Exactly. When they strike a law down as unconstitutional they are interpreting the Constitution which often changes its meaning.
People voting with their wallets has nothing to do with jury nullification.
HUGE!! Trump to end birthright citizenship!!!
- Thread starter Text Drivers are Killers
- Start date
Exactly. When they strike a law down as unconstitutional they are interpreting the Constitution which often changes its meaning.
People voting with their wallets has nothing to do with jury nullification.
You are right. It is probably more than 99%. Since you already claimed the federal courts can declare laws unconstitutional you have already agreed with the concept that courts can interpret/change the meaning of the Constitution. Welcome to the 99.5%.
Checkmate
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
I was mostly referring to Donald Trump's threats to change the 14th amendment by EO! That is something he cannot do, and is a direct violation of the Constitution. That would require a Congressional Bill to change the 14th amendment.
But, if you will remember, the Supreme court ruled against Donald Trump's original 2 orders to shut down all foreigners from being able to enter the country from the 7 countries that Obama administration labeled as having terrorist activities within their borders. And those EO were over ruled as they both violated the Constitution. Now Trump's 3rd attempt at that banning was written in compliance with the Supreme Court ruling and the Constitution, therefore it did pass and is still in effect.
So stop with the asking stupid questions. You know what's going on.
Last edited:
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
Aiding a foreign adversary to interfere in US elections #1. Violations of Election law #2. Violating Emolument clauses in the Constitution #3.
Shall I keep going, or let Special Council Robert Mueller explain all the hundreds of other felonies to you?
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
First of all- Fuck You!
Black people are some of my favorite people Nazi Boy!
And it is still out to lunch if Obama ever violated the Constitution in his attempt to protect the dreamers.
It was more of some red states that said Obama's EO violated some of their state laws. So the Supreme Court had him make some changes to it to take those states under consideration in his EO.
It was not the dream act itself that was violating the Constitution.
What the fuck else are you referring to with regards to Obama violating the Constitution?
Fentoine Lum
Verified User
Sumpin' up with that one. Black guy raped him in prison maybe. Black guy "stole" his wife/girlfriend? Got his daughter pregnant? Is his long lost daddy?
Sumpin'.
Adolf_Twitler
Verified User
There is no telling what kind of people we are dealing with here in this forum.
I wonder how many of these all day and night posters are wearing ankle bracelets or are on Pedophile lists somewhere etc.
They sure seem to have a lot of time on their tiny-fisted little hands!
I didn't think you'd admit the black boy did anything wrong. It's what your type are known to do, ignore the truth.
The kids were all born in the US .. under US jurisdiction.. That makes them natural born US citizens from birth.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you are now in the same dumbest motherfucker on the forum category right beside domer.
go take a history class on the cause of the revolutionary war, idiot.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
usurped power not authorized by the constitution is no power at all.
Guns were part of every day life in the colonies.. LOLOL
Possession of guns was universal as hunting with firearms was a primary means of survival. Rural homes depended on arms to help feed their large families.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
shut up. until you decide to join the real world and learn about the battles of lexington and concord, lord thomas gage marching to confiscate guns, cannons, and powder, everything you spout is just pure bullshit.
Something to rule: Whether this action violates the 14th Amendment. If Trump does this, it will be challenged in court and likely wind up with the SCOTUS.
But that decision is the supreme law of the land and the fact that you disagree has no significance. The rule of law means we accept the decisions of governmental institutions whether we like them or not.
Marbury was a unanimous decision and judicial review was already an established principle in the colonies. Since many of the framers held government positions in 1803 I would think there would have been a lot of opposition and an attempt to reverse the decision if it went against their principles. But, it fits right into the checks and balances principle and without it there would be no check on legislative and executive power (and jury nullification would not be a check).
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the supreme court.
when the government violates the law with impunity, we are no longer a nation bound by the law.
nonsensical. marbury was a unanimous decision, but it's irrelevant. unless you think that if the president, congress, and the courts all agreed that the constiution was no longer relevant and could do as they please?