@no1marauder saidHow are you people getting along with Harvard suing the federal government for money that they are not entitled to? Tax exempt money? When they have $53 billion in the bank.?
His job, according to the Constitution, is "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution." Instead, he has tried to ram through numerous policies directly contrary to it like his denial of due process to various immigrants. The Courts have been required to block these illegal and unconstitutional actions while he and his minions screech and bray.
Why does the queerly-coifed Newsome wear an unbuttoned shirt with no undershirt? Why doesn’t Trump wear a flight jacket like Obama and Biden? Because he doesn’t need to. Proving being a man does not get it done with a jacket.
@AverageJoe1 saidBecause the ones you listen to are paid by right wing propaganda sources.
Marauder… If it is so cut and dry as you imply, why are judges and constitutional experts in ann uproar with so many different interpretations? Can you answer that question for the lesser of us so we will understand it
I do not request your opinion. It would be like reading Sunhouse. I am requesting their reasons for disagreement. What the experts think, to find themselves to all be so different. Thank you very much. (No links please)
1 edit
@no1marauder saidI don't know what that means, but in any event, it prompts this question.....
Because the ones you listen to are paid by right wing propaganda sources.
Do left wing propaganda sources do the same thing,,,the thing that you are speaking of??
I learn on the Forum!
** Then there is this...so many unanswered queries.
'How are you people getting along with Harvard suing the federal government for money that they are not entitled to? Tax exempt money? When they have $53 billion in the bank.?
Why does the queerly-coifed Newsome wear an unbuttoned shirt with no undershirt? Why doesn’t Trump wear a flight jacket like Obama and Biden? Because he doesn’t need to. Proving being a man does not get it done with a jacket'''
@AverageJoe1 saidYour other questions are too stupid to answer except the Harvard one:
I don't know what that means, but in any event, it prompts this question.....
Do left wing propaganda sources do the same thing,,,the thing that you are speaking of??
I learn on the Forum!
** Then there is this...so many unanswered queries.
'How are you people getting along with Harvard suing the federal government for money that they are not entitled to? Tax ex ...[text shortened]... ama and Biden? Because he doesn’t need to. Proving being a man does not get it done with a jacket'''
Trump is trying to use the threat of withholding Federal funds to force universities to suppress speech on their campuses and in their classrooms. This is clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
1 edit
@no1marauder said??? uhhh, does he have to have a reason? The president has full authority to do with as he will. Your man tried to pay off the tuition loans of college grads. His own personal decision. Do you follow? Stay with me here..............
Your other questions are too stupid to answer except the Harvard one:
Trump is trying to use the threat of withholding Federal funds to force universities to suppress speech on their campuses and in their classrooms. This is clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
So, tell me, which you will not, why is Trump wrong and Biden was right??
(Oops, i think I lost you,,,maye Sonhouse will answer it )
PS: Whether the said speech is 'free' or not is subjective. So, There is no answer available to you in that vein. Biden is quite objectively factual.
@AverageJoe1 saidYour quaint ideas about the President, if and only if, his name is Donald Trump possessing unlimited powers have already been sufficiently ridiculed.
??? uhhh, does he have to have a reason? The president has full authority to do with as he will. Your man tried to pay off the tuition loans of college grads. His own personal decision. Do you follow? Stay with me here..............
So, tell me, which you will not, why is Trump wrong and Biden was right??
(Oops, i think I lost you,,,maye Sonhouse will answ ...[text shortened]... bjective. So, There is no answer available to you in that vein. Biden is quite objectively factual.
@AverageJoe1 saidThe reason dump doesn't wear a flight suit is because the fat fuk can't fit in one. Yeah 6ft 3 and 220lbs. and you swallow it up.
How are you people getting along with Harvard suing the federal government for money that they are not entitled to? Tax exempt money? When they have $53 billion in the bank.?
Why does the queerly-coifed Newsome wear an unbuttoned shirt with no undershirt? Why doesn’t Trump wear a flight jacket like Obama and Biden? Because he doesn’t need to. Proving being a man does not get it done with a jacket.
@AverageJoe1 saidMaybe you missed this, perfect fodder for your studies!
??? uhhh, does he have to have a reason? The president has full authority to do with as he will. Your man tried to pay off the tuition loans of college grads. His own personal decision. Do you follow? Stay with me here..............
So, tell me, which you will not, why is Trump wrong and Biden was right??
(Oops, i think I lost you,,,maye Sonhouse will answ ...[text shortened]... bjective. So, There is no answer available to you in that vein. Biden is quite objectively factual.
@AverageJoe1 saidHere's what Trump appointee Gorsuch wrote in concurring in the unanimous decision in NRA v. Vullo:
??? uhhh, does he have to have a reason? The president has full authority to do with as he will. Your man tried to pay off the tuition loans of college grads. His own personal decision. Do you follow? Stay with me here..............
So, tell me, which you will not, why is Trump wrong and Biden was right??
(Oops, i think I lost you,,,maye Sonhouse will answ ...[text shortened]... bjective. So, There is no answer available to you in that vein. Biden is quite objectively factual.
"Today we reaffirm a well-settled principle: “A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” "
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/602/22-842/#tab-opinion-4896609
That is exactly what the Trump administration is trying to do to Harvard and other universities.
@no1marauder saidOk. So a president’s decision in, all of his many, to withhold funding is punishment, when he can…..withhold it.
Here's what Trump appointee Gorsuch wrote in concurring in the unanimous decision in NRA v. Vullo:
"Today we reaffirm a well-settled principle: “A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” "
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/602/22-842/#tab-opinion-4896609
That is exactly what the Trump administration is trying to do to Harvard and other universities.
Not doing funding is punishment. Link us some stuff where gets in trouble for deciding to fund something, and then decides later to not fund.
Staying on his ass, are you? Hyena.
@AverageJoe1 saidWe will see how it works out in the US in say the NEXT 200 years.
I can't believe you would live on a piece of land that we stole from a sweet Mohawk family. If we had left them alone, they would have developed a space craft, and found an herb which cures all things. And been adored by the Green maniacs.
Or the health of the whole planet being killed because of the greed of humans.
We would rather TOTAL the planet than lose one dollar.
@AverageJoe1 saidThe only ones with different interpretations of the constitution are MAGITES who WANT an end to democracy.
Marauder… If it is so cut and dry as you imply, why are judges and constitutional experts in ann uproar with so many different interpretations? Can you answer that question for the lesser of us so we will understand it
I do not request your opinion. It would be like reading Sunhouse. I am requesting their reasons for disagreement. What the experts think, to find themselves to all be so different. Thank you very much. (No links please)
EVERYONE else understands EVERY word of the constitution.
But of course a pro Troll like you will try to throw a monkey wrench in any discussion of the constitution.