The US Constitution Is a Contract, And It Has Been Broken

originally posted by: JinMI
Really, and it's the gov't doing the smuggling......

Then it isn't an invasion, it is official action, therefore legally sanctioned.

What you describe is two tiered justice. Please explain it to me how it is not.

Because officials acting within the jurisdiction of their position is what they are supposed to do.

a reply to: JinMI

That's why I didn't just say it, I provided the applicable statutes. Then you deflected to Abbott and Desantis.....

No man. You handed that to me.

I set myself up for you to move the goalposts?

HAHAHA. Sorry, man. You getting caught in up your own word salad lies isn't me moving any goal posts. It's just you losing a point.

If Abbot and DeSantis aren't in obviously violation of the code you're so smartly flashing around, then how is the Biden Administration in violation of it?

But what we are talking about here and now is the executive branch of the US gov't breaking our laws.

The Executive Branch isn't breaking our constitutional laws. You're just butt hurt because SCOTUS didn't support Abbott's illegal and unconstitutional blockade of federal agents in Texas. And, you making up all this federal lawbreakers outrage to make up for the fact that Republicans are now refusing to act on the immigration legislation, they've been demanding Congress to act on for the past 3 years.

a reply to: daskakik

Then it isn't an invasion, it is official action, therefore legally sanctioned.

Sure, and that action violates not only the Constitution but our laws, and my argument is clear. There is only one remedy, impeachment. All these court cases don't really mean much.

Because officials acting within the jurisdiction of their position is what they are supposed to do.

Now you're describing a dictatorship on top of two tiered justice. Unless we find that a vast majority of Americans approve of the executives border actions.

C'mon, reel it back abit.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

No man. You handed that to me.

Sorry, I assumed you could read. Lesson learned.

The Executive Branch isn't breaking our constitutional laws.

I guess not reading has its merits, ignorance is bliss. /shrug

ou're just butt hurt because SCOTUS didn't support Abbott's illegal and unconstitutional blockade of federal agents in Texas.

That's funny, delusional, but funny as per the 1/4 page ruling...

a reply to: WingDingLuey

Did they say TX can't put up razor wire?

How about you tell me what happened. Who sued who, and why? Who won, if anyone, in the lower 5th Circuit Court, and why did it go to SCOTUS? Did SCOTUS uphold the lower court, or reverse it?

a reply to: JinMI

LOL
Now what are you going on about?

That's funny, delusional, but funny as per the 1/4 page ruling...

Really?

The application to vacate injunction presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. The December 19, 2023 order of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, case No. 23-50869, is vacated.
Justice Thomas, Justice Alito, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would deny the application to vacate injunction..

What's the profound message in the ruling that renders my rejection of your opinion, that the Biden Administration is violation of Federal Law, delusional?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What's the profound message in the ruling that renders my rejection of your opinion, that the Biden Administration is violation of Federal Law, delusional?

That Texas wasn't mentioned.


...at all.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I'm disappointed in you. You can't answer what the ruling said. Shame and guilt. 🤡

Looks like TX is in fact honoring The U.S. Constitutional Contract 😀

originally posted by: JinMI
Sure, and that action violates not only the Constitution but our laws, and my argument is clear. There is only one remedy, impeachment. All these court cases don't really mean much.

Not really, the Constitution doesn't address immigration. The executive has the authority to execute, as long as they stay within what the legislative has passed, and the judicial decides if it is legal or not.

I'd say the court cases mean more than you would like.

Now you're describing a dictatorship on top of two tiered justice. Unless we find that a vast majority of Americans approve of the executives border actions.

No, a dictatorship would not have limited jurisdiction.

This is all just hyperbole.

a reply to: WingDingLuey

I'm disappointed in you. You can't answer what the ruling said. Shame and guilt.

If you don't know the answers to the questions I asked you, why should I even engage you on this topic?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: WingDingLuey

I'm disappointed in you. You can't answer what the ruling said. Shame and guilt.

If you don't know the answers to the questions I asked you, why should I even engage you on this topic?

I asked first. Why deflect away from contract obligations?

We all know why and you can't hide from The Sun. It's in The Constitutional Contract that you can't seem to grasp.

😀😀🤡

a reply to: daskakik

Article 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution:

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

The executive has the authority to execute, as long as they stay within what the legislative has passed, and the judicial decides if it is legal or not.

And the statutes exists......

No, a dictatorship would not have limited jurisdiction.

This is all just hyperbole.

It's hyperbole to assert that the executive has acted again outside it's jurisdiction?

Here's a primer.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Sookiechacha

What's the profound message in the ruling that renders my rejection of your opinion, that the Biden Administration is violation of Federal Law, delusional?

That Texas wasn't mentioned.


...at all.

What is your point? Do you think the State of Texas wasn't mentioned in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals? The freaking State of Texas brought the suit in the first place!

Why you think Texas isn't implicated in this SCOTUS ruling is beyond me.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

What is your point?

My point is the exact text that you replied to.

That's it, that's all.

originally posted by: JinMI
Article 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution:

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

That just says that they have the power to pass laws and not what those laws would be like.

It really just says it is their jurisdiction.

And the statutes exists......

But they don't say Catch and Release is illegal.

It's hyperbole to assert that the executive has acted again outside it's jurisdiction?

It is hyperbole to call it an invasion just to argue the feds are tasked with stopping invasiones and since "I think" this is an invasion, they are acting illegally, this is two tier justice and a dictatorship.

a reply to: JinMI

That's no point at all.

There is no evidence that the Biden Administration is violating Federal Law. There is no break in the constitutional contract from the Biden Admission.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's no point at all.

Then why do you take such issue with it...

a reply to: JinMI

It?

You're the one saying that's IT.

a reply to: daskakik

That just says that they have the power to pass laws and not what those laws would be like.

It really just says it is their jurisdiction.

No, it says pretty specifically:

To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Which we have.

But they don't say Catch and Release is illegal.

Correct and I agree. Yet what undue position does this put back on states? Catch and release is political to its core and it's my opinion that this serves to only keep the feds in power by creating more problems.

t is hyperbole to call it an invasion just to argue the feds are tasked with stopping invasiones and since "I think" this is an invasion, they are acting illegally, this is two tier justice and a dictatorship.

Perhaps you should ask me if I think it's an invasion and what we can agree what the term invasion means instead of participating in...hyperbole.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JinMI

It?

You're the one saying that's IT.

Well, myself and SCOTUS to be clear.