Trump Ignores the Courts

#2,028
#2,028
C-south said:
I’ll rephrase. They need to severely limit qualified immunity. At least make the department, city, state, etc liable for things if not the individual.
Click to expand...


They can be in state court and also can be in federal court, under certain circumstances. Google Monell.
 
#2,029
#2,029
lawgator1 said:
They can be in state court and also can be in federal court, under certain circumstances. Google Monell.
Click to expand...

I may check that out later. I’ve seen instances where a cop causes an accident, it’s on their video, and they make the person they hit file it on their own insurance…medical and auto. That is ridiculous.
 
#2,030
#2,030
C-south said:
I may check that out later. I’ve seen instances where a cop causes an accident, it’s on their video, and they make the person they hit file it on their own insurance…medical and auto. That is ridiculous.
Click to expand...


That would have nothing to do with qualified immunity. Thats an immunity from suit for federal civil rights violations and its not absolute immunity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol8188
#2,032
#2,032
CobbVol said:
Good news. Birthright citizenship should only apply to children of US citizens. Hopefully the court helps to move toward that direction.
Click to expand...
I hope they took the hearing just to smash it.

Don’t like the Constitution? Then change the damn Constitution.

We don’t need the Court stepping into to interpret what it “ought” to mean - that’s the same thing the 2A haters have been trying to bring about for decades.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, NorthDallas40, hog88 and 2 others
#2,033
#2,033
85SugarVol said:
I hope they took the hearing just to smash it.

Don’t like the Constitution? Then change the damn Constitution.

We don’t need the Court stepping into to interpret what it “ought” to mean - that’s the same thing the 2A haters have been trying to bring about for decades.
Click to expand...

But there are laws that limit the 2A. NFA. Background checks. Age restrictions. Etc. Having laws that entail birthright citizenship and consequences of those that abuse it should be fine. We don’t have to end it but we can sure offer up a deterrent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol and CobbVol
#2,034
#2,034
C-south said:
But there are laws that limit the 2A. NFA. Background checks. Age restrictions. Etc. Having laws that entail birthright citizenship and consequences of those that abuse it should be fine. We don’t have to end it but we can sure offer up a deterrent.
Click to expand...
I've shared before that the issue could be solved by restricting dual citizenship and familial entitlements of those related to dual citizens.

My sister was born in Japan (we were military brats), as my dad was stationed there. When his deployment ended my parents were extended no rights to residency. They were given the option to take her with us, or turn her over to the state. Upon turning 18, she was given approximately 6 months to revoke her American citizenship if she wanted to keep her Japanese citizenship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, norrislakevol, whodeycin85 and 4 others
#2,035
#2,035
85SugarVol said:
I hope they took the hearing just to smash it.

Don’t like the Constitution? Then change the damn Constitution.

We don’t need the Court stepping into to interpret what it “ought” to mean - that’s the same thing the 2A haters have been trying to bring about for decades.
Click to expand...

But that is the thing, that isn't what the Constitution says imo and you can look at the record as to that as well. We'll see how it turns out later in the year. I'm fine with it either way, but all this dual citizenship needs to end and statutory time limit to declare, I don't think you need an amendment for that.
 
#2,036
#2,036
LSU-SIU said:
But that is the thing, that isn't what the Constitution says imo and you can look at the record as to that as well. We'll see how it turns out later in the year. I'm fine with it either way, but all this dual citizenship needs to end and statutory time limit to declare, I don't think you need an amendment for that.
Click to expand...
So what does the Constitution say, for those of us not privy to your powers of vocabulary?
 
#2,037
#2,037
EasternVol said:
So what does the Constitution say, for those of us not privy to your powers of vocabulary?
Click to expand...

Well, isn't the President the commander in chief? What do you think has been going on since the time of your birth, you think the Presidents have been killing people as part of a crime?

Once you step over that imaginary border, you're fair game... heck, DOJ's position has been even an American is fair game.
 
Last edited:
#2,038
#2,038
LSU-SIU said:
Well, isn't the President the commander in chief? What do you think has been going on since the time of your birth, you think the Presidents have been killing people as part of a crime?

Once you step over that imaginary border, you're fair game... heck, DOJ's position has been even an American is fair game.
Click to expand...
What wording in the Constitution supports your statement?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11 and NorthDallas40
#2,039
#2,039
The Supreme Court has halted the deportations we've been discussing under the Act. Will Trump abide by the ruling ?
 
#2,040
#2,040
EasternVol said:
The question was 'what does the Constitution say', not 'can you come up with some more drivel'.
What wording in the Constitution supports your statement?
Click to expand...

I'm not your bitch. If you want to be a moronic stupid troll, that is your business. You sound like a complete idiot on this forum.
 
#2,041
#2,041
lawgator1 said:
The Supreme Court has halted the deportations we've been discussing under the Act. Will Trump abide by the ruling ?
Click to expand...

I would think they would comply temporarily and its not a national wide halt, but this seems like their order would be contrary to their analysis in Trump v J.G.G., if it pertains to a group or class.... from what I can gather its 30 men.

In other news, the contempt order by nutjob boasberg has been temporarily stayed by appeals.
 
Last edited:
#2,043
#2,043
LSU-SIU said:
But that is the thing, that isn't what the Constitution says imo and you can look at the record as to that as well. We'll see how it turns out later in the year. I'm fine with it either way, but all this dual citizenship needs to end and statutory time limit to declare, I don't think you need an amendment for that.
Click to expand...
That isn’t what the Constitution says in your opinion?

What does it say, in your opinion?

And are we going to allow Luther & LG tell us what the 2A means in their opinion?
 
  • Like
Reactions: NashVol11, Orangeslice13 and NorthDallas40
#2,044
#2,044
85SugarVol said:
That isn’t what the Constitution says in your opinion?

What does it say, in your opinion?

And are we going to allow Luther & LG tell us what the 2A means in their opinion?
Click to expand...

My opinion based on the Constitution and the prior Supreme Court case and record its not a given that a person born here is automatically an American. Transitional people and illegals would generally fall into that in my opinion, the Supreme Court case touches on some of these issues and its pretty clear that not everyone is entitled to be an American if born here... matter of fact, some American Indians (see Indians Citizenship Act) very well might not be.

I think there is most likely validity to this, but on the other end... I would not suspect the present Supreme Court to rule that way.

Dual citizenship should not be recognized long-term, I further think Congress could possibly handle that without any Constitutional Amendments????

We'll see how it turns out later in the year, I probably wouldn't take a bet either way.
 
#2,047
#2,047
MemphisVol77 said:
I've shared before that the issue could be solved by restricting dual citizenship and familial entitlements of those related to dual citizens.

My sister was born in Japan (we were military brats), as my dad was stationed there. When his deployment ended my parents were extended no rights to residency. They were given the option to take her with us, or turn her over to the state. Upon turning 18, she was given approximately 6 months to revoke her American citizenship if she wanted to keep her Japanese citizenship.
Click to expand...
It's really this simple ^^^^^
 
#2,049
#2,049
MemphisVol77 said:
I've shared before that the issue could be solved by restricting dual citizenship and familial entitlements of those related to dual citizens.

My sister was born in Japan (we were military brats), as my dad was stationed there. When his deployment ended my parents were extended no rights to residency. They were given the option to take her with us, or turn her over to the state. Upon turning 18, she was given approximately 6 months to revoke her American citizenship if she wanted to keep her Japanese citizenship.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, we should not allow dual citizenship. That could be done with simple legislation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland, SpaceCoastVol, UT_Dutchman and 3 others
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top