Except the evidence just provided, sure. The evidence you're trying to blindly pretend away based on literally nothing.
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.
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?
You are trying to make it one. You advocate tyranny.
WRONG. They all must conform to the Constitution of the United States.
The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution of the United States.
What you are arguing for is tyranny, putting the Supreme Court above the Constitution.
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.
Interpreting and striking down any law not in compliance with the Constitution is in their purview.
The do not have that authority.
Irrelevant. They do not have that authority.
No, I accept the role of the Supreme Court since the beginning of the republic. I do not advocate anything different.
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.
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."
Lie. You wish to make the Supreme Court an oligarchy. Sorry dude, you cannot destroy the Constitution that way.
No, it doesn't. Only the States have the authority to interpret the Supreme Court has NONE.
That and how the Constitution is empowered by the States.
I do not claim this power. Congress h as that power. See Article I.
Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass.
Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass.
Also authorized in Article IV.
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 Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
They do not have power to change the Constitution. Immigration is part of naturalization, dumbass.
The Supreme Court does not have power to interpret or change the Constitution.
They do not have to follow anything that does not conform to the Constitution of the United States.
Immigration is law in the United States. See Article I.
No, YOU are wrong.
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.
Bookmarks