Documenting America's Descent Into Autocracy: Despotic Fascism Has Arrived

[headhunter]

15 hours ago, WG53 said:

"Real men wear diapers"

Definitely a liberal kink 

[WG53]

17 minutes ago, headhunter said:

Definitely a liberal kink 

Yeah definitely not a conservative meltdown...

[headhunter]

34 minutes ago, WG53 said:

Yeah definitely not a conservative meltdown...

A liberals meltdown is something different than anybody's. It's funny 

[charleytolar]

17 hours ago, tgo said:

In other words, it has been settled law for 155 years? But now all the sudden it should be invalidated? Why? 

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/

 

Hundreds of times, literally. Circumstances change.

 

When that ruling was made in 1869, there were only 30 Million citizens of the US and an estimated 3 Million immigrants that whole decade of the 1860s-- so 300,000 per year say.

Most were Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Italian, and Armenian making a gargantuan effort to cross the ocean to escape true persecution and start a new life. They expected nothing but an opportunity in self-sufficiency. Kind of different today.

 

What are the numbers presently? What is the burden to the nation being carried presently-- while veterans languish in the streets? What is the risk of crime, gang activity, and a precipitous rise in the drug trade?

 

How many WOULD BE too many in your book?

Edited November 19, 2024 by charleytolar

[Titandan]

1 hour ago, charleytolar said:

How many WOULD BE too many in your book?

I can't speak for the original poster, but I'm sure a number of these guys don't believe in a border at all (Soros' "Open Society" rings a bell). 

[Titans279]

2 hours ago, charleytolar said:

https://constitution.congress.gov/resources/decisions-overruled/

 

Hundreds of times, literally. Circumstances change.

 

When that ruling was made in 1869, there were only 30 Million citizens of the US and an estimated 3 Million immigrants that whole decade of the 1860s-- so 300,000 per year say.

Most were Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Italian, and Armenian making a gargantuan effort to cross the ocean to escape true persecution and start a new life. They expected nothing but an opportunity in self-sufficiency. Kind of different today.

 

What are the numbers presently? What is the burden to the nation being carried presently-- while veterans languish in the streets? What is the risk of crime, gang activity, and a precipitous rise in the drug trade?

 

How many WOULD BE too many in your book?

 

The president shouldn't be able to change the constitution with an executive order.

[Titans279]

16 hours ago, Mercalius said:

Word

 

 

 

15 hours ago, Titandan said:

The media gets orders from corporate overlords and spew nonsense about Trump's being an "existential threat to democracy," Vance is "just a weird sofa lover," Kamala's is "spreading joy," covid's origins being from the "Wuhan Lab" is racist misinformation, necessity of "masks to save lives," and Biden is as "sharp as a tack," etc.  

The Dem platform is just one huge slogan to manipulate the normies driven by their feelings to vote for the person that the DNC can control.  I still can't believe it worked (still working) on you guys. 

 

 

It's hilarious that you guys use this example. Sinclair is a conservative media organization that's been using their hundreds of TV stations to support Trump!

 

You guys are so insanely far gone lol

 

 

Edited November 19, 2024 by Titans279

[charleytolar]

21 minutes ago, Titans279 said:

 

The president shouldn't be able to change the constitution with an executive order.

"The U.S. Supreme Court has held that all executive orders from the president of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch."

 

I think "securing the border" by enforcing immigration policy falls under the president's duties. Why else would the Biden Administration keep assuring us that the "border was secure"?

 

If you are talking about "birthright citizenship", I pointed out that the 14th Amendment was intended for former slaves. That was just a Supreme Court ruling...

Edited November 19, 2024 by charleytolar

[Titans279]

4 minutes ago, charleytolar said:

"The U.S. Supreme Court has held that all executive orders from the president of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch."

 

I think "securing the border" by enforcing immigration policy falls under the president's duties. Why else would the Biden Administration keep assuring us that the "border was secure"?

 

You might need to explain your logic a bit better here.

 

1. Executive orders must be constitutional.

2. The president has a duty to secure the border.

 

 

You seem to be implying that the president can and should issue unconstitutional executive orders to "secure the border." That is precisely wrong. The president needs to follow the laws of the land.

 

If Trump determined that he needed to round up and execute illegal immigrants and those who employ and or shelter illegal immigrants to secure the boarder I wouldn't want him to be able to do that either just because it's in service of "his duty to secure the border".

[charleytolar]

5 minutes ago, Titans279 said:

 

You might need to explain your logic a bit better here.

 

1. Executive orders must be constitutional.

2. The president has a duty to secure the border.

 

 

You seem to be implying that the president can and should issue unconstitutional executive orders to "secure the border." That is precisely wrong. The president needs to follow the laws of the land.

 

If Trump determined that he needed to round up and execute illegal immigrants and those who employ and or shelter illegal immigrants to secure the boarder I wouldn't want him to be able to do that either just because it's in service of "his duty to secure the border".

Did you not catch the "or by Congress" part of the description that expands presidential power?

 

Doesn't he have a responsibility to secure the border? He is, in fact, the one who did a better job "following the laws of the land" in securing the border and, apparently, most of the voters agree with him.

 

Fair to say that in 1869 we "needed" more population-- not so sure that is true today.

[Titans279]

12 minutes ago, charleytolar said:

Did you not catch the "or by Congress" part of the description that expands presidential power?

 

Doesn't he have a responsibility to secure the border? He is, in fact, the one who did a better job "following the laws of the land" in securing the border and, apparently, most of the voters agree with him.

 

Fair to say that in 1869 we "needed" more population-- not so sure that is true today.

 

None of this means that Trump can reverse parts of the constitution that he feels are inconvenient.

 

The solution to the problem you have with the constitution is to amend the constitution, not to issue an order to effectively change the constitution with an executive order just because "circumstances have changed."

 

We have rules and laws for a reason. Most of us don't want to live under a king.

[charleytolar]

10 minutes ago, Titans279 said:

 

None of this means that Trump can reverse parts of the constitution that he feels are inconvenient.

 

The solution to the problem you have with the constitution is to amend the constitution, not to issue an order to effectively change the constitution with an executive order just because "circumstances have changed."

 

We have rules and laws for a reason. Most of us don't want to live under a king.

Does NOT enforcing the sanctity of the US border qualify as an "inconvenience" for the Biden Administration? Is not enforcing the law not in effect changing the law?!

 

"Q: What does the Constitution say about securing the border?

A: Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides for the protection of states “against invasion,” and Article I, Section 10 reserves the right of states to defend themselves."

 

What parts are you citing as Trump finding them inconvenient? Birthright citizenship is a SC ruling as an interpreted expansion of the 14th Amendment-- another "change in circumstance" that one can argue made some sense for that era.. only 30 Million denizens of an expansive and resource-rich continent in an era of self-sufficiency.

 

Too many people coming now think they are on the dole and they are or they are future bad actors coming after our safety and security. Of course, they hide among the innocent. That's why they need to be vetted.

[TitansPDO]

Under our system of government, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Not the executive or legislative branches. 

 

Don't like birthright citizenship, then pass a constitutional amendment repudiating the U.S. Supreme Court's precedent. What do you think the Fourteenth Amendment overturned? A U.S. Supreme Court Decision that most U.S. citizens should be vaguely familiar with....

 

The other alternative (and easier) is to get the U.S. Supreme Court to reconsider and overrule their own precedent. Trump issuing an executive order ending or attempting to end birthright citizenship is probably the avenue they'll pursue given the favorable political leanings of the Court for Trump, as it would inevitably lead to a federal lawsuit to prevent its enforcement. 

Edited November 19, 2024 by TitansPDO

[charleytolar]

20 minutes ago, TitansPDO said:

Under our system of government, the U.S. Supreme Court has the final say regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Not the executive or legislative branches. 

There are recourses (new statutes or amendments) available to the Legislative Branch and, of course, the influence of the President on that body. Checks and Balances until someone cries "UNCLE"...

[TitansPDO]

7 minutes ago, charleytolar said:

There are recourses (new statutes or amendments) available to the Legislative Branch and, of course, the influence of the President on that body. Checks and Balances until someone cries "UNCLE"...

 

A federal statute cannot override a U.S. Supreme Court decision interpreting a Constitutional provision, only a Constitutional amendment can in that circumstance.  However, Congress can pass a new federal statute or amend an existing one to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding a federal statute. 

Edited November 19, 2024 by TitansPDO