This is the part where we arrest the employers for employing illegals, right?

#6 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Sure.

But I don't know how that applies to this thread. Since I have been unable to find any evidence that these immigrants were "illegal".

Corporations are PEOPLE, my friend!

so if he finds against tRump's assertions, that should silence you.

#15 | POSTED BY YAV

Lol. You must be new here.

It is quite sad that climate denying lunatics that infest Florida are the root cause of it's coming death.

#1 | POSTED BY NIXON

Hamas doesn't play by any rules, so why should the IDF?

#11 | POSTED BY _GUNSLINGER_

I completely agree with you. Your argument has convinced me they Israel is essentially a terrorist organization.

Based on your argument, Israel should lose all US support and aid. It should be illegal to sell weapons to Israel. And any members of "Israel" should be prosecuted as terrorists or supporters of terrorism.

That was the point you were trying to make, right?

It is interesting that every ship passage requires 52 million gallons of fresh water per transit.

I'd question that. Not the volume but the "fresh" part.

#27 | POSTED BY REDIAL

Are you suggesting they pump salt water into Lake Gatun (which is also their source of fresh water for drinking)?

The Panama Canal is now not only too narrow for many ships it's also too shallow.
Whatever the Canal's future holds having massive ports on either end and the ability to use what ever barges are needed is clearly the way the future.

#12 | POSTED BY TOR

If you read the article, they are not saying it is too shallow. They are saying they don't have enough water. Which is limiting the NUMBER of ships that can go through the locks, not the size of them.

Sounds like Colorado voters don't mind voter suppression that would make Xi blush.

#2 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

If upholding the Constitution is "voter suppression", then I am fine with it.

Are you in favor of actually upholding the Constitution, or do you just want to use it when it is convenient for you and gives you your preferred outcome?

By the plain language of the Constitution Trump cannot run for office.

#1 | POSTED BY ZED

The problem is that the Constitution does not say who can RUN, just who can actually BE President. And it definitely does not say anything about the nomination of candidates by political parties to run for the position of President.

So it isn't technically a Constitution issue. It is a state law issue.

The real question is whether the individual states require that people on the ballot for a political party, and for the general election, to actually be ELIGIBLE to run.

Another wrinkle is that you CAN have an insurrectionist take federal office... it just requires that 2/3 of Congress vote to allow them to. Though we all know that is not going to happen, the courts cannot assume that it will not. So, does the Supreme Court have a right to bar Trump from being on the ballot because he currently could not take office, even though (theoretically) Congress could vote to allow him to take office after he was voted for but before he actually assumed office?

And state laws. Even if they bar candidates who do not meet the requirements of the office from being on the ballot, do they bar candidates who do not CURRENTLY meet the requirements, but COULD meet the requirements at a later date? Or did they even consider that possibility?

I care about the rule of law. And that the Supreme Court upholds that law. If the law does not state that Trump should be barred from the ballot, then he should not be. But, I do think it is important that the Supreme Court be definitive about it. That if they DO allow him to be on the ballot, that they inform voters of whether even if he will be able to actually assume office if he does get "elected".

I think the 'shall not be infringed' makes this all pretty clear all by itself.

#9 | POSTED BY CLAUDIO

This is apparently how you and other conservatives read the second amendment...

"Wah wah wah Wah, wah wah wah wah wah wah wah wah Wah, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Why did you feel the need to insert this bit '(by the state)' when it does not actually appear in text? I think the 'shall not be infringed' makes this all pretty clear all by itself.

#9 | POSTED BY CLAUDIO

Fine. Are they members of a well regulated miltia, by whatever entity that you imagine the founding fathers intended?

Fight for the liberal version of what they consider 'democracy'.

#2 | POSTED BY MSGT

What is the "liberal version"? Where everyone who has a right to vote is able to?

Great, now do their right to own guns.

#7 | POSTED BY CLAUDIO

Are they members of a well-regulated (by the state) militia?

Many on the Right would support the nation's current stance on guns even if their children, spouses and grandparents were shot down in the parking lot of their local WalMart or at church, because of freedom, or money from the NRA, or just a lack of courage and moral fiber...

#4 | POSTED BY CATDOG

I disagree. They keep their current stance on guns when OTHER PEOPLE's children, spouses, and grandparents have their bodies ripped apart by bullets. But they change their tune when it is their children, spouses, and grandparents.

Obama?

#4 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Of course. Obama has had "guns kill people" in the past (according to conservatives) so why not blame him for these "guns killing people"?