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 neo96
Only IF
He goes to court, and has a jury of his peers,gets convicted. and only if the judge calls for that kind of sentence.
OF WHICH
None is going to ever happen.
Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
Originally posted by flyswatter
Here's the response you'll get from the Justice Department:
"The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions."
Short story ... no, OP. You're very, very wrong.
Show me where the constitution says that.
Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
www.law.cornell.edu...
a) Criminal penalties (1) (A) Any person who— (iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs— ((iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.
Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
Who's going to investigate this, John Boehner? Hahahahahahaha
Wait, no, Eric Holder? Hahahahahahahahahaha
Holder won't do anything but yes, Boehner and the rest of the House could investigate this. They ought to at least point out that obozo is breaking the law when he encourages illegals to come here. Breaking a very serious law that carries serious penalties.
Originally posted by VoidHawk
Originally posted by TheMagus
Originally posted by VoidHawk
woohoo, whens the show?
when the SS shows up
at OP's home
I think all the leaders of the last few decades have proven they are immune from prosecution.
Reagan had no interest in destroying the US of A and shredding the constitution.
Originally posted by buster2010
They didn't do it when Reagan did it so why would they execute Obama for it? Reagan was the greatest coyote in US history.
Originally posted by Lil Drummerboy
Reagan had no interest in destroying the US of A and shredding the constitution.
Originally posted by buster2010
They didn't do it when Reagan did it so why would they execute Obama for it? Reagan was the greatest coyote in US history.
Originally posted by Indigo5
this law is aimed at "coyotes" that might pack 100 mexicans into the back of a truck during a heatwave or leave a family in the desert when the water runs out.edit on 25-7-2013 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And Regean was lied to. He was promised border security if he agreed to amnesty and once that was signed they never secured the border.
Originally posted by TDawg61
Why are expressions such as"when pigs fly","only in a blue moon","That would be the day"coming to mind?I know...because it will NEVER happen law or not.
Originally posted by flyswatter
Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
Show me where the constitution says that.
Ok, show me where anything you have said is contained in the Constitution. I'll wait patiently.
Part of what has been determined on this matter:
"U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 7. The textual argument that the criminal prosecution of a person subject to removal by impeachment may not precede conviction by the Senate arises from the reference to the "Party convicted" being liable for "Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment." This textual argument draws support from Alexander Hamilton's discussion of this Clause in The Federalist Nos. 65, 69, and 77, in which he explained that an offender would still be liable to criminal prosecution in the ordinary course of the law after removal by way of impeachment. OLC Memo at 2.4"
www.justice.gov...
Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And Regean was lied to. He was promised border security if he agreed to amnesty and once that was signed they never secured the border.
And the damn fool should have seen that coming. I can never forgive reagan for the amnesty. It was bad for america and bad for the GOP.
Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
Originally posted by flyswatter
Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
Show me where the constitution says that.
Ok, show me where anything you have said is contained in the Constitution. I'll wait patiently.
Part of what has been determined on this matter:
"U.S. Const. art. I, § 3, cl. 7. The textual argument that the criminal prosecution of a person subject to removal by impeachment may not precede conviction by the Senate arises from the reference to the "Party convicted" being liable for "Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment." This textual argument draws support from Alexander Hamilton's discussion of this Clause in The Federalist Nos. 65, 69, and 77, in which he explained that an offender would still be liable to criminal prosecution in the ordinary course of the law after removal by way of impeachment. OLC Memo at 2.4"
www.justice.gov...
None of that has been "determined" as you put it, It's just some arbitrary statement by some self-proclaimed legal scholar. Fact is there is nothing in the constitution that says a president must first be removed from office before he can be criminally indicted. In fact it can be argued that since the constitution does not say who has authority to indict a sitting president, the authority thus rests with the states as per the tenth amendment.
Originally posted by flyswatter
[
This was far from "an arbitrary statement by some self-proclaimed legal scholar". The memorandum in that link was written by the Assistant Attorney General, in the Office of Legal Counsel, not by some second-year law student.
Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
Originally posted by flyswatter
[
This was far from "an arbitrary statement by some self-proclaimed legal scholar". The memorandum in that link was written by the Assistant Attorney General, in the Office of Legal Counsel, not by some second-year law student.
Just a bureaucrat giving his opinion. It's not binding on anyone.
Originally posted by flyswatter
Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
Just a bureaucrat giving his opinion. It's not binding on anyone.
The only "opinion" that is binding is that of the Supreme Court, as their "opinions" are the rulings of the highest court of this land.
Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
Originally posted by flyswatter
Originally posted by Make Speed Limit 45
Just a bureaucrat giving his opinion. It's not binding on anyone.
The only "opinion" that is binding is that of the Supreme Court, as their "opinions" are the rulings of the highest court of this land.
Where does the constitution say the US Supreme Court is above the State Supreme Courts? And where does the constitution say the opinions of Courts are above those of legislatures.? I'm sick of being told 9 unelected judges have final say on every issue.? THINK