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

a reply to: JinMI
Invasion is what the OP said, two tiers justice and dictatorship was what you said.

that is why I said "this is all..."

End of the day, you don't get to rule on what is and isn't legal.

Wait what timeline are you in? Bidin Is not the president.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: JinMI
Invasion is what the OP said, two tiers justice and dictatorship was what you said.

that is why I said "this is all..."

End of the day, you don't get to rule on what is and isn't legal.

I took your statements, brought them to their logical conclusion in attempt to show you what you are advocating for. Like what you did here:

End of the day, you don't get to rule on what is and isn't legal.

What is a jury exactly in your estimation?

a reply to: JinMI

Clear? Was SCOTUS clear? SCOTUS lifted the injunction, imposed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, brought by Texas AG Paxton, regarding Texas National Guard blocking the Feds from accessing certain border areas in Texas, and removing the razor wire that Texas Gov. Abbott ordered be put there.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Clear enough that it doesn't require mental gymnastics......


To your point, I already agreed that the feds have rights and jurisdictions on the border, that is it. Texas still has a right to defend itself too.

Where that boundary is, I do not know.

originally posted by: JinMI
I took your statements, brought them to their logical conclusion in attempt to show you what you are advocating for.

I'm not advocating for anything. I'm saying that the OP thinking they can just use a dictionary definition to claim the contract has been broken, is hyperbole.

So is claiming officials acting within their jurisdiction and the laws on the books are breaking the law.

What is a jury exactly in your estimation?

A jury doesn't get to decide in these types of cases.

Even if a case goes to a jury trial, and you are on that jury, and it is appealed all the way to SCOTUS, you don't have a say on the results there.

a reply to: daskakik

I'm not advocating for anything. I'm saying that the OP thinking they can just use a dictionary definition to claim the contract has been broken, is hyperbole.

I didn't say you were, I used your own statements that were provided. I too do not think that the Constitution is a contract.

There is an argument here which is playing out. That being official acting in their capacity vs their actions breaking established law.

A jury doesn't get to decide in these types of cases.

Even if a case goes to a jury trial, and you are on that jury, and it is appealed all the way to SCOTUS, you don't have a say on the results there.

You had to jump quite abit there to make your point, which is true at it's end. Yet mine is very true up to that point.

There's no reason to talk past me, i'm right here.

originally posted by: JinMI
There is an argument here which is playing out. That being official acting in their capacity vs their actions breaking established law.

Cite the laws?

An illegal still has a right to a hearing before an immigration judge before being deported.

You had to jump quite abit there to make your point, which is true at it's end. Yet mine is very true up to that point.

Not really because, I'm pretty sure, Department of Homeland Security v. Texas never went before a jury.

Juries just existing doesn't mean that John Q. Public has the final say. Even impeachments happen without the public having a say.

a reply to: daskakik

Cite the laws?

An illegal still has a right to a hearing before an immigration judge before being deported.

You'll find them a page back under my posting.

And yes, they do. 5 years down the line apparently. Regardless, this is one subset of a much larger group using non points of entry.

Not really because Department of Homeland Security v. Texas never went before a jury.

Yea really. I mean if you want to put it in the scope of gov't entities, sure. Yet that's not how you initially framed it now was it:

End of the day, you don't get to rule on what is and isn't legal.

Impeachments are carried out by elected representatives.

You view the gov't as a top down construct. While that may be, that's not what is Constitutional.

a reply to: FlyersFan

The Constitution is worthless when an ideology voted in by idiots ignores it.

America is a lot like ATS.

It's dead but doesn't know it yet.

Alas Babylon. . . .

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FlyersFan

The Constitution is worthless when an ideology voted in by idiots ignores it.

America is a lot like ATS.

It's dead but doesn't know it yet.

Alas Babylon. . . .

Communists are necromancers.

The Feds failed to control the border.

Texas has a Constitutional right to defend it border from invasion.

As it stands sure the Feds can cut wire but Nothing stops Texas from putting three more up for each the Feds disable.

Now what!

originally posted by: Disgusted123
Well then, GET OUT THERE.

I'll be happy to watch it on TV. You know the part where you get arrested, go to court, get convicted, and go to jail. Ask any January 6th defendant. It's great!

YOU be the first.

Oh, and as far as the border goes, ASK the REPUBLCANS why we can't get comprehensive border security legislation done. If they are honest, they will tell you they need the border as a political tool. Trump wants them to wait for the same reason. And so, IT AIN'T GETTIN' DONE. I blame them. So please with the whining about the border.

the dems want money. Explain how the money would fix the border please.

The southern border.

It's like a boat with a leak.

The Biden administration is asking for a bigger bucket to take care of the water coming in.

No one is patching the leak.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FlyersFan

The Constitution is worthless when an ideology voted in by idiots ignores it.

America is a lot like ATS.

It's dead but doesn't know it yet.

Alas Babylon. . . .

Communists are necromancers.

Commies smoke d@ck.

a reply to: JinMI
I replied to that bit about smugglers and your reply was, then it's the government breaking the law.

It doesn't work that way.

Yea really. I mean if you want to put it in the scope of gov't entities, sure. Yet that's not how you initially framed it now was it:

Gov't entities was what I was talking about when you said they were the ones breaking the laws.

You view the gov't as a top down construct. While that may be, that's not what is Constitutional.

Right, the framers of the constitution were not the top deciding for those below them.

a reply to: daskakik

I replied to that bit about smugglers and your reply was, then it's the government breaking the law.

It doesn't work that way.

You said as much, to which my response is your advocation for two tiered justice.

Gov't entities was what I was talking about when you said they were the ones breaking the laws.

Fair enough, that's not what you stated though.

Right, the framers of the constitution were not the top deciding for those below them.

Then why are you seemingly advocating for a two tiered legal system and an unaccountable executive branch?

originally posted by: JinMI
You said as much, to which my response is your advocation for two tiered justice.

It isn't two tiered if the government isn't breaking the law when acting within their jurisdiction.

Are cops in a high speed chase breaking the law if they drive above the speed limit?

Fair enough, that's not what you stated though.

It is exactly how I stated it:

Honestly, it also absolves what Abbott and DeSantis did, since they are government officials but, it also absolves any president that has allowed Catch and Release.

Are those not gov't entities I was talking about?

Then why are you seemingly advocating for a two tiered legal system and an unaccountable executive branch?

I never said that, I just said this thread, based on a dictionary definition of invasion, and your claims of two tier justice and this being unconstitutional is hyperbole.

Gov't entities having to deal with, process and decide what to do with illegals involves allowing people to come in who might have a legit claim for refugee status. That is just the the way the system works.

It isn't a two tier system and the executive should be held accountable, but where are these laws that some say they are breaking?

a reply to: daskakik

It isn't two tiered if the government isn't breaking the law when acting within their jurisdiction.

Are cops in a high speed chase breaking the law if they drive above the speed limit?

Their jurisdiction is within the bounds of the laws. Otherwise coequal branches of gov't are violated.

Your analogy is flawed. A police officer is within not only his authority but duty to as an officer of the law.

Is a city committee member in violation of the law if he is driving above the speed limit?

I never said that, I just said this thread, based on a dictionary definition of invasion, and your claims of two tier justice and this being unconstitutional is hyperbole.

Your opinion not withstanding, we have laws that prevent the trafficking and illegal entry of immigrants. The US gov't is preventing those laws from being enforced.

You think this is their duty/job. It's clearly not based on our laws that they should not be above. You disagree.