Crime Trump flouts pardons for CBP chief

[Seano]

Yes, yes. This is transparent bullshit. "I have to vote for a corrupt, authoritarian moron because the liberals force me. Us Republicans have no free will."

Yeah, we all should have voted for a person who stands for the opposite of what we believe in instead, seeing as Trump says oogey boogey words.

 

[Darkballs]

If it’s an invasion, insurrection, or rebellion, POTUS can act unilaterally to nip it using the military.

Uh huh. Now show me any source that claims asylum seekers amount to an insurrection.

 

[waiguoren]

Although he'd be my last choice for a candidate, the dems have gone full retard and left me no choice in my vote for 2020.

It's early though. Would you vote for Trump over Buttigieg?

 

[waiguoren]

Talk about cowardice, defend nearly all he does with enough shame left over to allow yourself to pretend not to support the embarrassment to humanity that he is.

I've criticized Trump for many policies on these forums. Ignorance of that fact is no excuse for false accusations.

 

[waiguoren]

The silence on the right regarding the overwhelming stupidity of Trump is deafening.

Is Ben Shapiro "on the right"? How about David Brooks? How about Greg Mankiw? Mark Levin? Ann Coulter?

That list took me 30 seconds to think of. All have criticized Trump extensively.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Yeah, we all should have voted for a person who stands for the opposite of what we believe in instead, seeing as Trump says oogey boogey words.

You could have voted for neither. Both are unrequited pieces of shit. No Faustian bargain is necessary in a free election.

 

[waiguoren]

Uh huh. Now show me any source that claims asylum seekers amount to an insurrection.

Exactly this. Article IV, Section IV mentions "invasion", which is a term whose legal meaning was definite at the founding and absolutely did not include "asylum seekers" or "economic migrants". Article I, Section VIII's "insurrection" is a similar case.

 

[Darkballs]

Exactly this. Article IV, Section IV mentions "invasion", which is a term whose legal meaning was definite at the founding and absolutely did not include "asylum seekers" or "economic migrants". Article I, Section VIII's "insurrection" is a similar case.

Dear god. We've found ourselves at the same legal conclusion. I'll have a Fosters in your honor tonight.

 

[waiguoren]

Dear god. We've found ourselves at the same legal conclusion. I'll have a Fosters in your honor tonight.

I'm a consistent textualist/originalist. I refuse consequentialist jurisprudence. See for example my disagreements with @Cubo de Sangre over the meaning of the term "arms" in the 2nd Amendment---I believe it can only include early 19th century firearms technology.

 

[JamesRussler]

Uh huh. Now show me any source that claims asylum seekers amount to an insurrection.

Shhh that’s enough of your low-IQ nonsense Dorkballs.

 

[andnowweknow]

Is Ben Shapiro "on the right"? How about David Brooks? How about Greg Mankiw? Mark Levin? Ann Coulter?

That list took me 30 seconds to think of. All have criticized Trump extensively.

I was referring to Congress, should have clarified. All those people overwhelmingly support him still...in the face of his abhorrent behavior. And Ann Coulter would be a blogger for Huff post in a second given a 10% pay increase.

 

[andnowweknow]

I've criticized Trump for many policies on these forums. Ignorance of that fact is no excuse for false accusations.

Lay your critiques out and I'll happily take back my statement.

 

[Darkballs]

Shhh that’s enough of your low-IQ nonsense Dorkballs.

So you couldn't find a single citation to support your claim?

 

[JamesRussler]

So you couldn't find a single citation to support your claim?

Read my posts more closely, Darkballs. Follows the links, read the authorities. The POTUS has peremptory authority to decide what constitutes an invasion, insurrection, rebellion, or national emergency. We don't need to debate whether it's Constitutional under the war powers or whether POTUS has emergency powers (like @waiguoren is apparently attempting, God bless him), because Congress has expressly delegated that authority to the POTUS through various acts which I've listed above. The President exercises wide discretion in determining the existence of these perils, and what action(s) to take in response. For that reason, it doesn't matter whether you or waiguoren agree with him, or whether it comports with an "Originalist" interpretation. You are not the POTUS. Your opinion means nothing. If Congress wants to limit Trump's ability to act with respect to an invasion / insurrection / rebellion / emergency, they could perhaps pass a statute with a veto-proof majority. Otherwise, they are stuck with Trump's judgment, and the Court is powerless to help. In conclusion, Trump can declare that the massive influx of illegal aliens constitutes an invasion, and you can do nothing about it. The end.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I'm a consistent textualist/originalist. I refuse consequentialist jurisprudence. See for example my disagreements with @Cubo de Sangre over the meaning of the term "arms" in the 2nd Amendment---I believe it can only include early 19th century firearms technology.

Don't know what this thread's about, and since you tagged me I'll respond.

Of all the anti-2nd arguments, this one has to be the worst. It doesn't even get out of the starting gate, unless of course you're also applying that belief to other rights (eg. speech and religion). Any word not found in the dictionary 100 years ago can be outlawed? You could be banned from using social media, or looking at any sites for that matter? No reason for a warrant to tap your phone?

 

[Darkballs]

Read my posts more closely, Darkballs. Follows the links, read the authorities. The POTUS has peremptory authority to decide what constitutes an invasion, insurrection, rebellion, or national emergency. We don't need to debate whether it's Constitutional under the war powers or whether POTUS has emergency powers (like @waiguoren is apparently attempting, God bless him), because Congress has expressly delegated that authority to the POTUS through various acts which I've listed above. The President exercises wide discretion in determining the existence of these perils, and what action(s) to take in response. For that reason, it doesn't matter whether you or waiguoren agree with him, or whether it comports with an "Originalist" interpretation. You are not the POTUS. Your opinion means nothing. If Congress wants to limit Trump's ability to act with respect to an invasion / insurrection / rebellion / emergency, they could perhaps pass a statute with a veto-proof majority. Otherwise, they are stuck with Trump's judgment, and the Court is powerless to help. In conclusion, Trump can declare that the massive influx of illegal aliens constitutes an invasion, and you can do nothing about it. The end.

Horseshit. By your definition the president has absolute rule as he can declare an insurrection at a whim. Even on matters of asylum seekers not fitting any standard or historical definition of "armed insurrection" (and stop leaving out the word "armed" just because it blows your point up). You keep sourcing basic shit, like the militia clauses/acts, expressing that the president is commander in chief. No one is disputing that. The glaringly obvious point you're missing is that asylum seekers have never, EVER, been considered an "armed insurrection" within the meaning of the militia act passed by congress. You cannot argue that an unarmed group of asylum seekers amounts to an armed insurrection, a conclusion that fails on it's face, just because the president is the primary determiner of what constitutes and invasion, insurrection, etc. Doing so, you would give the president unlimited power.

Your position is that the president has absolute authority, absent congress repealing a law, so much as he utters one of 4 magic words. That position is supported by neither: 1) Framers intent; 2) Any single case in US history; 3) a basic understanding of the english language; and 4) common fucking sense.

Proving once again, that the Federalist Society attracts only the dumbest.

 

[andnowweknow]

Horseshit. By your definition the president has absolute rule as he can declare an insurrection at a whim. Even on matters of asylum seekers not fitting any standard or historical definition of "armed insurrection" (and stop leaving out the word "armed" just because it blows your point up). You keep sourcing basic shit, like the militia clauses/acts, expressing that the president is commander in chief. No one is disputing that. The glaringly obvious point you're missing is that asylum seekers have never, EVER, been considered an "armed insurrection" within the meaning of the militia act passed by congress. You cannot argue that an unarmed group of asylum seekers amounts to an armed insurrection, a conclusion that fails on it's face, just because the president is the primary determiner of what constitutes and invasion, insurrection, etc. Doing so, you would give the president unlimited power.

Your position is that the president has absolute authority, absent congress repealing a law, so much as he utters one of 4 magic words. That position is supported by neither: 1) Framers intent; 2) Any single case in US history; 3) a basic understanding of the english language; and 4) common fucking sense.

Proving once again, that the Federalist Society attracts only the dumbest.

If he considers brown people from Mexico part of the general "enemy", what he's saying to avoid just "saying it" is about as clever as it's gonna get.

It's the dancing around things that bothers me from Trumps backup brigade.

 

[JamesRussler]

Horseshit. By your definition the president has absolute rule as he can declare an insurrection at a whim. Even on matters of asylum seekers not fitting any standard or historical definition of "armed insurrection" (and stop leaving out the word "armed" just because it blows your point up). You keep sourcing basic shit, like the militia clauses/acts, expressing that the president is commander in chief. No one is disputing that. The glaringly obvious point you're missing is that asylum seekers have never, EVER, been considered an "armed insurrection" within the meaning of the militia act passed by congress. You cannot argue that an unarmed group of asylum seekers amounts to an armed insurrection, a conclusion that fails on it's face, just because the president is the primary determiner of what constitutes and invasion, insurrection, etc. Doing so, you would give the president unlimited power.

Your position is that the president has absolute authority, absent congress repealing a law, so much as he utters one of 4 magic words. That position is supported by neither: 1) Framers intent; 2) Any single case in US history; 3) a basic understanding of the english language; and 4) common fucking sense.

Proving once again, that the Federalist Society attracts only the dumbest.

You really don't get how this works, do you? The President doesn't need to find a on-point case to exercise his peremptory authority. The only question is whether it's within his authority to act. If you want to know how this battle ends, you can look at the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the challenges to Trump's travel ban. Goodnight Sweet Prince. R.I.P.

 

[RetiredSlave]

Yooge if true. Ive been bored of Donald lately. Time for a new shtick, maybe he can try becoming the honourable statesman for a change. Hespeck the dudes ability to slip frictionless through the vices.

 

[Darkballs]

You really don't get how this works, do you? The President doesn't need to find a on-point case to exercise his peremptory authority. The only question is whether it's within his authority to act. If you want to know how this battle ends, you can look at the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the challenges to Trump's travel ban. Goodnight Sweet Prince. R.I.P.

Citing the travel ban as support for the president having the power to suspend all congressional authority on the grounds that asylum seekers amount to an armed insurrection.

Bravo. Submit this to your law review and let us know when you're published.

Your point is beyond stupid. You are saying that because the courts upheld that congress could delegate it's authority to raise a militia for the purposes of, among other things, armed insurrection; does not mean the president can unilaterally and unquestionably declare anything and everything an "armed insurrection," is in complete contradiction to all Court precedent.

You're reasoning is idiotic, and you show no citations other than a ruling on a travel ban.

You are a failure at this.