You have given no example.
You have given no example.
The Left: the early leaders had disagreements over things like where to have the nation’s checking account and so the government has powers in all circumstances whatsoever
Did you read the whole article.
Do you have an example where they disagreed upon Amendment 7 and adhering to "the rules of the common law", the most fundamental rule being to adhere to legislative intent?
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.
Comeon now, you know how this game gets played out. Happens every time. You ask a question, the person responds by not answering a question, but simply repeats the same previous question repetitively no matter how many times its answered. Why would you even subject yourself to that nonsense?
Actually Laporte is a United States Magistrate Judge and has already handed the case off.
United States District Judge Haywood Gilliam has been assigned the case. Gilliam is an Obama appointee.
Then again, most of the Northern District of California are Obama appointees.
Whataboutery is hard for me to grasp
Yeah I saw that but didn’t post it.
Thanks for the links
I’m searching in vain for your outraged posts about McConnell holding 99 other Senators AND the president AND the Supreme Court hostage with the Garland nomination.
ETA: She’s using the power of her position to influence policy, just as Ryan and every Speaker has. Whereas McConnell abrogated his Constitutionally MANDATED duty to advise and consent for almost a year. Spare us your pearl-clutching.
Maybe you should watch FOX news sometime. If you did, you would see the videos of the top Democrats in the party - Obama, Clinton, Pelosi and Schumer, and many others, supporting a barrier and all the other aspects of our illegal immigration problem. You would here them use the term “illegal” and refer to all the problems associated with illegal immigration. The crime, job loss, lack of taxes paid and the strain put on local government resources, hospitals and schools.
ALL of these issues have been talked about and agreed upon for decades and the result is still an estimated 20 million people here illegally. How much more vetting us necessary to get our elected officials to do what they were elected to do? It’s been nothing but empty talk with no political will to back it up- until now.
The wall is a part- but a big part, of dealing with the problem. Not the whole answer, but a good start. Stop the flow to the greatest extent possible, make it clear to the world our borders are closed for business, THEN begin dealing with those already here. What is so objectionable about common sense other than WHO is finally trying to enact it?
BTW, you guys all seem to pick one point out of entire posts and ignore every other point made because you disagree with that point. Why is that?
Personally, I would pick a point I agree with to disagree with but that seems counter intuitive and even counter productive.
You actually didn’t have any points, only an untruth, that The Wall was ever supported. You’re conflating support for strategic fencing with support for Trump’s desired monument to stupidity. I responded to that. You got anything else?
I’m more inclined towards textualism. Originalism is nonsense.
Begging the question.
One of the fundamental things people forget about the Constitution is that it was a negotiated document…and the implications that come from that.
Good gravy these people really are idiots. Did they seriously not examine all of this before making their decision to declare an emergency and try to steal funds already appropriated elsewhere? Or is this proof that the people Trump tasked with to fulfill his goal of circumventing the Constitution to satisfy a campaign promise know already it was never going to happen, so they just half-assed it?
I bet there are people in this administration who would like to do good jobs and not look so incompetent. Trump offers little help in that regard.
It is quite pathetic that anyone who would seek to be a part of a quality administration would still be hanging around this one. We all know what Trump is, and his ignorance and incompetence are unparalleled.
Seems even when he has good people around him he does his best to avoid their counsel until he finally fires them.
While Trump complains about some mythical ‘deep state’ out to get him, I suspect it’s the deep state (career bureaucrats) that keeps the overall government functioning while Trump and his bevy of ‘acting’ administrators attempt to get up to speed before they’re replaced over some ethical violation.