AssHatZombie, is it your intention to change the topic? Just direct me to the thread of the topic that's of interest to you. If our interests are similarly engaged, I'll respond to your post within the thread you wished to direct me to. Respectfully, Supposn
There is no tape of the senate approving 2020 election. why not?
- Thread starter Truck Fump / h1b
- Start date
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
I question the truth of your claims.
As evidence I offer the proliferation of sanctuary cities operating consequence free.
Into the Night
Verified User
Read that again. REAL SLOW. Did you miss the part about the Authority of the United States? Where does the United States get it's authority from?
WRONG. I've already told you why. You are just chanting.
NO THEY ARE NOT! The Constitution of the United States, and ONLY the Constitution of the United States determines what is authorized. Other than where the Constitution of the United States specifically authorizes power and authority in a certain area, the United States government has NO AUTHORITY.
Never said it did. However, ALL federal laws and regulations MUST conform to the Constitution of the United States.
They don't. However, fixating on Article VI is ignoring Articles I, II, II, IV, and V and all the amendments of the Constitution. You can't just pick out one piece and discard the rest, dude. Go read them. I will not quote the entire Constitution here. Pay particular attention to Articles I and III, $8 and $9, the 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, and 14th amendments.
YOU did. YOU did it again! NO court has authority OVER the Constitution. NO court has authority to interpret the Constitution. No court has authority to change the Constitution. See Article III to see what authority courts DO have.
Into the Night
Verified User
That it does!
A good starting point, but he really needs to pay attention to several areas of the Constitution that he is ignoring in his fixation about Article VI. He is trying to use Article VI to justify an oligarchy and to discard the federation.
Into the Night
Verified User
WRONG. I have already shown you why. You CANNOT USE ARTICLE VI TO JUSTIFY AN OLIGARCHY or to DISCARD THE FEDERATION.
Into the Night
Verified User
Evasion. No. It's on topic. Answer the question put to you. Don't evade.
AssHatZombie you offer a statement of your opinion rather than evidence. Please logically explain and provide credible links or facts to support your contentions. Respectfully, Supposn
Into the Night
Verified User
RQAA. I have already answered this question. Stop mindlessly asking it.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
you say federal laws always prevail.
they obviously don't.
exhibit a: sanctuary cities operating in flagrant illegality with no consequences.
State and local governments have no obligation to enforce federal laws.
Truck Fump / h1b
Verified User
so you vehemently disagree with supposn?
No. Federal law is supreme over state law (where the federal government has authority). But it has agencies responsible for enforcing those laws. State and local government have no obligation to enforce those laws. Local police have no responsibility to check for immigration violations although most cities agree to hold violators for the feds if they have a warrant.
AssHatZombie, Flash didn't particularly agree or disagree with my posts, He posted a fact, enforcing federal law is not the states, but rather the federal government's responsibility.
What cities and what laws are you referring to? Was what you're complaining of occurring during only Democratic or only Republican administrations, or were they all not enforcing federal law?
I've been concerned because its taken the U.S. Department of Justice a year and a half to charge anyone for their involvement with the seditious besieging of those in the capitol building. The department of justice wasn't diligently enforcing federal law, I understand that it takes longer to make a conspiracy case, but IMO, suspected rioters being federally indicted for lesser crimes related to the Capitol Building riot, should also have been charged with sedition.
Note that I never posted the word prevails, I posted that federal law takes legal precedent over state laws. Respectfully, Supposn
Last edited:
Into the Night, I don't believe you've answered my question. You posted a logical explanation and provide credible links or facts to support AssHatZombie's contentions? If you did so, you should be able to find and quote your own post. Respectfully, Supposn
Into the Night, refer to the 2nd clause of the U.S. Constitution's article 6: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;
and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding”.
/////////////////
Into the Night, you haven't found and posted a quote of anything from the constitution which in any manner modifies or has precedent over the 2nd clause of article 6. Respectfully, Supposn
Into the Night
Verified User
WRONG. When States joined the Union, they joined the responsibilities the Constitution of the United States places on them.
Into the Night
Verified User
WRONG. States MUST conform to their responsibilities outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Into the Night
Verified User
Not a fact. Learn what 'fact' means.
Democrats ignore the law. They also discard the Constitution of the United States and all State constitutions.
No sedition...except by Democrats.
No sedition...except by Democrats.
Word games. Paradox. Irrational.
Into the Night
Verified User
Post #183.
Into the Night
Verified User
Argument by repetition fallacy (chanting). Argument of the Stone fallacy. RQAA.