Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You've only proven you are irrlevant to any intelligent discussion.You have nothing. Move along, sonny boy.And yet I am not.LOL.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over. It wont wash. You are simply wrong.
I have shown it repeatedly, you are simply to fucking stupid to recognize realityIf you cannot show where COngress has specific power over immigration then they do not have that power.
It would be great if you knew what he meant by it, yet I fear you are still showing just how fucking stupid you really are. How about placing that quote into context and finishing out that quote? Fundamentals of US Health Care: Principles and Perspectives"The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say." -Scalia.
The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say. Text is to be given the same meaning and same application to facts as it had when it was adopted....Where the original meaning or application of the text cannot be determined, it should be interpreted and applied as it is reflected in the traditional practices of the American people.
Yea, you're a fucking moron.
Now that I've proven you really believe that immigration regulation IS constitutional, you should move along.
[
An "open border" is essentially NO border! If we don't have a border, we're not a sovereign nation and the Constitution is pointless.
So the President has authority to make immigration laws? Is that your final answer?True. Having a sovereign, in this case the president, means inherently, there are borders over which the President presides.I have spent about 30 pages doing exactly that.You have yet to explain anything as to your OP in detail, you cite constitutional theory and project it on to ideological `leanings. SMFHWhen people don't understand something they tend to laugh.That was my impression as well.
You laugh a lot.
There is no authority in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. Immigration is not naturalization, which is an explicit power granted to Congress. If a power is not explicitly granted to Congress, they do not have it, period.
The authority to defend the country includes, obviously, the authority to defend the borders of the country.
You're also wrong to claim that only explicit powers are granted to Congress. Implied powers have been recognized from the start as legitimate powers.
You keep using the term "strict constructionism" but you dont have a clue as to what it means. This has nothnig to do with strict constructionism. It has to do with the FACT that the Constitution gives a government of delegated powers and nowhere does it delegate border control to Congress. Post after post and you simply repeat the same thing. That is not an argument.The simple fact is you are attempting to imply "strict constructionist" theory as being the only theory regarding the constitution, funny thing is that "strict constructionist" theory isn't recognized by anybody but fringe extremists and is "judicial activism" at the highest level. The last SCOTUS to attempt to use "strict constructionist" theory was Hugo Black, appointed by FDR. SMFHYawn.LMFAO The shear fucking stupidity you exuberate is hilarious. watafuknmoronYou have nothing. Move along, sonny boy.And yet I am not.LOL.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over. It wont wash. You are simply wrong.
I have shown it repeatedly, you are simply to fucking stupid to recognize realityIf you cannot show where COngress has specific power over immigration then they do not have that power.
It would be great if you knew what he meant by it, yet I fear you are still showing just how fucking stupid you really are. How about placing that quote into context and finishing out that quote? Fundamentals of US Health Care: Principles and Perspectives"The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say." -Scalia.
The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say. Text is to be given the same meaning and same application to facts as it had when it was adopted....Where the original meaning or application of the text cannot be determined, it should be interpreted and applied as it is reflected in the traditional practices of the American people.
Yea, you're a fucking moron.
When you have nothing you resort to insults.
The Constitution nowhere authorizes Congress to regulate immigration. That is simply the fact an no amount of pretending can change it.
Yet you respond post after post.You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks areYou've only proven you are irrlevant to any intelligent discussion.You have nothing. Move along, sonny boy.And yet I am not.LOL.
You keep repeating the same thing over and over. It wont wash. You are simply wrong.
I have shown it repeatedly, you are simply to fucking stupid to recognize realityIf you cannot show where COngress has specific power over immigration then they do not have that power.
It would be great if you knew what he meant by it, yet I fear you are still showing just how fucking stupid you really are. How about placing that quote into context and finishing out that quote? Fundamentals of US Health Care: Principles and Perspectives"The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say." -Scalia.
The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say. Text is to be given the same meaning and same application to facts as it had when it was adopted....Where the original meaning or application of the text cannot be determined, it should be interpreted and applied as it is reflected in the traditional practices of the American people.
Yea, you're a fucking moron.
Now that I've proven you really believe that immigration regulation IS constitutional, you should move along.
That is simply untrue. People immigrate for all sorts of reasons. Tourists, temp workers, etc. All of them are covered under immigration law but that is nowhere a power given in the Constutution.Naturalization is not immigration. They are two separate things.You keep making assertions without evidence.
I asked you to quote where the Articles give power over immigration
I asked you to quote where the Constitution gives power of immigration.
You failed to do so and deflected to some nonsense you dreamed up somewhere.
You've been shown where Congress derives authority to handle immigration through naturalization. You simply keep repeating immigration is not equal to naturalization, but no one has made that claim. Naturalization is the process of handling immigration.
Open borders is certainly NOT the policy of any Constitutional Conservative I know of... other than YOU. I don't see where you've backed that claim up with any evidence. Give me some names of people who have made such an argument and point me to where I can read what they've argued, because I don't believe you. I don't know whether you've taken someone out of context or interpreted something incorrectly... you just keep repeating the same mindless nonsense. Without borders, we are not a sovereign nation, therefore, the Constitution doesn't mean a thing.
/fail.
Again, naturalization is the process by which governments handle immigration. I've never argued they were the same thing. Immigration is the act of coming to a country with intentions of staying permanently.
So the President has authority to make immigration laws? Is that your final answer?True. Having a sovereign, in this case the president, means inherently, there are borders over which the President presides.I have spent about 30 pages doing exactly that.You have yet to explain anything as to your OP in detail, you cite constitutional theory and project it on to ideological `leanings. SMFHWhen people don't understand something they tend to laugh.
You laugh a lot.
There is no authority in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. Immigration is not naturalization, which is an explicit power granted to Congress. If a power is not explicitly granted to Congress, they do not have it, period.
The authority to defend the country includes, obviously, the authority to defend the borders of the country.
You're also wrong to claim that only explicit powers are granted to Congress. Implied powers have been recognized from the start as legitimate powers.
Yet you respond post after post.You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks areYou've only proven you are irrlevant to any intelligent discussion.You have nothing. Move along, sonny boy.And yet I am not.
I have shown it repeatedly, you are simply to fucking stupid to recognize reality
It would be great if you knew what he meant by it, yet I fear you are still showing just how fucking stupid you really are. How about placing that quote into context and finishing out that quote? Fundamentals of US Health Care: Principles and Perspectives
The Constitution says what it says and does not say what it does not say. Text is to be given the same meaning and same application to facts as it had when it was adopted....Where the original meaning or application of the text cannot be determined, it should be interpreted and applied as it is reflected in the traditional practices of the American people.
Yea, you're a fucking moron.
Now that I've proven you really believe that immigration regulation IS constitutional, you should move along.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.
I know, moron. But Dot Bomb seems t think the president has this authority. You explain it.So the President has authority to make immigration laws? Is that your final answer?True. Having a sovereign, in this case the president, means inherently, there are borders over which the President presides.I have spent about 30 pages doing exactly that.You have yet to explain anything as to your OP in detail, you cite constitutional theory and project it on to ideological `leanings. SMFH
There is no authority in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. Immigration is not naturalization, which is an explicit power granted to Congress. If a power is not explicitly granted to Congress, they do not have it, period.
The authority to defend the country includes, obviously, the authority to defend the borders of the country.
You're also wrong to claim that only explicit powers are granted to Congress. Implied powers have been recognized from the start as legitimate powers.
lol, twisting in the wind. Congress passes laws.
Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.Yet you respond post after post.You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks areYou've only proven you are irrlevant to any intelligent discussion.You have nothing. Move along, sonny boy.
Now that I've proven you really believe that immigration regulation IS constitutional, you should move along.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.
It's been given. The authority of the federal government to defend the nation.
Coming from you this is fucking hilarious. The To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization means exactly what it states, to establish uniform Rules to Naturalization. The first Rule is1) to be allowed to enter or not and 2) if allowed entry, under what condition, and then 3) length of time; temporary or permanently, and last but not least to 4) Naturalize or not.You keep using the term "strict constructionism" but you dont have a clue as to what it means. This has nothnig to do with strict constructionism. It has to do with the FACT that the Constitution gives a government of delegated powers and nowhere does it delegate border control to Congress. Post after post and you simply repeat the same thing. That is not an argument.
When you can quote the exact language enabling immigration let me know. Otherwise STFU and go shake your fucking head.
That is simply untrue. People immigrate for all sorts of reasons. Tourists, temp workers, etc. All of them are covered under immigration law but that is nowhere a power given in the Constutution.Naturalization is not immigration. They are two separate things.You keep making assertions without evidence.
I asked you to quote where the Articles give power over immigration
I asked you to quote where the Constitution gives power of immigration.
You failed to do so and deflected to some nonsense you dreamed up somewhere.
You've been shown where Congress derives authority to handle immigration through naturalization. You simply keep repeating immigration is not equal to naturalization, but no one has made that claim. Naturalization is the process of handling immigration.
Open borders is certainly NOT the policy of any Constitutional Conservative I know of... other than YOU. I don't see where you've backed that claim up with any evidence. Give me some names of people who have made such an argument and point me to where I can read what they've argued, because I don't believe you. I don't know whether you've taken someone out of context or interpreted something incorrectly... you just keep repeating the same mindless nonsense. Without borders, we are not a sovereign nation, therefore, the Constitution doesn't mean a thing.
/fail.
Again, naturalization is the process by which governments handle immigration. I've never argued they were the same thing. Immigration is the act of coming to a country with intentions of staying permanently.
Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.Yet you respond post after post.You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks areYou've only proven you are irrlevant to any intelligent discussion.Now that I've proven you really believe that immigration regulation IS constitutional, you should move along.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.
It's been given. The authority of the federal government to defend the nation.
That's right, I do respond, post after post, continuously pointing out just how fucking stupid you are.Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.
Naturalization means becoming a citizen. What if someone has no intention of becoming a citizen? Your argument fails.Coming from you this is fucking hilarious. The To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization means exactly what it states, to establish uniform Rules to Naturalization. The first Rule is1) to be allowed to enter or not and 2) if allowed entry, under what condition, and then 3) length of time; temporary or permanently, and last but not least to 4) Naturalize or not.You keep using the term "strict constructionism" but you dont have a clue as to what it means. This has nothnig to do with strict constructionism. It has to do with the FACT that the Constitution gives a government of delegated powers and nowhere does it delegate border control to Congress. Post after post and you simply repeat the same thing. That is not an argument.
When you can quote the exact language enabling immigration let me know. Otherwise STFU and go shake your fucking head.
You're right, this isn't an argument, it's a clarification as to Congress having full authority over Naturalization and its process.
No you just repat the same fallacy hoping somehow it will stick.That's right, I do respond, post after post, continuously pointing out just how fucking stupid you are.Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.
The basis has been provided, post after post.
Who is authorized to give them permission to set foot in this country?Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.Yet you respond post after post.You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks areYou've only proven you are irrlevant to any intelligent discussion.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.
It's been given. The authority of the federal government to defend the nation.
They are trespassers if they don't have permission to set foot in this country.
Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.Yet you respond post after post.You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks areYou've only proven you are irrlevant to any intelligent discussion.Now that I've proven you really believe that immigration regulation IS constitutional, you should move along.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.
It's been given. The authority of the federal government to defend the nation.
No you just repat the same fallacy hoping somehow it will stick.That's right, I do respond, post after post, continuously pointing out just how fucking stupid you are.Yet you respond post after post.
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.
The basis has been provided, post after post.
Naturalization is not immigration
The Articles of Confederation were silent on immigration.
The US had no laws about immigration until the 1870s.
Congress does not have any power to regulate immigration, only naturalization.
Who is authorized to give them permission to set foot in this country?Immigrants arent invaders, numbnuts.Yet you respond post after post.You haven't presented any thing of intelligence to discuss. Your comebacks are
You have nothing. You have lost this argument because you cannot give a basis in ConLaw where Congress has the power to regulate immigration.
It's been given. The authority of the federal government to defend the nation.
They are trespassers if they don't have permission to set foot in this country.
Your statement is absurd.
