Quote:

---

No other branch has that immunity. The executive does not, nor does the legislative. An neither branch, because of Marbury v. Madison, declare actions or decisions of the SC unconstitutional like they can with the other two.

---

But Congress can craft laws to get around SCOTUS decisions. State legislatures can too, like many states did when the execrable Kelo (eminent domain) decision came down. So there is that.

Not enough, I know.

schmellba99 said:

---

Scotty Appleton said:

---

Junction71 said:

---

I recently obtained a copy of the Constitution and reading it closely, especially the Amendments 1-5. I don't see any way that the reference to "person" or "persons" doesn't refer to anyone but citizens of the United States of America. The references to "persons" in the first 4 definitely refer to citizens so in the context 5 does also. This is where all the concern about "due process" is coming from. You cannot take "all" to refer to everyone that might be here. It was "all" of certain group and that group was legal citizens of the USA.

---

I struggle with this as well. If the 2nd doesn't apply to non-citizens without restrictions then why do the others? It seems logic would assert that you can't have it both ways.

---

Your first mistake was trying to integrate logic into the legal system. They are oil and water and do not mix, never have and never will.

There is almost no consensus amongst the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of laws we already have on something as simple as when somebody is an adult or not. Do you think the same system that cannot define what a woman and a man are can somehow find the logic to do something as simple as read the constitution and apply a 3rd grade thought process to it?

---

It should be clarified that you can be a non-citizen and be able to purchase and own firearms, thus being able to exercise the 2nd amendment as an individual residing in the United States

Quote:

---

It should be clarified that you can be a non-citizen and be able to purchase and own firearms,

---

18 USC 922 would take exception to this under (a)(1)(a) or any person in connection with the acquisition or attempted acquisition of any firearm or ammunition from a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, knowingly to make any false or fictitious oral or written statement or to furnish or exhibit any false, fictitious, or

(2) (d) (5) (A)(5)
who, being an alien
(A)
is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B)
except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

A False statement under the first on a 4473 can land you in big dodo just ask Hunter.

The Carbajal-Flores case in Illinois muddies the water a bit under the second cited section but it is still illegal to falsely answer on 4473 21 (l) & (m)

Which is a lot of clauses to conclude that an immigrant visa holder or resident likely is able to purchase a firearm from an FFL. Though of course the communist states try to add additional restrictions, it's not real complicated.

Note, this is not legal advice, to any yahoo's reading this to post it on reddit/bluesky etc.

Marxists judges.

I would say that Trump should channel his inner Andrew Jackson, but Congress is begging him to act as a "king".

I don't know what needs to be done about the courts but this new age lawfare of the black coats is absolutely maddening

Line Ate Member said:

---

I would say that Trump should channel his inner Andrew Jackson, but Congress is begging him to act as a "king".

I don't know what needs to be done about the courts but this new age lawfare of the black coats is absolutely maddening

---

We're good. The House is coming back from a 2+ week vacation soon. They'll surely get things accomplished in short order.

mjschiller said:

---

Marxists judges.

---

Authoritarian prez

ACLU got ripped by Hendrix for ex parte communications and absurd requests/not notifying gov't:

🔥🔥🔥WHOA...I just now am seeing Judge Hendrix's scathing order chastising the ACLU for its effort to engage in ex parte communications with the Court. 1/

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 22, 2025

3/ Court begins by saying ex parte communications are a no-no, with some limits... pic.twitter.com/RRtU6vsdKr

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 22, 2025

5/ Here's transcript. Note how ACLU spins what government said about removals: It spoke ONLY of not removing two petitioners & Court in denying TRO noted that two petitioners couldn't seek relief on behalf of others, where petitioners didn't need relief. https://t.co/PRSVO7jqD6 pic.twitter.com/XpErrpBpzS

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 22, 2025

He knows there is a process to refer to the bar for ethical violations. Again, the ACLU attorneys are just idiots, imho, and it's not just that I disagree with their pleadings/strategies, they are seemingly wholly inept as litigators.

dvldog said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

I would say that Trump should channel his inner Andrew Jackson, but Congress is begging him to act as a "king".

I don't know what needs to be done about the courts but this new age lawfare of the black coats is absolutely maddening

---

We're good. The House is coming back from a 2+ week vacation soon. They'll surely get things accomplished in short order.

---

I, too, would like 16 weeks of vacation a year...

The time for "Due Process" was when they wanted to come here. If they subverted that, they forfeited their right to any due process related to expulsion in my opinion.

Ag with kids said:

---

dvldog said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

I would say that Trump should channel his inner Andrew Jackson, but Congress is begging him to act as a "king".

I don't know what needs to be done about the courts but this new age lawfare of the black coats is absolutely maddening

---

We're good. The House is coming back from a 2+ week vacation soon. They'll surely get things accomplished in short order.

---

I, too, would like 16 weeks of vacation a year...

---

Run for congress.

Booma94 said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

dvldog said:

---

Line Ate Member said:

---

I would say that Trump should channel his inner Andrew Jackson, but Congress is begging him to act as a "king".

I don't know what needs to be done about the courts but this new age lawfare of the black coats is absolutely maddening

---

We're good. The House is coming back from a 2+ week vacation soon. They'll surely get things accomplished in short order.

---

I, too, would like 16 weeks of vacation a year...

---

Run for congress.

---

No. I have integrity.

Banks Monkey said:

---

mjschiller said:

---

Marxists judges.

---

Authoritarian prez

---

go back to the premium board. You're out of your depth here.

nortex97 said:

---

ACLU got ripped by Hendrix for ex parte communications and absurd requests/not notifying gov't:

🔥🔥🔥WHOA...I just now am seeing Judge Hendrix's scathing order chastising the ACLU for its effort to engage in ex parte communications with the Court. 1/

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 22, 2025

3/ Court begins by saying ex parte communications are a no-no, with some limits... pic.twitter.com/RRtU6vsdKr

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 22, 2025

5/ Here's transcript. Note how ACLU spins what government said about removals: It spoke ONLY of not removing two petitioners & Court in denying TRO noted that two petitioners couldn't seek relief on behalf of others, where petitioners didn't need relief. https://t.co/PRSVO7jqD6 pic.twitter.com/XpErrpBpzS

— Margot Cleveland (@ProfMJCleveland) April 22, 2025

He knows there is a process to refer to the bar for ethical violations. Again, the ACLU attorneys are just idiots, imho, and it's not just that I disagree with their pleadings/strategies, they are seemingly wholly inept as litigators.

---

probably explains exactly how Bozoberg happened to "randomly" get the case in DC.

Banks Monkey said:

---

mjschiller said:

---

Marxists judges.

---

Authoritarian prez

---

" You will inject this experimental ineffective shot that we have no clue about it's hazards or you will lose your job, benefits and retirement"

You need to remove the plank from your own eye chief.

The process due should be a single file line to the plane. If we have to have a judge signature then make it happen. Just do a walk around on this non-sense.

Catag94 said:

---

The time for "Due Process" was when they wanted to come here. If they subverted that, they forfeited their right to any due process related to expulsion in my opinion.

---

What about those who came in and applied for asylum? Do you think they are here "illegally"? Are they entitled to due process?

IndividualFreedom said:

---

The process due should be a single file line to the plane. If we have to have a judge signature then make it happen. Just do a walk around on this non-sense.

---

I remember when Brazos Co set up tables with a judge around bonfire process MIPs my freshmen year.

2040huck said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

The time for "Due Process" was when they wanted to come here. If they subverted that, they forfeited their right to any due process related to expulsion in my opinion.

---

What about those who came in and applied for asylum? Do you think they are here "illegally"? Are they entitled to due process?

---

Nope.

2040huck said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

The time for "Due Process" was when they wanted to come here. If they subverted that, they forfeited their right to any due process related to expulsion in my opinion.

---

What about those who came in and applied for asylum? Do you think they are here "illegally"? Are they entitled to due process?

---

No, 99% of the asylum claims are bogus anyway

2040huck said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

The time for "Due Process" was when they wanted to come here. If they subverted that, they forfeited their right to any due process related to expulsion in my opinion.

---

What about those who came in and applied for asylum? Do you think they are here "illegally"? Are they entitled to due process?

---

Over 80% of asylum claims under prior administrations have been rejected because they were bogus claims. My guess is the number for the Biden era of no border will be much higher.

samurai_science said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

The time for "Due Process" was when they wanted to come here. If they subverted that, they forfeited their right to any due process related to expulsion in my opinion.

---

What about those who came in and applied for asylum? Do you think they are here "illegally"? Are they entitled to due process?

---

No, 99% of the asylum claims are bogus anyway

---

Don't asylum seekers have to seek asylum in the first country bordering the country they're fleeing, which would be Mexico? If so, they should all have been rejected when they walked through Mexico and claimed asylum in the US.

ProgN said:

---

samurai_science said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

The time for "Due Process" was when they wanted to come here. If they subverted that, they forfeited their right to any due process related to expulsion in my opinion.

---

What about those who came in and applied for asylum? Do you think they are here "illegally"? Are they entitled to due process?

---

No, 99% of the asylum claims are bogus anyway

---

Don't asylum seekers have to seek asylum in the first country bordering the country they're fleeing, which would be Mexico?

---

Yes. And those claims are rejected.

2040huck said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

The time for "Due Process" was when they wanted to come here. If they subverted that, they forfeited their right to any due process related to expulsion in my opinion.

---

What about those who came in and applied for asylum? Do you think they are here "illegally"? Are they entitled to due process?

---

I think we both know the asylum application process was a sham orchestrated by an incompetent and corrupt administration, so NO!

ETA: Besides, they have all been revoked and told to deport. If they don't self-deport, they are back to illegal status. Same result.

Junction71 said:

---

I recently obtained a copy of the Constitution and reading it closely, especially the Amendments 1-5. I don't see any way that the reference to "person" or "persons" doesn't refer to anyone but citizens of the United States of America. The references to "persons" in the first 4 definitely refer to citizens so in the context 5 does also. This is where all the concern about "due process" is coming from. You cannot take "all" to refer to everyone that might be here. It was "all" of certain group and that group was legal citizens of the USA.

---

Then why didn't they use "citizen of the United States"? The Naturalization Bill of 1790 says "citizens of the United States."


Why didn't the authors of the Bill of Rights use the more specific and exclusive terms of "citizen" or "citizens" instead of using the more inclusive terms of "person" or "persons" unless they meant exactly what they said?

Quote:

---

Why didn't the authors of the Bill of Rights use the more specific and exclusive terms of "citizen" or "citizens" instead of using the more inclusive terms of "person" or "persons" unless they meant exactly what they said?

---

Because no one would have imagined that America would have a President completely owned by foreign interests who just ignored our laws and flooded the country with illegal aliens.

If they had envisioned Joe Biden, they probably would have just gone back to England instead.

samurai_science said:

---

2040huck said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

The time for "Due Process" was when they wanted to come here. If they subverted that, they forfeited their right to any due process related to expulsion in my opinion.

---

What about those who came in and applied for asylum? Do you think they are here "illegally"? Are they entitled to due process?

---

No, 99% of the asylum claims are bogus anyway

---

Kinda like 90% of defendants in criminal cases have bogus defenses, huh?

2040huck said:

---

Catag94 said:

---

The time for "Due Process" was when they wanted to come here. If they subverted that, they forfeited their right to any due process related to expulsion in my opinion.

---

What about those who came in and applied for asylum? Do you think they are here "illegally"? Are they entitled to due process?

---

They don't even know what they were "seeking asylum" from...
They just got on the boat, but, or plane and followed what orders the phone app told them.

It's ok since we have this:

22 U.S. Code 6010 - "United States person" defined:

As used in this chapter, the term "United States person" means any United States citizen or alien admitted for permanent residence in the United States, and any corporation, partnership, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States.

The IRS also has this defined:

United States persons
The term ''United States person'' means:

A citizen or resident of the United States
A domestic partnership
A domestic corporation
Any estate other than a foreign estate
Any trust if:
A court within the United States is able to exercise primary supervision over the administration of the trust, and
One or more United States persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust
Any other person that is not a foreign person.

And they define a Resident:

If you are not a U.S. citizen, you are considered a nonresident of the United States for U.S. tax purposes unless you meet one of two tests. You are a resident of the United States for tax purposes if you meet either the green card test or the substantial presence test for the calendar year (January 1 December 31).

rgvag11 said:

---

Junction71 said:

---

I recently obtained a copy of the Constitution and reading it closely, especially the Amendments 1-5. I don't see any way that the reference to "person" or "persons" doesn't refer to anyone but citizens of the United States of America. The references to "persons" in the first 4 definitely refer to citizens so in the context 5 does also. This is where all the concern about "due process" is coming from. You cannot take "all" to refer to everyone that might be here. It was "all" of certain group and that group was legal citizens of the USA.

---

Then why didn't they use "citizen of the United States"? The Naturalization Bill of 1790 says "citizens of the United States."


Why didn't the authors of the Bill of Rights use the more specific and exclusive terms of "citizen" or "citizens" instead of using the more inclusive terms of "person" or "persons" unless they meant exactly what they said?

---

Are we just going to ignore the fact that this bill calls out free white people only as being eligible for citizenship?