Posted on 05/11/2016 1:01:48 PM PDT by Mechanicos
Not very well these days.
A statute is not the Constitution. Those are quite different things. Congress frequently enacts laws which the courts overturn as unconstitutional.
This particular law is right on the line between executive and congressional separation of powers, so political turf disputes could get involved. That is why the federal courts devised the “Political Question” test for voluntary abstention by them from assuming jurisdiction over an issue.
This is an instance, IMO, where Trump could get both Congress and the federal judiciary to back off by threatening them with an Article V Constitutional Convention to impose term limits on both.
We’ll see how this works out.
Yes I understand what you are saying, but that is what they are referring to when they mention 1st Amendment and illegal immigration. You and I know the 1st Amendment says no such thing.
Don’t know if you saw this but this is how they make the connection to the 1st Amendment:
That's an interesting point. However, it's a right, not a privilege.
Still, I wonder if that could stand up to constitutional scrutiny. And I don't mean by squishy SCOTUS standards. I mean by the actual rule of law. I'd love to run this by Mark Levin.
The Muslim ban was always a first step in negotiations. What Americans deserve is a very thorough vetting process, not the joke of a process there is now.
And; it gets the attention from the getgo!
The one's coming out of mine get me in enough trouble with some people.
Kidnap the littler f(*&ers. Carlisle, PA. Oglala Sioux kids were comparatively peaceful aboriginals, and they got sent there. Carlisle was better designed for Muslim kids.
Oglala Sioux kids were comparatively peaceful aboriginals
http://www.oglalalakotanation.org/
Yet the LAST ‘uprising’ was Pine Ridge/Wounded Knee
So there you are. Their kids were shipped off to Carlisle and forcibly reeducated. Terrible, but true. And they haven’t scalped anyone since. Do the same to the Muzzies, and it’s done and done.
Oops, yes.
Still, I wonder if that could stand up to constitutional scrutiny. And I don't mean by squishy SCOTUS standards. I mean by the actual rule of law. I'd love to run this by Mark Levin.
Constitutional scrutiny: Depends on who has filled the courts.
Giuliani is dead wrong here. If I was Trump I’d say “Don’t call me, I’ll call you”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.