Miller comments come as judges have sought to challenge some recent detentions made by the Trump administration in an effort to combat illegal immigration
If Trump somehow loses the next election they need to throw the entire book at him, then write a new book and throw that at him as well. We also need to add a few more amendments to the constitution to prevent this shit from happening again. Maybe eliminate political parties? Not sure exactly how to fix this but it’s blatantly broken right now.
Now society has other reasons to not take the actions in your strawman, but if a government is in violation of the social contract, then it can expect its governed to extend it no such luxury.
Does that mean we civilians should just execute shoplifters in the streets without trial or due process?
That’s not what I said, though, and I’m pretty sure that’s some kind of logical fallacy being used. I’m talking about tRump, not all people. That’s why I said what I said. Think of it as tit-for-tat or an eye-for-an-eye. Where if he doesn’t think people should get due process, then neither should he.
Also, that’s pretty extreme considering what I said.
You know damn good and well he’s going to try to get a third/permanent term. Supreme Court basically gave him free reign to do whatever he wants now, so at this point I’m rooting for the Mickey D’s to finally finish the job.
The problem is who’s going to stop him? He already said he’s planning to run for a third term. Track record isn’t looking great, he seems to have figured out that if he just does things and ignores the law nobody stops him.
then write a new book and throw that at him as well.
No, the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. A law you are punished for must be on the books before the crime you commit that it prohibits is committed.
The federal government is prohibited from doing so:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
If Trump somehow loses the next election they need to throw the entire book at him, then write a new book and throw that at him as well. We also need to add a few more amendments to the constitution to prevent this shit from happening again. Maybe eliminate political parties? Not sure exactly how to fix this but it’s blatantly broken right now.
He lost this election. They just used every single method possible to squeak out the smallest of possible wins.
https://sdvoice.info/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won-here-are-the-numbers/
https://youtu.be/UgIay64Obcs
https://youtu.be/t-yr-Mgkhm0
https://electiontruthalliance.org/eta
First and last links are the data. The middle links are for us stupid people that need to be told how to read the data in the last link.
Thanks for telling me to use the middle links
Now do the three shells, am I right? ;-)
Thanks a lot you shit-brained, fuck-faced, ball breaking, duck fucking pain in the ass
Executive orders have to go. This is just ridiculous at this point how they are being used.
Some limits on pardoning would be great too.
What are you talking about? He got SCOTUS to say everything he does as president is legal, remember? He’ll never do time for anything.
Ok, so hear me out, if he doesn’t care about the rule of law, why should we?
Because it’s what makes us better than him.
Criminals don’t care about the rule of law. Does that mean we civilians should just execute shoplifters in the streets without trial or due process?
Now society has other reasons to not take the actions in your strawman, but if a government is in violation of the social contract, then it can expect its governed to extend it no such luxury.
This person gets it!
That’s not what I said, though, and I’m pretty sure that’s some kind of logical fallacy being used. I’m talking about tRump, not all people. That’s why I said what I said. Think of it as tit-for-tat or an eye-for-an-eye. Where if he doesn’t think people should get due process, then neither should he.
Also, that’s pretty extreme considering what I said.
deleted by creator
He is ineligible for the next one. Don’t ever forget that
You know damn good and well he’s going to try to get a third/permanent term. Supreme Court basically gave him free reign to do whatever he wants now, so at this point I’m rooting for the Mickey D’s to finally finish the job.
The problem is who’s going to stop him? He already said he’s planning to run for a third term. Track record isn’t looking great, he seems to have figured out that if he just does things and ignores the law nobody stops him.
His children aren’t.
deleted by creator
No, the Constitution prohibits ex post facto laws. A law you are punished for must be on the books before the crime you commit that it prohibits is committed.
The federal government is prohibited from doing so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_9:_Limits_on_Federal_power
And state governments:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_10:_Limits_on_the_States
deleted by creator
So, direct government like the Swiss ? (Ie it’s totally possible)