As has been pointed out to you by @WuWei, “Congress shall make no law abridging” does not mean the same thing nor carry the same absoluteness as “shall not be infringed.”
Hey I appreciate the discussion. First time I have had an honest “discussion” with y’all in a while. Gotta go for now…
Well, at least we have been honest …
What say you?
When they rape our daughters.
FreeAndClear:And touched on legal migration
How so?
“Public charge”
WuWei: FreeAndClear:And touched on legal migration
How so?
“Public charge”
I’m not following you.
FreeAndClear: WuWei: FreeAndClear:And touched on legal migration
How so?
“Public charge”
I’m not following you.
The public charge rule was a trump administration rule for legal immigrants.
The “Public Charge Rule” went into effect October 19, 2019. The rule was first enjoined July 19, 2020, 9 months later. It went through several court decisions and was abandoned November 2, 2020 after a U.S. District Court decision. People are upset because Biden didn’t pursue a Trump rule which was in effect for nine months before it was struck down by the courts and abandoned by Trump’s own administration? Too funny. Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds Final Rule: Litigation | USCIS
Measure found to violate Administrative Procedure Act
Measure found to violate Administrative Procedure Act
By an ephor
Not on the merit of the procedure
Not on the merit of the procedure
Irrelevant? They still tried.
Eagle-Keeper:By importing millions and millions of the world’s impoverished citizens into the country until the US becomes the worst crime infested, poverty stricken ■■■■■■■■ there is so that nobody in world wants to come here.
It’s like Steven Miller is writing your guys’ posts now
It looks would stop the flow of people from wanting to come here, wouldn’t it?
WuWei:Not on the merit of the procedure
Irrelevant? They still tried.
Tried what?
Are you under the impression that this is new or went away?
Samm:You have yet to cite any caveats to the Constitution.
The Constitution is interpreted by justices because many things are not explicitly spelled out.
Let’s look at obscenity laws. Up until the 50s, many publications and materials could be banned and outlawed by local jurisdictions. Howl by Alan Ginsburg comes to mind. A judge ruled that Ginsburg’s 1st amendment rights were violated and after that far more “obscene” material was allowed.
Prior to that ruling, there was a caveat to the 1st amendment that did not allow for public obscene material. After that ruling, that caveat was curtailed. The Constitution is interpreted by justices. Some rulings you may like. Some I may like. That’s the system we are in.
But this is all common sense. What are you trying to get at?
Shall not be infringed seems pretty clear to me, might require a convention of states to make clear to some though.
Shall not be infringed seems pretty clear to me, might require a convention of states to make clear to some though.
Pretty clear in the first amendment too right?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
And yet there are many many caveats and exceptions.
FreeAndClear: WuWei:Not on the merit of the procedure
Irrelevant? They still tried.
Tried what?
Are you under the impression that this is new or went away?
To affect legal immigration.
Means testing for “sponsors” is and always has been a thing. A very extensive thing.
I believe gay people should always have had equal rights to heterosexuals via the Constitution.
They do. The goverment cannot discriminate.
They do.
They didn’t- until recently. Remember the endless Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve threads?
WuWei: DisturbedGuy: WuWei:We have. I spent years down there.
I know you did and I appreciate your service. You really think it’s on par with what we tried to do overseas?
I don’t understand the question.
I was just saying if we spent $2 trillion nation building in LATAM that maybe the influx of immigrants would slow to a manageable level.
Fiscal conservative huh…ok,
Here is a novel idea, how about the citizens of these countries stay in their respective countries and band together to fix their issues.
I thought the left was again nation building, or are they only against it when a R is sitting in the oval office.
Que the litany of excuses/rationalizations as to why “that won’t work”.
zantax:Shall not be infringed seems pretty clear to me, might require a convention of states to make clear to some though.
Pretty clear in the first amendment too right?
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
And yet there are many many caveats and exceptions.
Like what?
(Hope you don’t say the ridiculous “you can’t yell fire in a crowded room” thingy. )