And look how much he's managed to do with such little support? Makes everyone that came before him seem ineffectual by comparison.

I'm not so sure. What has he actually done? By that I mean actual on the ground stuff instead of press releases and the general Buffoon chest thumping?

#73

The old "they look suspicious" evasion of the reasonable suspicion standard. Knocked out Arizona's? proof of citizenship law a few years ago. What's next?

Greg Palast again? You gotta be sh****g me.

This equestrian manure has been going on in Texas for decades. It's gone nowhere. Don't expect this to either.

When I left the employ of the Federal Govt, I didn't get to take it with me.

Me neither. Though I never understood why the Army gave me one. I actively worked against it. Probably because it was really low level "special weapons" guard NCOIC.

I'm not sure why anyone expects to.

These folks are high level. Some have expertise that is valuable to successors and colleges.

No. They said one branch can enforce.

As mentioned elsewhere 6-3 or 5-4 in favor of Trump. This is an easy one.

You wanna cite some kinda source/reasoning for that ill advised prediction?

Gimme sumpin. Canudoit? Imguessinno!

I'd be careful with that argument. If they are not subject to the jurisdiction and can't be prosecuted, they are therefore a foreign combatant and subject to the War on Terror rules.

I am careful with what I write. Unlike persons who ignorantly conflate disparate legal subjects. Subject to jurisdiction deals with presence. "Foreign combatant" deals with war.

#71

No. I provided the context and gave instructions on how to get to the language I was discussing.

The straight forward holding of Plyler is that states cannot deny equal protection to illegal aliens. To get there the Court had to address whether illegals are "subject to" state jurisdiction.

That's an interesting and probably very complicated point.

Has it occurred to the Buffoon and his idiot sycophants that the "concept" of illegal aliens not being "subject to the jurisdiction" means they can't be prosecuted for crimes they commit?

The pardons will be challenged ...

No they won't. Pardon is a core presidential power. The reason for exercising the power cannot be questioned. Thank the Buffoon for that.

Also lawyers are drafting class action civil suit ...

Not likely. Two fundamental elements of class actions are numerosity and commonality. The first might be met. The second probably not because criminal cases and illnesses are too individualized.

Celebration of partisanship. Stupid.

journals.law.harvard.edu

Good work. Though your presentation lacks intellectual honesty. It omits the legal conclusion of those arguments in favor of ratification. Those arguments failed, albeit on non-merit grounds, at both trial and appellate levels.

Oh, and in the mean time, an officially convicted felon will take the oath of office of the President of the United States on the next January 20th.

And a S**T Ton of American persons are okay with that. That concerns me. It should you.

I fully believe they'll end up vacating the sentence on appeal.

Ms. "I worked in a law office once upon a time" opines.

I'm more circumspect. I'll wait for the Appellate Division to opine and narrow the issues before jumping off the cliff. Then I wait for the Appeals Court to have their say. After all that, in a few years, the USSC might be asked to weigh in. I'll hold my speculation for the future.

#7 | Posted by Alexandrite

Because the request raises a federal Constitutional question. The state did its thing. The question is whether the federal Constitution prevents such a thing. Tenth Amendment not implicated.

That's not, and shouldn't be, Merchan's call.

Actually, it is in the first instance. Absent a trial court ruling there is no higher court ruling.

Request denied.

X is 10

IX is 9.

I thought you had a college degree.

Curious thing about the pardon power in light of the SC's recent immunity decision. Pardon is an enumerated Article II power thus is a core power that carries absolute immunity. Period. End of sentence.

A president could openly offer pardons to the highest bidder or could offer a prospective pardon to the assassin of an opposition politician and only Congress can do a d**n thing about it through impeachment. Period. End of sentence.