By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zucas on 31 October 2018
Edit Thread
Machiavellian said:
LiquorandGunFun said:

obviously it will be a court issue, if Trump decides to do so. but im glad someone has the balls to speak up about how stupid it is that its allowed.

as far as king barack, since you brought it up.

  • A federal judge said his funding for Obamacare was unconstitutional.
  • A court was told Obama’s gun-control plans “exceed the powers of the president.”
  • National Review columnist Ilya Shapiro once pointed out Obama’s 10 top constitutional violations of 2015, including financial bailouts.
  • His belief that “gay” trumps religion in the U.S. Constitution.
  • His ordering of religious believers to provide abortion pills in violation of their faith.
  • The Iran deal.
  • Obama’s amnesty plan.
  • His agenda to enact same-sex “marriage.”
  • His recess appointments.
  • His refusal to deport illegal aliens.
  • His attempt to coerce Catholics to support birth control
  • His mandate over private health care records.
  • His orders that schools and public buildings open women’s restrooms to men who say they are women.
  • His insistence that states cannot deprive abortionists of public funding.
  • That the feds can orders states not to enforce immigration laws.
  • That the federal government can simply change definitions of words in federal law, even though it may cost Americans.
  • That he can decide which people will be allowed to move into certain neighborhoods.
  • That he can decide who faces prosecution.
  • That he can change the Constitution’s language, from “freedom of religion” to “freedom of worship.”
  • That he can dictate speech codes
  • That the IRS can selectively target Christians and conservatives because they disagree with Obama’s policies.

    • Read more at https://www.wnd.com/2016/11/obama-claims-presidents-have-power-to-violate-constitution/#lVcco8XK37pVovec.99
    there are links,  they worked for me, if they dont work google it, im not doing all the homework for you. though i wouldnt be surprised if you were ok with them, doesnt make them constitutional. The reason why Trump was able to basically roll back everything obama did was executive action can be undone as easily as it was signed, it needs to go through congress to not be basically undone so easily. too bad his ideas were bullshit.

    This has nothing to do with balls but instead him wanting to throw some meat to his base.  If he had the balls to bring this up then he would have the balls to go through the proper channels and get Congress to bring it to a vote.  Trump working within the system and the powers of his office, negotiating and getting things done is what takes balls.  

    As for you doing homework for me, lol.  I have read plenty of pros and cons for what the president can do.  All of it is theory when it comes to the constitution.  Throwing Obama name into the hate means nothing to me since I didn't even vote for him.  Every time someone has an issue with the policies Trump want to do it seems people like you want to throw Hillary or Obama into the hat as if that absolves what the current administration is doing.  Out of all those links, the GOP kept praising how this is a constitution win like Obamacare funding.  If that is the case why would they want another example of the President overreach.  

    As I stated in my original post, yes this will probably go to the SC but my personal opinion is that it still needs proper due process.

    Oh you don't need to comment on anything in those posts. Nothing in there is legally sufficient or shows any understanding of how the courts interpret the Constitution. Neither the poster or the writer of those articles should be doing any homework for anyone about these issues. 

    As a note, this is not really about due process. Just that the type of issue that would be brought up has relatively little legal history. It's quite possible the SC wouldn't even take the case because of past court precedent. There isn't much legal scholarship suggesting that the 14th Amendment doesn't encapsulate birthright citizenship. The argument the court would possibly take on is whether or not "subject to the jurisdiction of" covers those that enter illegally. I don't think that argument has too much weight though because no one would suggest that if someone illegally entered and committed a crime, that the US wouldn't have jurisdiction to prosecute. TBH that statement was mainly meant to say that foreign diplomats and indigenous tribes were not covered by this. While being within the physical jurisdiction of the US, they were subject to other powers.