Of course. You hold yourself up on these forums to be a "Constitutional Scholar". Anyone who has attended advanced education beyond a 4 year degree and been involved in research knows that not a single research project or thesis can be presented without citations which must be scrutinized by fellow members of the educational community. All I am asking is for you to present your citations so they may be examined in detail as to their source and factual basis. Pretty simple and standard request in the realm of debate.

NUff said. Time to put this to bed, and just not for tonight!

Possibly biased? Why would you suggest that? Every source is listed. How is that biased?

I didn't say it was. I don't care enough about your debate to look into it. I'll leave that to one of your fellow countrymen.

Ok, so if you know 2+2 = 4, you'd be open to me claiming it's 27 right? Would you be open to me convincing you that your name is Dicknose Assington? Probably not. You know your name so you won't be open to someone else trying to tell you it is something else. Hopefully you know 2+2 = 4 (Though this isn't such a safe assumption with your extremely limited intellect)

Radar may be a kook, and while i sometimes agree with him I think he's crazy at least as often...

But merc, you have not cited a SINGLE reason why/how federal immigration laws are legal. You HAVE shown that they are a good thing, and have shown that they may be neccessary, but you have NOT shown that they are legal. You can't dispute Radar's constitutional analysis, there... the constitution DOESN'T give the federal government that power, unless you want to argue about the aforementioned clause granting them power over naturalization... which I think Radar's prettymuch taken care of.

His case: the constitution forbids it cause A and B and C
Your case: youre crazy and wrong and immigrants are bad and...

Back up your position legally, if you want to participate in an argument as to the legality of the government's actions.

Every source is listed, none of them meet the standards set forth for examination in an appropriate notation or footnote. APA guidelines are generally the rule. In otherwords if you cannot find the exact original text it does not count. Now as a "Constitutional Scholar" and your vast years of education in reading original source documents you should already know that, right?

Actually if you Google "The Tenth Amendment" you will find a number of scholarly sites which show that the argument is quite circular. There are a number of citations which show that the Supreme Court as recently as 1987 has supported the notion that Congress can enact Federal Law and the states are required to abide by them. Practical examples in your recent life are The No Child Left Behind, among some others. Yet we are to believe that the Federal Government cannot enforce statute on states. How about you go traffic in some major drugs or try to bring home a kilo of cocaine and test that theory for us. In a fantasy world like Radar's you can argue that there is no authority, in fact I challenge you or Radar to put it to the practical test and let us know how that works out for you. I think they have the internet in Federal Prisons if you are on good behavior.

Don't show up and try to tell me how or what to argue, ok. Unless you care to take a position on it. :3eye:

Just because they can absolutely do it with impunity, and everyone lets them, doesn't mean its actually legal...

Here is the source text...


No court decisions contradicting this matter. No laws contradicting this matter. No articles disputing this matter.

The 10th amendment PROHIBITS the federal government from having "implied powers".

Really? Care to test that theory in a court of law with your life?

Sorry, you fail again. Does not support citations for:

http://cellar.org/showpost.php?p=420844&postcount=177

Are you sure you are "Constitutional Scholar"?

Exactly. His argument is like saying, "I killed someone and didn't get arrested, so murder must be legal if you don't get caught"

You can be tried for murder both in Federal and State courts. In fact you can be tried in both courts for the same crime if found guilty in at least one.

Well that went right over your head. You are saying that because the federal government is making and enforcing immigration laws, this proves they have the legitimate authority to so despite what the Constitution says. You're saying if they get away with violating the Constitution, they must have the legitimate power to violate the Constitution when they want.

You mention state and federal courts. What court do I take the Supreme Court to when it violates its limited powers or the rights of the American people or ignores when the rest of government does it?

Actually no, we never finished the other issues.

First I would have to agree with you that they are violating legitimate authority, which I do not. I do not believe that the Supreme Court violates it's powers or the rights of the American people because they are the final authority on all of the issues of the Executive and Legislative Branches as set up in our form of government.


The Supreme Court, created by the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789, has final authority in all legal questions or controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States.

There is no other court. You must abide by their rule even if you don't agree with the decision.

Pages 482 through 484 pretty much sum up the role of the SC.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/scprimer.pdf

I didn't ask if they were violating our rights or if you agree with it. I asked you if the Supreme Court allows violations of our rights, or makes blatantly unconstitutional rulings that violate our rights. What court do we take the Supreme Court to to resolve such issues?

What you have a hard time realizing is that...

1) The Supreme Court is not the sole arbiter of the Constitution

2) The Constitution is higher than the Supreme Court

3) A law does not need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court to be considered unconstitutional

4) The Supreme Court does not get to define the Constitution

5) Decisions of the Supreme Court can be unconstitutional.

6) We are NOT required to abide by any unconstitutional rulings of the Supreme Court, or any laws which contradict the Constitution regardless of what the Supreme Court says.

Actually you are wrong on many points there, as my link pointed out. Now what you want me to believe, again, and without any original source of documentation, footnote, or citation on your part, is that you type with authority. I have posted original sources. Where are yours?

I'm not wrong on any of my points. This is all the citation and source I need. It's the U.S. Constitution and it is the SUPREME law in the land. It's higher than the Supreme Court, the President, and Congress. All laws which contradict it are AUTOMATICALLY null and void without the requirement of judicial review.

This is according to the Supreme Court itself in the Marbury vs. Madison decision in which Chief Justice Marshall said, "all laws repugnant to the Constitution ARE null and void."

He didn't say they WILL be null and void. He said they ARE.

Nothing else you post other than the Constitution itself matters.

I cut out the most important part for you. I urge you to read the document in full which explains why you are wrong and that the court in fact does have the power afforded it by the Framers. You are mistaken and for some reason hung up on some issues that you need to disable the role of the SC and the Congress. What is your real issue? The election in 2000 where Gore lost? Some other issue, what's your beef?

Despite this background the Court’s power of judicial review
was not confirmed until 1803, when it was invoked by Chief Justice
John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison. In this decision, the Chief
Justice asserted that the Supreme Court’s responsibility to overturn
unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of
its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be
fulfilled any other way. “It is emphatically the province of the
judicial department to say what the law is,” he declared.
In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation
and application were made necessary by the very nature of the
Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that
document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration
to meet changing conditions. As Chief Justice Marshall noted
in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own
application “would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced
by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should
be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose
those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.”
The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with “Cases” and “Controversies.” John
Jay, the first Chief Justice, clarified this restraint early in the Court’s history by declining
to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed
foreign policy decision. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is
limited only to deciding specific cases.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/constitutional.pdf

Since you cannot and have not in any way proven any credentials or original source documentation I cannot accept anything you post as credible. I am no lawyer, but it is pretty easy to find Constitutional experts who have a lot more credibility than you have provided in this argument. Enjoy your fantasy and let me know when you are willing to test the powers of the Federal Government so I can read about it in the papers. Later.

I don't care what your pdf file says. It's not the U.S. Constitution. Anything other than the U.S. Constitution is below the U.S. Constitution including the opinions of the Supreme Court or articles on their website. End of story.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....overview.html

That's all the citation I need. It's the end all be all of references. Nothing you've posted at all has any merit or value. Nothing that you've posted has any credibility.

I know more about the U.S. Constitution than anyone to serve on the Supreme Court in the last 100 years so shove your Constitutional experts up your ass. If they can't read the 10th amendment they are no expert.

I found that to be quite interesting - Althought the constitution is viewed above everything else it gave room in itself for "...elaboration to meet changing conditions."

The Constitution offers no room for negotiation. It means what it says and nothing more or less. It doesn't require interpretation. The federal government has absolutely no leeway. They have zero implied powers and are specifically PROHIBITED from having them. Anyone, including Supreme Court justices, who say otherwise are liars or idiots.

Definition of immigration: entrance of a person (an alien) into a new country for the purpose of establishing permanent residence.

Definition of naturalization: official act by which a person is made a national of a country other than his or her native one.

When the Congress makes a laws that form a uniform rule of naturalization, they are making rules for immigrants to become citizens. The first paragraph of section 8 in the constitution describes the congress as being able to provide for the common defense and general Welfare of the United States. The last paragraph of section 8 gives congress the power to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

If the congress decides that it is in the welfare of the United States to control immigration into the United States, it is well within the power of congress to make these laws.

So, yes technically, people are free to travel where ever they want, heck I suppose I could move to china and open a rubber dog shit factory. I would subject myself to the laws of China in the process. Once they cross the border into the U.S. they fall under the laws of the land, enacted by our congress. I don't see where this is unconstitutional. Between providing for the general welfare of the United States, and forming a uniform rule of naturalization congress is well withing it's bounds forming laws on immigration and naturalization.

About the Supreme Court.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

I still don't see the problem.

Radar, surely you jest. You know more about the constitution then anyone person who has served on the Supreme Court in the last hundred years? Is "shoving your Constitutional experts up your ass."
a legal term? I look forward to your installment as chief justice. What refreshing language in the court briefs.

I am glad that you posted a like to the Cornell university site. here is one that discusses a little of this issue of flexibility.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/ht...ag33_user.html

The term "general welfare" does not grant any specific powers to Congress. Feel free to read this...

http://alanchapman.org/libertyvault/...alwelfare.html

Congress is given the authority to make laws necessary and proper for carrying out the specific 18 things they were granted power over and nothing else. This is why they said, "for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers"

No, I don't jest. I genuinely know more about the Constitution than anyone to serve on the Supreme Court in the last 100 years based on their frequently blatantly unconstitutional decisions.

I posted a link to the Constitution. Cornell's opinion about the flexibility in the language of the Constitution is irrelevant. The opinions of the Supreme Court regarding flexibility are irrelevant. Only the Constitution itself matters. It means what it says and it says the federal government has absolutely zero "implied" powers.

"shoving your Constitutional experts up your ass" is an English term meant to show disrespect to someone who is owed no respect and who disrespects the U.S. Constitution.

Correct, the term "general welfare", taken by itself does not confer any power to congress. Very good!

The complete statement "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" which includes the phrase "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" means something else entirely. By something else entirely I am referring to the meaning of the two words "general welfare" when used as a complete sentence. General welfare.

So to quote an earlier post by you on this forum "Cornell's opinion about the flexibility in the language of the Constitution is irrelevant. The opinions of the Supreme Court regarding flexibility are irrelevant. Only the Constitution itself matters." I don't know why you would link to a website other then the constitution, after preaching the latter.

Since the exact wording of the constitution gives Congress this power to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, then Radar, you are correct: the Constitution can not be wrong. It is very clear. It is not ambiguous. Just read the words.

P.S. the question about the legal term of shoving something up your ass was sarcasm. A type of humor. You may recognize that.

Yes, and what it means is that the U.S. government may create a DEFENSIVE military to be used when America is attacked or invaded by hostile military forces (common defense) and allowing the people of America "The enjoyment of peace and prosperity or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government." (The definition of general welfare)

The term "general welfare" does not give the government carte blanche to write any laws it chooses in any area. In fact they are only allowed to create or enforce laws pertaining to the specific 18 enumerated areas in which they are granted limited powers....and NOTHING else.

The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions.

Shit aint what it used to be - If you want things like they were in the 1800's - then go build a time machine and fly your nutty ass back there. If you want to live in the real world of TODAY then get with it. This is way past senseless and annoying.

The Constitution isn't worded in general terms. It's worded in specific and restrictive terms. The Constitution isn't vague or ambiguous, or general. It was written specifically to restrict and limit the powers of government while not restricting the rights of citizens. All things NOT enumerated in the Constitution (the phrase "general welfare" is not an enumerated power) are PROHIBITED for the federal government to take part in or to legislate.

That's pretty cut and dry.

If you don't want a government with limited powers that must abide by the U.S. Constitution, get the hell out of America because it will be that way either peacefully or violently.

The founding fathers wisely worded the Constitution in very specific and restrictive terms but also allowed it to be changed through the amendment process if such changes were needed.

Was that in the constitution? Cus if not it is meaningless. You said nothing else matters, no? Or is it just the stuff that refutes your points doesn't matter?

That is pretty cut & dry too.

Nothing else matters in a Constitutional debate other than the words in the Constitution. The phrase "general welfare" means allowing citizens to enjoy peace and prosperity or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government...nothing more and nothing less. It does not grant any powers to the federal government.

I was merely posting the opinion of what one of the framers of the Constitution, for dramatic effect. :)

The Founding Fathers wisely worded the Constitution in very specific and restrictive terms and were clear that it was meant to be taken literally and that the federal government was to have zero implied powers and could only gain powers through the amendment process.

This is cut, dry, and unlike yours....accurate.

They said Congress shall rule naturalization. They didn't say how, when, where and how much. That's general terms.

And Congress shall rule naturalization. Naturalization of course is not the same thing as immigration and does not encompass immigration.

Naturalization is the process by which an immigrant may become a citizen. Congress absolutely can make all rules regarding the process by which an immigrant may become a citizen, but not over the process of immigrating here in the first place.

But non-citizens don't have Constitutional rights.

I think we're getting closer here.

Citizens don't have Constitutional rights. Our rights don't come from the Constitution. All human beings have the same human rights.

Rrriight, but the US Constitution protects the rights of US Citizens.

I highlighted the "or to the people" because I think what that means is up for discussion.

You are totally splitting hairs here.

The tax or duty is specific to importation, but the clause also refers to migration, separately.

No, it protects the rights of THE PEOPLE...all people living within the United States.

States or other governments have powers, people have rights. Government's only have powers that the people grant to it....which means government may not have any powers that we, as individuals don't possess without government, and which we have not expressly granted to government.

Anything not listed in the Constitution as an enumerated power of the federal government or prohibited from being a power of the states, is either a power of the states (assuming the people have granted one of their rights to that state as a power) or a right of the people.

Not at all. Naturalization is not immigration. It's not splitting hairs, it's just a fact.

The clause refers solely to the migration and importation of slaves and it became void when 13th amendment abolished slavery.

Radar, you keep moving the argument everytime your points get refuted. This game only lasts as long as both sides are willing to play and at this point your game has gotten rather tedious.

That clearly states that the US constitution is for the citizens of the US ONLY - pretty effin clear.

None of my points have ever been refuted. People keep bringing up parts of the Constitution that do not grant any power to the federal government over immigration.

• Repelling Invasions = Repelling invading armies.
  
• Migration and Importation of slaves is NOT the immigration of free people.
  
• Naturalization is not immigration
  
• The ability to create necessary and proper laws for the powers enumerated in the Constitution do not allow the government to create laws related to areas not enumerated in the Constitution.
  
• General Welfare means allowing people to live peacefully without being molested by government and does not grant the government carte blanch to create or enforce any laws it wishes.

The people of the United States = The people living in the United States.

It doesn't say "We the citizens of the United States".

That is nothing more than your opinion.

not in, it clearly states OF

- again not the it plainly states OURSELVES and OUR

either it is clear to you that it refers to the citizens OF the US or it is up for interpretation.
Either way, your argument is refuted, again.


PS - This is the point where you typically change your argument again.

For the sake of clarity - indulge me one more time.
They did not state "the people living within the boudaries of the United States" because that is NOT what they meant - very clearly, they meant the citizens of the US.

It is so crystal clear I don't understand how someone purportedly "smarter than Supreme Court justices" cannot see it.

We THE people of the United States. It's very clear that it refers to the people of the United States....aka the people living inside the United States.

I haven't changed my argument even once. I've proven it many times and thwarted attempts of people who keep coming at me from different directions.

This is the point at which you try to argue over the definition of a word and suggest something laughable.

Game?

It's CALVINBALL! The rules change constantly - and you can't play the same way twice!

NO TEH STUF N THE CONSUTION ITSLF IS ALL THT MATERS
Dude, youve said that before, which is why I'm right to say _____...
OKAY WELL THIS GUY SED THIS SO IM STILL RIGHT

lol @ ibby.

I'm going to try and put my critical thinking skills to work here.

1. Congress has the power to form a uniform rule of naturalization.

I think we can agree on this.

2. naturalization is the process in which an immigrant becomes a citizen.

I think we can agree on this as well.

3. Immigration is the movement of a person or persons from another country or region to another country or region with the purpose of stying there permanently.

So far we have just definitions. Easy to agree?

The critical thinking part of this, at least for me: if anyone, from anywhere can move to this country permanently any time they want, with no restrictions what so ever; why have a naturalization? Everyone should be able to be a citizen automatically by crossing the border, thereby forgoing the need to naturalize anyone. There would be no such thing as citizenship. Enumerating a power to be able to form rules for naturalization implies immigration. In fact you cannot have naturalization without immigration.

If part of the uniform rules for naturalization stipulate that convicted felons cannot be naturalized and cannot have entry to the united states, there is no conflict with the constitution.

Why have naturalization? To give people the opportunity to vote. Those who don't want to have taxation without equal representation will choose to become citizens.

If a uniform rule of naturalization states that a felon can't be naturalized, it does not mean they can't become an immigrant.