When a State or Federal Appellate Court decides that a Federal Law should be ignored by a state, is that not a violation of Federal law and the Constitution?
When the President condones the breaking of Federal Law, is that not a violation of his own oath of office thereby refusing to "uphold, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." I'm curious about how a panel of three judges can order a state not to enforce Federal law.
I'm curious as to where these judges get their power to order states to break the law so lawlessness can continue. Which begs the question, "Should the states refuse to follow the judges' order and follow federal law, thereby themselves breaking the law?"
Of course I'm talking about our open southern border and an administration that feels that we don't really need a southern border apparently.
I am concerned about the OTM's - Other Than Mexicans - who are coming in while our border agents change diapers. With at last count 40-plus terrorist training camps in the United States, how are local law enforcement supposed to be able to protect our citizens from these suspect locations?
I won't even ask how these "camps" are allowed to exist; imagine FDR allowing Nazi military camps in the U.S. during WWII. Yes the German Nationalist Party existed in the United States and had marches and large meetings with no risk of being harassed in any way.
The current administration seems to ignore the people they are there to represent and seems to do what they please while putting the United States in danger from inside and outside.
Our laws are meant to protect us from our enemies who would deny us our rights under the Constitution if our own government condones the breaking of its own laws, then are they not the enemies of its own people?
Will the police and armed forces of the United States come out against the populace to support a lawless government?