tvc184

That’s par for the course…. 🤣🤣🤣

The laws of self-defense are enacted by a legislature whether state or federal. Trump cannot unilaterally make his own laws. Whether an officer (or anyone else) who used force or deadly force to protect himself complied with self defense laws, is up to the court system. Trump is in my opinion making a political statement but in a way reaffirming the right of self defense. The question for a future jury might be, is a person throwing a brick through a vehicle window a threat to cause death…. OR serious bodily injury? From every state law that I have read on deadly force in self defense, it doesn’t require a belief of being about to die to justify it. It requires the reasonable belief that serious injury might happen. Texas calls it serious, bodily injury, I have read some states that use the phrase, grievous bodily injury, etc. If a guy is about to put out your eye with a rock, the loss of an eye under Texas law is serious bodily injury. It would be the same for most broken bones.

This should be simple but apparently not. There are three branches of government in the Constitution for the separation of powers. One of those is the Executive Branch which is the president and everyone that answers to the president. Article II starts with: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Trump fired some bureaucrats from his administration. A federal judge stepped in and said you can’t do that and issued an injunction. The federal judge acted like the Executive Branch is like a union and the head of the Executive Branch, the president, has no control over who serves him without just cause… as approved the the Judicial Branch. An appeal to the Ninth Circus got the same result with a 2-1 vote that the Constitution was wrong and the executive Power doesn’t lie with the president but the Judicial Branch who gets to determine if the president can fire his own bureaucrats. Hmmmmm…. can we say the separation of powers? So an appeal to the Supreme Court resulted in an 8-1 ruling staying the injunction. The ruling was that the government would likely win if the case was fought in trial and then all the way to the Supreme Court where Article II says that the POWER of the Executive Branch will be in a president. Even Kagan and Sotomayor even agreed that yeah, that’s in the very first sentence of Article II. The only dissent was from, you guessed it, Brown Jackson. She is a kook. Her opinion is that the president doesn’t have complete control over the entire Executive Branch…. as is listed in the Constitution. If this was a private enterprise company and the owner wanted to fire an employee, the owner could not do so unless a judge agrees? No wonder she couldn’t define a woman..…..🤣🤣🤣

When you have Democrat members of Congress calling for violence….

The Senate version passed the House on a 218 - 214 vote. On to the next agenda….

You win the internet today….. 👍🏼

I don’t think that’s what it said but it’s poorly written. They should have moved the “while” or removed it completely. Deputies preserved the scene and secured the suspect David Snapp of Old River Winfree“while” police and EMS tried to save the victim’s life. or…… Deputies preserved the scene and secured the suspect David Snapp of Old River Winfree. Mont Belvieu Police and EMS tried to save the victim's life. If you reread the sentence, I am fairly certain that if what they meant but it’s a run on sentence.

Life without parole with no chance to appeal isn’t a bad deal though. Hopefully he will live to be 95 and spend more than 3 generations in a cell.

If it says that then there would be no question. The Constitution doesn’t say that however. There are two huge words in law. They are “and” and “or”. Whenever there is an “and” and more than one requirement or element of that law, all requirements must be met. So if a law, amendment or other statute says, “This, that AND the other thing, all three elements must be met or the law doesn’t apply. If the law/Constitution/statute/whatever says “or” in the same type of situation, any one of the elements is sufficient. So if a law says “This, that OR the other thing”, any one of them stands alone. The Fourteenth Amendment says: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States Note that it says AND and not OR. It says born or naturalized AND subject to its jurisdiction. It would be clear if they didn’t throw that little AND in there. That is a point often ignored like it was an afterthought that didn’t matter. Ignored apparently is Elk v. Wilkins which I have already mentioned. Elk was born in US territory and an Indian reservation. So a Native American born on American soil. No question right? Not so fast. The US Supreme Court said that he was not a US citizen at birth. Even though born on US soil, he was subject to the jurisdiction of another country. That would be the Winnebago Indians. Being from a foreign country (in the US no less) but being born on US soil did not make a Native American an American. That decision has not been overturned. Did the US Congress believe that he and other Native Americans were born as Americans even born in this country? Apparently not because under their authority over immigration and naturalization in Article I of the Constitution, in 1924 passed the Indian Citizenship Act. Let that sink in. After WWI, the US enacted a law that finally made Native Americans citizens if they were born in the US. Did we grasp that? In 1924, almost 60 years after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, Americans born on American soil could finally claim citizenship at birth. Feel free to point out the federal law passed by Congress that made people subject to a foreign government’s jurisdiction, citizens at birth? I’ll wait…… On another note, I think the Supreme Court will throw up their collective hands and simply ignore Elk and say being born here makes a person a citizen. If only the Constitution said anyone born on US soil was an American as you claimed, it would have been settled 100 years ago.

Yes but it can be done. There are about 900 federal district court judges. They are, like I mentioned, the federal equivalent of our county courts. So if one judge doesn’t like a political executive order, if someone files for an injunction with the stroke of a pen he banned the other 900 judges from an opinion. There are more steps in certifying a class action lawsuit or injunction. The class has to be so large as to make it a burden to file individually. The class has to have the same claim of the violation. Such as, is a person being deported because of an overstayed visa, the person had a green card but was convicted of a crime, the person entered the country illegally, etc. While they all deal with deportation, they are from different causes so they may not fit in a class. I believe there must be a finding that the class will win in the action. There must be a belief that all members of the class will benefit from the action. Again, is being deported because asylum was denied the same as being deported as a legal resident but being convicted of a crime? If no, in my opinion they aren’t in the class. Also the claims of a defense must be the same. So my deportation is illegal because I have a permanent resident green card whereas another person may say, my deportation is illegal because I asked for asylum. Those are not the same defenses. So while a class action is certainly possible, there are more hoops to jump through to make it universal (nationwide). A federal judge always has the authority to issue an injunction in his district. The issue is can he force other courts across the country into his decision? I suspect that even though the lower courts have been admonished by the Supreme Court, some will soon disregard the decision by simply certifying everything as a class action.

In wrapping up this session the Supreme Court finished strong. In the last couple of days we have: Trump v. Casa - The Supreme Court said that federal district judges have been greatly overstepping their authority in issuing universal injunctions. As an example from what I googled, G W Bush had 12 universal injunctions in 8 years. Obama had 20 in 8 years. Trump has had 40 in less than 5 months. Of those, 35 were issued in only 5 districts. So out of almost 100 federal district courts, 5 have been used as a hatchet job. Anything that Trump does, take it to one of those federal courts and end it. Had Obama had this happen so the same pace as Trump, he would have had 900 universal injunctions, not 20. Mahmoud v. Taylor - In Montgomery County, Maryland, the school board decided that several LGBTQ books would be used from Pre-K through 5th grade. The district however had an opt out option if the teacher used the books for class assignments. Not so shockingly, the school district was stunned at the volume of opt out requests. So they changed the policy to no opt outs allowed for any reason. The Supreme Court struck down the ban on an opt out choice as it violated the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. Apparently some people have forgotten or haven’t understood that freedom of religion at school doesn’t mean only that religion can’t be pushed at public schools but it also can’t be denied. Seriously, who thinks that reading books on sexuality starting at 4 years old is a good thing… much less forced. Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton - Yep, a Texas case. Texas passed a law where accessing online adult content sites required age verification. The FSC claimed that it violated the free speech of adults to require age verification. The Texas law did not ban anything but only required age verification. The FSC claimed that showing your age violated the Constitution. The Supreme Court said that the state governments already restrict such material from over the county sales and a person can be asked to verify age by producing an ID. The same is true for tobacco and alcohol sales as examples. So why should digital media have less of a standard? The Supreme Court said that it didn’t and having as age requirement for online material that minors might access is no different than face to face, over the counter transactions. Overall it seems like a great couple of days from SCOTUS.

Expected. Yes, I expected a one word response rather than addressing my comment. It should appear quite obvious to anyone that the original post was to try to make it seem like this guy was the head of Homeland Security “terrorist prevention” as in, having some authority over the military, CIA and so on. I wonder how many people reading the opening comment believed that it was a person of some real authority and not a group of less than 20 people who coordinates to give out grants to non-profit private organizations and universities. Yep, absolutely expected!

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 You would think that he was named the head of the CIA or the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for this military. He is the head of an agency with less than 20 people. It’s function is to coordinate with federal, state and local governments and non-profit organizations and universities mainly by giving grants for the study on how to recognize and prevent terrorism. OMG!! The country is going to fold if some free money to non-profits and universities isn’t divided up right!!! 😂😂😂😂😂

🤣🤣🤣 From the left side of the aisle: Trump has been in office 8 weeks and stocks are down!!! 👍🏼 Twelve weeks later….. Stocks are hitting all time highs!!! 😡😡😡 🤣🤣🤣