- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Thank goodness that she was not the first woman President as I love and respect the fairer sex.
The women of this country deserve a woman president who is a leader with reason and character.
Displaying traits that are both evil and not seen often in any women I admire.
The mental gymnastics involved in this are staggering given that the Constitution only applies to legal US Citizens. Further, the Office of the President was given this specific power (to block immigration from nations deemed a danger) back in the 1950's.
How is that possible? Our founders explained, Barton said, that the judiciary “has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither force nor will.”
In fact, they tell us that, “there is not a syllable in the plan [the Constitution] which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.”
“No wonder Progressives don’t like the Constitution — it restrains them!” Barton reflected. “They don’t like to be held back from fundamentally transforming the country. It’s no wonder that they work so hard to keep the Constitution from being taught in schools.”
Barton said that Thomas Jefferson long ago warned the people of leaving the Constitution to be interpreted by those who may or may not agree with what it says.
This is “a very dangerous doctrine indeed,” Jefferson is quoted as saying. “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal.”
“The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the Judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please,” he added.
David Barton said that we have forgotten the words of the Founding Fathers, and need to go back and study the Constitution.
As John Jay, author of a number of the Federalist Papers and the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court advised: “Every member of the State ought diligently to read and to study the Constitution of his country…By knowing their rights, they will sooner perceive when they are violated and be the better prepared to defend and assert them.”
From historian David Barton.
BTW Hillsdale College offers a free online course : US Constitution 101
Second, any good judge will occasionally be overturned. THere are many reasons. Maybe the appellate judge is not as "good/correct." Maybe the judge is trying to rollback liberal precedent, but the appeals court is to ready to overturn precedent.
Think of this situation when you have a progressive president in office for 8 years. A few appointments to stack the appellate court and then the more objective judges would start to be forced from office, letting the progressive president fill their spots. Not what you would want to happen, I think.
I did suggest Florida consider the Death Penalty for Activist Judges... But I'm thinking we're not that lucky to get that passed... But wouldn't that be nice!
Is there any sitting Judge who is overturned half the time by higher courts?
For a basis , have us as an oppressor.
We need to do our globalist part with being overrun by people who hate us just like self-loathing Germany did.
It's just terrible we are better off due to just enough of us being so mean-spirited and selfish.
It is right there in the first seven words of the Preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." (emphasis mine) The Constitution outlines which powers We the People are ceding to be exercised by a Federal Government established by us and set up to operate on our behalf. It can not apply to foreigners for several reasons:
1. Foreigners are prohibited from participating by representation in our government either through voting or as elected officials.
2. Citizens of one nation have no authority to decide policy on behalf of another nation. The First Amendment notes that one of the protected rights is Association, which first and foremost identifies which Nation/State an individual Associates with.
3. One of the purposes of citizenship is to establish which nation's laws are of primary application to that individual. Allegiance states that one is under the protection of such a nation and that in return patronage of that nation and participation as a citizen are the duties and rewards. One can not owe allegiance to more than one nation at any given time, and as allegiance is a contract of sorts, BOTH parties must voluntarily agree to the recognition of allegiance or any change to such.
Note: Interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to apply exclusively to freed slaves (according to its author), who at that time had no national association: they were not Citizens of any nation - including the United States. The Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were intended to grant these freed slaves (disenfranchised citizens of the world) full Citizenship within the United States and recognition of the rights they had hitherto been denied. Any interpretation since then extending protection to non-US Citizens has been done by activist Courts and is void of any real or legal standing.
"BTW, no branch of the government should ever be cast in the terns of “allowing” anything."
I agree, which is why I never said anything of the sort.
One thing the Federal Government is specifically empowered with in the Constitution, however, is allowing the entrance - either temporary or permanent - of non-citizens into this nation. Immigration policy is specifically delegated to Congress; treaties to the Senate in particular for ratification. Guest accommodations (visas, temporary work permits, etc.) are usually also set by Congress but in this specific case, Congress gave the President authorization in the 1950's to deny entry into the United States citizens of specific nations deemed to be a threat to the United States at the sole discretion of the President and for whatever reason he deemed fit. Congress could (if it chose) revoke this power grant.
(2) Do you not agree that when non-citizens are within our borders they accept our laws and become subject to treatment of those laws within the US Constitution? (Except of course, those with diplomatic immunity…)
(3) I did not intend to imply that you used the term “allow” — I do find the term loosely applied in textbooks and articles. And I will look further at the context of “allowing” entrance of foreigners.
"We the People" were both the framers AND the populace affected. It should be remembered that the Constitution was a revision/overhaul of the Articles of Confederation, which did treat the several States as independent and fully sovereign nations (where being a sovereign nation they would have absolute and primary authority over immigration, tourism, etc.). Since the ratification of the Constitution in 1889, immigration and citizenship terms have been under the purview of Congress as per Article 1 Section 8. As each State ratified the Constitution, that State's citizens then became citizens of the United States of America, so there very much existed a formal process and conditions - it was just carried out en masse. As other States were in turn accepted into the Union, their citizens similarly became citizens of the United States.
(I would note that the EU has nearly duplicated this process. If you have an EU passport, every member nation of the EU must accept the validity of that passport no matter which nation originally issued it.)
2) Are they subject to our laws? Yes, but that is a price of entry. Are they afforded all the privileges of citizenship or protection by the Constitution? No. They are guests. They don't pay income taxes, nor are they allowed to vote nor hold office. They can also appeal for extradition to their own nation rather than face a US tribunal of justice. So the rules aren't the same. A couple of examples:
- illegal immigrants who are caught violating the law are more often extradited out of the country than prosecuted and held at our expense. It is notable that ICE (Immigrations and Customs Enforcement - a Federal agency) is charged with this rather than local law enforcement and why the Kate Steinle case is so troubling. The perpetrator had already been removed from the country numerous times and the local law enforcement refused to cooperate with ICE to have him deported yet a seventh(?) time.
- wiretapping laws make a big distinction between citizens and non-citizens in requiring a warrant (regardless of geographical location). What is interesting is that the warrant applies to the citizen - not the non-citizen. Why? Because the protections of the Fourth Amendment apply to citizens only.
Now that doesn't mean that guests in our nation have no Rights. The Declaration of Independence specifically cites that rights are inherent - not granted by Government. The difference is in who is responsible for safe-guarding those rights: non-citizens can not apply to have their rights protected by the US Government because they are not subjects of US government but rather subjects to their own governments. That is one of the roles of Embassies - to verify that citizens of that nation are accorded treatment in convention with any treaties agreed to between the two nations.
3) No worries. The thing to keep in mind is that just like on your property, no one has the right to come onto your property without permission. It's called trespassing. The same principle applies to nation-states, it just means a little more complexity in creating and administering the rules.
That being something a lot of lib judges are not concerned about.
The precious feelings of those banned is far more important to them.
Just ask libs~
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0Mnr...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOHJ0...
Think me dino already did this here. Don't matter! Somebody may have missed it.
Just like Obobo told Joe the Plumber that he wants to spread the wealth around, me dino wants to spread the truth.
I am dino~
Hear me ROAR!
Obviously raised by libtard sheeple parents who sent them to Berkley to be more intensely "educated" by radical professors, these kids do not have a snowball's chance in hell of escaping their "useful idiot" indoctrination.
I pity the life of cognitive dissonance those idiots
Will exist in. It is like they are begging to be taken to the bleak world of Anthem and ignore reason and logic. I Hear you roaring big Dino.
Yay! What could go wrong? Just ask any typical skinny tapeworm hosting North Korean, who would snap to attention, smile and say, "All hail Big Brother Kim Jong-un!"
Yay! Isn't that just People's Paradise bodacious?!
A wondrous portal opened wide,
As if a cavern was suddenly hollowed;
And the Piper advanced and the children followed,
And when all were in to the very last,
The door in the mountain-side Shut fast.
Keeping out criminals may be important, other than that anyone that wants to come here should be able to come. The same should be true for any other country. When a country tries to keep others out it makes me wonder if they are also trying to keep the populace in. It is very difficult to leave America and earn a living somewhere else for the IRS still wants its cut while the new country also wants its cut. While America has tried to be prudent about who was let in it turns out that the looters (political and voters) turned up anyway and they use violence to collect their claimed debt owed to them because others exist. It failed to protect liberty demonstrated by the fact that it is impossible for any free man to prevent theft by the majority who authorize the use of violence to collect.
Mohammad Reza came to power during World War II after an Anglo-Soviet invasion forced the abdication of his father, Reza Shah Pahlavi. During Mohammad Reza's reign, the Iranian oil industry was briefly nationalized, under Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh, until a US and UK-backed coup d'état deposed Mosaddegh and brought back foreign oil firms.[6] Under Mohammad Reza's reign, Iran marked the anniversary of 2,500 years of continuous Persian monarchy since the founding of the Achaemenid Empire by Cyrus the Great - concurrent with this celebration, Mohammad Reza changed the benchmark of the Iranian calendar from the hegira to the beginning of the First Persian Empire, measured from Cyrus the Great's coronation.[7] Mohammad Reza also introduced the White Revolution, a series of economic, social and political reforms with the proclaimed intention of transforming Iran into a global power and modernising the nation by nationalising certain industries and granting women suffrage.
A secular Muslim, Mohammad Reza gradually lost support from the Shi'a clergy of Iran as well as the working class, particularly due to his strong policy of modernisation, secularisation, conflict with the traditional class of merchants known as bazaari, relations with Israel, and corruption issues surrounding himself, his family, and the ruling elite. Various additional controversial policies were enacted, including the banning of the communist Tudeh Party, and a general suppression of political dissent by Iran's intelligence agency, SAVAK. According to official statistics, Iran had as many as 2,200 political prisoners in 1978, a number which multiplied rapidly as a result of the revolution.[8]
Several other factors contributed to strong opposition to the Shah among certain groups within Iran, the most significant of which were US and UK support for his regime, clashes with Islamists and increased communist activity. By 1979, political unrest had transformed into a revolution which, on 17 January, forced him to leave Iran. Soon thereafter, the Iranian monarchy was formally abolished, and Iran was declared an Islamic republic led by Ruhollah Khomeini. Facing likely execution should he return to Iran, he died in exile in Egypt, whose president, Anwar Sadat, had granted him asylum. Due to his status as the last Shah of Iran, he is often known as simply "the Shah".
Stating that Gaddafi kept the country stable might be true but what kind of stability do you want? He ruled the people mercilessly, targeted the Lockerbie Pan Am jet with a terrorist planted bomb killing civilians and that the people didn't dare confront him or that American businesses could safely conduct business transactions makes overlooking the murder of civilians on a plane ok or at least balance out because Gaddafi was 'stable'. It could be said that Lenin and Stalin were 'stable' because at least you understood that you were never safe. It was a stable government under Mao Tse Tung where 200 million people died for infractions of rule of state but not for immoral criminal behavior. It was 'stable' in that you knew what to expect from the state if you crossed it.
If the peace of Rome comes from all resistors being dead then you could say it was a peaceful place to live.
Although it could be argued that things would have turned out differently if some circumstances could have been changed or done in a different order there is still no way to determine if that would be true.
The only thing left is to determine if our (the USA's) interactions are moral not if they benefit the country because the business climate is more stable to our benefit. It is not the moral place of any country or individual to make certain that the world benefits them by being what they want to deal with even if that means ignoring violence used to coerce others, even if that violence affects your group but at least not you, as in; "I don't know anyone who died on the Lockerbie Pan Am Jet but at least my company in Libya is under not threat and the checks I receive are still cashable."
From Reagans US attack on his "tent". He was much subdued after that and even assisted identifying terrorists..
Gaddafi was focused on his huge irrigation project intending to export it through out AFrica. His people had access to education and was no longer the bad actor on the world stage. The Libyans were able to feed themselves and were not a debtor nation.
In Manchester England young girls were killed while exiting a pop concert. This from Straightline logic.
The suicide attacker was the direct product of US and UK interventions in the greater Middle East.
According to the London Telegraph, Abedi, a son of Libyan immigrants living in a radicalized Muslim neighborhood in Manchester had returned to Libya several times after the overthrow of Muamar Gaddafi, most recently just weeks ago. After the US/UK and allied “liberation” of Libya, all manner of previously outlawed and fiercely suppressed radical jihadist groups suddenly found they had free rein to operate in Libya. This is the Libya that Abedi returned to and where he likely prepared for his suicide attack on pop concert attendees. Before the US-led attack on Libya in 2011, there was no al-Qaeda, ISIS, or any other related terrorist organization operating (at least with impunity) on Libyan soil.
Gaddafi himself warned Europe in January 2011 that if they overthrew his government the result would be radical Islamist attacks on Europe, but European governments paid no heed to the warnings. Post-Gaddafi Libya became an incubator of Islamist terrorists and terrorism, including prime recruiting ground for extremists to fight jihad in Syria against the also-secular Bashar Assad..
An immigrant should assimilate into OUR culture
And have the ability to support themselves.
Thanks jeffdhurley