It actually is a black and white issue. The Constitution is written in black and white and it means what it says, not what the Supreme Court wants it to say, or what anti-immigrant crowds want it to say. Those who can't comprehend the very straightforward and simple words in the Constitution or worse yet, try to find a way around it or who attempt to confuse the issue by debating the meaning of a punctuation mark or a single word.

The Constitution NEVER granted any authority whatsoever to the federal government to create or enforce immigration laws. All federal immigration laws are unconstitutional. There is no gray area. It's a fact and all who deny it are doing so either because they are too stupid to comprehend the meaning of the Constitution or because they are dishonest scumbags who want to try grant government unlimited powers as long as those powers are used to satisfy their own personal agenda such as racism or xenophobia.

Really, I'd say it's more of a charcoal grey, on somewhere between oatmeal and manila.

I don't disagree with that statement. I disagree with your assumption that your understanding of the words might, just might, not be the only possible interpetation. But go ahead, respond with some statement about how you are more highly educated than 99.9% of all living human beings and how the writers of the constitution sent you an email explaining what they meant, an email that no one less intelligent than you can read. It's all good.

Fact: Congress can make laws that the population must adhere to.

Fact: Congress made laws that make undocumented immigration illegal, therefore those that enter the country illegally are breaking our laws and are afforded no rights under our Constitution.

Fact: Congress can only make laws pertaining to the 18 specific areas in which they have been granted power to legislate and is PROHIBITED from creating or enforcing laws dealing with anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Fact: Congress was never granted any power over immigration so all federal laws pertaining to immigration are unconstitutional.

Fact: There are no illegal immigrants in the United States of America.

Really?


April 30, 2003
U.S. Can Hold Immigrants Set To Be Deported
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
The government can imprison immigrants it is seeking to deport without first giving them a chance to show that they present neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community, a divided Supreme Court ruled today.

The 5-to-4 decision upheld the mandatory-detention provisions of a 1996 immigration law as applied to a substantial category of aliens who are lawful permanent residents of the United States and who have been convicted of any of a number of drug crimes and other ''aggravated'' offenses. [Excerpts, Page A20.]

The provision does not deal with terrorism, and the decision today has no direct application to the legal issues involving the detention and treatment of suspects under the USA Patriot Act that Congress passed after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. But the decision was nonetheless notable for the degree of deference the majority showed to the judgments Congress made in 1996 about the desirability of detaining immigrants before deporting them.

Tens of thousands of these so-called ''criminal aliens'' have been imprisoned before deportation under the statute, which replaced a law giving the attorney general the discretion to release individuals on bond while their deportation cases went forward as long as they presented neither flight nor security risk.

Four federal appeals courts, including the San Francisco-based United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in this case, have declared the mandatory-detention provision unconstitutional at least as applied to lawful permanent residents, who have more rights than aliens who have not been lawfully admitted into the country.

In addition to overturning the Ninth Circuit today, the court next week will almost certainly vacate the other decisions, from the 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia, the 4th Circuit in Richmond, Va., and the 10th Circuit in Denver.

The appeals courts had relied in part on a Supreme Court decision of two years ago, Zadvydas v. Davis, in which the court interpreted another provision of the immigration law and ruled that the government could not indefinitely detain a deportable alien whose country of origin refused to take him back.

In his opinion for the court today, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist -- who had dissented from the earlier decision -- said the two cases were substantially different, the first dealing with an open-ended, perhaps lifetime detention, while the case today concerned detentions that last only weeks or months, until the conclusion of deportation proceedings.

The result was to turn the Zadvydas decision into a narrower ruling in retrospect than it appeared to be to immigrants'-rights advocates when it was issued in June 2001; it had appeared then to establish a significant floor of constitutional protection even for aliens who had been adjudged deportable.

The immigrant in the case today, a Korean-born Californian named Hyung Joon Kim, is still contesting his deportability and is not yet subject to a final order of removal.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had joined the majority in the Zadvydas decision, which was also decided by a 5-to-4 vote. Her vote with Chief Justice Rehnquist today determined the different outcome.

The only federal appeals court to have upheld the mandatory-detention provision at issue today was the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, which, unlike the other appeals courts, issued its ruling before the Supreme Court decided the Zadvydas case.

Mr. Kim came to the United States from Korea with his family at the age of 6 and became a permanent resident two years later. After two criminal convictions in California as a teenager, one for burglary and one for theft, he was placed in deportation proceedings and imprisoned under the new law. After three months in detention, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that he was constitutionally eligible for release while challenging his deportation.

His case raised two questions: whether habeas corpus review was available despite language in the law suggesting that it was not, and whether the mandatory-detention provision violated the constitutional guarantee of due process.

Six justices agreed today that habeas corpus was available, thus giving the court jurisdiction over the case and reiterating the need for Congress to be extremely clear if it intended to strip the courts of jurisdiction over a category of cases. Reaching the merits of the case, five then found no constitutional requirement for a hearing at which a detained immigrant could demonstrate eligibility for release on bond.

The two questions were answered by separate coalitions of justices. Those who agreed that the court had jurisdiction were, in addition to Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy and the four who dissented on the detention issue: Justices David H. Souter, John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer.

Those who agreed with the chief justice on the constitutionality of mandatory detention were Justices Kennedy, O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas.

Chief Justice Rehnquist said that ''against a backdrop of wholesale failure'' by immigration authorities under the old law to deal with rising rates of crime by aliens, Congress had adequately demonstrated a need to imprison aliens awaiting deportation for past crimes to keep them from committing new crimes.

While Congress might have permitted ''individualized bail determinations,'' he said, ''when the government deals with deportable aliens, the Due Process Clause does not require it to employ the least burdensome means to accomplish its goal.''

After the federal district court in San Francisco ruled in favor of Mr. Kim in 1999, the Immigration and Naturalization Service granted him a hearing, found him eligible for release and released him on $5,000 bond. He has been free since then, working and attending college. His lawyer, Judy Rabinovitz of the American Civil Liberties Union, said Mr. Kim would now challenge his eligibility for deportation on the ground that the property crimes for which he was convicted were not the ''aggravated'' crimes of ''moral turpitude'' to which the law refers.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Souter said the decision was ''at odds with the settled standard of liberty,'' under which the government has to justify the detention of individuals on a case-by-case basis, not of entire classes of people. ''Due process calls for an individual determination before someone is locked away,'' Justice Souter said. He read his dissent from the bench this morning, a step he has taken only rarely to emphasize a particularly deep disagreement. Justices Stevens and Ginsburg signed his opinion.

Justice Breyer, who wrote the majority opinion in the Zadvydas case, dissented separately on narrower grounds. He said the 1996 law, properly interpreted, made bail available to an alien who raised a substantial legal challenge to deportability.

An unconstitutional court ruling in favor of an unconstitutional governmental group like immigration is irrelevant. The fact remains that the highest law in the land (higher than the courts) PROHIBITS the federal government from creating or enforcing immigration laws so they are null and void and all immigrants who come here are legal immigrants.

The courts routinely make unconstitutional rulings when it is in favor of expanding or protecting illegitimate governmental powers. Keep in mind, judges get their paycheck from the government.

O.K. here we go again. I humbly submit the following:

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Congress has the power to provide for the common welfare of the United States.

and...
Section 2. 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.

I do believe that section two of the Constitution contains the word ALL, as in, every one of the cases in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States.

Congress passes laws for the general welfare of the United States. The Judicial powers extend to the laws of the United States.

I know the next argument. It's not what the frames MEANT, then we talk about what they meant, and then we argue that it's what is written...blah..blah..blah.

I can read. The framers are dead. It is our interpretation of this document that counts. Right now, the current majority is that Radar is wrong. Hence, we have a large body of immigration law. Laws of the United States which according to the Constitution can plainly be decided upon by the Judiciary, or as we call them The Supreme Court.

Common welfare does not grant any authority to Congress to do anything other than the specific enumerated powers. Congress is PROHIBITED from having "implied powers".

Judicial power does not grant power to judges to create laws or to allow the government to do anything other than what is specified by the Constitution. Judicial power extends (covers) all cases arising UNDER THE CONSTITUTION.

This doesn't mean Judges can extend the powers of government. It means their limited judicial powers cover all of the things that government is allowed to do by the Constitution in its enumerated powers.

Interpretations of the Constitution do not count. The Constitution is written in English. It doesn't require interpretation. It means what it says and it says that the federal government has absolutely no authority to create or enforce immigration laws, PERIOD.

I read what it says. Nothing implied in what I read, It meant exactly what I read. You are the one telling us what it means. I'd repeat myself, but, just refer to my last post. Exactly what the constitution says, is that you are wrong.

http://www.dvorak.org/blog/wp-conten...0/illegals.jpgI am yer illegal alien scum bag...

The Constitution says that the federal government has absolutely zero powers over immigration and zero implied powers. It does not grant any authority to the government with the phrases like "general welfare".

The article I posted proves 100% that I am right, and you are wrong. It proves that the founders agreed with me, and not with you. It proves without any doubt that all federal immigration laws are unconstitutional.

So, the phrase "general welfare" has no meaning? Wow, those dummies who pit there must have been pretty stupid. :rolleyes: knowing that that phrase could only be interpreted one way, and one way only, thank God that radar has come along to explain that meaning 230+ years later. Whew.

Perhaps the founders did agree with you. Perhaps. The fact is that they are dead. The document they wrote is open to interpretation by the people of today. It is not as black and white as you would have us think. Ah, I know you tell me that it is black and white, just read the constitution....very clear there. I for one have quoted the exact words of the constitution, you have quoted an article. I'm going to stick with the constitution. You can stick with your article about the constitution.

:lol2:

The phrase "General Welfare" does have a meaning. It just doesn't grant any powers to the government outside of the enumerated powers they are explicitly given.

The exact words of the Constitution say that the federal government may have no powers other than those enumerated. Nowhere is the federal government given authority over immigration and the phrase "general welfare" doesn't grant such power to the fed.

Since you have no comprehension of what the phrase "general welfare" actually means, or what it meant at the time our founders created the Constitution, I'll borrow from a site that explains it very clearly and includes the legal definition of the phrase "general welfare" found in the 1828 version of Black's Law Dictionary (The most widely used dictionary of legal terms and phrases)

=======================================

AN EXAMINATION OF THE 'GENERAL WELFARE' CLAUSE
by Alan Chapman (March 7, 2001)

The meaning of the phrase 'general welfare', with respect to its use in the Constitution, is the focus of much debate. The 'general welfare' clause is often cited as justification for government social services. This essay will attempt to discover the true meaning of the phrase 'general welfare' by examining various sources on the subject.

The phrase 'general welfare' appears twice in the Constitution. Once in the preamble and again in Article 1, Section 8.

The preamble to the Constitution states that:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The preamble is not a delegation of power to the federal government. It simply states a purpose.

Article 1, Section 8 states that:

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;

The meaning of words often change over time. To more accurately assess the meaning of the word 'welfare', with respect to its use in the Constitution, it is necessary to consult a source from the period during which the Constitution was written. According to the 1828 edition of Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language the word "welfare" was defined as such:

http://alanchapman.org/libertyvault/images/welfare.png

A clear distinction is made with respect to welfare as applied to persons and states. In the Constitution the word 'welfare' is used in the context of states and not persons. The "welfare of the United States" is not congruous with the welfare of individuals, people, or citizens.

James Madison is considered by many to be the father of the Constitution. Madison wrote a letter in 1817 in which he discussed the proper role of the federal government and the limits placed on it by the Constitution.

Veto of federal public works bill

March 3, 1817

To the House of Representatives of the United States: Having considered the bill this day presented to me entitled "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvements," and which sets apart and pledges funds "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several States, and to render more easy and less expensive the means and provisions for the common defense," I am constrained by the insuperable difficulty I feel in reconciling the bill with the Constitution of the United States to return it with that objection to the House of Representatives, in which it originated.

The legislative powers vested in Congress are specified and enumerated in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution, and it does not appear that the power proposed to be exercised by the bill is among the enumerated powers, or that it falls by any just interpretation with the power to make laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution those or other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States.

"The power to regulate commerce among the several States" can not include a power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses in order to facilitate, promote, and secure such commerce with a latitude of construction departing from the ordinary import of the terms strengthened by the known inconveniences which doubtless led to the grant of this remedial power to Congress.

To refer the power in question to the clause "to provide for common defense and general welfare" would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them, the terms "common defense and general welfare" embracing every object and act within the purview of a legislative trust. It would have the effect of subjecting both the Constitution and laws of the several States in all cases not specifically exempted to be superseded by laws of Congress, it being expressly declared "that the Constitution of the United States and laws made in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges of every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." Such a view of the Constitution, finally, would have the effect of excluding the judicial authority of the United States from its participation in guarding the boundary between the legislative powers of the General and the State Governments, inasmuch as questions relating to the general welfare, being questions of policy and expediency, are unsusceptible of judicial cognizance and decision.

A restriction of the power "to provide for the common defense and general welfare" to cases which are to be provided for by the expenditure of money would still leave within the legislative power of Congress all the great and most important measures of Government, money being the ordinary and necessary means of carrying them into execution.

If a general power to construct roads and canals, and to improve the navigation of water courses, with the train of powers incident thereto, be not possessed by Congress, the assent of the States in the mode provided in the bill can not confer the power. The only cases in which the consent and cession of particular States can extend the power of Congress are those specified and provided for in the Constitution.

I am not unaware of the great importance of roads and canals and the improved navigation of water courses, and that a power in the National Legislature to provide for them might be exercised with signal advantage to the general prosperity. But seeing that such a power is not expressly given by the Constitution, and believing that it can not be deduced from any part of it without an inadmissible latitude of construction and reliance on insufficient precedents; believing also that the permanent success of the Constitution depends on a definite partition of powers between the General and the State Governments, and that no adequate landmarks would be left by the constructive extension of the powers of Congress as proposed in the bill, I have no option but to withhold my signature from it, and to cherishing the hope that its beneficial objects may be attained by a resort for the necessary powers to the same wisdom and virtue in the nation which established the Constitution in its actual form and providently marked out in the instrument itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest.

James Madison,
President of the United States

Other quotes regarding this issue:

"If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions."
- James Madison
Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792 _Madison_ 1865, I, page 546

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
- James Madison (regarding an appropriations bill for French refugees, 1794)

"With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators."
- James Madison
Letter to James Robertson, April 20, 1831 _Madison_ 1865, IV, pages 171-172

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

It would seem that, contrary to the claims of those demanding government pursuits beyond the purview of the enumerated powers granted to the federal government by the Constitution, the 'general welfare' clause does not give Congress broad and sweeping powers. Nor was it the intention of the founders to give Congress any.