Trump EO Overturned

[OuterBanksVol]

Judge rules Trump's sanctuary city order unconstitutional - CNNPolitics

Rule of law 1, Trump 0.

 

[Vol8188]

Judge rules Trump's sanctuary city order unconstitutional - CNNPolitics

Rule of law 1, Trump 0.

I'm not one to care about "the rule of law":

but if sanctuary cities won, "the rule of law" lost.

 

[golfballs]

Judge rules Trump's sanctuary city order unconstitutional - CNNPolitics

Rule of law 1, Trump 0.

Quit pretending to be a Republican

 

[golfballs]

I'm not one to care about "the rule of law":

but if sanctuary cities won, "the rule of law" lost.

Right. Sanctuary cities are - by definition - literally ignoring the rule of law.

The scorecard looks more like:

Lawlessness - 1
Rule of Law - 0

 

[davethevol]

"This is a victory for the American people and the rule of law," San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement. "This executive order was unconstitutional before the ink on it was even dry.
"We live in a democracy. No one is above the law, including the president."

There’s a reason we aren’t a democracy. It’s to keep idiots from having majority rule.

 

[tumscalcium]

"This is a victory for the American people and the rule of law," San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement. "This executive order was unconstitutional before the ink on it was even dry.
"We live in a democracy. No one is above the law, including the president."

There’s a reason we aren’t a democracy. It’s to keep idiots from having majority rule.

Not adhering to the rule of law is a win for the rule of law? Retards.

 

[rjd970]

I'm not one to care about "the rule of law":

but if sanctuary cities won, "the rule of law" lost.

Yep.

 

[OuterBanksVol]

I'm not one to care about "the rule of law":

but if sanctuary cities won, "the rule of law" lost.

So, you'd naturally advocate that the federal government should begin arresting pot smokers in states where it's legal. And I thought Republicans advocated less federal government? Ahhh the hypocracy.

 

[hog88]

So, you'd naturally advocate that the federal government should begin arresting pot smokers in states where it's legal. And I thought Republicans advocated less federal government? Ahhh the hypocracy.

Big difference between cutting off funding and arresting people.

 

[Madscientistvol]

So, you'd naturally advocate that the federal government should begin arresting pot smokers in states where it's legal. And I thought Republicans advocated less federal government? Ahhh the hypocracy.

Picking and choosing which laws to follow smh. The federal govt should have rolled in there and shut that down. I'm pro legalization, but letting the states flaunt federal law seems to me bad precedent.

Also, I skimmed the article and didn't see where it mentioned on what grounds it was unconstitutional. Seems to me to be the same concept that the fed govt used to unify the drinking age to 21 nationwide, is that unconstitutional as well?

 

[OuterBanksVol]

Big difference between cutting off funding and arresting people.

"The White House had threatened to cut federal law enforcement grants from cities that fought Trump’s efforts to combat undocumented immigration and said it would publicly shame localities that failed to comply with attempts to increase deportations."

You were saying? *cough*

 

[OuterBanksVol]

Picking and choosing which laws to follow smh. The federal govt should have rolled in there and shut that down. I'm pro legalization, but letting the states flaunt federal law seems to me bad precedent.

Also, I skimmed the article and didn't see where it mentioned on what grounds it was unconstitutional. Seems to me to be the same concept that the fed govt used to unify the drinking age to 21 nationwide, is that unconstitutional as well?

The funds in question were already approved by Congress. Ergo, Trump is trying to have the executive branch legislate. No sir. Unconstitutional per the court's ruling.

 

[Vol8188]

So, you'd naturally advocate that the federal government should begin arresting pot smokers in states where it's legal. And I thought Republicans advocated less federal government? Ahhh the hypocracy.

Did you not read the first sentence? "I'm not one to care about the rule of law".

That's how you know someone is trolling. When they have a response ready for you, without even reading what you said.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

"This is a victory for the American people and the rule of law," San Francisco city attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement. "This executive order was unconstitutional before the ink on it was even dry.
"We live in a democracy. No one is above the law, including the president."

There’s a reason we aren’t a democracy. It’s to keep idiots from having majority rule.

We DO NOT live in a pure democracy. The Founding Fathers distinctly opposed establishing a pure democracy.
-----------------------------
Democracy Versus Republic {Stop calling it a Democracy}

..."Benjamin Franklin said, that we could keep it, and when they guaranteed to
every state within that "republic" a "republican form" of government, they
well knew the significance of the terms they were using. And were doing all
in their power to make the feature of government signified by those terms
as permanent as possible. They also knew very well indeed the meaning of
the word democracy, and the history of democracies; and they were
deliberately doing everything in their power to avoid for their own times,
and to prevent for the future, the evils of a democracy."...
----------------------

We live in a democratic REPUBLIC.

Big difference.

United States: Republic or Democracy?

 

[OuterBanksVol]

We DO NOT live in a pure democracy. The Founding Fathers distinctly opposed establishing a pure democracy.
-----------------------------
Democracy Versus Republic {Stop calling it a Democracy}

..."Benjamin Franklin said, that we could keep it, and when they guaranteed to
every state within that "republic" a "republican form" of government, they
well knew the significance of the terms they were using. And were doing all
in their power to make the feature of government signified by those terms
as permanent as possible. They also knew very well indeed the meaning of
the word democracy, and the history of democracies; and they were
deliberately doing everything in their power to avoid for their own times,
and to prevent for the future, the evils of a democracy."...
----------------------

We live in a democratic REPUBLIC.

Big difference.

United States: Republic or Democracy?

True. In this case the state democracy has, once again, rejected the Big Brother federal republic. See: Pot.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

The funds in question were already approved by Congress. Ergo, Trump is trying to have the executive branch legislate. No sir. Unconstitutional per the court's ruling.

However, that's not true.
In fact, this judge is overstepping the bounds of the Judiciary in attempting to prevent the Chief Executive from carrying out (executing) existing law dealing with lawbreakers who ignore the laws of immigration AS THEY ARE WRITTEN and is a constitutionally delineated jurisdiction of the Executive Office to enforce.

The judge wrote an opinion that is FOS.

 

[OuterBanksVol]

However, that's not true.
In fact, this judge is overstepping the bounds of the Judiciary in attempting to prevent the Chief Executive from carrying out (executing) existing law dealing with lawbreakers who ignore the laws of immigration AS THEY ARE WRITTEN and is a constitutionally delineated jurisdiction of the Executive Office to enforce.

The judge wrote an opinion that is FOS.

Well, the Court disagrees as a legal matter. 300+ sanctuary cities disagree as a practical matter. So, there it is. Deal with it.

 

[tumscalcium]

Well, the Court disagrees as a legal matter. 300+ sanctuary cities disagree as a practical matter. So, there it is. Deal with it.

A judge.

It’s not a practical issue, they go out of their way to harbor illegals.

 

[tumscalcium]

Well, the Court disagrees as a legal matter. 300+ sanctuary cities disagree as a practical matter. So, there it is. Deal with it.

That’s your advice to the victims of their crimes, eh? Raped, assaulted, killed by people who have no business being in the country. The victims and their families need to just deal with it huh? Nothing could have been done.

 

[n_huffhines]

I'm not one to care about "the rule of law":

but if sanctuary cities won, "the rule of law" lost.

POTUS cannot obligate/compel local law enforcement to spend their budget on federal priorities. Sorry.

 

[OuterBanksVol]

That’s your advice to the victims of their crimes, eh? Raped, assaulted, killed by people who have no business being in the country. The victims and their families need to just deal with it huh? Nothing could have been done.

Throw the baby out with the bath water? Most of these people are hard working law abiding folks who do the jobs that many of us would not.

 

[n_huffhines]

Picking and choosing which laws to follow smh. The federal govt should have rolled in there and shut that down. I'm pro legalization, but letting the states flaunt federal law seems to me bad precedent.

We live in a world of scarcity. For local governments, $ and labor is scarce. Budget spent on immigration is budget not spent on rape, murder, etc. It's inevitable that they pick and choose which laws to follow.

 

[hog88]

"The White House had threatened to cut federal law enforcement grants from cities that fought Trump’s efforts to combat undocumented immigration and said it would publicly shame localities that failed to comply with attempts to increase deportations."

You were saying? *cough*

I was saying that cutting off funding is different from arresting people. Did I stutter?

 

[hog88]

The funds in question were already approved by Congress. Ergo, Trump is trying to have the executive branch legislate. No sir. Unconstitutional per the court's ruling.

Under that standard most every action a POTUS takes that requires federal spending is unconstitutional.

This will get to SCOTUS and be overturned as the majority of theses rulings have been.

 

[OuterBanksVol]

I was saying that cutting off funding is different from arresting people. Did I stutter?

If the feds cut law enforcement $, it's one in the same... can't arrest someone without law enforcement personnel. Derp.