There are no illegal immigrants in America - Page 14

classicman · 01-02-2008, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

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

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?

Quote:

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

That is pretty cut & dry too.

regular.joe · 01-02-2008, 12:18 AM

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

classicman · 01-02-2008, 04:12 PM

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.

Radar · 01-02-2008, 04:17 PM

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.

Radar · 01-02-2008, 04:34 PM

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.

Happy Monkey · 01-02-2008, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

Nothing else matters in a Constitutional debate other than the words in the Constitution.

Quote:

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

The migration and importation of slaves does not apply to the immigration of free people. The clause you are mentioning refers to slaves and can only refer to slaves as it is discussing an import tax or duty on goods being imported. There is only one kind of person that is also considered a commodity or good and that is a slave.

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

Radar · 01-02-2008, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

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

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

Happy Monkey · 01-03-2008, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

The clause refers solely to the migration and importation of slaves ...

It doesn't say so. Are you bringing in something from outside the Constitution?

Slaves don't migrate.

Radar · 01-03-2008, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

It doesn't say so. Are you bringing in something from outside the Constitution?

Slaves don't migrate.

They migrate the same way cattle do. Their masters take them from one place to another. Slaves are imported. Slaves are property for which you paid a duty or a tax to import. Free people are not imported, are not property, and do not require a tax or a duty. The clause can only refer to slavery and our founders said so, the Supreme Court said so, the U.S. government and every single law school in America say so, and most of all the U.S. Constitution says so through the use of words like import, duty, tax, and migration rather than immigration.

Undertoad · 01-02-2008, 07:02 PM

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

Radar · 01-02-2008, 08:03 PM

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.

classicman · 01-02-2008, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

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.

You are totally splitting hairs here.

Radar · 01-02-2008, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman

You are totally splitting hairs here.

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

Undertoad · 01-02-2008, 08:30 PM

But non-citizens don't have Constitutional rights.

I think we're getting closer here.

Radar · 01-02-2008, 08:45 PM

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

01-02-2008, 12:18 AM	#2
regular.joe Старый сержант Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: NC, dreaming of large Russian women. Posts: 1,464	P.S. the question about the legal term of shoving something up your ass was sarcasm. A type of humor. You may recognize that. __________________ Birth, wealth, and position are valueless during wartime. Man is only judged by his character --Soldier's Testament. Death, like birth, is a secret of Nature. - Marcus Aurelius.

01-02-2008, 04:12 PM	#3
classicman barely disguised asshole, keeper of all that is holy. Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 23,401	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. __________________ "like strapping a pillow on a bull in a china shop" Bullitt

01-02-2008, 04:17 PM	#4
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	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. __________________ "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

01-02-2008, 04:34 PM	#5
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	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. __________________ "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 Last edited by Radar; 01-02-2008 at 04:56 PM.

01-02-2008, 08:03 PM	#11
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	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. __________________ "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

01-02-2008, 07:02 PM	#10
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	They said Congress shall rule naturalization. They didn't say how, when, where and how much. That's general terms.

01-02-2008, 08:30 PM	#14
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	But non-citizens don't have Constitutional rights. I think we're getting closer here.

01-02-2008, 08:45 PM	#15
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Citizens don't have Constitutional rights. Our rights don't come from the Constitution. All human beings have the same human rights. __________________ "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)