Submit your comments on this article |
Government |
President Obama confirms that illegal immigrants who qualify for his programs won't be deported regardless of judge's order |
2015-02-26 |
![]()
|
Posted by:Fred |
#7 AFAIK the US Constitution does NOT recognize Partial, Semi-, or Quasi-US Citizens + Permanent Residents - ITS EITHER THEY ARE, OR THEY ARE NOT. EITHER DEPORT THEM ASAP, EN MASSE' IFF NEED BE, OR ELSE STOP P ******** WUSSYING AROUND + MAKE THEM DE FACTO CITIZENS-RESIDENTS. WHY? BECAUSE THE FEDS ARE BREAKING CONSTITUTIONAL + FEDERAL LAWS IFF THEY DON'T, WHICH THEY ARE NOT TO BE DOING. Many Years or Decades of Pervasive or Perennial PCorrectness-Deniabilty has affected the Fed so much I won't be surprised iff they don't know the difference between right or wrong, up versus down, etc. anymore. |
Posted by: JosephMendiola 2015-02-26 22:21 |
#6 And the RINOs are perfectly fine with this tyrant. |
Posted by: Airandee 2015-02-26 22:18 |
#5 Contempt is a disregard or disobedience of public authority. As applied to injunctions, criminal contempt is wilful disobedience of the courts' decree, thus resulting in a disregard for the courts' authority. Criminal contempt in the federal courts has to some extent been limited. both substantively and procedurally, by statute; but for the most part, the common law rules still prevail.' Formulation of general rules determining the evidentiary requirements for criminal contempt is difficult because the violation is defined largely by the terms of the specific injunction. For example, a guard accused of mishandling a federal prisoner in a county jail could not be convicted of criminal contempt because this conduct was not embodied in a decree.8 But where there was a court order committing a prisoner into the custody of a sheriff to be held safe until the expiration of his sentence, his conduct in allowing a prisoner to go free was criminal contempt.' Thus it is seen that an injunction is analogous to a criminal statute. Conduct not forbidden cannot be criminal contempt. But, like statutes, injunctions frequently must be phrased in general terms to be effective and therefore require subsequent judicial interpretation to ascertain what they prohibit." http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2810&context=ilj |
Posted by: Ebbomosh Hupemp2664 2015-02-26 16:41 |
#4 Getting better all the time: Obama Dares GOP: Go Ahead, ‘Have a Vote on Whether What I’m Doing Is Legal…I Will Veto’ I fear that he will plunk some whack-o's magic twanger and things will get really ugly. |
Posted by: Spereling Hupeling6103 2015-02-26 16:11 |
#3 rancorous applause That word does not mean what you think it does. |
Posted by: KBK 2015-02-26 13:46 |
#2 He's a tyrant (well, a puppet tyrant), but an elected one. He does have that in common with Hitler. Often people wish to be subjects. |
Posted by: Glenmore 2015-02-26 13:08 |
#1 He doesn't give a shit about even pretending to follow the law anymore. The tyrant is out in the open. |
Posted by: DarthVader 2015-02-26 12:36 |