Becomes Trump a dictator?
- Thread starter wolfwint
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Wait wait wait so when you offend others with your conspiracy theories, and your ridiculous ideas it's not personal?
Looks like you're a bit confused and got your teachings at some liberal school where they teach you to talk about things in imagination level so it's not on the personal level where we all live.
And you're hilarious when you do this because everything that you say and do, is personal while you become "outraged" when Trump tells it to you like it is.
Looks like you're a bit confused and got your teachings at some liberal school where they teach you to talk about things in imagination level so it's not on the personal level where we all live.
And you're hilarious when you do this because everything that you say and do, is personal while you become "outraged" when Trump tells it to you like it is.
You asked me what that particular scripture means and I answered your question. It means just what it says. You help the poor
And then you asked me about the guy who was deported without due process and I answered you don't deport people without due process
And then you asked me what's my solution and I answered the solution is you don't take the economy on purpose just to be Petty
And then you asked me about the guy who was deported without due process and I answered you don't deport people without due process
And then you asked me what's my solution and I answered the solution is you don't take the economy on purpose just to be Petty
The guy was here illegally, that means when it was inconvenient to him to obey our laws he simply ignored them, but now he is demanding that we follow the laws that he ignored. Once he ignored the law he lost the right to demand others to follow the law.
First return to your country, then enter the US legally, then you get the right to be protected by the law even if you are not a citizen. Agreed?
First return to your country, then enter the US legally, then you get the right to be protected by the law even if you are not a citizen. Agreed?
-
1
- Show all
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), the court ruled that:
Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons of similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution [the 14th Amendment].
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/
In Wong Win v. United States (1896), the court ruled that:
It must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection by those amendments [Fifth and Sixth] and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/228/
Though the law itself be fair on its face, and impartial in appearance, yet, if it is applied and administered by public authority with an evil eye and unequal hand, so as practically to make unjust and illegal discriminations between persons of similar circumstances, material to their rights, the denial of equal justice is still within the prohibition of the Constitution [the 14th Amendment].
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/118/356/
In Wong Win v. United States (1896), the court ruled that:
It must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection by those amendments [Fifth and Sixth] and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/163/228/
Why are you as a Canadian citizen "concerned" what the United States of America do with their laws and legislature?
Oooh that's right, because you are a living contradiction on hundreds of topics so far and ignore all the Christian points you say yourself about the poor and all those who are mistreated outside of your border for which you say knowingly or unknowingly.
Oooh that's right, because you are a living contradiction on hundreds of topics so far and ignore all the Christian points you say yourself about the poor and all those who are mistreated outside of your border for which you say knowingly or unknowingly.
This reminds me of the last time that Democrats claimed the Republican president was a king, a tyrant, and was behaving unconstitutionally. It was when Lincoln was president and gave the emancipation proclamation.
Once again, I get that it is hard for Canadians to get this through their head, but the US government has three separate but equal branches. The President is the executive branch. Now, if anyone complains that he is behaving unconstitutionally, just as they once did when Lincoln gave the emancipation proclamation, then by all means you take them to court. The Supreme court is one of the three separate but equal branches of the government. In the past we have had bad rulings such as we had with Roe v. Wade. Yes, it was precedent, but it was bad precedent, and the Supreme Court overturned it acknowledging that it was bad precedent.
As for your error in this matter it is based on the fact that the President is given War Powers in the time of War just as Lincoln was exercising his War powers that were given to him by the US constitution. Your mistake is in ignoring the significance of Trump declaring a national emergency at the US Southern border, giving him extraordinary powers.
Once again, I get that it is hard for Canadians to get this through their head, but the US government has three separate but equal branches. The President is the executive branch. Now, if anyone complains that he is behaving unconstitutionally, just as they once did when Lincoln gave the emancipation proclamation, then by all means you take them to court. The Supreme court is one of the three separate but equal branches of the government. In the past we have had bad rulings such as we had with Roe v. Wade. Yes, it was precedent, but it was bad precedent, and the Supreme Court overturned it acknowledging that it was bad precedent.
As for your error in this matter it is based on the fact that the President is given War Powers in the time of War just as Lincoln was exercising his War powers that were given to him by the US constitution. Your mistake is in ignoring the significance of Trump declaring a national emergency at the US Southern border, giving him extraordinary powers.
-
1
- Show all
A Little History Lesson
Lincoln's position was that slaves were not property, yet he freed them based on the precedent that in war you can seize the property of your adversary. Lincoln's position also was that the confederate states were not a separate nation, but were rebels fighting within the one United States and that as President he respected the laws of those states which would mean he could not free their slaves. How did he reconcile this? He appealed to a higher law, the golden rule of the Lord Jesus. As you have done it will be done unto you and with what measure you measure it will be measured again unto you.
1. The South claimed slaves were property therefore Lincoln had the right to seize them and free them.
and
2. The South claimed they were a separate nation therefore Lincoln was not obligated to keep their laws since they did not recognize him as president.
Therefore once you see the 20 million illegals who come across this border as an invasion and not as individual cases, the same logic applies. Once they claim they are not obligated to keep the laws of the US then since we are at war neither is the president to see them as being protected by the laws they reject.
This is why they may make a lot of noise but the Democrats are not about to challenge Trump in court, they will be humiliated. This does not mean some idiot here or there may challenge him, but the last thing the Democrats want is for this comparison with their opposition to Lincoln and his Gettysburg address to be ascribed to them and Trump.
Lincoln's position was that slaves were not property, yet he freed them based on the precedent that in war you can seize the property of your adversary. Lincoln's position also was that the confederate states were not a separate nation, but were rebels fighting within the one United States and that as President he respected the laws of those states which would mean he could not free their slaves. How did he reconcile this? He appealed to a higher law, the golden rule of the Lord Jesus. As you have done it will be done unto you and with what measure you measure it will be measured again unto you.
1. The South claimed slaves were property therefore Lincoln had the right to seize them and free them.
and
2. The South claimed they were a separate nation therefore Lincoln was not obligated to keep their laws since they did not recognize him as president.
Therefore once you see the 20 million illegals who come across this border as an invasion and not as individual cases, the same logic applies. Once they claim they are not obligated to keep the laws of the US then since we are at war neither is the president to see them as being protected by the laws they reject.
This is why they may make a lot of noise but the Democrats are not about to challenge Trump in court, they will be humiliated. This does not mean some idiot here or there may challenge him, but the last thing the Democrats want is for this comparison with their opposition to Lincoln and his Gettysburg address to be ascribed to them and Trump.
-
1
- Show all
Well, I would not take what Trudeau did lightly in freezing bank accounts during the Trucker protests. Since you are Canadian I would think that is a higher priority to you than what is happening in other countries.
As for the suspension of Habeas Corpus that took place after 911 while Bush and Obama were presidents.
BTW, my brother represented some of those held in Guantanamo Bay whose Habeas Corpus rights were violated.
As for the suspension of Habeas Corpus that took place after 911 while Bush and Obama were presidents.
BTW, my brother represented some of those held in Guantanamo Bay whose Habeas Corpus rights were violated.
-
1
- Show all