Shall not be infringed. You, of all people, know better. Should they be allowed firearms in prison? Of course not. After they’ve served their sentence? Why not? Because there’s a law that conflicts with the Constitution? It seems some of us are perfectly ok with some authoritarianism. Odd. Weren’t you one of the ones quoting Jefferson’s liberty/safety line? Does that only apply to the Patriot Act, or did you support that too?
If the SCOTUS was actually doing its job, the entire law would have been struck down. Not just the parts they couldn’t pretzel into being legal.
Nothing new? So these guys routinely cross our border to harass our military? Ok then. 
If someone had presented the entire law for review of constitutionality they would have ruled on it. The SCOTUS cannot pick a law any law to determine the validity.
The rule are the rules.
That makes no sense. When a challenge reaches the Supreme Court, they are reviewing the entire law. That’s why parts of it were ruled Constitutional while other parts were not. The court also made up the rules for “judicial review” to begin with (Marbury v. Madison) so I’m not sure why you’re appealing to their authority when the very authority you’re referring to was a creation of the Court and NOT the Constitution. (Again, Marbury v. Madison) Unless of course, that’s the only possible argument you can make, since what they ARE doing isn’t actually backed by anything else.
I’ll also remind you that this “Judicial Review” is precisely the reason we ended up with decisions like Dredd Scott in the first place. The Court taking it upon itself to decide what the Constitution says rather than the Constitution itself. You remember Dredd Scott, right? The law that declared anyone of African decent was not only not a US Citizen, but could never become one? Where was that backed in the Constitution?
Jefferson himself warned about exactly this happening.
Now I ask you, where are we sitting right now as a country? Are we still a Constitutional Republic? Or are we an Oligarchy? Would you even know the difference?
Felons are not “The People”, they have lost their rights through their own actions and due process.
Any or all rights can be lost upon conviction up to and including our life and property rights.
Yes, according to the head of the CPBA union, and several former heads of the BP.
They distract and tie up our BPA’s so that smugglers can get around.
The only ways to overturn a judicial ruling is to do so by another act of the judiciary or by amending The Constitution.
The Constitution grants plenary power to the Supreme Court and lower courts in all questions of constitutionality.
Shall not be infringed. Rights cannot be taken without due process. Where does it say that those rights cannot be restored once their time is served? Where does it say those rights are not restored once their time is served? Where is THAT backed in the Constitution?
So our BPA’s are considered military now? Or are you simply playing the know-it-all ass again and completely ignoring what I actually asked you?
The constitution leaves that for us to decide.
You obviously haven’t heard of Jury Nullification. Why am I not surprised? Congress can also change a law to get around a Supreme Court ruling.
Huh. Looks like you don’t know it all. Shocker.
Our military rarely is used to patrol the border, the technique is the same whether it’s the BP, Troops, or local LEO’s.
Judicial rulings can only be overturned by the judiciary, that’s simply how it works in our system.
Congress can change laws, it cannot change The Constitution nor can it overturn a court ruling.
Jury nullification has nothing to do with what we’re discussing.
We need a cowboy unit, regulators on the border, shoot all trespassers!
Which would be murder. Piss poor plan.
So what? Foreign nationals crossed our border and harassed our military on our side of the border. In any other country on the planet, that IS an act of war. And what was done about it? Nothing. If any of our citizens had done this to Mexico, they would either be shot or in prison and there wouldn’t be a damn thing we could do about it. Here I’m talking about an action taken against our MILITARY while you’re still busy jawing about the Border Patrol and their Union. Peeps should totes listen to you though.
And once again what do you expect Trump to do, bomb Mexico City?
They had retreated back across the border into Mexico before backup arrived.
It was an incursion, we don’t even know for sure if they were military, para military/police, or cartel soldiers.
An overreaction here would have been a very bad choice and might have halted the current crackdown by the Mexican Gov’t on the illegals entering Mexico from the south in response.
You don’t think at the very least he could be talking with the Mexican government about it happening and see if they’re willing to do anything to keep it from happening again? Isn’t there a word for that? I believe there is.
What exactly makes you think we didn’t immediately make contact with the Mexican gov’t and lodge a complaint?