It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by wecomeinpeace
Yeah, and you can't even shoot them on sight at the border, eh Doc.
Oh, sorry, wrong DrHoracid thread. My bad.
Originally posted by DrHoracid
So now you can't even ask an illegal if they are illegal?
Time to take back the country from the "Black" robe bunch. The "court" has ruled from the "bench" illegally since 1803 and its time to make them accountable.
Originally posted by RANT
Originally posted by DrHoracid
So now you can't even ask an illegal if they are illegal?
Sure you can...before you hire them. But not after the fact as an attempt to get them deported simply because they've filed suit against you for discriminatory practices.
You can't reward employers that hire illegals and abuse them with intent with a deportation scapegoat to their corporate misconduct.
The rest of the article makes that pretty clear.
Time to take back the country from the "Black" robe bunch. The "court" has ruled from the "bench" illegally since 1803 and its time to make them accountable.
No. It's time to take back context from those that seek to infuse noise, half truths, lies, and propaganda as relevant public discourse. It's time to make them accountable.
Originally posted by dawnstar
okay, so you would rather have the illegals, deported, then have the company prosecuted for hiring the illegals.....
I say, they should ask the question. But then, if it was found that he was discriminating against these employers, and they were indeed illegal. THE EMPLOYER SHOULD PAY FOR BOTH CRIMES!!!
Originally posted by dawnstar
good, because although I agree that the kid shouldn't have been in your orchard, picking your apples, well, I would disagree that that would give you the right to shoot the kid!!
Originally posted by DrHoracid
Time to take back the country from the "Black" robe bunch. The "court" has ruled from the "bench" illegally since 1803 and its time to make them accountable.
Originally posted by Bout Time
Originally posted by DrHoracid
Time to take back the country from the "Black" robe bunch. The "court" has ruled from the "bench" illegally since 1803 and its time to make them accountable.
Actually, it's been illegal since 2000, before that it was varying intepretation. But absolutely, after the "Clowns in Gowns " raped America in 2000, they should have been shot for treason.
Originally posted by DrHoracid
Rant are you not familiar with the 1803 marbry v madison bastardization of the role of the supreme court?
Originally posted by dawnstar
eating the apples, and getting drunk because most were rotten
Originally posted by RANT
Originally posted by DrHoracid
Rant are you not familiar with the 1803 marbry v madison bastardization of the role of the supreme court?
I always wondered exactly which days conservatives longed for, now I know.
So America was already "bastardized" within the first few thousand days, huh?
Yeah, that third branch can be a bitch when you've got some unconstitutional laws you want to pass beyond the scope of the original Constitution. That must suck for moral authoritarians like yourself.
Originally posted by RANT
Yeah, that third branch can be a bitch when you've got some unconstitutional laws you want to pass beyond the scope of the original Constitution. That must suck for moral authoritarians like yourself.
Originally posted by Jamuhn
Originally posted by RANT
Yeah, that third branch can be a bitch when you've got some unconstitutional laws you want to pass beyond the scope of the original Constitution. That must suck for moral authoritarians like yourself.
That's awesome RANT.
To Horacid, there is a clear difference between law and policy. It is silly to think that any actual laws are being passed in this day. The only laws that exist are the constitution and natural law. What our legislative and executive branch does is establish policy, the policy of the United States corporation. The way I see it is that the courts decide whether this policy is inline with true law.
So, if you want to get rid of a "bastardized" judicial system, you will need to go ahead and get rid of the entire "bastardized" federal, corporate, de facto government.
[edit on 10-3-2005 by Jamuhn]
Originally posted by DrHoracid
Since 1958, the Court has used Marbury v. Madision at least ten times to declare itself the exclusive interpreter of the Constitution.
Originally posted by Jamuhn
Originally posted by DrHoracid
Since 1958, the Court has used Marbury v. Madision at least ten times to declare itself the exclusive interpreter of the Constitution.
I'm not disagreeing with you about the illegality of these admiralty courts. I just wanted to point out that "law" is no longer passed, but rather corporate policy. And it is the bastardization of the American government as a whole that has let such events occur. The centralization of power allows power struggles between small groups of individuals, the specific dynamics of which allow one to weild a significant amount of power at any time. No longer are the days of a checked federal government as a whole.
But yes, it is interesting how the Supreme Court is a virtually unchecked brach of government, but I do not think simply getting rid of it is the answer.
[edit on 10-3-2005 by Jamuhn]