Chuck Stebin

I'm just here to provide challenges to factually, logically, or constitutionally erroneous positions and promote Constitutional rights.

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@alexbward Please elaborate, because I don't want to put words in your mouth. But I don't see what "rules and exceptions" would work in your favor, given the ability to privately own cannons, warships, and the fastest firing guns machines could produce.

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@ReichlinMelnick This helps to end chain migration, because it relies on family ties to make the application stronger. But you could also change other immigration laws to help (and enforce the ones we have that are basically ignored, like requirements to be able to support urself)

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@ReichlinMelnick Amendment? meh. More thorough immigration laws would solve most of the problem. Make it a matter of law that a person who enters illegally (at any time after enactment of the law, no matter for for how long they stayed) can't get a visa, green card, nor ever be naturalized.

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@Antenna_Wilde @letsgetlayer1 @MorePerfectUS @Flock_Safety They'd probably tell the various states to create militias and collectively threaten revolt unless we make a new federal Constitution to appropriately limit the power of the federal government and re-empower states to act with more sovereignty. This would solve most ppl's issues.

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@ShaneEthridge Several court justices are originalists, NOT textualists... there is a difference, and they generally appropriately represent which one they are.

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@Antenna_Wilde @letsgetlayer1 @MorePerfectUS @Flock_Safety That's your opinion, and it may be correct but it hasn't been ruled on nationally (i.e. at SCOTUS), with the closest information assessment existing in a concurring opinion (not an enforceable opinion of the court). But you'd also have to show Flock = govt dragnet (not simple).

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@BeshearStan It's almost like one side was consistently stopped by the courts from gerrymandering and forced to assess race, while the other was already willingly and eagerly gerrymandering based on race. So when race isn't valid, one side gets to make changes they want. Hmmm...

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@electionsjoe GOP already passed maps (e.g. AL, LA) through appropriate legislative processes, then the courts said "no you can't use these, you are required to racially gerrymander another majority-minority district" ... when those courts got overturned, it was easy to reinstate those maps.

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@covie_93 Does their funding come from Congress (or rather, the taxes collected and redistributed by Congress)?
Seems like that makes it different..

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@haldavis3 @DoniTheMisfit those are part of BoR (Bill of Rights) ... so not really "and"

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@Angry_Staffer Geo-fence inquiries are searches protected by 4th Amendment.
POTUS can fire heads of agencies the executive branch for any reason, FTC and similar agencies aren't special.

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@Scott_Wiener This ruling is extremely sensible. The 3 branches of our government are dictated by the Constitution. Congress attempted to create a fourth branch independent of the executive; it never had the authority to do that and creates a weird quasi-legal setup for various agencies.

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@MasterMaliq Christians don't say that. They say Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for our sins.

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@electionsjoe Stealing an election by.... giving people 5 months of warning that they can't be screwing around until the day of the election if they want to mail their ballot and should mail it in time for it to arrive on/before election day?

No... that wouldn't steal any election.

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@Antenna_Wilde @PayTheFees @letsgetlayer1 @MorePerfectUS @Flock_Safety Flock cameras are not the "search" - the "search" is going through the data for a license plate. If you are looking for a specific plate from a crime, you have particularity (and probably already have a suspect). Easy warrant. This will stop them from stalking their exes though.

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@TooLateBlue @MorePerfectUS @Flock Those rely on publicly visible spaces. There is no way the court could "apply the same logic" outside of deciding the Flock bs is fine. An important point for SCOTUS was the fact that the cell phone is NOT just going in public, but is taken into residences, doctor's offices, etc

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@MorePerfectUS You're misinforming people. They didn't rule it an unreasonable search; they ruled it a search protected by 4A. Constituting an search in context of the 4th Amendment is not equivalent to "violating the 4th Amendment." It means a warrant is needed, probable cause, specifics.

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@cturnbull1968 They and he could already do that except for a few dozen institutions.. Congress never had Constitutional authority to try to set up a fourth branch of government by legislation; that should require an amendment to the Constitution. Now it finally would.

[Chuck Stebin @CStebin]

@RayAlexWilliams Wait, words have meanings that were made up by people??! Wow! And if a single word has more than one, narrow use it is suddenly impossible to know what someone means when they use that word? This is as dumb an argument as "we can't ever really know anything for certain"