|
Why must states required to follow federal law on marriage but not immigration?
|
|
Topic Started: Jan 3 2018, 09:13 PM (649 Views)
|
|
Drudge X
|
Jan 4 2018, 03:16 AM
Post #21
|
|
- Posts:
- 14,719
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
- Coast2coast
- Jan 4 2018, 02:55 AM
- Drudge X
- Jan 4 2018, 02:34 AM
- Coast2coast
- Jan 4 2018, 02:12 AM
- Drudge X
- Jan 4 2018, 01:51 AM
- Coast2coast
- Jan 4 2018, 12:40 AM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
The question is clear. Two laws, gay marriage and immigration, are federal laws. Why enforce one but not the other?
Be specific, what laws? You made the charge, why is the question then so impossible for you to supply an answer to?
Stop dodging and answer the question. I am for enforcing both laws if you must know.
What laws!!! Specifically, which laws? That's not a trick question y'know. Third dodge. I guess we know your answer.
|
|
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
|
| |
|
Coast2coast
|
Jan 4 2018, 03:50 AM
Post #22
|
|
- Posts:
- 16,018
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Drudge X
- Jan 4 2018, 03:16 AM
- Coast2coast
- Jan 4 2018, 02:55 AM
- Drudge X
- Jan 4 2018, 02:34 AM
- Coast2coast
- Jan 4 2018, 02:12 AM
- Drudge X
- Jan 4 2018, 01:51 AM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Be specific, what laws? You made the charge, why is the question then so impossible for you to supply an answer to?
Stop dodging and answer the question. I am for enforcing both laws if you must know.
What laws!!! Specifically, which laws? That's not a trick question y'know.
Third dodge. I guess we know your answer. You can't specify a law because it was a load to begin with that did not go as you obviously had hoped.
Would you like to cut your losses and request a courtesy close?
|
|
|
| |
|
Robert Stout
|
Jan 4 2018, 04:32 AM
Post #23
|
|
- Posts:
- 27,174
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #112
- Joined:
- Mar 22, 2016
|
- Coast2coast
- Jan 4 2018, 03:50 AM
- Drudge X
- Jan 4 2018, 03:16 AM
- Coast2coast
- Jan 4 2018, 02:55 AM
- Drudge X
- Jan 4 2018, 02:34 AM
- Coast2coast
- Jan 4 2018, 02:12 AM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Stop dodging and answer the question. I am for enforcing both laws if you must know.
What laws!!! Specifically, which laws? That's not a trick question y'know.
Third dodge. I guess we know your answer.
You can't specify a law because it was a load to begin with that did not go as you obviously had hoped. Would you like to cut your losses and request a courtesy close? The laws are nol and void if the illegal is Gay...............
|
|
Jesus can raise the dead, but he can't fix stupid
|
| |
|
RaiderNation
|
Jan 4 2018, 05:40 AM
Post #24
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,757
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #583
- Joined:
- Oct 24, 2017
|
One (gay marriage) is a Constitutional issue, changeable only by amendment. The other (immigration) is merely a law, which is subject to change by act of Congress.
More fail from drudge. Nice phony comparison.
|
|
Will Munny: "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it..."
|
| |
|
Coast2coast
|
Jan 4 2018, 08:02 AM
Post #25
|
|
- Posts:
- 16,018
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- RaiderNation
- Jan 4 2018, 05:40 AM
One (gay marriage) is a Constitutional issue, changeable only by amendment. The other (immigration) is merely a law, which is subject to change by act of Congress.
More fail from drudge. Nice phony comparison. I'm just trying to get him to be specific as to his claim. --> "But if states refused to comply with immigration law,..."
Which laws??? Specifically.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tsalagi
|
Jan 4 2018, 09:04 AM
Post #26
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,680
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
Would Drudge be willing to compensate local authorities for the increase in overtime, paperwork, man hours, training, and equipment necessary to assist ICE...or does he expect cities with tight budgets to do their police duties AND the duties of ICE agents without federal support.
The cities aren't breaking any laws, what they are doing is ensuring they don't have to be agents of the Federal government AND take care of their police activities.
Drudge, C2C asked a very valid question, you could have done a few minutes research into what aspect of Federal Law was being broken, or circumvented. Just saying "Immigration" is not a law...just like saying "Gay Marriage Law"...what you would be asking for is authority under the Equal Protection Clasue of the Constitution....etc..etc...
So please stipulate to what Federal Law these cities are not in compliance with.
|
|
|
| |
|
Drudge X
|
Jan 4 2018, 10:07 AM
Post #27
|
|
- Posts:
- 14,719
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #11
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
It's not hard really.
CA is impeding data sharing. The state is under obligations to fulfill federal request to exchange data on the detainee and comply with federal request.
The state simply cannot order its law enforcement agencies to refuse to provide data on illegal immigrants. That's the same as the governor of Mississippi ordering all city clerks to refuse to issue marriage licences for gay couples.
|
|
Kate Steinle was separated from her family permanently but leftists didn't seem to mind.
|
| |
|
PATruth
|
Jan 4 2018, 10:16 AM
Post #28
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,211
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #271
- Joined:
- Jul 6, 2016
|
There's an easy fix, hold politicians legally responsible for the crimes committed by the illegal aliens they protected. As far as I'm concerned they are an accessory to the crime.
"An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement."
|
"No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
|
| |
|
Tsalagi
|
Jan 4 2018, 10:25 AM
Post #29
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,680
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Drudge X
- Jan 4 2018, 10:07 AM
It's not hard really.
CA is impeding data sharing. The state is under obligations to fulfill federal request to exchange data on the detainee and comply with federal request.
The state simply cannot order its law enforcement agencies to refuse to provide data on illegal immigrants. That's the same as the governor of Mississippi ordering all city clerks to refuse to issue marriage licences for gay couples. Actually, it's a bad analogy...and there are 4th Amendment issues, as well, but let's go with your premise, what Law does this "obligation" fall under...and besides, are you all bout State's Rights?
|
|
|
| |
|
Tsalagi
|
Jan 4 2018, 10:38 AM
Post #30
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,680
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 10:16 AM
There's an easy fix, hold politicians legally responsible for the crimes committed by the illegal aliens they protected. As far as I'm concerned they are an accessory to the crime.
"An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement."
Hmm..interesting legal argument...but it might open up a can of worms for other precedents from other avenues previously not thought off...Where is the line as to the original criminal, why stop at illegals...For example...4,000 dead American military personnel as a result of our military enterprises in Iraq and Afghanistan, all without an Official Declaration of War as required by the Constitution, thus the deaths and 20, 000 wounded could make the Bush Administration and Obama Administration's if not chargeable for negligent homocide..reckless endangerment.
For an Admnistration to remove EPA regulations which could prevent illnesses due to toxic spills, or deaths due to automobile accidents, etc..etc...
I don't think you want to see where your position could lead to.
|
|
|
| |
|
PATruth
|
Jan 4 2018, 10:43 AM
Post #31
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,211
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #271
- Joined:
- Jul 6, 2016
|
- Tsalagi
- Jan 4 2018, 10:38 AM
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 10:16 AM
There's an easy fix, hold politicians legally responsible for the crimes committed by the illegal aliens they protected. As far as I'm concerned they are an accessory to the crime.
"An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement."
Hmm..interesting legal argument...but it might open up a can of worms for other precedents from other avenues previously not thought off...Where is the line as to the original criminal, why stop at illegals...For example...4,000 dead American military personnel as a result of our military enterprises in Iraq and Afghanistan, all without an Official Declaration of War as required by the Constitution, thus the deaths and 20, 000 wounded could make the Bush Administration and Obama Administration's if not chargeable for negligent homocide..reckless endangerment. For an Admnistration to remove EPA regulations which could prevent illnesses due to toxic spills, or deaths due to automobile accidents, etc..etc... I don't think you want to see where your position could lead to. Actually I would love to see where my position would lead. It's called responsibility and as of now it is completely lacking in politics. Corporations are held responsible for their products, why shouldn't politicians be held responsible for their legislation? Any politicians that willingly protects violent criminals is an accessory and a criminal. Prison and losing their government pension would be a real incentive for responsible leadership.
|
"No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
|
| |
|
Tsalagi
|
Jan 4 2018, 10:50 AM
Post #32
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,680
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 10:43 AM
- Tsalagi
- Jan 4 2018, 10:38 AM
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 10:16 AM
There's an easy fix, hold politicians legally responsible for the crimes committed by the illegal aliens they protected. As far as I'm concerned they are an accessory to the crime.
"An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement."
Hmm..interesting legal argument...but it might open up a can of worms for other precedents from other avenues previously not thought off...Where is the line as to the original criminal, why stop at illegals...For example...4,000 dead American military personnel as a result of our military enterprises in Iraq and Afghanistan, all without an Official Declaration of War as required by the Constitution, thus the deaths and 20, 000 wounded could make the Bush Administration and Obama Administration's if not chargeable for negligent homocide..reckless endangerment. For an Admnistration to remove EPA regulations which could prevent illnesses due to toxic spills, or deaths due to automobile accidents, etc..etc... I don't think you want to see where your position could lead to.
Actually I would love to see where my position would lead. It's called responsibility and as of now it is completely lacking in politics. Corporations are held responsible for their products, why shouldn't politicians be held responsible for their legislation? Any politicians that willingly protects violent criminals is an accessory and a criminal. Prison and losing their government pension would be a real incentive for responsible leadership. So when our CIA works with some of the worst elements of society overseas, those governments could sue the US Federal Government for any deaths of their citizens then, and as regards corporations held liable for their products...pshaw...most times they are so well insulated in legal protections, they don't really pay for any deaths by their products.
Edited by Tsalagi, Jan 4 2018, 10:51 AM.
|
|
|
| |
|
PATruth
|
Jan 4 2018, 11:22 AM
Post #33
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,211
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #271
- Joined:
- Jul 6, 2016
|
- Tsalagi
- Jan 4 2018, 10:50 AM
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 10:43 AM
- Tsalagi
- Jan 4 2018, 10:38 AM
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 10:16 AM
There's an easy fix, hold politicians legally responsible for the crimes committed by the illegal aliens they protected. As far as I'm concerned they are an accessory to the crime.
"An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement."
Hmm..interesting legal argument...but it might open up a can of worms for other precedents from other avenues previously not thought off...Where is the line as to the original criminal, why stop at illegals...For example...4,000 dead American military personnel as a result of our military enterprises in Iraq and Afghanistan, all without an Official Declaration of War as required by the Constitution, thus the deaths and 20, 000 wounded could make the Bush Administration and Obama Administration's if not chargeable for negligent homocide..reckless endangerment. For an Admnistration to remove EPA regulations which could prevent illnesses due to toxic spills, or deaths due to automobile accidents, etc..etc... I don't think you want to see where your position could lead to.
Actually I would love to see where my position would lead. It's called responsibility and as of now it is completely lacking in politics. Corporations are held responsible for their products, why shouldn't politicians be held responsible for their legislation? Any politicians that willingly protects violent criminals is an accessory and a criminal. Prison and losing their government pension would be a real incentive for responsible leadership.
So when our CIA works with some of the worst elements of society overseas, those governments could sue the US Federal Government for any deaths of their citizens then, and as regards corporations held liable for their products...pshaw...most times they are so well insulated in legal protections, they don't really pay for any deaths by their products. If you have a problem holding government employees accountable for their actions just say so.
|
"No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
|
| |
|
Harambe4Trump
|
Jan 4 2018, 11:31 AM
Post #34
|
|
- Posts:
- 17,324
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #42
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Tsalagi
- Jan 4 2018, 10:38 AM
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 10:16 AM
There's an easy fix, hold politicians legally responsible for the crimes committed by the illegal aliens they protected. As far as I'm concerned they are an accessory to the crime.
"An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement."
Hmm..interesting legal argument...but it might open up a can of worms for other precedents from other avenues previously not thought off...Where is the line as to the original criminal, why stop at illegals...For example...4,000 dead American military personnel as a result of our military enterprises in Iraq and Afghanistan, all without an Official Declaration of War as required by the Constitution, thus the deaths and 20, 000 wounded could make the Bush Administration and Obama Administration's if not chargeable for negligent homocide..reckless endangerment. For an Admnistration to remove EPA regulations which could prevent illnesses due to toxic spills, or deaths due to automobile accidents, etc..etc... I don't think you want to see where your position could lead to. Sounds great to me. Those 4,000 had their lives thrown away for nothing
|
Skipping leg day is the equivalent of a woman having an abortion. You're ashamed of it, and it was probably unnecessary. #MAGA #wallsnotwars
|
| |
|
Tsalagi
|
Jan 4 2018, 11:35 AM
Post #35
|
|
- Posts:
- 9,680
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #34
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 11:22 AM
- Tsalagi
- Jan 4 2018, 10:50 AM
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 10:43 AM
- Tsalagi
- Jan 4 2018, 10:38 AM
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 10:16 AM
There's an easy fix, hold politicians legally responsible for the crimes committed by the illegal aliens they protected. As far as I'm concerned they are an accessory to the crime.
"An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal. The distinction between an accessory and a principal is a question of fact and degree:
The principal is the one whose acts or omissions, accompanied by the relevant mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind"), are the most immediate cause of the actus reus (Latin for "guilty act").
If two or more people are directly responsible for the actus reus, they can be charged as joint principals (see common purpose). The test to distinguish a joint principal from an accessory is whether the defendant independently contributed to causing the actus reus rather than merely giving generalised and/or limited help and encouragement."
Hmm..interesting legal argument...but it might open up a can of worms for other precedents from other avenues previously not thought off...Where is the line as to the original criminal, why stop at illegals...For example...4,000 dead American military personnel as a result of our military enterprises in Iraq and Afghanistan, all without an Official Declaration of War as required by the Constitution, thus the deaths and 20, 000 wounded could make the Bush Administration and Obama Administration's if not chargeable for negligent homocide..reckless endangerment. For an Admnistration to remove EPA regulations which could prevent illnesses due to toxic spills, or deaths due to automobile accidents, etc..etc... I don't think you want to see where your position could lead to.
Actually I would love to see where my position would lead. It's called responsibility and as of now it is completely lacking in politics. Corporations are held responsible for their products, why shouldn't politicians be held responsible for their legislation? Any politicians that willingly protects violent criminals is an accessory and a criminal. Prison and losing their government pension would be a real incentive for responsible leadership.
So when our CIA works with some of the worst elements of society overseas, those governments could sue the US Federal Government for any deaths of their citizens then, and as regards corporations held liable for their products...pshaw...most times they are so well insulated in legal protections, they don't really pay for any deaths by their products.
If you have a problem holding government employees accountable for their actions just say so. I'm merely asking a question...your position would open the floodgates on any number of scenarios and I just want you to understand the ramifications of your position.
I'm all for holding them responsible for "their" actions yes...not anyone else's. But if we're going this route...the deaths of over a 1000 of my Marine brethren can be laid at the foot of the Federal Government..to whom do I seek compensation for that on behalf of their loved ones?
|
|
|
| |
|
Harambe4Trump
|
Jan 4 2018, 11:37 AM
Post #36
|
|
- Posts:
- 17,324
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #42
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Tsalagi
- Jan 4 2018, 11:35 AM
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 11:22 AM
- Tsalagi
- Jan 4 2018, 10:50 AM
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 10:43 AM
- Tsalagi
- Jan 4 2018, 10:38 AM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Actually I would love to see where my position would lead. It's called responsibility and as of now it is completely lacking in politics. Corporations are held responsible for their products, why shouldn't politicians be held responsible for their legislation? Any politicians that willingly protects violent criminals is an accessory and a criminal. Prison and losing their government pension would be a real incentive for responsible leadership.
So when our CIA works with some of the worst elements of society overseas, those governments could sue the US Federal Government for any deaths of their citizens then, and as regards corporations held liable for their products...pshaw...most times they are so well insulated in legal protections, they don't really pay for any deaths by their products.
If you have a problem holding government employees accountable for their actions just say so.
I'm merely asking a question...your position would open the floodgates on any number of scenarios and I just want you to understand the ramifications of your position. I'm all for holding them responsible for "their" actions yes...not anyone else's. But if we're going this route...the deaths of over a 1000 of my Marine brethren can be laid at the foot of the Federal Government..to whom do I seek compensation for that on behalf of their loved ones? Why not Bush and the Congress which authorizes?
And why not LBJ?
|
Skipping leg day is the equivalent of a woman having an abortion. You're ashamed of it, and it was probably unnecessary. #MAGA #wallsnotwars
|
| |
|
RaiderNation
|
Jan 4 2018, 11:41 AM
Post #37
|
|
- Posts:
- 3,757
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #583
- Joined:
- Oct 24, 2017
|
- Harambe4Trump
- Jan 4 2018, 11:37 AM
- Tsalagi
- Jan 4 2018, 11:35 AM
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 11:22 AM
- Tsalagi
- Jan 4 2018, 10:50 AM
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 10:43 AM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
So when our CIA works with some of the worst elements of society overseas, those governments could sue the US Federal Government for any deaths of their citizens then, and as regards corporations held liable for their products...pshaw...most times they are so well insulated in legal protections, they don't really pay for any deaths by their products.
If you have a problem holding government employees accountable for their actions just say so.
I'm merely asking a question...your position would open the floodgates on any number of scenarios and I just want you to understand the ramifications of your position. I'm all for holding them responsible for "their" actions yes...not anyone else's. But if we're going this route...the deaths of over a 1000 of my Marine brethren can be laid at the foot of the Federal Government..to whom do I seek compensation for that on behalf of their loved ones?
Why not Bush and the Congress which authorizes? And why not LBJ? And that RIGHT THERE is why that scenario will never, ever, happen.
|
|
Will Munny: "Deserve's got nothin' to do with it..."
|
| |
|
PATruth
|
Jan 4 2018, 11:43 AM
Post #38
|
|
- Posts:
- 5,211
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #271
- Joined:
- Jul 6, 2016
|
- Tsalagi
- Jan 4 2018, 11:35 AM
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 11:22 AM
- Tsalagi
- Jan 4 2018, 10:50 AM
- PATruth
- Jan 4 2018, 10:43 AM
- Tsalagi
- Jan 4 2018, 10:38 AM
Quoting limited to 5 levels deep
Actually I would love to see where my position would lead. It's called responsibility and as of now it is completely lacking in politics. Corporations are held responsible for their products, why shouldn't politicians be held responsible for their legislation? Any politicians that willingly protects violent criminals is an accessory and a criminal. Prison and losing their government pension would be a real incentive for responsible leadership.
So when our CIA works with some of the worst elements of society overseas, those governments could sue the US Federal Government for any deaths of their citizens then, and as regards corporations held liable for their products...pshaw...most times they are so well insulated in legal protections, they don't really pay for any deaths by their products.
If you have a problem holding government employees accountable for their actions just say so.
I'm merely asking a question...your position would open the floodgates on any number of scenarios and I just want you to understand the ramifications of your position. I'm all for holding them responsible for "their" actions yes...not anyone else's. But if we're going this route...the deaths of over a 1000 of my Marine brethren can be laid at the foot of the Federal Government..to whom do I seek compensation for that on behalf of their loved ones? If it's determined a military operation was conducted for any reason other than national security then I expect the president or the military to be held responsible for their actions. When a politician knowingly shields a criminal from arrest they should be treated as an accessory to the crimes they commit. It's not that complicated.
Edited by PATruth, Jan 4 2018, 11:44 AM.
|
"No. No he won't. We'll stop it."
|
| |
|
Robertr2000
|
Jan 4 2018, 11:56 AM
Post #39
|
|
- Posts:
- 12,361
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #43
- Joined:
- Mar 18, 2016
|
- Drudge X
- Jan 3 2018, 10:24 PM
- Coast2coast
- Jan 3 2018, 09:35 PM
- Drudge X
- Jan 3 2018, 09:32 PM
- Coast2coast
- Jan 3 2018, 09:29 PM
- Drudge X
- Jan 3 2018, 09:20 PM
Last I heard, the governor takes an oath to defend this country against domestic and foreign enemies before taking office.
So does the President but he has been absent from carrying it out. Doesn't seem to be a problem for you so what's your beef about it?
This has nothing to do with Trump. You do remember what happened to that city clerk, forgot the state, Kansas, who refused to issue gay marriage license right. Jerry Brown should be behind bars for betraying this country.
You brought up taking and fulfilling the oath of office. So you widened the topic. I take it we are at the end with the oath road then?
Quit dodging. If you can't answer admit it. Both are federal laws. Why the left believe they can cherry pick. what about state Drivers Licenses?
|
|
"if that **** wins we'll all hang from nooses"
|
| |
|
Demagogue
|
Jan 4 2018, 11:59 AM
Post #40
|
|
Administrator
- Posts:
- 8,219
- Group:
- Admins
- Member
- #1
- Joined:
- Mar 17, 2016
|
Another example beyond immigration laws would be drug laws. Under federal law marijuana is illegal. A number of states have laws making it legal there. Many of our liberal friends support these states in their efforts.
Federal law currently states that homosexual marriage must be recognized. Why can't states simply do what they have done with the marijuana? Would our left wing friends support these state level efforts in the same way that they support them on recreational drugs.
Personally I think the best government is local government so I support states rights issues. If California wants to allow a flood of illegal aliens to enter their state then more power to them. Mind you, the other 49 states should not have to pay for that decision and the federal government should be permitted to pull funding for anything that helps those illegal aliens.
|
|
People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would do them harm.
|
| |
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
|