PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Steingar on February 09, 2017, 03:09:15 PM
-
Obama made the fewest Executive Orders of any President since Cleveland, according to the Pew Research Center (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/obama-executive-orders/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/obama-executive-orders/)) yet he was derided for his use of the mechanism as being unconstitutional. Cheeto von Fuckface has come out the bat using them left and right, but the Trumpkins all applaud.
-
It's not just the orders. It's the holy crap dumbass leftist moonbatness of most of them. And sneakiness! Trump is trying to undo the damage. Every single EO is hitting the headlines. Obama just churned 'em out and the media was silent.
Trump needs to slow down, though, so the shock isn't so great. On the other hand ... swamp draining can be brutal.
Faith, family and freedom are at stake, and that was not what Obama was about. It was, however, how Trump got elected.
-
Obama made the fewest Executive Orders of any President since Cleveland, according to the Pew Research Center (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/obama-executive-orders/ (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/23/obama-executive-orders/)) yet he was derided for his use of the mechanism as being unconstitutional. Cheeto von Fuckface has come out the bat using them left and right, but the Trumpkins all applaud.
The NUMBER of orders is not the issue.
-
Cheeto von Fuckface has come out the bat using them left and right, but the Trumpkins all applaud.
What's with the pure hatred? Are you a self-hating White?
So far Trump has done NOTHING that can be construed by anyone with a rational brain as unconstitutional (with the exception of total maniac Leftists such as yourself and your "smarter-than-everyone-else" peers) whereas Obama dd it routinely.
-
It is not the quantity, it is the nature of the orders.
-
It must be hard to have a triple digit IQ and still be a complete f'n moron.
-
It must be hard to have a triple digit IQ and still be a complete f'n moron.
For perfesser triple digit? Naw.
-
Agent Double-Oh Zero strikes again and is just as uniformed as he usually is.
-
So far Trump has done NOTHING that can be construed by anyone with a rational brain as unconstitutional (with the exception of total maniac Leftists such as yourself and your "smarter-than-everyone-else" peers) whereas Obama dd it routinely.
Every court that has seen this has ruled it unconstitutional. Of course, to you guys they're all imbeciles since they didn't see things your way. But I suspect they understand a little more what is and isn't Constitutional than you lot.
-
Every court that has seen this has ruled it unconstitutional. Of course, to you guys they're all imbeciles since they didn't see things your way. But I suspect they understand a little more what is and isn't Constitutional than you lot.
Here is the law you claim is "unconstitutional" even though it's enshrined in the USC.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title8/html/USCODE-2011-title8-chap12-subchapII-partII-sec1182.htm
"Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. "
Now, please, using that law, please explain to us what sections of the constitution it violates. In fact, take the ruling of the 9th Circus (which you have admitted was over reaching) and please show us in that ruling where they cite the above law as "unconstitutional". (Hint: It's not there)
-
Here is the law you claim is "unconstitutional" even though it's enshrined in the USC.
Now, please, using that law, please explain to us what sections of the constitution it violates. In fact, take the ruling of the 9th Circus (which you have admitted was over reaching) and please show us in that ruling where they cite the above law as "unconstitutional". (Hint: It's not there)
PLEASE don't offend Triple Zero IQ with something as complicate and hard as facts. He will find it another excuse to cite his special-ness, deserved-ness and superior three digit (000) IQ.
-
Every court that has seen this has ruled it unconstitutional. Of course, to you guys they're all imbeciles since they didn't see things your way. But I suspect they understand a little more what is and isn't Constitutional than you lot.
Alien nationals who are not on our shore do not have rights guaranteed by the US constitution. The US Code is so clear even a dumbass college perfesser can parse it. The president has sole discretion in this matter. End.
-
Alien nationals who are not on our shore do not have rights guaranteed by the US constitution. The US Code is so clear even a dumbass college perfesser can parse it. The president has sole discretion in this matter. End.
Absolutely; and because we elected a defender of the Constitution who is also a fighter and not a milquetoast belly kisser, that is where we can expect this obvious ideological flailing to come to rest.
-
Absolutely; and because we elected a defender of the Constitution who is also a fighter and not a milquetoast belly kisser, that is where we can expect this obvious ideological flailing to come to rest.
Some people see the fight for our Constitution, and the rule of EXISTING law by Trump as "divisive". I don't. I think Obama, his policies, and rhetoric was very, very divisive, and purposely so. If we are divided, we are weak, and can not put a unified front against an oppressive, tyrannical government. Corporate America is almost as bad. The statists/globalists want a weak, unarmed populace to control like serfs. Fortunately, in the U.S. we have a tradition of stopping that.
-
Alien nationals who are not on our shore do not have rights guaranteed by the US constitution. The US Code is so clear even a dumbass college perfesser can parse it. The president has sole discretion in this matter. End.
Au Contraire, rude sir! The courts have been trying to sort this out for years, and it is far from clear.
-
Au Contraire, rude sir! The courts have been trying to sort this out for years, and it is far from clear.
There's nothing to "sort out". It is abundantly unambiguous. If you and ilk don't like it, begin legislative action to change the law.
-
Au Contraire, rude sir! The courts have been trying to sort this out for years, and it is far from clear.
Bullshit. A foreign national abroad without a US visa or US residency card is not covered by the constitution. A US Visa only allows one to the point of entry of the US, not to actually enter the country unless they meet certain criteria.
Residency has certain prohibitions to it as well.
-
Judge Napolitano weighs in
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5317800691001/?#sp=show-clips
-
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/09/ninth-circuit-gets-it-wrong.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/02/10/trump-seizes-on-omission-in-courts-travel-ban-ruling-plots-next-move.html
-
What is our recourse when judges act ILLEGALLY, and un-Constitutionally? There should be a mechanism to hold them accountable when they do things like this. They can't be voted out of office. They can't be fired. Judges are not God.
-
What is our recourse when judges act ILLEGALLY, and un-Constitutionally? There should be a mechanism to hold them accountable when they do things like this. They can't be voted out of office. They can't be fired. Judges are not God.
They can be impeached.
-
They can be impeached.
Don't their peers have to concur, though?
-
Don't their peers have to concur, though?
Here's some insight: http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/removing-federal-judges-without-impeachment
-
What is our recourse when judges act ILLEGALLY, and un-Constitutionally? There should be a mechanism to hold them accountable when they do things like this. They can't be voted out of office. They can't be fired. Judges are not God.
What's the difference between God and a federal judge? God doesn't think he's a judge.
-
Here's an interesting case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/333/103/case.html
1948, C. & S. Air Lines, Inc. v. Waterman S.S. Corp. The Circuit Court of Appeals denied a motion to dismiss a petition seeking review of certain orders of the Civil Aeronautics Board granting and denying certificates of public convenience and necessity authorizing certain American air carriers to engage in overseas and foreign air transportation after such orders had been approved by the President under ยง 801 of the Civil Aeronautics Act.
The court's finding was that after the president has used the power granted to him by law, the final orders embody presidential discretion as to political matters beyond the competence of the courts to adjudicate.
The court below considered, and we think quite rightly, that it could not review such provisions of the order as resulted from Presidential direction. The President, both as Commander-in-Chief and as the Nation's organ for foreign affairs, has available intelligence services whose reports neither are nor ought to be published to the world. It would be intolerable that courts, without the relevant information, should review and perhaps nullify actions of the Executive taken on information properly held secret. Nor can courts sit in camera in order to be taken into executive confidences. But even if courts could require full disclosure, the very nature of executive decisions as to foreign policy is political, not judicial. Such decisions are wholly confided by our Constitution to the political departments of the government, Executive and Legislative. They are delicate, complex, and involve large elements of prophecy. They are and should be undertaken only by those directly responsible to the people whose welfare they advance or imperil. They are decisions of a kind for which the Judiciary has neither aptitude, facilities, nor responsibility, and have long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion or inquiry.
Translation - the 1948 USSC said that courts had no place in the political arena. They have neither the knowledge nor the authority to overrule the president when he uses his discretionary powers.
-
That's rather beautiful.
-
Progressives will always fight against anything that strengthens America.
Progressives HATE America.
Academic progressives don't think. They pretend to to think but really just repeat whatever bullshit they've been told to think, and pretend that it makes them smart, like Triple Zero Man.
It is really that simple.
-
In the past several decades the courts have become more, and more activist, especially in a left leaning fashion rather than be concerned with actual law.
-
Posting here because of our discussion about whether the Constitution protects a foreign national outside our border. The Supreme Court will soon take up a case that may help clarify the answer to that question:
http://fw.to/eVR1vQU
-
Posting here because of our discussion about whether the Constitution protects a foreign national outside our border. The Supreme Court will soon take up a case that may help clarify the answer to that question:
http://fw.to/eVR1vQU
That's an edge case - literally.
If the law allowed U.S. police (or possibly anyone) to shoot across the border and kill anyone on the other side with impunity, it'd make for a bit of mess. If Mexican and Canadian laws allowed their residents the same impunity, I personally would keep well clear of the borders....
-
That's rather beautiful.
Nice!
-
Considering....Trump will absolutely have to write more EOs than Obama because Trump is having to write them to counter ones that Obama did.