quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Yeah, Jeff, I would like to see an example of that.  I haven't seen that, and I am a pretty sharp kid, don't miss many tricks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Well that story puts the cart before the horse. AUMF gives the president the right..............its the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well, no they cant inside the US.   Here we got laws, we do not export our benificence to the greater part of the planet however.

AUMF is AUMF.   I dont know what the foolishness of the OP has to do with, clearly it states it aint happening insofar as american citizens are concerned on our soil. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Well that story puts the cart before the horse.  And only tells half the tale.

AUMF gives the president the right..............its the law, and the rule thereof.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I have grave misgivings about what transpired originally, and the law as it was crafted.
But it is the law now, and the rule of it........preserve, protect and defend.   It hasn't been sunsetted or found unconstitutional.
The dipshits that made those laws helped get us mired into where we are today, and unfortunately, for better or for worse the Grecians (from whence come the concept) thought better of their legislatures than we do and know to do.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I have grave misgivings about what transpired originally, and the law as it was crafted.
But it is the law now, and the rule of it........preserve, protect and defend.   It hasn't been sunsetted or found unconstitutional.
The dipshits that made those laws helped get us mired into where we are today, and unfortunately, for better or for worse the Grecians (from whence come the concept) thought better of their legislatures than we do and know to do.

I think what Jim is referring to with DOMA is Obama's DOJ deciding to not defend it in court.

Now, if it's okay to use a rule now that you were against originally simply because it hasn't been sunsetted nor found unConstitutional, what, again, is your support of not defending DOMA? It hasn't been decided by the SCOTUS, thus it may still be determined to be Constitutional.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

You should study the law regarding due process.  You don't have any knowledge of it.

Not only does the phrase only appear in the bill of rights (states thing dont you know),

This proscribes the 5th.
...........except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger..........

Well, lets waltz to the 14th:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,

Oh, but the fed has no such restriction in that language:
.......and of course congress can:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

That fucking constitution and the rule of law thingie.  

Yeah, it don't always go the way we want.

But Real0ne, you want to jabber on with codswallow about law all the time, maybe you should study it and we can have an intelligent conversation, instead of all this tinfoiling asswipe you get off of feebleminded sites.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I have grave misgivings about what transpired originally, and the law as it was crafted.
But it is the law now, and the rule of it........preserve, protect and defend.   It hasn't been sunsetted or found unconstitutional.
The dipshits that made those laws helped get us mired into where we are today, and unfortunately, for better or for worse the Grecians (from whence come the concept) thought better of their legislatures than we do and know to do.

I think what Jim is referring to with DOMA is Obama's DOJ deciding to not defend it in court.
Now, if it's okay to use a rule now that you were against originally simply because it hasn't been sunsetted nor found unConstitutional, what, again, is your support of not defending DOMA? It hasn't been decided by the SCOTUS, thus it may still be determined to be Constitutional.

What is there to defend?  Marraiges are states rights, don't you know, what did you want him to do, sign one of those do nothing, lazy ass, shiftless, worthless, only for political fodder exec orders (hey, that's what you are telling me) or blowhole meaningless asswipe like Willard?  What is prescribed in that law with section 3 certainly headed for the rhubarb?  Hell he is filing that the fuckin whole shitoree is unconstitutional in his offices to preserve and protect that constitution, and insure that document is not corrupted.  That's a defense of it as well.  Same way he said the torture stops now.
Cuz he goddamn sure can't gallop into the states and start arresting the pansies in love of whatever gender....that would sling up his ass.
I think it is teabagging asswipe blowholing there, to say 'defend' DOMA,  stud.
Which one blows your dress up?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:


You are okay with the President using a piece of shit law that hasn't been ruled unConstitutional, sunsetted or repealed, but you don't think he should uphold a piece of shit law that hasn't been ruled unConstitutional, sunsetted or repealed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
You should study the law regarding due process.  You don't have any knowledge of it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


You are okay with the President using a piece of shit law that hasn't been ruled unConstitutional, sunsetted or repealed, but you don't think he should uphold a piece of shit law that hasn't been ruled unConstitutional, sunsetted or repealed.

I understand that you dont understand much law, or constitution or anything much of anything.  Gobbletygook claptrap my ass.  Your felching some hysterical bullshit not withstanding, consider:
Preserve
Protect
Defend
Nothing in the constitution, his oath or the law says that he must go to court and argue that shitlickers ignorant laws are constitutional, in fact the very implication is that he can argue against shiteating law.   I believe he was goading the teabaggers into trying him on the War Powers Act, but they were smart enough not to bite.   That fuckin thing is prima facie unconstitutional right fuckin now.
(there are three words there for a reason, and they might have some minimal commerce with each other, but they have meanings, each different, grab up a dictionary, and get back to me when you get above a ignorant slobber) 
What piece of shit law was not ruled unconstitutional, because DOMA sure was, it is prima facie unconstitutional.
Oath of office for Congress: 
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
Why aren't we shooting the teabaggers down in the streets, where are your fuckin crocidile tears now, where is your outrage, where is your flouncing around hysterically like a peri-menopausal drag queen over the teabagger felching? 

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:


Defend doesn't mean defend the Laws of the Land, now?

quote:


Who passed DOMA? Is passing unConstitutional legislation illegal?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


Defend doesn't mean defend the Laws of the Land, now?

Not in the convoluted but simpletonian way you are trying to shoehorn in here. 

quote:

Who passed DOMA? Is passing unConstitutional legislation illegal?

Teabaggers, lets kill them. Clearly treason. That's defending the constitution, hah?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
But there has never been due process for people who war against us.