SmarterthanYou
rebel
And any English teacher will tell you that it's a distinction without difference.
Potential for fraud is the future tense of potential fraud.
liar
And any English teacher will tell you that it's a distinction without difference.
Potential for fraud is the future tense of potential fraud.
the states and "the people" we are around before the federal government -and the 10th merely protects
( not "derives") those plenary powers from being glommed up/absorbed by the feds.
No you don't because you're trying to make a distinction but it's without difference.
"Potential for fraud" means the same thing as "potential fraud" because "fraud" is the direct object YOU STUPID ILLITERATE FUCKING MORON.
IOW's it's a limitation on federal powers -the Constitution doesn't grant/derive powers to the states
-they are already there
Oh, ok, tardo.
No they aren't...they weren't until the 10th amendment.
Whether or not they are fired doesn't change that they should be regardless of this pretend demand that the constitution forces them as individuals to do a job.
I know...what do you think I've been pointing out this whole time?
What do you think the OP subject means?
Dude.
Yes, I know...that's why I've been asking everyone what is the point of law enforcement since they have no Constitutional duty to enforce the law?
I am not pretending that and if you read my posts on this thread, would see that I am the one pointing OUT that they have no duty to protect us...not that they do.
My argument is that they are pointless because they have no duty to enforce the law, despite calling themselves law enforcement.
as usual you are ass backwardsYes they abso-fucking-lutely are.
The power over which is derived from the 10th Amendment.By default of the 10th amendment.
So again, you are defending law enforcement for not enforcing the law.That's how fucking stupid you are today.
According to this, you're way off.
liar
My point is this: They are not the government and therefore have no personal CONSTITUTIONAL duty to do something. However they accepted a job that requires them to do this as part of the job and if they will not do the job for any reason they should be fired. They are also not constitutionally protected for being fired for not doing their job.
you are claiming the feds are the source of powers -that the states "derive" those powers by the 10thSo what you're saying is that if not for the 10th Amendment, the federal government would write all the laws for everyone.
So how is that any different from what I said? It's not, you're just a fucking moron.
you are claiming the feds are the source of powers -that the states "derive" those powers by the 10th
the people and the states give the federal government enumerated power
OK, but the job of law enforcement is to enforce the law, so if there is no Constitutional duty to enforce the law, then what is the point of law enforcement?
Describing yourself then. That is not a stupid comment. Liberals are the sole reason for the pussification of this country. There is zero argument to that.
So you formulate your own "facts" ? LOLbecause you're obviously incapable of formulating what happened yourself..........sheeple
All cops are bad...it doesn't matter what state they are in.
The institution of law enforcement is corrupted, so it will never produce positive outcomes.
Do u get upset when immigration laws are not enforced in BLUE sanctity cities
gawd damned you are stupid. state constitutions were around before ratification of the US Constitution of 1787Of course they do...that's why they have state Constitutions.
https://www.ncsl.org/blog/2017/11/17/your-states-constitution-the-peoples-document.aspx
The first state constitutions were adopted in 1776 by Delaware, Maryland, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Virginia.