The Federal Government Has No Immigration Powers

Radar, the Constitution is but an instrument of "We the People" and regardless as to whether or not the Constitution grants the federal government authority to regulate immigration, we the people have.

The Constitution is not like documents purported to be derived from a higher power (e.g. the Bible representing the word of God), it is acknowledged to be a product of people and people are known to be fallible and to have their limitations. The Constitution will continually be subjected to trial by fire in order to determine its current relevancy in part; or, as a whole. To promote its survivability, it was created as a living document which is why a fundamental reading will never supplant interpretation for the times. That which is now unconstitutional may become constitutional in the future and vice versa. It is essentially the burden of pundits against change to demonstrate that "We the People" are better served by strictly adhering to the Constitution in its present form; because, if push comes to shove, we the people can modify or rescind it.

You'll have to come up with a better rationale for why the federal government shouldn't regulate immigration other than because the Constitution doesn't provide for it. The Constitution works for the people, not the other way around.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[regular.joe]

Ah hell, we've been through all this before. You and I don't agree on this. I have to do more constructive things with my time, like study Russian. It's been a nice discussion, again.

Have a good one.

[Aliantha]

If the constitution is the be all and end all of every rule in your society, why then do you need to have elections or a government at all? Surely if everyone just read the constitution there'd be no need for any of that expensive stuff. Everyone would just 'get it' like Radar does and the world would be full of Radars and no one would pay income taxes either, which would be great I'm sure.

The sorts of things I'm not clear on though, is if there's no government etc, then who's going to regulate the people who don't 'get it' like Radar does? And surely if there were such a body somehow, and they tried to 'make sure' everyone 'gets it', then wouldn't that just be another form of...hmmm...gee, what's the word? Oppression?

[Radar]

The federal government should do very little. It should be here to settle disputes among other states, and to do those things listed in the Constitution and nothing else. Everything else is up to the state. We do still need elected people to do the exact things mentioned by the Constitution, but nothing else.

Americans didn't pay taxes for the first 137 years of America's existence. We did pretty damn good at becoming one of the world's greatest powers during that time.

I'm certainly not an anarchist. I merely insist on the government adhering to the limitations on its powers and that it do nothing outside of those enumerated powers.

All elected officials should fear for their lives if they step outside the bounds of the Constitution.

[regular.joe]

Crap, I can't believe I"m still here. When was the 16th amendment ratified?

[Radar]

Originally Posted by regular.joe

Crap, I can't believe I"m still here. When was the 16th amendment ratified?

In 1894 an income tax was created and struck down by the Supreme Court. On July 2nd 1909 Congress passed what would later become the 16th amendment. It was never legally ratified, but it was fraudulently ratified by Philander Knox on February 3, 1913 (The same year the Federal reserve was created).

Both the Federal Reserve, and Income taxes have wrecked America and both were created under the Taft administration. Taft is widely accepted as the single most corrupt President of all time...with the possible exception of George W. Bush.

Technically the Federal Reserve Act (blatantly unconstitutional) was created under Taft, but was enacted under Woodrow Wilson's administration. It was enacted on December 23, 1913 right before Christmas with barely enough people to make up a quorum. Woodrow Wilson signed it into Law because his adviser (Colonel Edward Mandell House) told him too.

Later, Woodrow Wilson realized what he did and said...

[quote=Woodrow Wilson]"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
- Woodrow Wilson

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

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.

There is no defect in my position. The defect in your position is that you don't recognize the indisputable fact that the powers of the government are limited strictly by the U.S. Constitution.

My position is practical in its application and was used successfully in practice for the first 100 years of America's existence before the government started routinely violating it and America started going down the toilet.

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

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.

The Federal Government has absolutely zero implied powers and is in fact PROHIBITED from having implied powers by the 10th amendment.

You are saying that because the people haven't stopped it, this means they consent to it. This is like saying a woman who didn't struggle to your satisfaction while being raped, really wanted it.

The Constitution isn't merely a "piece of paper" and isn't a "living document". The Constitution is the foundation of all our government. Without strict limits on the powers of our government, America is no better than Nazi Germany.

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

Which is not to say that it won't be done in consonance with every principle America will build a successful future upon.

Not at all. The timeless principles which built America are as true and practical today as they were at the time the founders created the Constitution. Violating those principles will not build a successful future. It will bury any chance for a successful future.

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

The Constitution, as created, also put chains on categories of We the People.

No, it actually doesn't. The Constitution does nothing to limit or infringe upon our rights. The Constitution (as created) includes all amendments that were legally ratified throughout America's history. They are part of the creation.

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

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.

[b]No, it isn't. No violation of the Constitution on the part of the government is working for the people. If the people want the federal government to have authority over immigration, it takes nothing less than a Constitutional amendment. Stopping the government from violating the Constitution is the highest of all rationales. There are none better.

Originally Posted by NoBoxes

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.

Those who try to "interpret" the Constitution are trying to find ways around it or to violate it. If they want to change it, there is one and only one way to allow government to have powers outside the scope of the Constitution and that is through a Constitutional amendment. The "living document" nonsense you keep linking to means that the Constitution can be changed by amendments.

You don't "interpret" the Constitution to mean what you want. You amend it to say what you want, and you need 3/4 of both houses to do this. Nothing else is acceptable, and nothing else is working for the people. All violations of the Constitution by government are wrong regardless of someone's intentions.

When you allow the government to violate the Constitution for even the best reason, you open the door to abuse and for people to violate it for the most heinous, racist, xenophobic, and evil reasons....like restricting immigration.

[TheMercenary]

I guess the illegals will not get to vote now. To bad, so sad.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

[Radar]

True, but since there are no illegals, we don't have to worry much about them voting. All non-citizen immigrants can't vote.

One thing that should be changed is that everyone convicted of a crime should have 100% of their rights restored to them when released from prison. That includes owning a gun, voting, etc.

In fact, they should be allowed to vote while still in prison. Voting booths should be setup for prisoners.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Radar

In fact, they should be allowed to vote while still in prison. Voting booths should be setup for prisoners.

Or we could just tell them they are voting booths and then turn on the gas.

[Cicero]

I would like to offer, "The Federal Government Has No Imagination Powers".

Ok carry on.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by Cicero

I would like to offer, "The Federal Government Has No Imagination Powers".

Ok carry on.

That goes without saying.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Or we could just tell them they are voting booths and then turn on the gas.

Kinda harsh for non-violent pot smokers or growers don't you think?