Third World Skeptical Kid

No. Judges were never given that power. The power to check the president was given to congress in the form of impeachment. Honoring the judges rulings on constitutionality is tradition not law.

Article III, Sections 1 & 2 says otherwise.

Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states, "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

Article III, Section 2 delineates the scope of the judicial power and states, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Sorry, nowhere does it state they can declare something unconstitutional.

Art. III covers the judicial Power, grants authority to declare something unconstitutional. The judicial Power is the power to adjudicate. Adjudicate what? Cases brought before Court. A constitutional challenge brought before the Court is, therefore, within the scope of the Court's judicial Power to adjudge constitutional/unconstitutional.

No, it doesn't. It only grants them power to rule on whether existing laws are violated or not. The constitution is above all three branches of government.

No. "The judicial Power shall extend to *all* Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States. ... —to *Controversies* to which the United States shall be a Party" --look up the legal definition of "controversy". Also, although dry and a dull read, recommend Congress' "ArtIII.S2.C1.1 Overview of Cases or Controversies" Constitution webpage.

The Constitution is the penultimate law from whence all other U.S. law flows, the Judiciary (SCOTUS, lower courts) effectively its sheriff & deputies and the judicial Power expressly granted therein the authority to make "arrests" so to speak.

Sorry no. The constitution is above the law, thus separate. Meaning they can't rule on it.
Controversy does not include "highest law of the land". Courts give warrants not arrest power. Arrest power is executive branch.

"In your own quote the judges are bound by the constitution."

Yes, just as every other section of the government is bound to abide by the strictures enumerated therein.

"The 9th and 10th amendments limit the powers of the federal government to what is actually written in the constitution."

-and, per the judicial Power enumerated in Article III, Section 2, it is the Court's authority to hear cases brought before it, adjudicate them in terms of constitutional/unconstitutional, render judgement thereon.

"Congress cannot pass a law that is unconstitutional."

Actually Congress can and has -which is where the the judicial Power enumerated in Article III, Section 2 comes in, grants the Court authority to strike such laws down.

"The judicial branch cannot rule on the constitution"

The Court doesn't rule on the Constitution, it rules on constitutional compliance of those under the Constitution's strictures.

"and the executive cannot enforce laws not on the books. This power is granted to the states and people."

And who is the government? Is it your contention that the government isn't comprised "of the people"?

Adjudicate and rule unconstitutional are not the same thing. Adjudicate is interpret. Not strike down.
See the courts can say an action or law is unconstitutional all day, but they have no enforcement power. That's what the executive branch is for. If the executive branch does wrong things, that's where impeachment comes in.

People are not the government. I'm talking individual rights, states rights, and Federal government rights.

"Adjudicate and rule unconstitutional are not the same thing. Adjudicate is interpret. Not strike down."

Okay, I see the problem here; you don't understand the words. Let's fix that:

ad·ju·di·cate verb -make a formal judgment or decision about a problem or disputed matter.

rule verb -pronounce authoritatively and legally to be the case:

Synonyms for adjudicate include:

Decide
Settle
Determine
Arbitrate
Judge
Adjudge
Resolve
Try
Mediate
Referee
Pronounce
Rule <<<

"See the courts can say an action or law is unconstitutional all day, but they have no enforcement power. That's what the executive branch is for."

Yes, that's why when the Court issues a ruling in a constitutional Controversy per Art. III, Section 2, finding for the plaintiff that violation of the Constitution has occurred, orders the defendant to correct the violation and the defendant doesn't comply, the Court hands the matter over to the U.S. Marshals Service

"If the executive branch does wrong things, that's where impeachment comes in."

Impeachment of a criminal member of the federal government is wholly contingent upon a Congressional body which isn't majority-corrupt, honors its Oath to the Constitution. If either the Executive or Legislative Branch violates the Constitution, it is the constitutionally endowed Power of the Court to render judgement accordingly, order correction of the issue (the Court's corner of the checks and balances triangle) as a means of ensuring continuity of government prior to resorting to impeachment. Should either Executive or Legislative Branch not comply, the Court is thereafter empowered to, may rule such non-compliance as criminal contempt (High Crime, impeachable offense), order arrest of the offending official -and that's the catch; the Marshals Service operates under the authority of the Attorney General, meaning that a corrupt A.G. operating in conjunction with a majority-corrupt Legislative Branch may order the Marshals Service to do nothing.

"People are not the government. I'm talking individual rights, states rights, and Federal government rights."

Okay, that's it... you've now crossed over into crazy town and claimed that the government isn't staffed by people.

XiaoJia0 ups, <1h
"The constitution is above the law, thus separate."

Wrong. The Constitution is not above the Law, it is the Law -meaning the SCOTUS can rule on Controversies arising under it. To wit:

Article VI, Clause 2

**This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;** and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Just so we're clear on the matter, in accordance, lockstep with Article III, Section 2, Controversies of Law arise **under** law regardless of superior/inferior situation. If one violates a law, whether it be civil or criminal violation, that Controversy is addressed by said law's respective Judical tier. If that tier's ruling is appealed to a higher Court, the Controversy is then transfered upward to the next highest Court, lather rinse repeat until it lands in the SCOTUS' lap.

"Courts give warrants not arrest power. Arrest power is executive branch."

Firstly, it was a metaphor -that's why the word "arrest" was in quotes, spotlighted with the "so to speak" follower.

Secondly, no, that's not correct; the power to make arrests under the law is possessed by every citizen (hence the term "citizen's arrest"). The warrant/probable cause requirement established by Amendment V, reinforced by Amendment XIV is a guardrail against arbitrary arrest at the hands of LEOs with the Executive Branch merely being the top tier of the governmental LEO hierarchy.

What's going on with you? This is all middle-school level Civics that, as someone who is, at the very least, of age to use Imgflip, you should know already.

The constitution is "the highest law of the land" thus separate from congressional law. It is the thing that grants congress the power to pass laws.
In your own quote the judges are bound by the constitution. The constitution makes it clear that executive power resides in the president. That's the power to execute laws. The courts can't execute anything.
The 9th and 10th amendments limit the powers of the federal government to what is actually written in the constitution. This overrides your quote. Congress cannot pass a law that is unconstitutional. The judicial branch cannot rule on the constitution, and the executive cannot enforce laws not on the books.
This power is granted to the states and people.

Also nowhere did I say that arrest power is solely by police. Good luck getting a judge to grant a warrant to a citizen though.

Side note because it's getting messy on the other page:

"Its funny how no one is talking about the real solution to all this: for congress to make enough courts to handle all the cases in a year and then run them through those courts so no one can complain."

The immigration courts were definitely overloaded and needed more judges. And the judge firings didn't help things at all. Granted it was only 20 judges but when the court's already suffering from drag-ass...

This is on congress though. They could all work together and clear this problem in less than a month. But the left won't work with the right without pork, even though it would be a quick easy win.

Yup, it'd be a win all around.

Neither side will work with the other without pork. Don't be fooled; both sides of the aisle love pork-barrel spending but only when it's the kind with which they agree.

That's true. A lot of Republicans need to be replaced with conservatives in the next election so we can get stuff done.

Thank you for looking for it for me.

Where does it say that in the Constitution? Where does it say non-citizens that break our laws from the moment they break the laws concerning entering the country get due process? Even those who visit legally but still break our laws get booted out.

It doesn't...

Great questions! Where does the constitution guarantee due process for non-citizens? In the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments.

And if you think about it, it extends from the idea of 'innocent until proven guilty'. The government has to 1) prove that you're not a citizen, 2) that you committed a crime and 3) has the right to deport you 4) back to your country of origin.

Insisting that undocumented immigrants aren't covered by the Constitution and the rights it lays out for all persons (not citizens, it's explicitly for all persons) is anti-American.

In the non-existent umbrella liberal judges have created from those amendments

Read what the Founders said and wrote about immigration.

Oh, you mean like in the Declaration of Independence when they wrote, "He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands."

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

Ah, yes. The 14th amendment. . .the one that guaranteed the newly freed slaves citizenship as per the discussions and debates that were held. . .and if you ever bothered to read those discussions and debates, you'd know that immigration, legal or not, was never mentioned. . .at all.

You mean like this part, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Did you read that part? It seems like you didn't read the 14th Amendment at all.

Are you sure you've read the Constitution? At all?

They were talking about how the freed slaves should be treated and everyone agreed like everyone else who was a natural born/legalized citizen. . .except the dems who went on to create things like the KKK, Jim Crow Laws, etc.

Yeah things change as you say. Also Trumps father was a known KKK member fun fact!

White Anglo Saxon Protestant males in the South*

Yes, the conservatives of the time were Democrats. But...I have a question.

How does the origins of the 14th Amendment alter its application when it says "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."?

It doesn't say "former slaves" or "Black Americans." It very explicitly says "any person".

So...what does the origin have to do with the exact words as written?

Conservatives at the time were Democrats? Somebody forgot to tell Lincoln.

Idk why he mentioned black slaves.

It just means that nobody can have life liberty or property taken away. These are all natural rights given to people by John Locke. Colonial Philosopher.

It also means the government can't deny anyone within jurisdictions equal protection so Illegal not illegal U.S citizens ect.

Basically, it's racism. Any justification on why he can deny rights to a group. The 14th Amendment, that's meant for Blaaaaaaaack people, not YOU.

If they broke in to your home they don't have to commit any other crimes for you to throw their asses out of your house. Or maybe you'd let them sleep on your couch until a court gets around to booting them. In the meantime maybe they could steal your ss number, rape and murder your daughter, and steal your job.

Please reread the due process parts of the constitution. It's very clear that due process is not needed if they are a danger to society.

Of course they won't tell you this either...

So-called "Maryland Dad" Kilmar Abrego Garcia was pulled over in Tennessee in 2022 carrying 8 passengers with no luggage.
He didn't even have a valid driver's license.
He was coming from Houston, one of the hotbeds of human smuggling.
He told police it was his boss's car, a man named Jose Ramon Hernandez-Reyes, an illegal migrant who was sentenced to prison for human smuggling in 2020 (1)
All eight passengers claimed Abrego Garcia’s address as their own!
Tennessee Highway Patrol suspected Garcia of human trafficking but ultimately let him go — at the request of the FBI — and simply gave him a warning for driving on an expired license.

Heads need to roll for this. The Tennessee Highway Patrol and the FBI failed. Unbelievable.

"He was found guilty of several violent crimes and was here illegally. That's all it should take."

Where? When? What crimes? Got any case numbers to back that up or are you just repeating what you've been told? Only asking because not even the DOJ's data sheet lists any convictions for violent crimes... or any crimes for that matter.

"You missed "public danger" read it again. It's the same concept that a cop can arrest someone committing a violent crime without a judge signed warrant."

And what clear and present public danger did Abrego Garcia present at the time of his arrest? Was he threatening someone? Was he brandishing a firearm and recklessly popping off rounds? Was he attacking someone? Was he operating a motor vehicle or other equipment in complete disregard for public safety, in a manner endangering life and/or limb?

He was found guilty of several violent crimes and was here illegally. That's all it should take.

Nope.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

**nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;**

nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

You missed "public danger" read it again. It's the same concept that a cop can arrest someone committing a violent crime without a judge signed warrant.

imgflip.com/i/9rpz59

obviously you haven't

You didn't actually read the whole document, did you, Viki?

I can see you didn't... but here's a shorter version for those with attention span disorder...

JD Vance nails the Abrego Garcia issue in one minute:

"I just disagree with the idea that he hasn't been offered due process. He had a couple of immigration hearings; he had a valid deportation order...

...I think there's actually a deeper issue going on, which is that you see some radical judges at the district court level who are trying to layer so much "process" on top of the immigration system that it makes it impossible to function. We have over 20 million illegal aliens in the United States of America—are we not allowed to deport them? Because if we're not allowed to deport them, then what these district courts are saying is fundamentally, they reject the will of the American people as it was expressed in November 2024."

J.D. Vance? Really? Vice-President J.D. Vance? The guy who's been repeatedly caught lying? That J.D. Vance? Okay... then let's cut to the flat-out most specious part of Mr. Vance's *opinion*:

"Because if we're not allowed to deport them, then what these district courts are saying is fundamentally, they reject the will of the American people as it was expressed in November 2024."

Yes, per Art. III Sec. 2, that's exactly what's happening because it's the Court's constitutionally mandated duty to keep the House, Senate, POTUS on a short leash when it comes to Constitutional guarantees and Amendment V plainly says "No **person** shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury... ...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

You got the butthurts because the guy you voted for isn't being allowed to run roughshod over constitutional rights? Boo-frickin'-hoo --suck it up. The Constitution isn't there to be obeyed by the government only when it's convenient -it's the law and the fact that you're demonstratedly swayed by authoritarian rhetoric aimed at abrogating Constitutional Rights isn't a feature, it's a malfunction.

Next up: "I just disagree with the idea that he hasn't been offered due process. He had a couple of immigration hearings; he had a valid deportation order."

Nope, as the courts have already determined, he wasn't under a valid deportation order. So yeah, that's another Vance lie you fell for. Why? Because he was under a Withholding of Removal order due to his case still being in litigation.

Oh, Viki... when are you going to stop falling for the Trump regime's bullshit?

Sorry if you can't recognize the Maryland Dad already had 2 court hearings... just because you didn't like the outcome... LOL

Well that is interesting... so, Viki, tell me -what part of "under a Withholding of Removal order due to his case still being in litigation" was too difficult for you to comprehend? I mean... it seems like the phrase is fairly self-explanatory by simple virtue of the words "withholding" followed by "removal" with "of" in between and surrounded by the rest. On second thought, nevemind -you weren't able to sus out the visual difference between a hemicircle and triangle so asking the question is probably a waste of time.

Let's see if I can explain this in a manner that resonates with someone who failed at kindergarten-level shape recognition... denial of due process is a violation of the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendment. And, as a constitutional right denied is a constitutional right removed, it follows that an administration uncontestedly engaging in the aforementioned is, thereafter, free to strip away any constitutional right it wishes.

Now given how you reacted to Kaepernick taking a knee during the National Anthem, defend legislative measures which can be demonstrably shown to limit, block citizens' access to the ballot via undue burden, result in disenfranchisement, the 1A and 14A are obviously only important to you when it's convenient so let's talk about a Constitutional Right that is most likely paramount to all other concerns in your view -specifically the 2A.

You like your guns, don't you? And you wouldn't want the Right to Keep and Bear Arms eliminated, would you? Well there's the catch; an administration which denies constitutional guarantees when they become inconvenient can't risk having an armed public deciding "Dear Leader went too far that time."

Or, in keeping with the 5A violation theme, you like your non-incarcerated status, don't you? And you wouldn't want to arbitrarily be put in jail on grounds of "just because," would you? Well there's the catch; the violation of constitutional guarantee you're defending opens the door to exactly that.

Viking isnt very good when it comes it sources and facts but hey he tries

I can't help those lacking in reading and comprehension skills... so....

Here's an altumatum

You show me the article I mean send me a link or you admit you can't which means

1. You're wrong

2. You're a bot

Your choice buddy

I've already provided more than ample proof on this comment thread... I'm not responsible if you can't even look here... SMH

Lol so you are wrong and the other thing

LOL -I suppose that's true... by that same token, he's been try-hard for while now and keeps making the same mistakes. 🫤

Yeah I've been asking him for a source for a while which I found the actual source i just want him to show me.

Lol yeah same rookie mistake