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

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

You do understand that all government officials can only act within their authority and duty as well.

A president, cannot simply disregard the SCOTUS, the legislative can overrule the executive. That is what checks and balances are about.

The point is that I never said there should be an unaccountable executive branch. That is something you imagined I was saying.

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

Sure, because it isn't their duty to be involved in high speed chases. This just drives my point home. Are cops special in the two tier justice system?

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 also have laws that allow illegals who have a legit claim for asylum to take up to a year after entering illegally to file their claim.

You also have laws that say all illegals also have a right to a hearing before being deported.

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

I honestly have no idea what you tried to say with this.

a reply to: daskakik

You do understand that all government officials can only act within their authority and duty as well.

A president, cannot simply disregard the SCOTUS, the legislative can overrule the executive. That is what checks and balances are about.

The point is that I never said there should be an unaccountable executive branch. That is something you imagined I was saying.

When you say that the executive can act within it's jurisdiction even outside of established laws, then you are advocating for two tiered justice and unequal branches of gov't. I mean you can dress it up all you want but that's exactly what it is.

And, truth be told, a president certainly can disregard SCOTUS (student loan forgiveness for example) but to their own detriment.

Tell me, who is the enforcement arm of SCOTUS?

Sure, because it isn't their duty to be involved in high speed chases. This just drives my point home. Are cops special in the two tier justice system?

You think a city councilmen can break laws? That's a new one.

Yes, cops and all law enforcement are special. As their duties and authority demands it of them. Is a city councilman a LEO?

You also have laws that allow illegals who have a legit claim for asylum to take up to a year after entering illegally to file their claim.

You also have laws that say all illegals also have a right to a hearing before being deported.

Where's the ones about smuggling, not using ports of entry, overstaying visas etc?

a reply to: IgorMartinez

That's harsh.

So you like the direction Biden is taking the country.

heh. . .

originally posted by: JinMI
When you say that the executive can act within it's jurisdiction even outside of established laws, then you are advocating for two tiered justice and unequal branches of gov't. I mean you can dress it up all you want but that's exactly what it is.

I never said that, I said they can be and should be checked by the other two branches. You have yet to cite the laws you think they are breaking, except for that law pages back referring to individuals.

And, truth be told, a president certainly can disregard SCOTUS (student loan forgiveness for example) but to their own detriment.

So were the student loans forgiven?

Tell me, who is the enforcement arm of SCOTUS?

Congress, by way of impeachment.

You think a city councilmen can break laws? That's a new one.

Yes, cops and all law enforcement are special. As their duties and authority demands it of them. Is a city councilman a LEO?

Have you been in the sauce?

You asked:

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

I said, paraphrasing "sure, they are in violation of the law". How is that me saying they can break the law when I said yes they are in violation of the law?

Where's the ones about smuggling, not using ports of entry, overstaying visas etc?

They are there as well, but you can't know who might have a legit case or not without a hearing.

The US, being the kickass country that it is, allows illegals to plead their case.

a reply to: daskakik

I never said that, I said they can be and should be checked by the other two branches. You have yet to cite the laws you think they are breaking, except for that law pages back referring to individuals.

I didn't say you said that. I said that's where your applied logic concludes.

How can I not cite while also citing? Is obstruction of justice a crime? I mean if you don't want to operate under the immigration laws, we can use other areas of laws as well.

Have you been in the sauce?

That's on me, I read it incorrectly.

They are there as well, but you can't know who might have a legit case or not without a hearing.

The US, being the kickass country that it is, allows illegals to plead their case.

Pretty sure ALL who are not entering through ports of entry do not have a legit case. And if they do, they are doing a disservice to everyone that is doing things the right way.

Which is what the Biden regime is facilitating.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I’m feeling the need to be harsh to victimizers cherishing the delusion that they are victims.

Pathetic whiners, shirking responsibility, and blaming your problems on those who are helping you.

How sickening.

originally posted by: JinMI
I didn't say you said that. I said that's where your applied logic concludes.

No that is where your interpretation of what I am actually saying takes you.

How can I not cite while also citing? Is obstruction of justice a crime? I mean if you don't want to operate under the immigration laws, we can use other areas of laws as well.

You are citing the wrong laws. I'm talking about US immigration laws. I'm waiting for you to cite the laws that the gov't entities are breaking. If you don't have them, then you just don't have them.

Laws that apply to people who do not have the duty to process and hear the cases of illegals doesn't fill that void.

That's on me, I read it incorrectly.

Cool.

Pretty sure ALL who are not entering through ports of entry do not have a legit case. And if they do, they are doing a disservice to everyone that is doing things the right way.

I'm 100% sure of that but the law says 1 year from the moment of entry to file the claim is still the right way. I didn't make that up. I actually read it on some immigration lawyer's site. Don't enter at a port of entry because the law says that the people there can turn you right back. Enter illegally and then you have a year to file your claim. You will then be allowed to stay while the process takes place.

Yeah, Saul Goodman tactics, but that is how the legal game is played.

Which is what the Biden regime is facilitating.

I could be wrong, but I think the dropping birth rate among US citizens is part of that equation.

Japan has a strict immigration policy but it is now biting them in the butt with not enough able bodies to support the elderly.

Just something to think about.

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: DBCowboy

I’m feeling the need to be harsh to victimizers cherishing the delusion that they are victims.

Pathetic whiners, shirking responsibility, and blaming your problems on those who are helping you.

How sickening.

Helping me?

lol

I don't want nor do I ask for your "help".

This thread is way above my knowledge of the law here. It could be feasible, or it could be flawed logic. I can't even form an opinion on it without way more knowledge about it and of course, the legal interpretation is based on the beliefs of the justices of the supreme court. They interpret things in a manner that preserves the union most times.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Until you need your shelves stocked and your food slaughtered and picked.

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: DBCowboy

Until you need your shelves stocked.

So you stock shelves.

*applaud*

a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh now you mock those who serve you. Great comeback. Totally proves my point.

originally posted by: IgorMartinez
a reply to: DBCowboy

Oh now you mock those who serve you. Great comeback. Totally proves my point.

No.

You provide a service I pay for.

*shrugs*

Wear a cape if you think you're a hero.

a reply to: daskakik

No that is where your interpretation of what I am actually saying takes you.

When you allow one branch of gov't to violate established law, where else does it take you?


Do tell?

You are citing the wrong laws. I'm not operating under US immigration laws. I'm waiting for you to cite the laws that the gov't entities are breaking. If you don't have them, then you just don't have them.

Laws that apply to people who do not have the duty to process and hear the cases of illegals doesn't fill that void.

I said that if you don't want to operate under the immigration laws fine.

Obstruction of justice is perfectly acceptable too. Sedition? Even dereliction of duty if we want to include military.

Pick your poison really.

I'm 100% sure of that but the law says 1 year from the moment of entry to file the claim is still the right way. I didn't make that up. I actually read it on some immigration lawyer's site. Don't enter at a port of entry because the law says that the people there can turn you right back. Enter illegally and then you have a year to file your claim. You will then be allowed to stay while the process takes place.

Yeah, Saul Goodman tactics, but that is how the legal game is played.

8 USC 1325

(d)Immigration-related entrepreneurship fraud
Any individual who knowingly establishes a commercial enterprise for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years, fined in accordance with title 18, or both.

How interesting.....

I could be wrong, but I think the dropping birth rate among US citizens is part of that equation.

Japan has a strict immigration policy but it is now biting them in the butt with not enough able bodies to support the elderly.

Just something to think about.

Perhaps fixing a broken immigration system would be a great start then.