gatomontes99

The border bill that died was meaningless. It never allowed for turnbacks. It legalized illegal crossings. It was a joke.

I see what you did there.

It isn't breaking the law if the President is exercising his authority in the Constitution. There is no authority great than the constitution and no law can supercede the constituion.

It's not made up. Flagerrandoville is made up. Preborn children is a combination of words that humanize humans prior to birth. We use those words because pro choice advocates compare preborn children to cancers and parasites. People need to understand a distinct and separate human life is ended. The term preborn child helps make that point.

He's not violating any law because no law supercedes the Constitution. If the President has the power and uses the power, it is Constitutional. If Congress decides the President abused the power, then they can impeach and convict the President. Only then is the action declared unconstitutional and thus subject to federal or local law.

Scripture? Your dismissal of the possibility to make changes is laughable. Twenty seven times laughable. The last amendment was as recently as 1992. It isn't set in stone, but it must be universally accepted. What makes you think we can't achieve that any more? As for the clause you quoted, it was written for a specific set of circumstances. Those circumstances must be present for it to apply and are specifically listed in the clause. It was also written for a specific set of people. I know you think President Trump, while President, led an insurrection. For one, he didn't. That just is fact. However, he was never convicted of insurrection, despite the Democrats' attempt to portray that falsehood as reality. Therefore, unless a second impeachment proceeding is brought, and he is convicted, it wouldn't apply. Even then, the Office of the President is not listed.

Oh yeah! Men can get pregnant. What kind of argument is he making? Yes there are preborn children. I'm against murder of other people, but those aren't my body. Are you saying I shouldn't have a say in that?

He hasn't changed. He wanted it to be a state issue. He doesn't want federal bans. He got that. Why can't men have an opinion on whether prevorn children have rights? Are men not smart enough? Are men inferior? What kind of sexist bullspit is this?

For crying out loud. Really? Ok Why would the House and Senate have impeachment power if the DOJ or a state could prosecute the POTUS? You wouldn't need the power of impeachment if that was the case. So, yes, it is in there. Second: "Section. 2. The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. Section. 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. " Those are the President's duties in the Constitution. If the Constitution gives the President those powers, how could any entity under the Constitution prosecute the President, even if the powers were abused? They can't. That is why we have impeachment. If the POTUS is impeached, then, by definition of impeachment, he us in violation of the Constituion and can be prosecuted.

Yeah, that is called a constitutional convention. Set one up.

You do know we have the federalist papers that describe the intent of everything in the constitution? Further, there are very few words or phrases in the Constituion whose meaning have changed even slightly, much less significantly. Unless you have a specific example, I don't know how you come to this conclusion other than to assume that you want to change the Constituion and are looking for a way to bypass the process. That's a heck of a word salad. I reject the premise. It can only be interpreted literally. I reject this premise as well. If you have codes that can be changed easily, there is an increased liklihood of using changes in the law to maintain power. For example, in Russia Putin changed the rules so he could maintain power. Imagine if that were the case here. Would you be OK with Trump making himself POTUS for life with his kids as heirs? That is an obviously extreme example. It does highlight how easy changes can easily lead to undesirable and even oppressive regines. It was never intended to be that way. Who told you it was?

Lmao...none. And no Supreme Court ruling said that either. What the SCOTUS ruling said was that the POTUS cannot be prosecuted for exercising official duties with the caveat that if the POTUS is impeached than he can be prosecuted.

Was she working next to Corn Pop? He was a bad dude.

You lack self-awareness. You are the one that wanted to redefine what the Constitution means and does. I called out the obvious motivation for wanting to do that, pointed to the current consequences of not having the protections of our constituion and proposed that there should be no changes. So you moved the goal posts to say you wanted to change it through reinterpretation rather than following the proper procedure. So I brought up an example of when the left has dine that and how that was detrimental to our society. So, now, you have resorted to attacking me and pretending you have justification to ignore me. The reality, and why I say you lack self-awareness, is that you've been back tracking from your original thesis to typical forum behavior. Don't pretend you are superior if you can't intelligently defend your own thoughts (or thoughts you copied and didn't fully understand when you restated them). And I'm the one that didn't discuss in good faith?

She did accomplish one goal. She had a dog whistle she kept using. It was "my values haven't changed". Aka, all that sh1t you are hearing I support are just lies to fool the moderates. But, man, did Dana let Harris get away with a huge lie. Harris said she denounced banning fracking on the debate stage when she actually said on the DNC presidential debate that she'd ban fracking and in the VP debate she said Joe Biden wouldn't ban fracking. So she lied when she said she didnt support a ban on fracking.

Fine. What did she say that instilled any confidence that she could run the country?

If you could defend your thesis, you wouldn't be attacking me.

Oh, ok, the goal posts are over there now. Fine. Reinterpretation is a tool the left has been using for nearly a century now. You may not remember this (or maybe you weren't taught it) but racism used to mean hatred based on race. And truly, it still does. But the scope of hatred was changed. The evolution of racism, via the redefining of hatred, started by using indicators or discrimination. Someone that was racist, would harm or discriminate against people of a different race. Those actions resulted in unequal opportunities, unequal law enforcement, unequal whatever. Eventually, unequal was applied to all situations as racism. However, unequal doesn't mean racism is the cause. Surely, racism causes unequal treatment but unequal treatment isn't always racism. Today, anything that is considered unequal is considered racist. Thus, racism is redefined from hatred of another race to unequal treatment, regardless of the reason. Reinterpreting or redefining the Constitution is untenable because the Constituion doesn't contain period concepts. It contains basic truths of humanity. The Bill of Rights was written to specifically protect rights that are both natural and essential to maintaining the republic. A republic that was defined by self governance and employed with the tools to adjust to changing times. Further, each of the articles define a federal government with limited power that protects people from a government that would control them, like the English government that is jailing people for their opinions. Our Constitution does not need reinterpretation, redefining or revamping. If it did, you would be able to get the populous to make the changes. Since you can't, you have to work within the system. If you can't do that, it's because we are protected from you.

I can see why you would view the Constitution as an impediment. After all, it declares rights are held by the people and not given to them. What can a liberal/socialist/communist do to them if they have rights? Nothing really. So you need to undercut the Constituion to make any real progress. Case in point, England. People in England are being arrested just for putting something on social media that the government disagrees with. That is a violation of our First Amendment. An ammendment that was adopted over 200 years ago. I'd say it is still relevant. Another example of how the Constitution is still relevant is the Electoral College. The framers of the Constituion recognized that states that are smaller, or have a less dense populous, have different needs than bigger, more populous states. So they created two halves to the legislative branch, one that favors big and one that favors small so that they had to work together. Then, they weighted the votes to prevent smaller states from getting railroaded in the POTUS election. The end result is an election process that swings back and forth and leaves the entire country represented in some way. It was genius really and it still works beautifully. What you are truly lamenting is not that the Constittion is out dated or doesn't work. You are lamenting that it is preventing you from achieving your goals without opposition. You don't respect or honor opposing views. You never have. If you had your way, we would have people getting arrested for stating their opinions in an open forum.

They probably brought them crossed the border.

That's not what the ALSC said. They said they believed that the language in a law included embryos that had been intimidated. The AL government quickly rewrote the law to make it clear that that wasn't the case. Try to pay attention.

And yet, the families say Trump had permission. Apparently there was one worker with TDS that exaggerated everything. The "push" was just a photographer walking past and they had permission. Just another TDS episode that the whole left believes because they want to.

Well, he was invited by the families so it would have been kind if a dick move to not show. However, Gold Star families released a statement on Wednesday claiming that the former president had the approval to take videos and photographs during his visit to the burial site. “We would like to express our heartfelt thanks and appreciation to President Donald J. Trump for his presence at the recent section 60 gathering, honoring our children and their fallen brothers and sisters,” the statement read. “On the three-year anniversary of the Abbey Gate Bombing, the president and his team conducted themselves with nothing but the utmost respect and dignity for all of our service members, especially our beloved children.”

Lmao....omg! You teed that up so perfectly for me. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for being so blessedly unaware of reality. It is just so much fun. Do you want to maybe take back the id1ot comment?