Democrats Looking To Ramp Up The Fascism

[Pavlov]

My point exactly. Snowflakes will side with Scalia when it suits them. Thanks for the back-up, Lite.

well. it was US Supreme Court opinion

back-up

[Winehole23]

well. it was US Supreme Court opinion

I was coming at it from the principle of subsidiarity, but yeah, legally it does come down to opinions.

[spurraider21]

My point exactly. Snowflakes will side with Scalia when it suits them. Thanks for the back-up, Lite.

so do you think commandeering should be allowed when it suits your immigration narrative?

[Spurtacular]

Also, that was a philo, lite. We weren't talking about appropriation. But at blakehole for giving you props on backing him up with your philo.

[spurraider21]

Also, that was a philo, lite. We weren't talking about appropriation. But at blakehole for giving you props on backing him up with your philo.

im not talking about appropriation either. the federal government cannot compel state or local governments to do their bidding for them

[Spurtacular]

so do you think commandeering should be allowed when it suits your immigration narrative?

When did I say that the feds needed to commandeer anything, philo?

[Pavlov]

Also, that was a philo, lite. We weren't talking about appropriation. But at blakehole for giving you props on backing him up with your philo.

What is your legal basis for claiming local law enforcement is required to help ICE?

[Spurtacular]

im not talking about appropriation either. the federal government cannot compel state or local governments to do their bidding for them

That doesn't mean they're allowed to obstruct matters. That's the word I used.

[Spurtacular]

What is your legal basis for claiming local law enforcement is required to help ICE?

You can participate when you ante up.

You know what to do:

_____ is / isn't a cons utionally founded agency.

'Til then, enjoy the kiddies table.

[Pavlov]

That doesn't mean they're allowed to obstruct matters. That's the word I used.

But that's not obstruction.

[Pavlov]

You can participate when you ante up.

You know what to do:

_____ is / isn't a cons utionally founded agency.

'Til then, enjoy the kiddies table.

Why did you change your wording on muh demands?

demanding I ante up after folding three times

[Spurtacular]

Muh kiddies table

[spurraider21]

States have the right to harbor illegals?

Chump doesn't know how the Cons ution works.

They have an obligation to cooperate or to not obstruct their duties.

this was the conversation.

there is no reason why North Carolina should compel their officers to do the bidding of the feds

[Spurtacular]

Why did you change your wording on muh demands?

demanding I ante up after folding three times

Does my wording substantively differ from "ICE is cons utional"?

[Pavlov]

Does my wording substantively differ from "ICE is cons utional"?

So you're saying ICE is cons utional now?

Cool.

I agree.

[Spurtacular]

this was the conversation.

there is no reason why North Carolina should compel their officers to do the bidding of the feds

So, your argument is that states can knowingly break federal law

[Spurtacular]

So you're saying ICE is cons utional now?

Cool.

I agree.

Chump trying to weasel out. Par. This is your issue on the wording.

Does my wording substantively differ from "ICE is cons utional"?

[Chris]

there is no reason why North Carolina should compel their officers to do the bidding of the feds

Enforcing the law withstanding.

God help the citizen that hires lawyer21.

[Pavlov]

Chump trying to weasel out. Par. This is your issue on the wording.

Does my wording substantively differ from "ICE is cons utional"?

I seriously don't know where you're going with all this.

We agree that ICE is cons utional.

So why are you whining and making muh demands?

[Spurtacular]

I seriously don't know where you're going with all this.

We agree that ICE is cons utional.

So why are you whining and making muh demands?

Let's break it down:

You took exception to the wording that you previously claimed was on par with your wording, anyways.

Then when you realized that you had compulsively shat on yourself, you tried to divert from that glaring reality.

[Spurtacular]

We agree that ICE is cons utional.

Now rid yourself from the ambivalence to be promoted from the kiddies' table.

[Pavlov]

Let's break it down:

You took exception to the wording that you previously claimed was on par with your wording, anyways.

Then when you realized that you had compulsively shat on yourself, you tried to divert from that glaring reality.

You were the one demanding I post a sentence verbatim then changed that sentence.

That proves my point.

lol derp

[Pavlov]

Now rid yourself from the ambivalence to be promoted from the kiddies' table.

What is ambivalent about that?

You never explained.

You folded.

So explain it now.

[Winehole23]

So, your argument is that states can knowingly break federal law

That's not what he said; a few hostile inferences must be supplied to reach your conclusion.

What laws do you think cities and states are breaking by harboring asylees?

[Spurtacular]

What is ambivalent about that?

You never explained.

You folded.

So explain it now.

It's not ambivalent?

Then state it more explicitly. You shouldn't mind, since you claim it's not at odds with your position.