http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/11/09/breaking-aclu-announces-massive-legal-action-against-donald-trump-buckle-up/

BREAKING: ACLU Announces MASSIVE Legal Action Against Donald Trump, Buckle Up


Quote:

On Tuesday, Nov. 8, Donald Trump became the president-elect of the United States, and women, religious and racial minorities, and members of the LGBT community immediately began to worry about the injustices they may face under President Trump, especially as he is helped along by the Republican-controlled House and Senate. Fortunately, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a message for Donald Trump and all those who are concerned about how they will fare under his reign. Their message is simple: “Should President-elect Donald Trump attempt to implement his unconstitutional campaign promises, we’ll see him in court.”

and so it begins..

See a link to my source... ;)

From your source -

'Promising to force 11 million undocumented immigrants from the country.'

Why would that be unconstitutional? Any undocumented immigrants in Australia would be subject to the same.

No documents. Not even basic health checks. Character checks. ::)

Take Trump to court for being mean to the hommers. That could work.

You're about to go to war with China, dear. I don't think too many judges are going to be slapping an order on the Commander in Chief, but that's just me.

Agnes can you cite where the constitution protects LGBT?

Perhaps the USA needs to have a loser pays court costs system like we have to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

"The president-elect has been party to some 4,000 lawsuits over the last 30 years and is currently facing 75 active lawsuits ... "

"Mr Trump's companies face open cases of fraud, unpaid bills, contract disputes and sexual discrimination in the 75 lawsuits, according to USA Today."

BBC

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 16^th, 2016 at 8:27am:

"The president-elect has been party to some 4,000 lawsuits over the last 30 years and is currently facing 75 active lawsuits ... " "Mr Trump's companies face open cases of fraud, unpaid bills, contract disputes and sexual discrimination in the 75 lawsuits, according to USA Today." BBC

Ah. USA Today? ;)

lee wrote on Nov 16^th, 2016 at 11:07am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 16th, 2016 at 8:27am: "The president-elect has been party to some 4,000 lawsuits over the last 30 years and is currently facing 75 active lawsuits ... " "Mr Trump's companies face open cases of fraud, unpaid bills, contract disputes and sexual discrimination in the 75 lawsuits, according to USA Today." BBC Ah. USA Today?

Yes.

And The Wall Street Journal.

"President-elect Donald Trump is headed to Washington while involved in an array of private lawsuits ... "

And The LA Times.

"Unlike his predecessors, Trump faces or is pursuing a slew of civil lawsuits, perhaps as many as 75."

Of course, none of it's true.

It's all a huge conspiracy.

Baronvonrort wrote on Nov 15^th, 2016 at 8:44pm:

Agnes can you cite where the constitution protects LGBT? Perhaps the USA needs to have a loser pays court costs system like we have to prevent frivolous lawsuits.

it doesnt matter what the constitution says. It matters what the Supreme Court thinks it says and they have shown themselves to be incredibly creative - and partisan - in that pursuit. Take Gay Marriage for instance.  After over 250 years, the Supreme court finally 'discovered' that gay marriage was in the constitution - a document written at a time when blacks were slaves and gays were executed. But at least it was passed on partisan political lines if we needed more evidence to understand the worthlessness of the Court as an arbiter of law. It is just another political instrument passing itself off as independent.

The supreme court is unelected and there for life. They are allowed to effectively make law, disallow law and do so largely on political convictions rather than the constitution and the body of law itself.

you don't think the law should evolve with the expectations from society Longie? If the courts change their interpretation of a law written over 250 yrs ago, it's because society expects if off them.

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 16^th, 2016 at 11:19am:

lee wrote on Nov 16th, 2016 at 11:07am: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 16th, 2016 at 8:27am: "The president-elect has been party to some 4,000 lawsuits over the last 30 years and is currently facing 75 active lawsuits ... " "Mr Trump's companies face open cases of fraud, unpaid bills, contract disputes and sexual discrimination in the 75 lawsuits, according to USA Today." BBC Ah. USA Today? Yes. And The Wall Street Journal. "President-elect Donald Trump is headed to Washington while involved in an array of private lawsuits ... " And The LA Times. "Unlike his predecessors, Trump faces or is pursuing a slew of civil lawsuits, perhaps as many as 75." Of course, none of it's true. It's all a huge conspiracy.

Is it? Thanks for the confirmation. ;)

lee wrote on Nov 16^th, 2016 at 2:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 16th, 2016 at 11:19am: lee wrote on Nov 16th, 2016 at 11:07am: greggerypeccary wrote on Nov 16th, 2016 at 8:27am: "The president-elect has been party to some 4,000 lawsuits over the last 30 years and is currently facing 75 active lawsuits ... " "Mr Trump's companies face open cases of fraud, unpaid bills, contract disputes and sexual discrimination in the 75 lawsuits, according to USA Today." BBC Ah. USA Today? Yes. And The Wall Street Journal. "President-elect Donald Trump is headed to Washington while involved in an array of private lawsuits ... " And The LA Times. "Unlike his predecessors, Trump faces or is pursuing a slew of civil lawsuits, perhaps as many as 75." Of course, none of it's true. It's all a huge conspiracy. Is it.

Absolutely.

Just as sure as he hasn't raped kids, assaulted women, and threatened families, he is not currently facing any lawsuits.

One big conspiracy.

John Smith wrote on Nov 16^th, 2016 at 1:38pm:

you don't think the law should evolve with the expectations from society Longie? If the courts change their interpretation of a law written over 250 yrs ago, it's because society expects if off them.

Law evolves by being ALTERED by that society, not by some unelected group deciding to effectively do so. Would you feel comfortable knowing that our own High Court could creatively reinterpret the constitution in any way it sees fit? What if it banned abortion or 'found' that the constitution did not allow women to vote or any other weird idea?  Because that is what the American Supreme Court does. If they want gay marriage then legislate for it - dont create constitutional approval for it that simply does not exist.

Constitutions are supposed to be our last refuge in law on the assumption that it cannot be changed or circumvented or ignored. But if you can choose to claim that it says things that it clearly does not, what is its worth at all?

Let governments and the people 'evolve' law. Dont let unelected justices do it for you without justification.