Posted on 09/08/2017 11:39:20 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
How can cancelling something that’s unconstitutional be unconstitutional?
Funny! You could have said that about Obama setting it up in the first place without any regard to the law, Constitution Congress or the will of the people.
The thing about the left is once they “won” something, they never want to give it back.
DACA is unconstitutional, much like the Usurper who enacted it.
Eliminating it is righting the wrong.
>>How can cancelling something that’s unconstitutional be unconstitutional?
Logic is racist!
With logic like that you'll never get a job on the 9th Circuit Court.
Just goes to show that that old phrase is true: You can sue anyone for anything, but it doesn’t mean you’ll win.
Well it goes like this. A special code after the name of the president determines what is unConstitutional or not.
Obama (D)
Trump (R)
That should clear things up for you.
The UC suit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, accuses the administration of “wrongly and unconstitutionally” ending the program on “nothing more than unreasoned executive whim.”
This also speaks to why he will win in the SCOTUS regarding the travel ban.
Yep, and with this comment on the Internet, well, you’re right.
How can cancelling something that’s unconstitutional be unconstitutional?
DOJ should move from summary disposition against anyone challenging the move of DACA to Congress.
Article 1 specifically gives exclusively to to Congress the power to, “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization...”
Not the President. He can’t wait e or modify immigration law.
DOJ should also ask for frivolous lawsuit sanctions against the schools attorneys and the school, including all attorney fees and costs.
Exactly. Wouldn’t it ne ironic is by bringing the suit, they get the original Øbama EO declafed unconstitutional, grin
“nothing more than unreasoned executive whim.”
just how it was created.
I’ve now heard of over a DOZEN states and entities who are suing over this.
I have yet to hear of a SINGLE Constitutional precept cited as the basis for the suit.
Not even one.
It’s like they’re all just throwing mud and hoping a federal judge will invent a new law for them.
Sadly, that’s likely to occur.
Janet lacks standing. And DACA is unconstitutional on its face.
Hey Janet - where’s all that missing money??
And just how much does UC rake in, in pell grants and assorted other AA financial aid? Enquiring minds want to know.
They want to make emotional appeals instead of reasoned legal appeals. They are doomed to failure but will be able to say they did all they could.
BTW—UC admin. where is all that missing money?
biggest problem is most liberals don’t understand the concept of constitutional rule of law and those that understand and in leadership positions look at the constitution as something to go around to get what they want. they don’t seem to care that the only way to protect whatever meaningful change that is made in the rule of law has to be made bye the rule of law otherwise at the next whim of the people or when someone powerful crosses the rules that have been passed the law will not be fallowed.
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.