yes your wall of texts that no one reads because it is the same stuff over and over. how many words did you write just to say “I already posted my documented facts HERE”.
The SC says you are wrong numerous times. Wether you believe it or not. It will happen again here. I may not like their decisions but that doesn’t make it illigitment
So, once again you dismiss and belittle my posted well researched documented facts rather than posting a rebuttal. Additionally, and as I previously stated: What makes a Supreme Court opinion legitimate is when it is in harmony with the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.
It could very well turn out to be productive if you actually engaged in a dialogue concerning the issue, rather than being so dismissive while ignoring documented facts.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution, and the intentions and beliefs under which it was agree to, as documented from historical records ___ its framing and ratification debates which give context to its text ___ wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
au contaire. this lefty care very much about the constitution.
sorry to spoil your narrative.
Allan
You forgot to post a case in point and detail the specifics in question.
Well, if that is true, why do you ignore that our law specifically provides for deporting aliens?
8 U.S. Code § 1227 - Deportable aliens
Keep in mind the law specifically states : the United States shall, which leaves no other option!
I posted two links to their decisions. Unlike you it wasn’t my opinions.
thats a law, not the constitution.
the constitution says nothing about expelling people from the country.
Allan
Yup. You did post links, but avoided quoting from those links passages which refute my specifically stated contentions.
And, you did post an unsubstantiated opinion that “The SC says you are wrong numerous times.”
Under Article 1, Section 10, the Constitution specifically states the State of Texas is authorized to deal with an invasion which poses an ". . . imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
Stop making ■■■■ up.
SCOTUS says differently.
Allan
sorry you can’t read the them. I don’t believe in a wall of text. Read them don’t read them I don’t care. I have a feeling just like you didn’t read your own when it said the attorney general not states has authority to deport you won’t read these.
Quote?
I’m still waiting for you to quote the passages which refute my specifically stated contentions.
Post my contention, and then the passage refuting my contention.
I don’t have too the SC did. They know better then me. It is all in the links above.
US vs Texas. this past June
“Held: Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge the Guidelines”
short and sweet.
Allan
Exactly, “lacked standing”, which is an intentional way to avoid confirming the fact the State of Texas is authorized to deal with an invasion which poses an ". . . imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
Of course, you don’t have to post my contention, and then the passage refuting my contention. And you haven’t. Nor have you quoted my contention, and then quoted the passage from the S.C. case refuting my contention. But hey, that’s a pretty clever way to avoid substantiating truth and facts.
yes. and the recently passed law doesnt pass constitutional muster.
despite you protestations to the contrary.
Allan
Still to lazy to read got it.
The State of Texas is exercising its inherent authority under Article 1, Section 10, to protect against an invasion that poses an ". . . imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
