Jump to content

Senile old man elected to stand for the Constitution wants to sign an executive order effectively rendering useless an amendment to said Constitution


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, osxmatt said:

Do I need to service my computer or are tweets not loading correctly this morning?

 

My only issue is that when you link to a tweet responding to a tweet that's quote-retweeting a third tweet, the embedding doesn't indicate that there's a third tweet being quote-retweeted (see above post). If it's not loading at all then I don't know what to say, that was an issue recently but we think it was a third-party issue that resolved itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

 

 

 

Research the history surrounding Heller.

 

You might be surprised just how preposterous the idea of a personal right to own guns was considered in just our lifetimes.

 

Hopefully I will be proven wrong, but I am operating under the assumption that SCOTUS is now a political arm of the Republican party. They will reach decisions based on what suits their need. Abood was overturned, any hint of criticism of Christianity is now discrimination, while attack after attack on Islam is "facially neutral".

 

No doubt Cayce is right. This is more shit against the wall distraction. But make no mistake, this( like most other issues now) is not a question of Constitutionality. It's a question of how bad Republicans want it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Chairslinger said:

 

Research the history surrounding Heller.

 

You might be surprised just how preposterous the idea of a personal right to own guns was considered in just our lifetimes.

 

Hopefully I will be proven wrong, but I am operating under the assumption that SCOTUS is now a political arm of the Republican party. They will reach decisions based on what suits their need. Abood was overturned, any hint of criticism of Christianity is now discrimination, while attack after attack on Islam is "facially neutral".

 

No doubt Cayce is right. This is more shit against the wall distraction. But make no mistake, this( like most other issue now) is not a question of Constitutionality. It's a question of how bad Republicans want it.

 

Its absolutely a distraction and an attempt to keep his idiot base going, his approval fell 4 points on gallop over the past few days after botching the bomber/shooting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Jason said:

 

My only issue is that when you link to a tweet responding to a tweet that's quote-retweeting a third tweet, the embedding doesn't indicate that there's a third tweet being quote-retweeted (see above post). If it's not loading at all then I don't know what to say, that was an issue recently but we think it was a third-party issue that resolved itself.

 

Yeah even single tweets like you posted above aren't embedding for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’ve been in a really bad mood since reading this. I’ve made the argument to several family members of mine that Trump would have stopped my wife from being a citizen at birth by virtue of my mother in law’s status at the time. They all scoffed. Well, here it is as explicit as can be.

 

America doesn’t deserve people like my wife, but we sure have earned Donald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've long been a supporter of changing the constitution. Now, I personally fear what would happen if the GOP was able to do it at will, but I think there are a whole host of things that need to be edited, changed, added, or removed. Banning birthright citizenship through an executive order is downright absurd, but I wouldn't mind normalizing the idea that the constitution needs a refresher.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TwinIon said:

I've long been a supporter of changing the constitution. Now, I personally fear what would happen if the GOP was able to do it at will, but I think there are a whole host of things that need to be edited, changed, added, or removed. Banning birthright citizenship through an executive order is downright absurd, but I wouldn't mind normalizing the idea that the constitution needs a refresher.

 

The EO will likely just (attempt to) clarify that "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" isn't applicable to people in the country illegally.  It will then get challenged, and the hope (of the Administration) is that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the executive. 

 

Or at least that's the way I see it playing out.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...