Yes. I listed the entire hierarchy on which type of law trumps which. So instead of a half-answer, I listed the whole thing with the Constitution at the top.
His answer is way too categorical and without nuance. For example, he states that "an unconstitutional law cannot supersede an existing law". Well, how is a law gauged unconstitutional? It must be challenged, or struck down by a process called judicial review. His comment reads that if Congress passed a law, then it doesn't have the force of law unless proved constitutional.
It's a problem I see a lot plaguing this community. A law has the full force of law immediately, and it is not subject to the interpretation of the layman in deciding whether to follow it. That would be chaos. Overall it's just really cringe seeing people post THEIR interpretation of a law and stating it as fact to score internet points. And they are almost always wrong, or too categorical, as his was.
There is a huge amount of false information in this thread. I can help clear some things up:
Executive orders ARE law. They are directives by POTUS.
EO's must still be constitutional.
EO's are not limited to "enforcing existing law".
Federal statutes and treaties preempt EO's if there is a conflict.
He is wrong. An EO is NOT lower in priority than a statute.
The hierarchy is this:
Constitution > Treaties / Statutes (federal) [in a conflict between these two, last in time prevails] > EO > State law
As you can see, federal statutes preempt conflicting EO's. That doesn't mean a conflicting EO is unconstitutional though, it just gets preempted and not enforced. For example, a state could pass a law that regulates the mining of a natural resource in that state. But if Congress passes a law that later regulates the same subject matter, the state law is preempted. On another note, there is something called implied preemption, or cover the field preemption that prevents a state from regulating something that is exclusively regulated by the federal government, like immigration.
The other guy should not be lecturing on law when he isn't a lawyer. I am. Youtube and Google are not law degrees.
That's a really unreliable source. 40k per month is way too high.
Even the numbers from "official" sources count missing children as those taken by a father without custody, for example. And the vast majority of those children are returned.
Not saying this to downplay the seriousness of child trafficking. Just to say that we have to be really careful with these numbers or we sound unbelievable to people.
Due diligence.
Incitement is already unprotected speech outside the scope of the first amendment and it has elements. (1) intended to produce imminent lawless action, and (2) likely to produce such action.
The "imminency" requirement is the most developed term in modern jurisprudence.
So let's say some glowie gets a bunch of white supremacists together at a rural ranch and says we should "take revenge on the government if they continue to suppress the white race", that's not incitement because of no imminence.
However, if the KKK got in front of a black rape suspect's home and they say "let's burn down his house!" then that's incitement.
To answer your question more directly, as long as courts view what a "reasonable" person would likely construe as calling to violence, then we're good. But you have a point long term if we lose a culture war, because societal standards about what is "likely to produce" such action can change
Lol I thought this too. Even if Congress passed a law that stated they were vacating SCOTUS ruling and granting women a constitutional right to abortion, it would get preempted. Congress cannot grant Constitutional rights
I remember I was supposed to go grocery shopping at Walmart, and for some reason, a feeling of extreme danger pinged in my brain to a level I've never felt in my life to that point, or since. I had no reason to suspect anything. I hadn't even left my apartment, but I decided to go to a corner market instead.
Turns out a shooter showed up in Walmart that day about an hour after I got back.
Trust your instincts folks.
Tired, low IQ joke.