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.
Fake Rabbi lost this thread pages ago. Now he wants to act like he's ignoring your posts. He's pathetic.Necessary and proper clause does not confer any additional power. It only allows Congress to enact what is necessary and proper to carry out what was specifically delegated.Please cite the clause in teh Constitution that delegates power over immigration to Congress.You haven't done shit other than when people show/explain to you that your OP is incorrect, all you do is claim otherwise.
Regulation of entry has been around since the colonies, it was written into the Articles of Confederation, and was carried over under numerous Plenary Powers of the US.
You're exclaiming "strict constructionist" theory and projecting it onto Constitutional Conservatives without knowing what a Constitutional Conservative actually is.
Yoy make claims without evidence. It has nothing to do with "strict constructionism". It is the very basis of this government: a government of limited enumerated powers.
Oh and btw please cite the language in the Articles of Confederation that authorizes them to regulate immigration.
The necessary and proper clause. Border integrity and control is necessary, therefore immigration control is proper.
If your view were correct, anything would be "necessary and proper", which means Congress would have unlimited power Which is self-refuting.
Defense of the country is the enumerated power. Border integrity and control are obvious components of national defense.
I think at this point if he wants to argue that having no control over immigration is the Constitutional Conservative consensus,
he should post what should be an easily acquired long list of conservatives who agree.
It is irrelevant is why I ignore it. Stick to the facts, not other people's opinions.I think at this point if he wants to argue that having no control over immigration is the Constitutional Conservative consensus,
he should post what should be an easily acquired long list of conservatives who agree.
I've asked him for this and he just ignores me.
It is irrelevant is why I ignore it. Stick to the facts, not other people's opinions.
And I have cited another conservative. You just werent happy with it.
Jeffrey TuckerIt is irrelevant is why I ignore it. Stick to the facts, not other people's opinions.
And I have cited another conservative. You just werent happy with it.
WHO???
Jeffrey TuckerIt is irrelevant is why I ignore it. Stick to the facts, not other people's opinions.
And I have cited another conservative. You just werent happy with it.
WHO???
[
SO so far no one can show in the Constitution where Congress is authorized to regulate immigration.
It is irrelevant is why I ignore it. Stick to the facts, not other people's opinions.I think at this point if he wants to argue that having no control over immigration is the Constitutional Conservative consensus,
he should post what should be an easily acquired long list of conservatives who agree.
I've asked him for this and he just ignores me.
And I have cited another conservative. You just werent happy with it.
SO so far no one can show in the Constitution where Congress is authorized to regulate immigration. I have defeated all attempts at saying naturalization really is immigration because they are clearly two separate things. I have cited another conservative who also believes this.
So it looks like Rabbi wins.
Semantics. Try again and stick to the subject.Jeffrey TuckerIt is irrelevant is why I ignore it. Stick to the facts, not other people's opinions.
And I have cited another conservative. You just werent happy with it.
WHO???
Jeffrey Tucker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In an interview with Reason, Timothy Virkkala, former managing editor of the libertarian magazine Liberty, alleged that Tucker played a role in the production of racially charged newsletters written on behalf of Ron Paul. By Virkkala's account, Tucker was an "assistant, [and] probably a writer" who assisted "editor and chief writer" Lew Rockwell in creating the newsletters.[13] Eric Dondero, who served as (election) campaign coordinator and senior aide to Ron Paul in the mid to late 1990s, told the American Spectator that "Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker wrote the newsletters."[14] According to reporting by Economist, "numerous veterans" of the libertarian movement said it was an "open secret" throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s that Tucker and Rockwell ghost wrote the newsletters.[15] In response to questions about his role with the newsletters from Reason, Tucker said, "I just really am not going to make a statement, I'm sorry. I'll take all responsibility for being the editor of Mises.org, OK?"[13]
Ludwig von Mises Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI), often referred to as the Mises Institute, is a tax-exempt libertarian organization located in Auburn, Alabama, United States.[5]
Again.... I asked you for a CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE... NOT a Libertarian ideologue.
Semantics. Try again and stick to the subject.Jeffrey TuckerIt is irrelevant is why I ignore it. Stick to the facts, not other people's opinions.
And I have cited another conservative. You just werent happy with it.
WHO???
Jeffrey Tucker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In an interview with Reason, Timothy Virkkala, former managing editor of the libertarian magazine Liberty, alleged that Tucker played a role in the production of racially charged newsletters written on behalf of Ron Paul. By Virkkala's account, Tucker was an "assistant, [and] probably a writer" who assisted "editor and chief writer" Lew Rockwell in creating the newsletters.[13] Eric Dondero, who served as (election) campaign coordinator and senior aide to Ron Paul in the mid to late 1990s, told the American Spectator that "Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker wrote the newsletters."[14] According to reporting by Economist, "numerous veterans" of the libertarian movement said it was an "open secret" throughout the late 1980s and early 1990s that Tucker and Rockwell ghost wrote the newsletters.[15] In response to questions about his role with the newsletters from Reason, Tucker said, "I just really am not going to make a statement, I'm sorry. I'll take all responsibility for being the editor of Mises.org, OK?"[13]
Ludwig von Mises Institute - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI), often referred to as the Mises Institute, is a tax-exempt libertarian organization located in Auburn, Alabama, United States.[5]
Again.... I asked you for a CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATIVE... NOT a Libertarian ideologue.
And yet the 14th Amendment changed all that. You keep claiming things from prior to 1868 and you keep referring to the Dred Scott case. You seem to be the stupid fuck in this scenario. Go back to elementary school and learn basic US history.So your argument is that because the fedgov oversteps its Constututional boundaries in some places we should allow it to do so here as well because it's something we all like?So why are they covered by immigration laws? Do you have any idea how hard it is to come here as a temporary worker?
Why are gas stations regulated by the Agriculture Department? We can posit 50-jillion questions like this about the government, 90% of what they do is nowhere in the Constitution... but controlling who comes into the country is to control sovereignty and if they don't have that power they aren't sovereign.
What you are actually doing with this dumb thread is making it harder to present a credible Constitutional Conservative message. This is nut bag kook stuff. You have to be a clinical moron to think the government doesn't have any control over it's own sovereignty. With all the problems we face as a nation and all the crazy ridiculous government overreach... you pick something like THIS to make a stand? Really?
The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 was Constitutionally passed by Congress a long time ago. It is Constitutionally the law of the land and has been for just about as long as our nation has existed. It is supported by the enumerated power in Article I Section 8 Clause 4. So you really need to pick something else to rant and bitch about... this is just plain stupid and makes you look like a left-wing goofball.
Yeah, that's a failure.
Congress has no power over immigration and the sooner people understand that and rein in big government the better.
No, that's not my argument at all. Congress is not overstepping it's Constitutional boundaries when it regulates immigration (aka: naturalization). In fact, it's one of the enumerated few things government has the authority TO do. I'm all for reigning in big government, this is not where you start. It's like trying to fix Kaitlyn Jenner by complaining about his toenail polish!
HUH
WTF
Naturalization is NOT immigration.
Where the fuck do you stupid fucks get your ideas.?
.Naturalization is the process by which an individual becomes a US Citizen
Immigration - an individual from a foreign relocates to one of the states - he/she is free to ask the particular state for citizenship. State citizenship is NOT US Citizenship. For example , an individual may have all the rights NY may confer but that does not mean that he has the same rights in NJ . Nor does he have US Citizenship rights.
.See the numerous links previously posted.
.
The 1819 case of McCulloch v. Maryland established implied powers.Unable to show where the Constitution grants this power=FAIL.No matter how many times you exclaim it isn't true doesn't change the fact that it is in fact true. Your constant denial simply shows just how fucking stupid you really are.Keep saying it. Doesnt make it true.Fallacy? Immigration is part of the Naturalization Process, it is part of the uniform Rule of Naturalization.No you just repat the same fallacy hoping somehow it will stick.
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.
The AoC was silent on immigration? Why do you think states denied entry to paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice? Why do so many states in their Constitutions deny this very entry? Why did the colonies deny entry to those they felt weren't of moral turpitude?
The laws regarding immigration have been around since the colonies. You confuse the fact that immigration was mostly open with not having any laws. The Alien and Sedition Acts (1798), 3 of the 4 were allowed to expire, the 4th is still the law of the land.
Congress has full authority over immigrants, to deny entry or to naturalize.
There is no authorization in the Constitution for Congress to regulate immigration. The AofC did not grant power to the federal gov't to regulate immigration. No matter how many times you pretend otherwise it isnt true.
It's an implied power.
Can you prove that implied powers don't exist? Let's hear it.
And that's the thing: all these teabaggers whining about the Constitution, and they don't know fuck-all about it.Congress can pass anything it wants, it then becomes law provided the President signs said bill, that law then stands until it is challenged by someone with standing and declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Please for fuck sakes go take a basic civics course. watafuknmoronNope. That is the entire basis of the federal government: Limited powers. Delegated powers. Otherwise the federal gov't could simply do anything and ipso facto it is constututional.The basic flaw in Rabbi's argument is the common one made by many about the Constitution; it's the misconception that unless the Constitution says, explicitly, word for word, that the government can do something,
then the government can't do it.
That is simply not true and the founders never intended it to be true.
He is correct , 1000%
He is wrong. Implied powers are an integral part of the Constitution, always have been, and were intended to be so.
And that's the thing: all these teabaggers whining about the Constitution, and they don't know fuck-all about it.Congress can pass anything it wants, it then becomes law provided the President signs said bill, that law then stands until it is challenged by someone with standing and declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Please for fuck sakes go take a basic civics course. watafuknmoronNope. That is the entire basis of the federal government: Limited powers. Delegated powers. Otherwise the federal gov't could simply do anything and ipso facto it is constututional.The basic flaw in Rabbi's argument is the common one made by many about the Constitution; it's the misconception that unless the Constitution says, explicitly, word for word, that the government can do something,
then the government can't do it.
That is simply not true and the founders never intended it to be true.
He is correct , 1000%
He is wrong. Implied powers are an integral part of the Constitution, always have been, and were intended to be so.
That is rich coming from you, the least informed poster here.And that's the thing: all these teabaggers whining about the Constitution, and they don't know fuck-all about it.Congress can pass anything it wants, it then becomes law provided the President signs said bill, that law then stands until it is challenged by someone with standing and declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. Please for fuck sakes go take a basic civics course. watafuknmoronNope. That is the entire basis of the federal government: Limited powers. Delegated powers. Otherwise the federal gov't could simply do anything and ipso facto it is constututional.The basic flaw in Rabbi's argument is the common one made by many about the Constitution; it's the misconception that unless the Constitution says, explicitly, word for word, that the government can do something,
then the government can't do it.
That is simply not true and the founders never intended it to be true.
He is correct , 1000%
He is wrong. Implied powers are an integral part of the Constitution, always have been, and were intended to be so.
Read fucking Boyd v. Nebraska ex Rel. Thayer 143 U.S. 135 (1892)And yet the 14th Amendment changed all that. You keep claiming things from prior to 1868 and you keep referring to the Dred Scott case. You seem to be the stupid fuck in this scenario. Go back to elementary school and learn basic US history.So your argument is that because the fedgov oversteps its Constututional boundaries in some places we should allow it to do so here as well because it's something we all like?Why are gas stations regulated by the Agriculture Department? We can posit 50-jillion questions like this about the government, 90% of what they do is nowhere in the Constitution... but controlling who comes into the country is to control sovereignty and if they don't have that power they aren't sovereign.
What you are actually doing with this dumb thread is making it harder to present a credible Constitutional Conservative message. This is nut bag kook stuff. You have to be a clinical moron to think the government doesn't have any control over it's own sovereignty. With all the problems we face as a nation and all the crazy ridiculous government overreach... you pick something like THIS to make a stand? Really?
The Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1790 was Constitutionally passed by Congress a long time ago. It is Constitutionally the law of the land and has been for just about as long as our nation has existed. It is supported by the enumerated power in Article I Section 8 Clause 4. So you really need to pick something else to rant and bitch about... this is just plain stupid and makes you look like a left-wing goofball.
Yeah, that's a failure.
Congress has no power over immigration and the sooner people understand that and rein in big government the better.
No, that's not my argument at all. Congress is not overstepping it's Constitutional boundaries when it regulates immigration (aka: naturalization). In fact, it's one of the enumerated few things government has the authority TO do. I'm all for reigning in big government, this is not where you start. It's like trying to fix Kaitlyn Jenner by complaining about his toenail polish!
HUH
WTF
Naturalization is NOT immigration.
Where the fuck do you stupid fucks get your ideas.?
.Naturalization is the process by which an individual becomes a US Citizen
Immigration - an individual from a foreign relocates to one of the states - he/she is free to ask the particular state for citizenship. State citizenship is NOT US Citizenship. For example , an individual may have all the rights NY may confer but that does not mean that he has the same rights in NJ . Nor does he have US Citizenship rights.
.See the numerous links previously posted.
.
Cum swallower
show me one single case in which SCOTUS has held that immigration = naturalization and the states waived the right to control immigration when the 14A was adopted,
Peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeendejo.
Immigrants have rights, they are simply limited, they also have protections, again limited. You seem to be more least informed than everybody else in this thread, however Constapation grunts a second place right behind you.That is rich coming from you, the least informed poster here.
The truth is there is no authorization for Congress to regulate immigration, explicit or implied. But Big Government types don't mind beating up on immigrants. Rights for me but not for thee!
Idiot.Immigrants have rights, they are simply limited, they also have protections, again limited. You seem to be more least informed than everybody else in this thread, however Constapation grunts a second place right behind you.That is rich coming from you, the least informed poster here.
The truth is there is no authorization for Congress to regulate immigration, explicit or implied. But Big Government types don't mind beating up on immigrants. Rights for me but not for thee!
Idiot.Immigrants have rights, they are simply limited, they also have protections, again limited. You seem to be more least informed than everybody else in this thread, however Constapation grunts a second place right behind you.That is rich coming from you, the least informed poster here.
The truth is there is no authorization for Congress to regulate immigration, explicit or implied. But Big Government types don't mind beating up on immigrants. Rights for me but not for thee!
Immigrants have exactly the same rights as American citizens, except the right to vote. And California is erasing that distinction too.
That isnt the issue. The issue is so-called conservatives become raging fascists whenever immigrants come up, demanding controls and intrusion on them they would never tolerate for citizens. But citizenship is an artificial construct. Not that you understand what that means.
No they don't you fucking moron. Immigrants can't vote in federal elections, not all immigrants can obtain work authorization, immigrants can't own or posses a weapon, etc. California is doing no such thing, as immigrants can not vote in federal elections. There is no law saying immigrants can't vote in certain state elections or local elections, learn the fucking laws.Idiot.
Immigrants have exactly the same rights as American citizens, except the right to vote. And California is erasing that distinction too.
That isnt the issue. The issue is so-called conservatives become raging fascists whenever immigrants come up, demanding controls and intrusion on them they would never tolerate for citizens. But citizenship is an artificial construct. Not that you understand what that means.
