All these lukeworm "supporters" after all this man has done for you.
Pathetic.
If the last 4 years have taught me anything, it's that people are impatient, impulsive, and even 90% of the most passionate have no backbone.
Lol fuck off. What a pussy
You do realize that the IA requires the president to order dispersal, right?
Everyone chill the fuck out. This is far from over
He did the same thing on the night of Nov 3rd
Funny how last Q drop is literally a link to the song "We're not gonna take it"
This dude 100% a virgin
Going to lookouts games are fun too.
That's my senator. Go Marsha!
All this shit is TURNING me into a white supremacist. I never even thought about race until they started putting shit like this in headlines. If it's a choice between getting all meek and pussy and apologizing for existing, or fighting for my right to exist, I'm going to do the latter.
Why doesn't any administrator ever have a fucking nutsack and tell these "complainers" to fuck themselves?
I mean, I don't get how he comes to the conclusion that the TX case was somehow a guide on how to file another suit that will have standing. "Under article 3 instead of article 2" is not a self-defining statement. Article 3 of the Constitution describes the judiciary and article 2 describes the Executive powers. What about filing "under article 3" grants standing?
Well to my understanding, that's not exactly true. While inherent presidential powers (like the pardon power) are not subject to congressional amendment or abolition, other powers are. Remember, the IA is not in the Constitution, unlike the pardon. The IA was exactly what it said it was, an ACT. That means it was passed as legislation. So if it was created by Congress, then it can be removed by Congress.
This is not an inherent presidential power and thus they can restrict it. At least that's my understanding and I took a Constitutional law class.
Yup. Good thing it will never happen. Trump won't let us down
He is finally talking some sense.
White countries are the only ones where gays and t-slurs can actually live in peace and not worry about getting thrown off a building. Then they have the gall to say we are oppressors.
I mean, I can definitely use $600. It's not $1,200 but it's also not nothing. Why would you want to veto?
You're a shitposter on the donald, you in no position to counter my actual advice after studying the actual cases and material.
You all have heard of writs of cert, you've just never heard its official name. It's what happens every time the Court agrees to hear a case from a lower court.
This is what people mean when they say that SCOTUS granted cert to hear DC v Heller for instance. Or Roe v Wade or so on.
It depends. If police have a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, they can briefly detain you to confirm or dispel their suspicions in what it called a Terry stop. In a situation like that, you are not under arrest, but you are not free to leave.
Generally, things are more nuanced than how they are portrayed on TV. Just make sure not to incriminate yourself and never consent to a search. If arrested, invoke your rights and stay quiet.
If they engage in those practices, the evidence obtained by it is generally inadmissible. My advice stands.
We will channel Charles Martel and stop the global takeover. This is our Tours
It's almost like the Equal Protection clause doesn't even exist for these people.
Morons.
Yes. Courts have interpreted that kind of information is not protected under the 4th amendment right to privacy in unreasonable searches and seizures or under the 5th amendment right to abstain from self-incrimination.
However, a number password is not something they can force you to do. Just remember, the only way they can make you is if you agree, or rather, "consent". Never do that.
As a law student I'd like to reiterate a great point you bring up.
Never, ever talk to the police. If you are arrested and get mirandized, you need to UNEQUIVICALLY invoke your right to silence and your right to counsel. They are RIGHTS.
"I invoke my right to counsel under the 6th amendment and my right to silence under the 5th"
Questioning must cease when you do that. But for the love of God, do NOT speak again. Talking after that point can be interpreted to be waiving your rights and statements made against you can possibly be admitted into evidence. Hell, even if they violate your right to counsel or silence and you say something like "I have never touched a gun" they can STILL use that to impeach your credibility on the stand even though they can't enter it into direct evidence.
Red 1