Federal judge orders Trump to restart DACA even though DACA is NOT a law!!!

jimmymccready said:
Never waste time on a person who has already made up his mind and is in "nuh uh" land; those who say Marbury vs Madison and gun regulations are unconstitutional simply are a waste of time, energy, and motion to quarrel with. They will not learn anything.

When dealing with such people, simply state the overwhelming majority, but most of all the courts and the legislatures, disagree with them, and that is the end of it.
Click to expand...

whats popular isn't always right, what's right isn't always popular. the majority, at one time, agreed with slavery.....was that right? the majority, at one time, agreed that marijuana could be prohibited.......was that right? your problem is your fear of freedom of others. you need to feel comfortable by applying controls over others, constitutional or not, so you employ the highest level of cognitive dissonance to make yourself believe that you are the one that's correct and that others are just in to anarchy. for example, show us where 'shall not be infringed' was ever defined by a founding father as 'reasonable regulations'.
 
RB 60 said:
By declaring a mistrial, for one. Before the trial begins, the judge issues guidelines that must be followed. At least that how it was on the Federal jury I was the foreman on.
How many juries have you sat in?
Click to expand...


HAHAHA. You know nothing about the law. If a jury says not guilty, that settles it. If a judge overruled that verdict and declared a mistrial there would be hell to pay.
 
RB 60 said:
By declaring a mistrial, for one. Before the trial begins, the judge issues guidelines that must be followed. At least that how it was on the Federal jury I was the foreman on.
How many juries have you sat in?
Click to expand...

a judge cannot declare a mistrial based upon the exercise of jury nullification. mistrials can only be declared upon some misconduct by the defense or prosecution. the ONLY action a judge can take upon suspecting a juror is using nullification is to replace the juror.
 
smarter than you and his fallacies of false equivalency make me :laugh: at the idiotic statements.

Trump Alt Right and the far right legal reasoning can keep a person giggling for hours.
 
Last edited:
jimmymccready said:
smarter than you and his fallacies of false equivalency make me :laugh: at the idiotic statements.

Trump Alt Right and the far right legal reasoning can keep a person giggling for hours.
Click to expand...

jokes on you, moron. i'm not a trumper or far right, but don't let that stop you from making stupid assumptions with your two dimensional thinking
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
HAHAHA. You ignorant jackass. Section 1324 of title 8 of the US code makes it a federal felony to encourage illegals to live here and obama was certainly in violation of that when he started DACA. DACA is also obstruction of justice since obama was letting illegals live and work here when the law says they can't.

DACA is very much a crime. THINK
Click to expand...

Where does jury nullification come in? Does the jury finds the DACA kids "not guilty" if they are tried for something? If they are tried and found guilty there is no jury nullification involved and certainly plays no role in constitutional interpretation. They would simply be deported, not charged with a crime.

Text Drivers are Killers and SmarterthanYou are off the deep end with this jury nullification thing as an alternative to the courts for interpreting the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
there is simply no response to this bullshit riddled post. it makes zero sense whatsoever. are you trying to channel orwells 1984?
Click to expand...

Do you need me to use smaller words?

Let me give you an example. Somebody advocates the violent overthrow of the U. S. government (but takes no action). The courts have ruled that is pure advocacy and is protected by the Constitution.

A state or locality says such speech should be illegal and makes a law against it. A person is charged and convicted of advocating the government overthrow. Since, in your view, the courts have no power to interpret the Constitution, they cannot strike down that law as unconstitutional. The result is that if you live in that state/city you have less freedom than people in other areas and the government has trampled on your rights. There is no check on the power of the state/local government to abuse your free speech rights.
 
Last edited:
Flash said:
Do you need me to use smaller words?

Let me give you an example. Somebody advocates the violent overthrow of the U. S. government (but takes no action). The courts have ruled that is pure advocacy and is protected by the Constitution.

A state or locality says such speech should be illegal and makes a law against it. A person is charged and convicted of advocating the government overthrow. Since, in your view, the courts have no power to interpret the Constitution, they cannot strike down that law as unconstitutional. The result is that if you live in that state/city you have less freedom than people in other areas and the government has trampled on your rights. There is no check on the power of the state/local government to abuse your free speech rights.
Click to expand...

the process would be for the case to work it's way through the state court system. Eventually it's going to be appealed to the federal level where a federal court will overturn that conviction, then you get to sue the state for millions. there is your check.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the process would be for the case to work it's way through the state court system. Eventually it's going to be appealed to the federal level where a federal court will overturn that conviction, then you get to sue the state for millions. there is your check.
Click to expand...

It would go directly to the federal courts since it involves the U. S. Constitution. How could the federal court overturn the conviction? You have been arguing the federal courts do not have the power to rule on the constitutionality of legislation. Are you changing your position (to agree with the other 99% of Americans)?
 
Flash said:
It would go directly to the federal courts since it involves the U. S. Constitution. How could the federal court overturn the conviction? You have been arguing the federal courts do not have the power to rule on the constitutionality of legislation. Are you changing your position (to agree with the other 99% of Americans)?
Click to expand...

not going to play a merry go round of idiocy with you. if you can't actually see the difference, just avoid jury duty, politics, and voting, because you are one of those low information peeps that needs the government to tell you what you can and cannot do.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
not going to play a merry go round of idiocy with you. if you can't actually see the difference, just avoid jury duty, politics, and voting, because you are one of those low information peeps that needs the government to tell you what you can and cannot do.
Click to expand...

In other words, the federal courts do have the power to declare laws unconstitutional??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top