"Extreme Vetting" -- is it constitutional?
a constitutional law professor weighs in;;; what do
you think? -- j
.
you think? -- j
.
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
Obama would not have passed the ideological test as he was raised both as a Muslim and a Communist.
Immigration has been done by a quota system with no test of whether we need people's talents or if they are compatible with American values.
What are American Values you may ask?
See: http://02f8c87.netsolhost.com/WordPre...
Our government's primary responsibility is providing protection for We The (free) People.
That's not happening these days.
I would be in favor of not only heavily vetting the Islamic applicant for immigration privileges if nor nothing else their cultural background and heavily barbaric responses are unacceptable.
I'm also in favor of reigning in both Presidents and rogue Judges before allowing them to be elected or appointed and in the case of the latter allowing recall which exists for Presidents and Vice Presidents should in the Succession amendments so why not other senior members of the government.
On the whole a sound idea needing implementation showing solid thinking. '
As one commenter in the original article put it the Democrats should have vetted their own candidates for rogue candidates like Hillary and instructed their right wing of the left wing of the Government Party to do the same. But the cat is out to the bag and the ultimate outsider is in the political hen house. All for the better.
For their purpose they manicure quite well but as always it's only cosmetic until the nation itself decides to rebuilt itself.
Tiypically nation building has been more a case of vacuum building with something else rushing in to fill the void or more than one somethings and the motive revenge instead of economics.
using a back-hoe to do a manicure ... we should use
the military to do what they are trained to do. -- j
.
The Supreme Court was never intended to wield power over state law (except, for example, in cases of interstate commerce to prevent interstate tariffs from restricting commerce.)
Both the executive and judicial branches have stolen power that belongs to the people and to the states. Congress should set explicit rules for immigration and imprisonment penalties for the executive branch if those rules are not followed. States should take back the power by disregarding all executive orders, proclamations, etc. This is supposed to be a Republican form government, not a monarchy or a dictatorship.