Trump and Damocles argue the President can violate the Constitution.

Jarod said:
With regards to the Immigration Ban.... Congress has handed over their power over immigration to the President. The wording on that grant of power, gives the president plenary power.

Trump and Damocles think that it means the President can do ANYTHING he wants regarding immigration.

WRONG, we have a little thing called the CONSTITUTION!

Now I am not saying if what the President did does or does not violate the constitution, I am saying that IF it does the Courts can stop it! The President NEVER EVER has the power to VIOLATE the constitution.

Can you people understand?
Click to expand...

Of course the courts can stop violations. They just cant use retarded reasoning to make non-violations violations.
 
now they are saying no ruling today..If I were the administration I'd just claim extingent circumstances and get it sent to SCOTUS where it's going to wind up anyhow....why fool around with this kangaroo court?

But they seriously need a solicitor general or someone capable of arguing better then the last guy
 
anatta said:
now they are saying no ruling today..If I were the administration I'd just claim extingent circumstances and get it sent to SCOTUS where it's going to wind up anyhow....why fool around with this kangaroo court?

But they seriously need a solicitor general or someone capable of arguing better then the last guy
Click to expand...

According to Damo and Trump it's one of the most simple argument ever to be made. They don't need anybody better than an underperforming high school student.
 
Jarod said:
According to Damo and Trump it's one of the most simple argument ever to be made. They don't need anybody better than an underperforming high school student.
Click to expand...

in all actuality, they don't. the SCOTUS has ALWAYS deferred to congress, unless it's an extremely exceptional circumstance. YOU should know that the courts are usually reticent in interfering with that balance of power
 
SmarterthanYou said:
in all actuality, they don't. the SCOTUS has ALWAYS deferred to congress, unless it's an extremely exceptional circumstance. YOU should know that the courts are usually reticent in interfering with that balance of power
Click to expand...

yes but its not a simple argument, just aint.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
no, good sir, it does not. there is only ONE single group who is the arbiter of the constitution and that is the group who wrote it. in other words, it's 'WE THE PEOPLE'
Click to expand...

we the people, who have entered into a perfect union by means of a document that specifically states the courts shall be the final arbiter of the constitution......you can argue all you want that the people have the right to get rid of a specific judge that does wrong, but the people can NOT get rid of the courts without ending this country's existence.......
 
tsuke said:
Of course the courts can stop violations. They just cant use retarded reasoning to make non-violations violations.
Click to expand...

here's an excellent article on the issue by Judge Napolitano
"We have a federal district judge in Seattle who basically second-guessed the president on the wisdom and propriety of the president's executive order," Napolitano said, adding it's "absolutely not the job of federal judges in our society."
Click to expand...
http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/02/06/judge-napolitano-washington-state-federal-judge-second-guessed-trump-travel-ban
 
PostmodernProphet said:
we the people, who have entered into a perfect union by means of a document that specifically states the courts shall be the final arbiter of the constitution......you can argue all you want that the people have the right to get rid of a specific judge that does wrong, but the people can NOT get rid of the courts without ending this country's existence.......
Click to expand...

again, NO, good sir. the document does NOT specifically state that the courts are the final arbiter. WE THE PEOPLE ALWAYS have the ability to override ANY court decision or opinion, either through a jury or through our congress. WE THE PEOPLE are ALWAYS the final arbiter.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
again, NO, good sir. the document does NOT specifically state that the courts are the final arbiter. WE THE PEOPLE ALWAYS have the ability to override ANY court decision or opinion, either through a jury or through our congress. WE THE PEOPLE are ALWAYS the final arbiter.
Click to expand...

which I have already addressed in the second sentence you quoted.....give it up and stop posing.....
 
I have thought about it, I will give Damo the benefit of the doubt and agree that he was looking at only the preliminary issue of the ban case, was it Constitutional for Congress to give its power to the President, that is a simple yes.

But when I suggested there are more complex issues than that, he was flat out wrong and myopic to suggest that because I believe more complex issues exist... I don't understand the Constitution.

His default to snap to personal insults because he did not understand the more complex issue here was shortsighted and wrong, I do deserve an apology. He defaulted to a Trumpian insult because he did not understand the more complex issue. A case does not get to the S. Ct. without complex issues, they would merely PCA affirm.
 
anatta said:
yep the questions were to the validity of policy,not the procedure (and that famous Muslim ban)
Click to expand...

The validity of the policy comes into play when you consider the more complex issues. The S.Ct cannot determine if the policy is a good one or a bad one, but they can determine if there is a reasonable basis for it, if it disproportionally affects one religion over another, for example.

I have listened to Napaliano, he WAY over simplifies the issues so he can communicate with his viewers and so he can achieve the result they want. He does a disservice to jurisprudence by dumbing down the law to make his followers think they understand very complex issues.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
we the people, who have entered into a perfect union by means of a document that specifically states the courts shall be the final arbiter of the constitution......you can argue all you want that the people have the right to get rid of a specific judge that does wrong, but the people can NOT get rid of the courts without ending this country's existence.......
Click to expand...

Semantics....the Constitution only grants the federal court the right and duty to 'review' law and compare law to the standard..i.e., the US CONSTITUTION. The courts have no right either inferred or actual to change one word in the constitution, only the people possess that authority. If the courts have a right to arbitrate the words in the Constitution instead of reviewing legislated law from either a state or congress in comparison to that which is actually recorded in the constitution....Show us the article, section, and clause that authorizes the federal court system to opine words into or omit words that are written into the constitution while in the review process.

SCOTUS has been delegated a great responsibility....the responsibility to REVIEW. Its impossible and illogical to review anything that is not pre-existing...you can't review words that are not there. When any federal court OPINES words into a decision that don't exist in either the legislated law under review or words that are pre-existing in the constitution....they are no longer reviewing law...they are legislating law from the bench and usurping the authority of Congress the only body of the supposed checks and balances that has the inherent right from the Constitution to LEGISLATE NEW LAW...i.e., a law that never existed in writing before.

There is no such authority...in fact its illogical to even suggest that a federal court system has such scope and power as to change the contract among the people, the Constitution, void of any kind of representative input.

This reasoning that the federal courts have the authority to arbitrate even the constitution comes from....get ready, NOT THE CONSTITUTION....but an opinion by the judges sitting on the SUPREME COURT. According to the Constitution....any consideration of a law's constitutionality rests solely, not with the federal court....an agent of the federal government itself, but...constitutionality issues should be addressed by the PEOPLE/STATES who drafted and ratified that contract among themselves known as the United States Constitution.

The STATES BILL OF RIGHTS came into existence to bring the unambiguity generated by the feds to comprehension in relation to just where the power in this nation rests...THE STATES/PEOPLE. That which does not exist in the Constitution, that which is silence and not capable of review....belongs to the PEOPLE/STATES not the federal government court system. Article 10 of the States Bill of Rights.

Again...how can anything be subject to review that is not pre-existing? It cannot. For anything to be reviewed it must exist in writing...there is no authority for any court to review....rhetorical campaign statements made orally. If one's oral words could be subject to the courts for review void of ACTION....there could be no 1st amendment rights.

Read the historical truth: http://constitutionality.us/SupremeCourt.html
 
Last edited:
Jarod said:
The validity of the policy comes into play when you consider the more complex issues. The S.Ct cannot determine if the policy is a good one or a bad one, but they can determine if there is a reasonable basis for it, if it disproportionally affects one religion over another, for example.

I have listened to Napaliano, he WAY over simplifies the issues so he can communicate with his viewers and so he can achieve the result they want. He does a disservice to jurisprudence by dumbing down the law to make his followers think they understand very complex issues.
Click to expand...
he does soundbite analysis.it would be stupid to rely on that..

This is about a TRO only -not a SCOTUS decision on separation of powers/religious tests/etc.
If SCOTUS chose to rule on that -SCOTUS has wide ranging latititude as to what facets they consider.

The 9th is really not much more then a traffic cop -either go or no go.
 
anatta said:
he does soundbite analysis.it would be stupid to rely on that..

This is about a TRO only -not a SCOTUS decision on separation of powers/religious tests/etc.
If SCOTUS chose to rule on that -SCOTUS has wide ranging latititude as to what facets they consider.

The 9th is really not much more then a traffic cop -either go or no go.
Click to expand...

Do you know how many Fox News Rumpovites rely on it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top