ThanQ Ghost Baker!
Sticky wicket. SCotUS already ruled on this. Some were with us, so might be able to be revisited.
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2011/11-182
Justice Scalia dissented, and said that he would have upheld all four provisions as a valid exercise of concurrent state sovereignty over immigration.[45] He argued that the statute was valid: "As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty."[46] To support his position, Justice Scalia reviewed several cases from the early history of the Supreme Court's Immigration jurisprudence.[46]
Justice Thomas likewise would have upheld the entire law as not preempted by federal law,[45] but for different reasons. He concluded that none of the challenged sections presented an actual conflict with federal law, and so the preemption doctrine did not apply.[47]
Justice Alito agreed with Justices Scalia and Thomas regarding Sections 5(C) and 6 but joined with the majority in finding Section 3 preempted and that Section 2(B) was not preempted.[45] With respect to Section 5(C) Justice Alito argued that "[t]he Court’s holding on §5(C) is inconsistent with De Canas v. Bica, 424 U. S. 351 (1976), which held that employment regulation, even of aliens unlawfully present in the country, is an area of traditional state concern."[48] He also argued that Section 6 was not preempted because "[l]ike §2(B), §6 adds virtually nothing to the authority that Arizona law enforcement officers already exercise. And whatever little authority they have gained is consistent with federal law."[48]
That crazy old Algerian was perhaps the greatest doctor of the Church.
Time will come for the crushing of satan's head.
Also, acquired your Q meme.Kek!
The Awakening is taking so long for some.
We all thought this would be wrapped up by late '18. Now anon not even sure the elections Q alludes to have even occurred yet. Patience is required. They will come to it on their own.
For the truly addicted, it is all one big shift.
Sounds wonderful!
Who did take it over?
Pops anon was telling me the other day.
GMT +8, nearly 8pm.
They forgot the GoP.
It was a populist movement of "flyover states" sick of being ignored by East coast Whigs who didn't care about the slavery issue. They put world-famous John C. Fremont up in 1856. Of course Lincoln won in '60, so they had to kill that guy.
Its what we do.
HAVE to post the link, fren.
Twats don't embed, but that is terrific.
Christians had enough of the mockery and blasphemy.
It is all your fault, anons!
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/17/us/american-democracy-threats.html
‘A Crisis Coming’: The Twin Threats to American Democracy
-
The first threat is acute: a growing movement inside one of the country’s two major parties — the Republican Party — to refuse to accept defeat in an election.
The violent Jan. 6, 2021, attack on Congress, meant to prevent the certification of President Biden’s election, was the clearest manifestation of this movement. Hundreds of elected Republican officials around the country falsely claim that the 2020 election was rigged.
-
The second threat to democracy is chronic but also growing: The power to set government policy is becoming increasingly disconnected from public opinion.
The run of recent Supreme Court decisions — both sweeping and, according to polls, unpopular. Democratic Party has won the popular vote in seven of the past eight presidential elections, a Supreme Court dominated by Republican appointees. Two of the past four presidents have taken office despite losing the popular vote. Senators representing a majority of Americans are often unable to pass bills, partly because of the increasing use of the filibuster. Even the House, intended as the branch of the government that most reflects the popular will, does not always do so, because of the way districts are drawn.
Dis fucking guy would fail a basic elementary civics class.
SS number was not required before 1969.
After '69 was required for tax purposes. Interesting his came from a state where he supposedly never lived. Those first 3 digits identify where it was issued. So why would his be from an East Coast state, and not the SSAN of 575 or 576, which would denote Hawaii?
THIS!