Join INGunOwners For Free
Page 356 of 370 FirstFirst ... 256 306 346 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 366 ... LastLast
Results 3,551 to 3,560 of 3697
  1. #3551
    Grandmaster IndyDave1776's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JettaKnight View Post
    I'm kinda there with you.

    I get IndyDave & Bug's point, but lessening the flow of tax dollars (which by no means is certain) to CA and other "illegal rich" states isn't worth sacrificing the checks and balance system we have.
    What about having congressional representation taken away from you and given to illegals?

    As for checks and balances, what about limits on the power of the SC? Thomas Jefferson rightly warned of of the potential for the court to become a de facto oligarchy.
    Government and pedophiles both practice buggering those powerless to defend themselves.

  2. #3552
    INGO Homebrewer JettaKnight's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BugI02 View Post
    Consider federal funding for medicaid, although in California I'm not sure if you have to be a citizen to be eligible. If California were to claim say 14 million people eligible for medicaid but the FedGov could make the case that the numbers do not align with the census would it not be evidence that California was seeking to lay some of the costs of its immigration policies (which are at odds with the US govt) off upon the US gov't

    In that circumstance I would expect the gov't to deny some of the claim and I would fully support that. As a state, California has a broad range to adopt foolish policies but should bear the costs of such entirely themselves
    But would that happen? I sort of see it as a pipe dream. There's plenty of funding for infrastructure, and I'd argue that that funding should not be tied to immigration status if the users.

    And there's the potential that CA would come back and say, "The census is wrong because you F*** it up!" and the courts could agree with that assessment.









    But how many of them are quality posts (Hi Jetta)
    ALL OF THEM!



    OK, probably none of them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln
    Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?

  3. #3553
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    IMHO, getting that question on the 2020 census by EO isn't worth the constitutional crisis that may be Trump's reward.
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  4. #3554
    Grandmaster BugI02's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JettaKnight View Post
    But would that happen? I sort of see it as a pipe dream. There's plenty of funding for infrastructure, and I'd argue that that funding should not be tied to immigration status if the users.

    And there's the potential that CA would come back and say, "The census is wrong because you F*** it up!" and the courts could agree with that assessment.

    [Why not a 'Hyde amendment' for the expenses incurred by a states illegals]










    ALL OF THEM!



    OK, probably none of them.
    *.*
    You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you

  5. #3555
    Grandmaster IndyDave1776's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by JettaKnight View Post
    But would that happen? I sort of see it as a pipe dream. There's plenty of funding for infrastructure, and I'd argue that that funding should not be tied to immigration status if the users.

    And there's the potential that CA would come back and say, "The census is wrong because you F*** it up!" and the courts could agree with that assessment.










    ALL OF THEM!



    OK, probably none of them.
    How about we back that up a step to the point where if they are illegal they shouldnt be here?

    I take it that your solution is that we should all just roll over for a coup by population replacement?
    Government and pedophiles both practice buggering those powerless to defend themselves.

  6. #3556
    Grandmaster BugI02's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by T.Lex View Post
    IMHO, getting that question on the 2020 census by EO isn't worth the constitutional crisis that may be Trump's reward.
    But you're OK with another branch being able to second guess what it believes is the Executive's motivations? No constitutional crisis there. This is exactly the kind of crap that makes SCOTUS justice's ideological leanings important when they shouldn't be

    The case should turn solely on what constitutional issues are before the court, not on what the justices feel/believe the outcome should be. The language of the constitution says congress shall delineate how the census is to be carried out

    The questions should be:

    1) Is there a body of law by which congress has delineated how the census should be carried out

    2) Would the re-introduction of a census question, which Obama unilaterally removed from the census, in any way violate the body of law congress established to govern how the census was undertaken

    If yes for #1 and no for #2, SCOTUS' job is over
    You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you

  7. #3557
    INGO Homebrewer JettaKnight's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by IndyDave1776 View Post
    How about we back that up a step to the point where if they are illegal they shouldnt be here?

    I take it that your solution is that we should all just roll over for a coup by population replacement?
    Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how any question on the census has an effect on reducing the illegal alien population?



    Solve that issue on its merits. Don't mix up the two.
    Perhaps we could have been solving it with the resources tied up in this fiasco.
    Quote Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln
    Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends?

  8. #3558
    Grandmaster T.Lex's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    New reports that Trump will issue an EO telling the Commerce Department to figure out how many non-citizens there are by other means. That's the right answer.

    The DOJ had presented reasons for the question that the courts determined were pretextual/insufficient to justify its inclusion. So, it was ordered to not be on there. SCOTUS agreed, and said that unless justification was provided, the lower court orders preventing the inclusion were affirmed.
    https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/07/2...ship-question/
    Resident Warning Shot Statist.

  9. #3559
    Grandmaster BugI02's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Jetta, do some reading in the actual decision here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...xt/1583226001/

    Read page 13 for sure, and then skim up to 18 and 19 (that's where I gave up) and then tell me that it doesn't seem like they were going to rule in the gov't favor. Page 13 explicitly acknowledges the bureaus right to ask a citizenship question so I'm at a loss to see how they can somehow be enjoined except on procedural questions
    You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you

  10. #3560
    Grandmaster BugI02's Avatar

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by BugI02 View Post
    Jetta, do some reading in the actual decision here: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...xt/1583226001/

    Read page 13 for sure, and then skim up to 18 and 19 (that's where I gave up) and then tell me that it doesn't seem like they were going to rule in the gov't favor. Page 13 explicitly acknowledges the bureaus right to ask a citizenship question so I'm at a loss to see how they can somehow be enjoined except on procedural questions

    Edit: Since Ross's motives are what is in question, would a direct order from the President (EO) moot that question?
    You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Button Dodge