The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
So gunnerfag there's no recourse to open borders if the Feds want it?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 19th, 2024 7:57 PM Author: floppy sticky brunch Let's say Dems steal 2024 again and say fuck it we're letting in as many illegals as can walk in these four years and no one can do anything about it. This is what the founders envisioned? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508554) |
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:00 PM Author: cracking aquamarine gaming laptop Alejandro Mayorkas gets to unilaterally decide which foreigners can invade and physically occupy Texas and 82 million Americans voted for this. What's so hard to understand shitcon? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508571) |
 |
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:10 PM Author: talented base feces That's a different issue and one that shitcons can't be bothered to raise. Instead they push a case they know is DOA and complain when they lose. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508604) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2024 8:57 AM Author: drunken razzle gas station boltzmann "shitcons" have been raising that issue all day long since January 2021. No one gaf. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47509597) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:01 PM Author: Irate rough-skinned principal's office Just accept the thoughtful, moderate 120 IQ take. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508572) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:01 PM Author: swashbuckling violet abode boistinker why dont they just... do that today? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508573) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:03 PM Author: Sable locale yes? the federal government has the power to set immigration policy. do you think a democratic congress could not erase immigration law for some reason?
as far as the founders intent, considering the entire concept of illegal immigration didn't happen for nearly 100 years after the constitution was ratified, i don't think they thought much about it! but if you're talking about federal law being the supreme law of the land, i think they'd agree, considering the supremacy clause. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:07 PM Author: talented base feces The Constitution limits the fees that can be levied on emigrees, effectively making it easier for people to move here. Furthermore only the POTUS is required to be a natural born citizen, members of the House and Senate need only have lived here for some length of time. No one gave two shits about "immigration" until Chinese people showed up to build railroads. All anyone cared about was whether you maintained any sort of loyalty to a foreign government. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508596) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:11 PM Author: Sable locale thread is a good idea about how retard non-law fags typically post under pumos.
DO YOU THINK THE FOUNDERS WOULD WANT THIS? A POLICY THAT DIDN'T EXIST FOR A 100 YEARS AFTER THEIR DEATH TO BE DESTROYED?
these people just lisp "constitution! constitution!" never having read the fucking thing. hurr durr do you think the federal government has the power to change federal law? *blank stare* |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:12 PM Author: talented base feces It never occurs to them that the Constitution might have been hastily thrown together, that it might be written like shit, that the people of New York didn't really want to ratify it, and that if they skim the names of the authors they'd be lucky to recognize more than four of them. They might not realize that it didn't include a bill of rights. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508616) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:22 PM Author: Sable locale imagine their surprise if they read how the founders never intended it to be an eternal set of rules like the bible (hence explicitly including an amendment and constitutional convention process). and that, in fact, most of them wrote frequently about how the law should determined by the living and not controlled by a dead hand. you know, considering that they had recently rebelled against the crown and everything.
but no, they'll sputter about on about the eternal wisdom of the founders and the immutable law (that was frequently amended for the first 200 years) that the constitution was designed to be enshrined FOREVER (except for slaves, women, and alcohol... wait never mind about that one.) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:14 PM Author: floppy sticky brunch Lmao @ your flailing (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508622) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:16 PM Author: Irate rough-skinned principal's office He just needs to settle down and breathe. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508631) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:17 PM Author: Sable locale i can't believe you even have the guts to respond.
ok, so what did you mean by OP? what do you think the federal government does not have the power to change or even eliminate immigration law? |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:23 PM Author: floppy sticky brunch Lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508647) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:25 PM Author: Sable locale i'm glad you have the good sense to poast under a pumo. shows you're marginally smarter than candy ride, who is agreeing itt that the federal government cannot change federal law. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508652) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:34 PM Author: Irate rough-skinned principal's office "candy ride, who is agreeing itt that the federal government cannot change federal law."
? |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:41 PM Author: Sable locale http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&mc=19&forum_id=2#47508572
again, i'm sure you'll weasel and not make a statement, but this implies there is a "take" it all to this thread. there is no "take" here. immigration law is ordinary federal law. congress could throw out the whole system if it wanted. this thread is fucking retarded.
can the federal government change federal law?! pwned!! |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:44 PM Author: Irate rough-skinned principal's office I agree that the federal government has unilateral control over immigration law, for better or for worse. There might be some conflicts in the case of an actual invasion though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508699) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:00 PM Author: Sable locale there are no conflicts over an "actual invasion" because "invasion" in the constitution is federal law and thus the federal government through SCOTUS is the arbiter of what "invasion" means. see marbury v. madison. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508736) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:08 PM Author: Irate rough-skinned principal's office "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
That looks like federal law to you? |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:17 PM Author: henna house brethren unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."
This has to leave the door open a crack. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:27 PM Author: Sable locale yes. it's the constitution. my last comment was about the constitution.
do you think the constitution is not federal law? |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:31 PM Author: Irate rough-skinned principal's office Ok, I don't disagree with your last comment now that you have explained it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508817) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:33 PM Author: Sable locale http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&mc=42&forum_id=2#47508736
it was explained in the comment you responded to |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 11:24 PM Author: Irate rough-skinned principal's office I thought you were saying Congress gets to define what an invasion is by statute or resolution. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47509073) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:42 PM Author: aphrodisiac massive selfie 0L retard-level take given that the immigration laws haven't been erased. the scope of congress's legislative authority to repeal a law is very, very different from the scope of authority (or lack thereof) that the president and administrative officials have to dispose of or disregard the laws congress passes that they do not like. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508838) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 10:29 PM Author: Sable locale -5L times a billion take
1) the OP says "the feds" i.e. the federal government.
2) POTUS is in charge of enforcing the law. his enforcement or lack thereof is not a matter for the courts, it's a matter for politics.
the whole issue here is that POTUS isn't enforcing the law, yet you assert that there is a mechanism for forcing him to do so? ok, so POTUS isn't enforcing immigration law right now. so what do, friend? |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 10:47 PM Author: talented base feces OP is a bot trying to instigate, probably programmed by Cass Sunstein. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508964) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 11:08 PM Author: aphrodisiac massive selfie Look TTT, there are actual lawyers here, maybe even some who made everlasting contributions to our rich tapestry of jurisprudence. Read this to start getting up to speed. Pay particular attention to the section starting on page 24. There are absolutely ways to reign in a lawless administration, although the defendant is generally going to be an agency head rather than the actual POTUS.
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43708.pdf |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 11:16 PM Author: Sable locale poast in the bet thread faggot. im not reading your faggot pdf. i haven't seen a single lawmo on your side. this place is filled with conservative lawyers (im one) and only candy ride agrees with you (not a lawyer) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47509046) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2024 1:51 AM Author: aphrodisiac massive selfie where are the lawmos on your side? regardless, this place is full of shitlawyers with a handful of former biglawyers. barely any of them know very much about constitutional and administrative law. if you want to learn so that can you stop making a fool of yourself, read what i posted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47509252) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:05 PM Author: talented base feces Of course there's "recourse," faggot. Whimpering to SCOTUS just isn't the way to do it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508588) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:14 PM Author: awkward lodge athletic conference Law is meaningless. It's the power to enforce the law - or not enforce the law - that is meaningful. All laws are selectively applied and it's always been the case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508626) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:15 PM Author: talented base feces All shitcons are doing ITT is proving that they have no power. OP is answering is his own question. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508630) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:41 PM Author: floppy sticky brunch Finally someone gets it. This shit does not matter any more, libs are doing whatever the fuck they want while gunner types huff and whip themselves into a frenzy over the rules no one but them is following (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508690) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:19 PM Author: Sable locale if you're talking about revolution then anything is possible, obviously. but that's not worth debating. people can come up with any form of government and policy they want. i thought we were talking about the existing system.
yeah, sure, the people could rebel against the government and install me as monarch. there is a non-zero chance of that happening too. and i promise to yeet juans back to spic town if that happens. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:24 PM Author: floppy sticky brunch Lol @ the government enforcing its own laws requiring a revolution. This is why non lawfags justifiably think this is all bullshit, especially now (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508803) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:32 PM Author: Sable locale there are no laws that require a revolution, stupid.
it is all bullshit. the law is made up by the people. the people can make up whatever rules they want. but that wasn't the purpose of your thread.
yeah but if we destroy the legal system and create a new one the rules will be changed." WOW, HOLY SHIT!!! |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:35 PM Author: laughsome stag film goal in life Judges make up the laws. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508825) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:41 PM Author: floppy sticky brunch Yeah no shit I wasn't mocking you just the absurdity of the reality. The people decide very little if anything now, judges can just make shit up and foist it on them (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508835) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:50 PM Author: Sable locale 180, if true (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508865) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:39 PM Author: geriatric startling menage fortuitous meteor xo cons getting btfo a lot recently... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508684) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:41 PM Author: Exciting Chapel Police Squad "recently" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508688) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:42 PM Author: geriatric startling menage fortuitous meteor points to a Trump win in 2024 imo (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508692) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:41 PM Author: Sable locale this whole thing has been a nicer reminder that there are a lot of retarded cons here. sometimes i get so used to dunking on libs that i forget we have a lot of genuine retards i am politically aligned with. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508691) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:42 PM Author: floppy sticky brunch You don't get it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508695) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 8:56 PM Author: Sable locale http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508581
i answered your question plainly and asked a question, which you declined to answer. so yeah, i "don't get it" because there's nothing to get. you asked one of the most retarded questions i've read in my life, and it was supposed to be some kind of pwn. i'm sure if you had any follow up you would have, but you haven't, and you won't. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:01 PM Author: floppy sticky brunch You still don't get it (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508742) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:02 PM Author: Bossy striped hyena You aren't getting that nobody here gives a fuck about the minutiae of constitutional law
this isn't your dweeb FedSoc meeting. I want a majority of thugs in robes to let Texas exterminate illegals with cowboy hat death squads, I don't care what the actual constitution says |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:15 PM Author: Sable locale 1) this isn't minutiae, this is black letter law.
2) if you want to say texas should rebel against it, fine. but, as a matter of law, this is dead in the water. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:17 PM Author: Irate rough-skinned principal's office (female judge) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508787) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 10:42 PM Author: talented base feces Why don't you just start exterminating people and dare the government to do something about it? Did MLK wait for the 1964 Civil Rights Act to be signed into law before he started the civil rights movement? I thought white people were brave, strong and smart so you must be some other race. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508959) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:06 PM Author: swashbuckling violet abode boistinker i'm convinced that at least 50% of the politishitpumos are who the reptile politishitpumos always call "obeezy" but is actually just one guy talking to himself (including of course accusing himself of being himself) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508759) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2024 10:32 AM Author: mind-boggling chad site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47509867) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 9:28 PM Author: laughsome stag film goal in life Wasn't one of the very first laws the US passed an immigration law that limited the people who could immigrate here to "free white men of good standing"? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508810) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 10:08 PM Author: Flirting Fanboi Hall Hey, gunerattt, if you're such an expert, explain how it could be constitutional for the federal government to exercise its powers in a manner contrary to my policy preferences (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508902) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 10:18 PM Author: Sable locale first fucking line of the constitution says the purpose is to promote general welfare and since i'm a member of the general public that means i can determine what's best for the general welfare ipso facto q.e.d. i'm right you fucking FAGGOTTTTTTTT!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508913) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 10:24 PM Author: azure galvanic library (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508929) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 10:19 PM Author: mind-boggling chad site (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508916) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 10:36 PM Author: floppy sticky brunch Nonsense. The policy is the law on the books, no one voted for open borders (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508950) |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 10:49 PM Author: henna house brethren If this is true then how come federal weed laws are not enforced? Bush was the last President to arrest people for weed. Since Obama they haven't enforced it. But people voted to criminalize weed! Yes it's a federal crime but the FBI doesn't go around arresting people for smoking pot. They used to - but it's no longer enforced. Any President COULD enforce the law but you cannot compel a President to do something. The remedy is Impeachment or vote for a different President. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508969) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2024 4:15 AM Author: cracking aquamarine gaming laptop So Texas police can't arrest people for marijuana because federal agents don't? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47509363) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2024 8:00 AM Author: Sable locale CAN A STATE CRIMINALIZE SOMETHING THAT IS DE FACTO FEDERALLY LEGAL
*blank stare*
they're not sending their best folks |
|
Date: March 20th, 2024 11:36 AM Author: henna house brethren Co-jurisdiction. Texas obviously cannot arrest someone and charge them with a federal crime. Marijuana is illegal both in the state law and the federal law. Just because fed doesn't enforce doesn't prevent Texas from enforcing their laws.
The difference is that Texas doesn't have the jurisdiction to make laws that are the sole purview of the federal government. We saw this in Colorado trying to ban Trump from the ballot. 50 states can't all be deciding individually who is on the ballot. The Constitution is very clear that immigration issues are strictly in the purview of federal law. Texas has no standing to deport people. This is why gunneratttt is sperging out because few ITT grasp this simple concept.
I only leave the door slightly ajar for some Invasion interpretation that I give maybe 10% chance of impacting the ruling. In 2012 lib SCOTUS shut this same argument down in Arizona. We'll see what unfolds but the invasion argument is the only thing Texas has in this one. It's a hail mary at best. Obviously the SCOTUS can't come out and say Texas can start enforcing federal immigration law because it can't. That will never happen. But it will interesting if the Justices come up with some kind of carve out. |
|
Date: March 19th, 2024 10:40 PM Author: talented base feces (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47508956) |
|
Date: March 20th, 2024 11:39 AM Author: frum institution sandwich when I think of "policy preferences" idk if I include the gov utterly failing (it's actually worse than that they're actively assisting illegals getting into the US) to do one of its main duties (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5506372&forum_id=2#47510046) |