Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar
You claim that "We the People" have granted the federal authority to regulate immigration even if it's not in the Constitution. This is false. We the people have given the federal government certain powers and We the people have limited those powers to being only what is enumerated in the Constitution. We the people have prohibited the federal government from creating or enforcing any laws which do not pertain to those specific powers enumerated in the Constitution.
|
My statement stands as factual since this practice is in practical application. The part of your statement that I've placed in bold type is the defect in your position. The federal government already has immigration regulatory effect under the "law" (figuratively speaking) of implied consent. We the People have chosen not to stop it from happening at this time. The Constitution is just a piece of paper with writing on it: it requires people to make it happen.
Quote:
|
The only way for "We the People" to grant such power to the federal government (which violates every principle America was built upon) is to amend the Constitution. This has not been done yet.
|
Which is not to say that it won't be done in consonance with every principle America will build a successful future upon.
Quote:
|
The Constitution isn't a "living document". It's the highest law in our land. It's higher than all 3 branches of government, and it's the foundation of freedom and peaceful society in America. Yes, it was created by men. And luckily for us, it was created by men who knew they didn't know everything. This is why they allowed it to be changed, but not changed easily.
|
You're playing with the semantics of the terms "living document" and
"Living Constitution." My point is that the Constitution was created with a provision for changes and you acknowledge
above that it was.
Quote:
|
No part of government that was unconstitutional in 1790 is Constitutional now unless the Constitution has been amended to allow it. That which is unconstitutional now, may only become Constitutional later through an amendment to the Constitution and NOT an act of Congress that is ignored by the Supreme Court.
|
There's room for agreement on this point among proponents for both the Living Constitution and Originalism. See the Judicial Activism paragraph in the above linked web page.
Quote:
|
The Constitution was created to put chains on the federal government and to keep most power in the hands of the states and in the people themselves.
|
The Constitution, as created, also put chains on categories of We the People.
Quote:
|
I most certainly do not have to come up with a "better rationale" for why the government shouldn't regulate immigration other than it being a direct violation of the highest law in our land. The Constitution works for the people by limiting the powers of our federal government. Limiting immigration when the Constitution prohibits it is not working for the people.
|
Yes, it is. Furthermore, your reluctance "to come up with a 'better rationale' for why the government shouldn't regulate immigration" is why We the People are allowing it to happen.
Quote:
|
The Constitution isn't to be ignored or thought of as some quaint old relic of our past. It's the foundation of our entire society and it is what makes America more free than other nations. It locks down our government and keeps real power in the hands of the people. It's what makes us citizens rather than subjects. The Constitution doesn't require interpretation. It's meaning and intent are clear and are in simple English, not Swahili. No interpretation is needed, and those who try to interpret it are usually looking for loopholes or ways around it, or to destroy it.
|
Those who try to interpret the Constitution for the times we live in are striving to maintain it as the foundation of our
evolving society. Those who claim that no interpretation is needed undermine the evolution of this great society by favoring stagnation in pursuit of their own agendas.
Those who wish to read about the Living Constitution theory of constitutional interpretation versus Originalism can get the gist of the matter from
Wikipedia.