you're in agreement with Scalia when he opined that ANY act of congress committed to law MUST be considered constitutional?
Click to expand...

Indeed, any act of congress is indeed implied as being constitutional...provided said law does not conflict with the constitution and its guarantee of certain...."unalienable" rights that is contained in the standard to all rule of law...the constitution. Its the Duty of the SCOTUS not to opine new words (amend) into the constitution but to simply compare any challenged law with the actual record of unalienable rights contained in this contract among the states themselves....ratified by a super majority 75% agreement...known as the United States Constitution.

In other words the states themselves have placed limits upon the power and scope of FEDERALIST POWER, as the Constitution is more a negative document of stating what the Federals can and cannot do.

Indeed....again, COMMITTED means used in the context presented,....tested and found not lacking in any fashion. No unconstitutional law can be committed...especially when the quote itself comes from a Constitutional Fundamentalist such as you quoted. What? Are you implying that this judge did not comprehend his sworn duty to defend the constitution itself as being paramount to his position of trust? Again...."committed" means unchallenged by the words of the constitution...or the judge would have directly said, ALL LAWS from congress are constitutional...which is hardly the reality. When a law has been committed and found not lacking, its the paramount law of the law...i.e., the RULE OF LAW FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

There is one area that we agree. SCOTUS in a radical fashion "self professes" to have the power and authority to amend the constitution through OPINING new words that have never existed before into the constitution. That authority does not exist in any fashion either implied or in objective record. SCOTUS as its used today is nothing but an appointed oligarchy of civil servants that have never been subject to the peoples representation. Their duty is to compare law to the standard...not change the standard by circumventing the people's republican representation format...as guaranteed in the Constitution itself, Article 4, Section 4, Clause 1.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
What? Are you implying that this judge did not comprehend his sworn duty to defend the constitution itself as being paramount to his position of trust?
Click to expand...

he comprehended it just fine. he just refused to do it, instead going along with the flow and ceding even more power to the government.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
he comprehended it just fine. he just refused to do it, instead going along with the flow and ceding even more power to the government.
Click to expand...

Right.....I get it....you are more schooled in constitutional law than this particular conservative judge? While it was you who presented the "qualifying" Adj. COMMITTED, correctly so..with the judges statement. First before I attempted to argue constitutional law, I would suggest ENGLISH LANGUAGE 101 for beginners.

COMMITTED: BOUND OR OBLIGATED. The only law in the United States that can possibly be bound into the RULE OF LAW. Is that law which is found constitutional. If its found to be conflicting with the negative list of FEDERALIST RIGHTS defined by the STATES/PEOPLE themselves and ratified by a 75% super majority vote....its not constitutional
 
SmarterthanYou said:
well regulated militia, for one. shall not be infringed, for another. you seem to like having the constitution changed at will to fit your random desires.
Click to expand...

the only thing that has changed, is the level of reading comprehension in the US.

some on the alt-left, even level some accusations upon the alt-right, about "signs, omens, and portents" that the alt-right is "colluding and conspiring" to "dumb down" the electorate, so they can even fail, open book tests at elections or judicial proceedings.

Why is the right wing against public education?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so you're in agreement with Scalia when he opined that ANY act of congress committed to law MUST be considered constitutional?
Click to expand...

I only agree that the Court, may not Impugn Congress to be contemptible scoundrels when enacting laws, by writing words on formerly blank pieces of paper.
 
danielpalos said:
How are the poor, not paying their fair share under our form of Capitalism?
Click to expand...

Paying zero income taxes while benefiting from things that others paying them fund isn't a fair share.

That's your problem. You think those already paying should pay more or it's not fair yet think it's fair that those who pay nothing continue to pay nothing.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so you're in agreement with Scalia when he opined that ANY act of congress committed to law MUST be considered constitutional?
Click to expand...

Until otherwise determined to not be. To say other wise would be saying the Congress passes laws knowing that they are unconstitutional.
 
CFM said:
Paying zero income taxes while benefiting from things that others paying them fund isn't a fair share.

That's your problem. You think those already paying should pay more or it's not fair yet think it's fair that those who pay nothing continue to pay nothing.
Click to expand...

Why does the right claim the one percent, pay their fair share?

How much income tax does Mr. Trump pay?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
how much IS their fair share?......should it be all?.....are you a fifteen percenter?.....what's YOUR fair share.....
Click to expand...

nothing but continuance, diversion, and other forms of fallacies? no wonder, no body takes the right seriously about politics, unless they win an election.

In a recent debate with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, the Republican candidate was asked about whether he pays federal income tax.

"Did you use that $916 million loss to avoid paying personal federal income taxes for years?" moderator Anderson Cooper asked him.--https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/01/a-big-dirty-secret-from-donald-trumps-tax-returns-has-been-exposed/?utm_term=.365a9b7d3c31
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top