Another fake Democrat poll exposed

[Flash]

millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016

Probably did vote? Convincing evidence.

 

[Into the Night]

This is not how campaigns operate. Trump's campaign made extensive use of polls, technology, and models based on turnout figures.

His visits to CA were primarily to raise money.

Polls are meaningless. There is no reason to listen your lies anymore.

 

[Into the Night]

My reference was to illegal immigrants voting. Almost all your articles refer to "non-citizens" (not illegals) and all those numbers were very small. The San Francisco article says illegals are eligible to vote in school board elections but not federal elections. Those articles specifically referring to illegals gave no evidence, just somebody speculating. The Kansas example used a headline that said "illegal" but the article actually said non-citizen and it was only prosecuting one person. Trump's claim of 3 million was pure trash.

Using sources such as the Daily Caller are not credible.

Illegals voting in school board elections is a felony. They are not allowed to vote in anything.

 

[Into the Night]

There are no "fake "polls. Some are better than others like 538. Some are weaker like Gallup which is typically 7 points off, We know in what direction.

'7 points' is a random number. Polls are completely meaningless.

 

[Into the Night]

You are not reading your own articles. For example, the David Garcia Bebek of Peru says:

"In an interview Wednesday afternoon, Kobach said officials learned of the voter fraud after Bebek became a naturalized citizen of the U.S. in February. At the naturalization ceremony, the new citizens were encouraged to register to vote."

If he was a naturalized citizen he had to be here legally or he would not have been eligible for citizenship. So, a non-citizen, not an illegal immigrant.

All immigrants here legally are non-citizens but not illegals. We can find several cases of non-citizens who are registered and a relatively small number of them actually vote. My references have all been about proof of illegals voting. Still no examples--even if you come up with a few cases that is a far cry from 3 million.

Argument of ignorance fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy. Your random number is no better than anyone else's.

 

[Into the Night]

Blind faith in authority includes believing any crazy lies told by Trump--more lies from the DC swamp.

This from the guy that advocates creating an oligarchy out of the Supreme Court.

 

[Flash]

This from the guy that advocates creating an oligarchy out of the Supreme Court.

I'm not for creating anything. I am happy with the Supreme Court's current constitutional role that has existed from the beginning of the republic.

 

[artichoke]

There is no such evidence.

Except the evidence just provided, sure. The evidence you're trying to blindly pretend away based on literally nothing.

The sources you cited had very few cases of people voting illegally.

And the FBI had very few examples of hard evidence against Al Capone, too. Guess that makes him a choir boy.

Hint: You're allowed to use common sense while processing the evidence.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not for creating anything. I am happy with the Supreme Court's current constitutional role that has existed from the beginning of the republic.

The Supreme Court is not authorized to interpret or change the Constitution. You cannot make the Supreme Court an oligarchy. You are advocating tyranny.

 

[Flash]

The Supreme Court is not authorized to interpret or change the Constitution. You cannot make the Supreme Court an oligarchy. You are advocating tyranny.

Is is not an oligarchy any more than the legislative or executive branches are oligarchies. They all have checks and balances to prevent abuse. One of those checks is the federal court's power of judicial review. Without it, the legislative and executive branches could be tyrannical.

Obama and Trump's executive orders are examples of abuse of power stopped by the courts. Striking down D. C. laws prohibiting handguns is an example of check protecting our rights.

Soon they will rule on the power of states to require electors to support the candidate winning the popular vote in that state. Any predictions?

 

[Into the Night]

Is is not an oligarchy any more than the legislative or executive branches are oligarchies.

You are trying to make it one. You advocate tyranny.

They all have checks and balances to prevent abuse.

WRONG. They all must conform to the Constitution of the United States.

One of those checks is the federal court's power of judicial review.

The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution of the United States.

Without it, the legislative and executive branches could be tyrannical.

What you are arguing for is tyranny, putting the Supreme Court above the Constitution.

Obama and Trump's executive orders are examples of abuse of power stopped by the courts.

Trump has broken no law and is in complete compliance of the Constitution of the United States with the exception of attempting to ban bumpstocks (a legal accessory to a weapon). The court has not addressed this order.

Striking down D. C. laws prohibiting handguns is an example of check protecting our rights.

Interpreting and striking down any law not in compliance with the Constitution is in their purview.

Soon they will rule on the power of states to require electors to support the candidate winning the popular vote in that state.

The do not have that authority.

Any predictions?

Irrelevant. They do not have that authority.

 

[Flash]

You are trying to make it one. You advocate tyranny.

No, I accept the role of the Supreme Court since the beginning of the republic. I do not advocate anything different.

Interpreting and striking down any law not in compliance with the Constitution is in their purview.

Exactly. And to determine whether a law is in compliance with the Constitution requires the court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.

You claim the words of the Constitution tell us everything we need to know; yet, you claim the power to regulate naturalization includes the power to regulate immigration. Those words and powers are clearly not written in the Constitution, so you are making an interpretation that is not there under the guise that it was "intended." Same applies to the states' republican form of government provision.

The courts agree with you on that interpretation, but you are both adding words and powers not included. The court does that all the time with other cases yet you deny them that power even when you accept it for immigration.

The do not have that authority.

But they have already heard the case and will issue the ruling soon. That decision will be followed by all the states.

The authority you claim the court does not have (except immigration) is recognized and followed as law in the U. S. Your only argument is that they are "wrong."

 

[Into the Night]

No, I accept the role of the Supreme Court since the beginning of the republic. I do not advocate anything different.

Lie. You wish to make the Supreme Court an oligarchy. Sorry dude, you cannot destroy the Constitution that way.

Exactly. And to determine whether a law is in compliance with the Constitution requires the court to interpret the meaning of the Constitution.

No, it doesn't. Only the States have the authority to interpret the Supreme Court has NONE.

You claim the words of the Constitution tell us everything we need to know;

That and how the Constitution is empowered by the States.

yet, you claim the power to regulate naturalization includes the power to regulate immigration.

I do not claim this power. Congress h as that power. See Article I.

Those words and powers are clearly not written in the Constitution,

Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass.

so you are making an interpretation that is not there under the guise that it was "intended."

Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass.

Same applies to the states' republican form of government provision.

Also authorized in Article IV.

The courts agree with you on that interpretation, but you are both adding words and powers not included.

They don't get a choice. They MUST conform to the Constitution. I am adding nothing. YOU are still trying to ignore the Constitution. You advocate tyranny.

The court does that all the time with other cases

The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

yet you deny them that power even when you accept it for immigration.

They do not have power to change the Constitution. Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass.

But they have already heard the case and will issue the ruling soon.

The Supreme Court does not have power to interpret or change the Constitution.

That decision will be followed by all the states.

They do not have to follow anything that does not conform to the Constitution of the United States.

The authority you claim the court does not have (except immigration) is recognized and followed as law in the U. S.

Immigration is law in the United States. See Article I.

Your only argument is that they are "wrong."

No, YOU are wrong.

 

[Flash]

I do not claim this power. Congress h as that power. See Article I.

Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass.

Not according to the Constitution.

Where in the provision below is immigration included as a part of naturalization?

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

Nowhere. Naturalization is a separate issue than immigration and Congress had naturalization laws early in our history but not immigration laws.

Claiming immigration is part of naturalization is doing exactly what you claim the courts cannot do---interpret the Constitution.
You deny powers you dislike and make up powers you want the government to have.

Even when the courts have upheld immigration laws they did not use the naturalization clause as the basis.

 

[Into the Night]

Not according to the Constitution.

Where in the provision below is immigration included as a part of naturalization?

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

Nowhere. Naturalization is a separate issue than immigration and Congress had naturalization laws early in our history but not immigration laws.

Claiming immigration is part of naturalization is doing exactly what you claim the courts cannot do---interpret the Constitution.
You deny powers you dislike and make up powers you want the government to have.

Even when the courts have upheld immigration laws they did not use the naturalization clause as the basis.

Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass. The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

 

[Flash]

Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass. The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.

And neither do you by claiming immigration is part of naturalization when it clearly is not included. What is the evidence for your uninformed claim?

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

You are proving understanding the Constitution requires interpretation. You are interpreting naturalization to include immigration (but without evidence) and giving Congress a power not specifically delegated.

 

[Into the Night]

And neither do you by claiming immigration is part of naturalization when it clearly is not included. What is the evidence for your uninformed claim?

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

You are proving understanding the Constitution requires interpretation. You are interpreting naturalization to include immigration (but without evidence) and giving Congress a power not specifically delegated.

Immigration of part of naturalization in any country, dumbass.

 

[Flash]

Immigration of part of naturalization in any country, dumbass.

But not in our Constitution. You've read the constitution of every country? Wow.

You still give us no source for your interpretation.

That must mean the right to privacy is part of the other rights in the 9th Amendment, and that the 14th due process clause applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states.

Those are not in the Constitution, either, but if we can claim one is part of the other, you are doing the same thing the Supreme Court has been doing for years--interpreting the Constitution.

That proves the words of the Constitution are not enough to interpret the meaning you are adding words and powers to the Constitution's specific language. Naturalization laws are separate from immigration laws.

What you really mean is that you think the court's interpretation of the Constitution is wrong on almost all legal decisions and you do not accept current constitution law. You do not believe in the rule of law.

 

[Into the Night]

But not in our Constitution. You've read the constitution of every country? Wow.

Immigration of part of naturalization in any country, dumbass.

You still give us no source for your interpretation.

The two go hand in hand, dumbass. Go learn English.

That must mean the right to privacy is part of the other rights in the 9th Amendment,

What right to privacy?

and that the 14th due process clause applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states.

Nope. The 14th amendment changed nothing concerning that.

Those are not in the Constitution, either, but if we can claim one is part of the other, you are doing the same thing the Supreme Court has been doing for years--interpreting the Constitution.

No, YOU are putting things in there that aren't there...again. YOU are still attempting to change the Constitution.

That proves the words of the Constitution are not enough to interpret the meaning you are adding words and powers to the Constitution's specific language. Naturalization laws are separate from immigration laws.

Not possible. Go learn English.

What you really mean is that you think the court's interpretation of the Constitution is wrong on almost all legal decisions and you do not accept current constitution law.

The Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution. Only the States do.

You do not believe in the rule of law.

Inversion fallacy. That is YOU. It is YOU that wants to create an oligarchy that is above the law.

 

[Flash]

What right to privacy?

The one that goes hand in hand with the "other rights" of the 9th, freedom of assembly, search and seizure, quartering of troops, and self-incrimination.

You know, like immigration and naturalization go hand in hand.

Both are an interpretation of the Constitution from Into the Night and the Supreme Court; but, only one has the authority to make such interpretations.