There are no illegal immigrants in America - Page 12

Radar · 01-01-2008, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by busterb

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

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 · 01-01-2008, 09:14 PM

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

Aliantha · 01-01-2008, 09:16 PM

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.

Ibby · 01-01-2008, 09:21 PM

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.

TheMercenary · 01-01-2008, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

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.

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.

TheMercenary · 01-01-2008, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

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.

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

TheMercenary · 01-01-2008, 09:21 PM

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?

Radar · 01-01-2008, 09:29 PM

Here is the source text...

Quote:

Originally Posted by U.S. Constitution - Bill of Rights

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

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".

TheMercenary · 01-01-2008, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

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".

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"?

Ibby · 01-01-2008, 09:29 PM

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

TheMercenary · 01-01-2008, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

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

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

Radar · 01-01-2008, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ibram

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

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"

TheMercenary · 01-01-2008, 09:42 PM

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.

Radar · 01-01-2008, 09:49 PM

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?

TheMercenary · 01-01-2008, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

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.

01-01-2008, 09:14 PM	#2
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Possibly biased? Why would you suggest that? Every source is listed. How is that biased? __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

01-01-2008, 09:16 PM	#3
Aliantha trying hard to be a better person Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 16,493	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. __________________ Kind words are the music of the world. F. W. Faber

01-01-2008, 09:21 PM	#4
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	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. __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

01-01-2008, 09:21 PM	#7
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	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? __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

01-01-2008, 09:29 PM	#10
Ibby erika Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "the high up north" Posts: 6,127	Just because they can absolutely do it with impunity, and everyone lets them, doesn't mean its actually legal... __________________ not really back, you didn't see me, i was never here shhhhhh

01-01-2008, 09:42 PM	#13
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	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. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

01-01-2008, 09:49 PM	#14
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	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? __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)