There are no illegal immigrants in America

[TheMercenary]

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

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

[Radar]

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.

[TheMercenary]

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?

[Radar]

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

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.

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.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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.

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.

[TheMercenary]

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

[Radar]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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

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.

[classicman]

“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.

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."

[Radar]

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.

[regular.joe]

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.

[regular.joe]

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

[Radar]

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.

[regular.joe]

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.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Thomas Jefferson

"Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."
- Thomas Jefferson