Judge temporarily blocks Trumps national emergency wall

That was a judge.

That doesn't mean much more than if I or you defined how it supposedly violated the constitution.

If you want to change the policy decisions of the President, you'll need more than just a judge.

 

As long as it doesn't violate the Constitution, I couldn't care less.

 

Who's job is to uphold the Constitution. How can you not understand this?

 

It depends in what situation.

Ultimately it is the people's job, and Congress.

Judges are only there to uphold it in certain ways, or in certain types of situations.
Unless Congress gives that power to a judge.

 

Unfortunately for you, no I don't. This judge ruled. Take it up with the supreme court.

 

So you believe the Constitution should only be upheld for the parts you agree with? Go figure.

 

Didn't say that here.

 

A judge is not allowed to order anything just to uphold the constitution.

They are not supreme dictators.

They can only do what the law allows them (and what officials in power higher up who are in charge of them allow).

 

Thought so.

 

Another Obama mulatto appointee.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haywood_Gilliam


Surprise!
Surprise!
Surprise!

Laugh In / Sammy Davis Jr.​

 

A Judge is absolutely required to uphold the Constitution. No matter who violated it. The POTUS is not above the law.

 

That I want the Constitution to be upheld? Absolutely.

 

Thank you for your pointless post about his race. Typical I might add coming from a Trump idolizer.

 

seems it the Trump supporters wishing to do that....

 

So do I. A lower court gets its say on the matter. The upper courts get the final say.

 

We shall see what the upper court says. But for now, he has been blocked from violating the Constitution. Too bad, so sad.

 

They're doing that in part now with their open borders policies and sanctuary states, cities and counties.

 

it's being handled in the courts, where most of this stuff is handled

 

The courts might not have legal authority to block it. It depends on the law and what the implicit power structure is.

 

The courts have full authority to make sure the Constitution is being upheld. How do you not understand that?

 

What makes you think that?

Yes, they have authority to apply the Constitution in specific cases, if that case falls under their jurisdiction. Not everything does, however.

 

This was his reasoning.

“Defendants’ argument that the need for the requested border barrier construction funding was ‘unforeseen’ cannot logically be squared with the Administration’s multiple requests for funding for exactly that purpose dating back to at least early 2018,” the Obama nominee wrote".

However no one knew that there'd be 100,000 illegals a month trying to cross the southern border and Democrats claimed also there was 'no crisis at the border'.

If there was no crisis then there is certainly one now and, therefore, this judge is wrong. His is a political decision more than a Constitutional decision and will be overturned. Before it does hundreds of thousands will be spent and perhaps most lives lost because of insane leftists beliefs.

 

No, they have full authority to uphold the Constitution all the damn time.

Holy hell, it is scary that you think people should be above the law.

 

I think you may be holding an erroneous belief.

Since that's not in the Constitution, they don't.

Unless it's in a law somewhere.

 

Too bad for you and Trump he isn't allowed to violate the law. Maybe the upper courts will allow him to violate the Constitution. We shall see.