New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#1 2018-08-30 19:46:22

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 13,356

The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Rumor or reality to Americans being denied travel by US immigration officials who are 'just following' Trump's orders on reported passport crackdown...following President Trump's orders to double down on authenticating the citizenship of hundreds of Hispanics along the U.S.–Mexico border. It has been reported that some passport applicants with official U.S. birth certificates are being jailed in detention facilities as they await immigration proceedings, while others have had their passports stripped from them as they tried to reenter the U.S. Government officials who violate the law or the constitution will not be immune to legal consequences and they will eventually be held accountable for their actions.

Of course America should pay reparations to ICE detainees who have suffered human rights abuses: It's important to talk about restitution — even if it seems out of reach — because otherwise we collaborate in accepting injustice.

Offline

#2 2018-09-17 16:32:07

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 13,356

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

kbd512 wrote:

SpaceNut,

That "imaginary line in the sand" has been there for considerably longer than anyone alive today.  Whether foreign nationals from Mexico, elsewhere, or even some of our fellow Americans choose to believe that our southern border is merely a suggestive line drawn on a map, it is in point of fact the southern border of the United States.  Similarly, the "imaginary line in the sand" between Iraq and Iran may not mean much to you or I, but at least a couple million Iraqis and Iranians died fighting over it.  Most of the people who live in Texas do demand that those who keep coming over that line go back and come through a port of entry, else they'd not continue to elect people who make enforcing it a priority.  Nations have borders and the US is not so exceptional that one of the core concepts behind a nation-state doesn't apply to the US as well.

In what must come as a shock to you, my wife speaks Vietnamese in our home, she teaches some of it to our children, we eat Vietnamese food, I've attended plenty of Vietnamese weddings and funerals, and we were married in a Buddhist temple.  American culture isn't about the food we eat, the language we share, or the various religious and cultural rituals we practice.  It's about practicing the principles and ideals embodied in our Constitution.  It's plainly obvious that we don't always live up to those lofty ideals, or that some who came before us also failed to live up to them, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.  What is unmistakably obvious is that The Founders intended for us to live by some basic principles and laws intended to permeate our unique American culture, and that those laws were to be followed, else we would not be a nation of binding principles.  There's a reason why our Constitution is referred to as "the supreme law of the land" and justices rule on the legality of all other laws based upon the principles embodied in our Constitution.

Having everyone speak the same language is about maintaining the ability to communicate with each other.  It has nothing to do with any form of discrimination.  It's not discriminatory that people in France speak French or that people in China speak Chinese.  My ancestors were from Ireland and Germany.  After they came here, they didn't demand that other Americans learn to speak Gaelic or German.  They didn't identify themselves as hyphenated Americans, either.  When I tell people who I am, I don't tell them an Irish-American or a German-American.  I'm an American.  I don't wave Irish or German flags about, either.  All Americans are welcome to be as proud of their ethnicity and heritage as they wish, but they should remember what they are.  As such, the only flags you'll see me wave are the American Flag and the Texas Flag.

As far as people who do choose to come here are concerned, they need to learn to accept our shared culture and our unique ways of doing things.  When my wife and I first dated and she would see me do something she didn't agree with (like wearing my shoes in the house), she would often start her admonition with "... in my country...", at which point I would stop her and remind her that she's an American living in America and that "our country" is "her country".  She doesn't do that anymore.  It's finally sunk in.  She's an American, not a Vietnamese-American or a Vietnamese woman living in America.  She happens to be of Vietnamese descent, which is entirely irrelevant to being an American.  That remains true, no matter where it is that you've come from.

I love the fact that we have people from all over the world living here.  I wouldn't have it any other way.  At the same time, everyone living here in America needs to be an invited guest or an American citizen.  There can be no second class citizens in our shining city on a hill.  That practice ended before I was born, and thank whatever deity you believe in for that.  Our agency extends beyond any particular ethnicity, culture, or religion and that is why the rest of the world looks to us for leadership.  The success or failure of our unique experiment with self governance rests with that agency, as that is what binds us together.

Offline

#3 2018-10-10 22:57:25

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

The only thing more unConstitutional than NASA is Federal immigration law.

Last edited by Belter (2018-10-11 08:14:07)

Offline

#4 2018-10-11 07:19:37

kbd512
Member
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,221

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Belter,

Our immigration laws are very much constitutional, unless opinion on the matter recently became the purview of some other branch of government besides the Judiciary.  Our judiciary decides what laws pass constitutional muster, not the legislature or the executive.

Offline

#5 2018-10-11 08:17:35

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Well, no, they're not constitutional even slightly.  It's just that a deeply racist and xenophobic SCOTUS, suspicious of hard working Chinese, made up the power and SCOTUS's that followed haven't overturned it.  Yet.  Just like Plessy said it's okay to have separate but equal and it took half a decade to overturn it because it was blatantly unConstitutional.   The Constitution decides what is constitutional.   And there is zero delegated authority for it.  The Founders were absolutely for open borders ethically, even if they expressed some occasional concerns about possible side effects.   The first several rounds of immigration laws were all found to be unConstitutional later.

I for one, can't wait to get to Mars, and start drawing lines around the place and tell astronauts where they can and can't go.   Let's arbitrary up that place!

Last edited by Belter (2018-10-11 08:18:46)

Offline

#6 2018-10-11 10:44:20

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 2,903
Website

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

"The Congress shall have Power... ...To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization"

- US Constitution

The Republican party platform of 1864 is not mentioned in the Constitution. But if you want to talk about historical documents, how about going back to the first act regulating naturalisation, and restrict citizenship to "free whites of good character"?


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#7 2018-10-11 11:27:18

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Right, "naturalization".   That's like NASA having the power to go to LEO allows them to go to Mars because "well, they're kinda related".

If they had wanted to control immigration, they'd have added the word.  They didn't, because no US state would *ever* sign away the power to let armed thugs come into THEIR state to evict whomever they pleased.   Not ever.  There would be no US at all over that kind of shit.  They thought the power to ensure free trade was potentially despotic enough.

Last edited by Belter (2018-10-11 11:28:17)

Offline

#8 2018-10-11 12:20:14

kbd512
Member
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,221

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Belter,

Attributing your own personal beliefs about other people to them does not validate those beliefs and it never will.  Our Constitution is interpreted by people we nominate or elect to our courts system, no matter what you believe to the contrary.  You may not agree with the interpretations made, and I may not agree, either, but that's why we have a system in place for redress of grievances against our government.  That precept actually does appear in our Constitution.

Saying "the Constitution decides what is constitutional" is a bit like saying the behavior of dogs determines what "dog behavior" is.  Well, no, not really.  The entire rest of the natural world has a say in the matter.  Gravity doesn't care if a dog thinks it can fly or not- without wings the dog is only going in one direction if it decides to jump off a cliff.  If dogs exhibit a specific behavior that routinely results in their untimely demise, then sooner rather than later, a natural selection process overrides the detrimental behaviors, like jumping off a cliff, for example.  There may be an infinite number of possible interpretations of anything, but only a few of them are amenable to continued existence, let alone an existence most of us would find desirable.

When you're truly alone, you can behave in whatever manner is most pleasing to you.  When you're living within a society whose very existence is entirely predicated on the rule of law, there are limits to every behavior.  You may not yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater when there is no fire.  The Police don't particularly care if it was merely done for theatric effect, either.  They'll arrest you for doing so, whereupon a jury of your peers will try, convict, and fine or incarcerate you as they see fit, for disturbance of the peace.  Anyone caught doing that is welcome to argue that their constitutional right to free speech was violated, but personal rights and liberties end where the rights and liberties of the other members of our society begin.

Newsflash:

NASA dictates the activities to be undertaken by their astronauts in exacting detail.  The astronauts can always choose not to follow their orders, but their membership within the astronaut corps is predicated on following the orders given to them by their chain of command.

All successful ships have crews that work with each other, not against each other.  America is a ship at sea and we are her crew.  It'll be nigh unto impossible to continue sailing if some of our crew are poking holes in the hull, the material that binds us, while the other crew members are feverishly bailing water to keep the ship from sinking.  When we have people who are not crew members attempting to forcefully take over our ship, and foreign invaders who attempt to infiltrate our ship in the dead of night are just that, we have an imperative to repel boarders.

All crew members who want our ship to continue sailing will pass the word and follow the Captain's orders to repel boarders.  Our invited guests cross the quarter deck with the permission of the Officer of the Deck, who works directly for our Captain.  If the Officer of the Deck does not grant permission to come aboard, that does not grant permission to sneak over the side rails.  If our sentries don't take kindly to that sort of behavior, it's because they work for our Captain and ultimately, on behalf of the entire crew.  The ship's doctor is charged with ensuring the health of her crew and the doctor's consistent opinion on the matter is that boarders are bad for the ship, for want of the requisite esprit de corps and responsibilities of a crew member, and thus deleterious to the morale of her crew.  The doctor arrived at that opinion on the basis that the ship doesn't have unlimited resources and all crew members are expected to perform their duty to follow our code of conduct.  In that regard, both the ship's doctor and her Captain are of the mind that the good ship America has her limitations, her limitations shall be respected, and failing to respect her limitations will result in disciplinary action being taken.

In the end, the fate our ship rests in the hands of our entire crew.  Anyone who feels our course isn't true, is both entitled and obligated to speak with the ship's navigator, the ship's doctor, and even the Captain.  All were elevated to those positions by our fellow crew members and all can be removed from office if good cause is presented to one of them.  That said, while we're aboard this ship the entire crew will enforce discipline and the orders of the ship's officers.  Unlike many other ships at sea, this ship grants its crew members the privilege to disembark whenever and wherever a crew member should so choose, so as to cross deck to another vessel he or she believes may be more amenable to their personal interests.  At all other times good order and discipline is in full effect.  The decisions made by our Captain, Doctor, or Navigator are binding and lawful until a case is presented and accepted by one of those three officers or to the entire crew.  I do think that anyone who believes otherwise will quickly determine that very few other ships have officers as magnanimous as those found aboard our ship.

Offline

#9 2018-10-11 13:28:21

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Right, and the 10th Amendment disagrees.   

About ICE, about the Border Patrol, about NASA.

This isn't a dictatorship, it's a Constitutional republic. 

I don't worry so much about NASA because it isn't the majority trampling the rights of the minority, outside a few dollars per year illegally taken.

SCOTUS said that ObamaCare is constitutional.  Jim Crow laws.  Arresting cancer stricken pot smokers.  Taking land to give to corporations.  Arresting people for growing wheat on their farm.   So, they have no moral authority over what words mean.

Offline

#10 2018-10-11 15:29:06

kbd512
Member
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,221

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Belter,

A Constitutional Republic delegates authority to various elected or nominated parties for various purposes, national border control being one of those purposes.  The practice is centuries old and has been kept around because we've not found a better system for representing the greatest interests of the republic's citizens.  All hierarchical structures created by man tend towards tyranny, which is why our federal system of governance divides power amongst three separate branches of government.  Thereafter, power is distributed amongst analogs to our federal government that are more concerned with local than national and international issues.

Immigration enforcement is a power delegated to the federal government.  Our federal government is granted authority to enforce our borders and until political parties found ways to use that for political purposes, the federal government was far more concerned with keeping out foreign invaders than catering to the proclivities of a particular political party.

Constitutional rights are granted to citizens and don't apply to non-citizens.  Citizens of foreign countries are not American citizens, thus protections granted under our laws do not apply to them in the same way, especially as it pertains to those who come here illegally.  I no more have a right to go to Mexico without the permission of the Mexican government than a Mexican citizen has a right to come here without the permission of the American government.  Such arguments have all been tried in courts and rejected numerous times in local, state, and federal courts.  Whether you can find an individual case that runs counter to stare decisis or not, that is the general interpretation.

Moral authority is about beliefs and entirely subjective in nature.  Legal authority is enforced with violence or the threat of violence.  All governments necessarily arise out of the perceived need for violence or the threat of violence to maintain order.  If you're searching for a beacon of morality within any government, you'll never find it because it doesn't exist.  Governments that govern best tend to use the least amount of force / violence required to fulfill their intended purpose.  However, you'll find that necessary force / violence is also subject to interpretation.  Some people think we don't need any government, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Offline

#11 2018-10-11 18:25:47

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

kbd512 wrote:

Immigration enforcement is a power delegated to the federal government.

I'll give you $1B in cash if you can quote the passage that delegates it in the Constitution.

Offline

#12 2018-10-11 18:28:31

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

kbd512 wrote:

Constitutional rights are granted to citizens and don't apply to non-citizens.


That couldn't be more false.   Have you ever studied the Constitution?  Because I have.  Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is the word "citizen".

Offline

#13 2018-10-11 22:09:19

kbd512
Member
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,221

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Belter,

Our legislature has granted unto itself plenary powers over immigration control.  The constitutional role of our legislature is to make law.  The judiciary interprets laws to determine the constitutionality of a particular law.  Thus far, the judiciary has not determined that our current laws pertaining to immigration control are unconstitutional.  Therefore, immigration control is presumed constitutional, therefore lawful, and therefore enforceable as law.  You can challenge that in court if you disagree, but many others already have and without much success.  All I can say about that is "good luck", because you'll need it.

Regarding who our Constitution applies to, I can say with certainty that our laws do not apply to every person on this planet and if you were to ask some people from England, France, Germany, or Russia if the American Constitution applies to them, you might get a few strange looks and maybe a laugh or two, but that's about it.  When the Constitution uses the phrase "the people", it's making reference to "the people of the United States".  The people of the United States would ordinarily have been thought of as "the citizens of the United States", not the citizens of England, France, Mexico, or any other country.

Maybe you've memorized every word of our Constitution, but what school taught you the stuff that you've posted here?  I only ask so as to ensure I never send my kids there.  I don't want them believing that the decisions made by our government don't carry the force of law with them.  Our government has authority granted to it by "the people", who are also "the citizens of the United States".  You can rail off as many meaningless assertions and play as many word games as you wish.  I assure you that our Police and Judiciary don't care if you think they lack authority to enforce speed limits, for example, and will arrest and fine or jail you for breaking the law without a second thought about it.

There's nothing written in our Constitution about the constitutionality of using computers to distribute our ideas to the world, either.  Does that mean using computers to express ideas isn't considered to be "free speech", which is enshrined in our Bill of Rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution?  I think not.  The legislature, courts, and executive all seem to agree on that point.  Apart from the Constitution, did any of your teachers explain the concepts of abstraction and deductive reasoning?  Some of your statements make me think they didn't.

Our Constitution doesn't interpret itself.  People are involved in the process, forever and always.  There is no nation of pure ideas.  An idea that only exists between someone's ears is not a tangible effect of the objective world.  Our Constitution was clearly intended for the tangible / objective world, else it need not have ever been committed to paper.  We'd either be born knowing it or, most likely, utterly ignorant of the foundational concepts of our republic.

Without people who adhere to our foundational ideas, our ethos if you will, to embody the core principles expressed in our Constitution, there is no nation.  Basic respect for our laws, even if you disagree with some of them, is a pretty fundamental idea that's not at all unique to American society.  If you enter into someone's home without permission, you're trespassing.  There is no fundamental right to trespass, even if it happened at some point in time in our past (which neither you nor I could ever change) or is happening right now (the only time and place we have even a small measure of control over).  The notion that such an idea is even controversial, let alone asserted to not apply to our nation in a similar manner as it applies to individuals, demonstrates a profound breakdown in our educational system.  I can't say I'm surprised.  An ever-increasing plurality of people have a seemingly limitless amount of knowledge at their fingertips, yet they appear to have never been taught how to think for themselves, about the world, and their position in relation to the rest of the world as they move through it.  The "who / what / when / where" is of limited value without the "why".

Offline

#14 2018-10-11 22:42:06

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

"Our legislature has granted unto itself plenary powers over immigration control.  The constitutional role of our legislature is to make law. "

Right, that's my point. Nowhere in the Constitution does Congress get to invent its own powers.  Nor is there a power of SCOTUS to rationalize it for them.

There is no "presumption of constitutionality". In fact, it is the opposite.  The onus is on a federal government, using BORROWED powers, to demonstrate that it has valid authority. It can't, it doesn't, end of story.   All presumption of "innocence" goes to the people and the States ABOVE the Feds.  Feds are guilty until proven innocent.

Jurisdiction does't work the way you think.  If someone is living here or visiting here, they have all of the protections of the Constitution.   At no time did the Founders separate citizens from immigrants in terms of rights. 

If you want to allow your kids to remain ignorant, that's fine, they can join the masses, they certainly won't be unique.   My professors were brilliant.  You don't know what you don't know.

Offline

#15 2018-10-11 22:52:54

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"I respect the Constitution, except when brown people start coming" isn't a valid philosophy for governing either.

Last edited by Belter (2018-10-11 22:53:55)

Offline

#16 2018-10-12 00:37:43

kbd512
Member
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,221

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Belter wrote:

"Our legislature has granted unto itself plenary powers over immigration control.  The constitutional role of our legislature is to make law. "

Right, that's my point. Nowhere in the Constitution does Congress get to invent its own powers.  Nor is there a power of SCOTUS to rationalize it for them.

Congress has the authority to make laws and it says so in our Constitution.  That power was not "invented" by Congress.  The power to make laws also means that laws can be made that some or even most of us don't agree with.  I don't agree with plenary power over immigration law, either, but Congress and the Judiciary must think it's pretty real because that laws backing that power have not been struck down and the executive branch is enforcing those immigration laws.  Imagine that...  Three branches of government agree on something.  We should either be very thankful or very afraid.  It's hard to know which ahead of time.

With Constitutional authority to make laws firmly established, Congress made laws pertaining to immigration.  SCOTUS could interpret laws as unconstitutional if it believes the law is prejudicial or capricious in nature, therefore unconstitutional, and it has in instances where it thought some law or portion of a law failed to meet constitutional muster.  However, after numerous and varied cases presented before it on the subject of the constitutionality of enforcement of federal immigration laws, it has consistently upheld the authority granted to the executive branch for that purpose.  Therefore, our immigration laws are presumed constitutional and enforceable as law.

Belter wrote:

There is no "presumption of constitutionality". In fact, it is the opposite.  The onus is on a federal government, using BORROWED powers, to demonstrate that it has valid authority. It can't, it doesn't, end of story.   All presumption of "innocence" goes to the people and the States ABOVE the Feds.  Feds are guilty until proven innocent.

I honestly can't tell if you really believe this nonsense you're spouting off or if you're just yanking my chain for your own personal entertainment.  I really hope it's the latter.

1. Laws are indeed considered to be constitutional unless they are plainly unjust, oppressive, or pernicious.

2. Article II in our Constitution grants authority to the executive branch of our federal government to enforce federal laws.  Our immigration laws are federal laws, and as such they are enforceable by the federal government.

3. Innocence is assumed until guilt is proven before a trier of fact, otherwise known as a court of law.  I'm quite certain that that concept is incorporated into the BOR.

Belter wrote:

Jurisdiction does't work the way you think.  If someone is living here or visiting here, they have all of the protections of the Constitution.   At no time did the Founders separate citizens from immigrants in terms of rights.

I'll reference the following excerpt from Wabash College:

Wabash College - INTERNATIONAL CENTER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES

From the article:

DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW: The 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee "due process of law" to all persons, including foreign students and other aliens in the US. Due process of law requires that orderly legal procedures be followed to establish guilt before a person can be put in jail or otherwise punished. In the United States, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees to every person, aliens included, "equal protection under the law." Equal protection under the law means that the law applies to everyone equally, regardless of age, sex, race or wealth, and that no law may discriminate between persons or classes of persons. There are, however, laws that apply only to certain classes of people, such as aliens. As long as there is a reasonable basis for these laws, they satisfy the requirement of fairness and justice. These laws may limit and modify basic rights. Except for these special alien laws, foreign students are subject to the same laws as are American citizens. They are also guaranteed the same protection under the laws and the same civil rights as are American citizens.

Belter wrote:

If you want to allow your kids to remain ignorant, that's fine, they can join the masses, they certainly won't be unique.   My professors were brilliant.  You don't know what you don't know.

It is a common error in friends, when they would extol their friend, to make comparisons, and to depreciate the merits of others.

As Mr. Franklin suggested in his letter to Mr. Foxcroft, perhaps it's best if you don't behave like one of Mr. Wharton's friends.  Their belief in the infallibility of Mr. Wharton did not make him infallible or solely responsible for the desired outcome.  Sometimes it's best to give credit where credit is due.

Nobody knows what they don't know, genius.  I do know that three branches of government don't support your interpretation of the constitutionality of our immigration laws.  Forgive me if I support their interpretation of our Constitution over the interpretation of a few college professors that you're personally enamored with.

Offline

#17 2018-10-12 02:59:25

kbd512
Member
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,221

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Belter wrote:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The power to make laws was delegated to our legislature by our Constitution.  Our legislature created various immigration laws that have been brought before various courts, including SCOTUS, whereupon those laws were determined to be constitutional and upheld as such or unconstitutional and struck down.  Our executive is bound by oath to enforce constitutional laws.  Elections may be popularity contests, but upholding laws based upon popularity would run directly counter to the principles our Founders believed in.

Belter wrote:

"I respect the Constitution, except when brown people start coming" isn't a valid philosophy for governing either.

The skin color of the people coming here is of no concern to me.  Demonstrating respect for our laws, as we are required to do, is infinitely more important to me, as it should be to everyone else.  I think attributing your own personal beliefs to people you disagree with says far more about you than it does about anyone else.  I responded to your intellectually lazy assertions and facially absurd misrepresentations regarding our system of governance so that others who come here will not simply read what you've posted in this thread and assume that everyone else here also holds such ideas.

Offline

#18 2018-10-12 07:21:43

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

kbd512 wrote:

Congress has the authority to make laws and it says so in our Constitution.

Only if they are constitutional, authorized and delegated.  That's what the "pursuant" means.

I honestly can't tell if you really believe this nonsense you're spouting off or if you're just yanking my chain for your own personal entertainment.  I really hope it's the latter.

What does the 10th Amendment say again?

1. Laws are indeed considered to be constitutional unless they are plainly unjust, oppressive, or pernicious.

That's just stuff national socialists say since it doesn't say that ANYWHERE in the Constitution.    Also, immigration law is plainly unjust, oppressive AND pernicious so.....even by your own invented standards....."

2. Article II in our Constitution grants authority to the executive branch of our federal government to enforce federal laws.  Our immigration laws are federal laws, and as such they are enforceable by the federal government.

Only if they are constitutional.

3. Innocence is assumed until guilt is proven before a trier of fact, otherwise known as a court of law.  I'm quite certain that that concept is incorporated into the BOR.

That has nothing to do with Congress.  No one is at threat of being put in jail, no charges are being made, EXCEPT against citizens and residents.   So we're right back to, when fucking over a resident of the US, the government must prove them guilty of violating a constitutionally valid criminal law

DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW: The 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution guarantee "due process of law" to all persons, including foreign students and other aliens in the US. Due process of law requires that orderly legal procedures be followed to establish guilt before a person can be put in jail or otherwise punished. In the United States, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. The 14th amendment to the US Constitution guarantees to every person, aliens included, "equal protection under the law." Equal protection under the law means that the law applies to everyone equally, regardless of age, sex, race or wealth, and that no law may discriminate between persons or classes of persons. There are, however, laws that apply only to certain classes of people, such as aliens. As long as there is a reasonable basis for these laws, they satisfy the requirement of fairness and justice. These laws may limit and modify basic rights. Except for these special alien laws, foreign students are subject to the same laws as are American citizens. They are also guaranteed the same protection under the laws and the same civil rights as are American citizens.

Right, thanks for proving my point.    Except for the part about the "special alien laws" which are laughably unConstitutional, anti-10th Amendment, anti-14th Amendment.

Nobody knows what they don't know, genius.  I do know that three branches of government don't support your interpretation of the constitutionality of our immigration laws.  Forgive me if I support their interpretation of our Constitution over the interpretation of a few college professors that you're personally enamored with.

Attacking my superior knowledge of how the Constitution works is just an ad hominem.    The "interpretation" of SCOTUS flips back and forth decade after decade, while mine remains fixed and consistent.   Theirs is based in whether national socialists have control, or whether social nationalists have control.  If SCOTUS were up to defining, accurately, the meaning of the Constitution, then Merrick Garland would have been affirmed to be on SCOTUS.  He wasn't, precisely because EVERYONE knows that SCOTUS is political and each Justice votes to support their party more often than they don't.   You are trying to have it both ways - "OMG, we've got to keep these dirty libruls off of SCOTUS!!!!" followed by "you can't argue with SCOTUS, they are infallible whenever they agree with me and morons when they don't!!!!"   

Try intellectual consistency someday.   You might like it.

Last edited by Belter (2018-10-12 07:55:48)

Offline

#19 2018-10-12 07:24:09

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

kbd512 wrote:

The power to make laws was delegated to our legislature by our Constitution.  Our legislature created various immigration laws that have been brought before various courts, including SCOTUS, whereupon those laws were determined to be constitutional and upheld as such or unconstitutional and struck down.  Our executive is bound by oath to enforce constitutional laws.  Elections may be popularity contests, but upholding laws based upon popularity would run directly counter to the principles our Founders believed in.

Upholding unConstitutional immigration laws is precisely upholding laws by popularity and nothing else.

The skin color of the people coming here is of no concern to me.  Demonstrating respect for our laws, as we are required to do, is infinitely more important to me, as it should be to everyone else.  I think attributing your own personal beliefs to people you disagree with says far more about you than it does about anyone else.  I responded to your intellectually lazy assertions and facially absurd misrepresentations regarding our system of governance so that others who come here will not simply read what you've posted in this thread and assume that everyone else here also holds such ideas.

Social Nationalists always say that.  They never mean it.  They're scared senseless to be a minority.    They are just today's Know Nothings.

Offline

#20 2018-10-12 07:43:26

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Basically, what you're saying is that if Democrats can get a 5 Justice majority on SCOTUS, they can ban all modern guns, because they "believe" that the 2A only covers muskets and flintlocks and some kinds of swords maybe.    They can force you to buy ObamaCare, they can force you to be a vegan.   They can jail you for arguing with them on the internet.  They can ban religion.   They can take your child and raise him androgynously.   And it will all be perfectly "constitutional".   All based on your "5/4 wins" theory of the Constitution.

Offline

#21 2018-10-12 14:11:31

kbd512
Member
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,221

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Belter,

There are also "special laws" that only apply to corporations, even though SCOTUS defined corporations as persons for purposes of addressing the right of corporations to donate money to political campaigns as "free speech".  An entity such as a corporation is clearly not a person like you or I am, yet those laws were deemed constitutional and enforced as such.  You're free to make whatever claims you wish about the constitutionality of the rulings made by SCOTUS, but their rulings, not your claims, determine what is constitutional, therefore lawful, and what is not.  The only intellectual consistency you've demonstrated is that you disagree with court rulings that don't match your opinions.  Thankfully for the rest of us, more reasonable legal minds determine how and when laws apply, modifying their decision as circumstances dictate.

As it pertains to 2A, the court has generally upheld that outright bans are plainly unconstitutional.  However, in places like California that have liberal supermajority who wish to strip their citizens of their 2A rights without going through the constitutional amendment process, the 9th circuit has upheld that California's outright ban on actually carrying a firearm for self defense purposes is constitutional.  SCOTUS has refused to hear cases about that recent ban.  And yes, the 9th circuit's ruling is binding and the ban on carrying firearms is presumed lawful.  Elections have consequences.  Californians elected people who wanted to ban the carrying of firearms.  As someone who supports lawful activity, I respect that decision when I travel to California and leave my firearm at home.  Following the laws...  Even ones I don't agree with...  What a concept.  Absolutely crazy, I tell ya!

Newsflash!  Stay tuned for breaking liberal lunacy!

They did force us to buy ObamaCare, so now we pay 3 times more for the same health care plan that we've always had.  Who doesn't love paying 3 times as much for the same product?  I've not seen any laws about being a vegan yet, but I suppose that's next.  Adolf Hitler was a vegetarian.  Using liberal logic, that means all those Hollyweird liberals yapping about the defenseless plants they've murdered support nazis.  Maybe they should just stick to eating sunshine and brainfarts.  People have been jailed for arguing with the Police, typically after they become combative.  It's crazy to put people in jail who assault Police Officers.  What's next?  Laws against murdering your unborn children?  I'm pretty sure I would support a ban on religion, given the number of thugs who use their favorite religion as an excuse for rape, robbery, and murder.  I do my level best to stay away from people who believe in sky wizards.  If the state raises my children androgynously for me, can we really refer to them as "him" or "her"?  Based on your last post, I think you're mis-gendering my children.  There should be a law about that.  Oh, wait, our liberals have already tried that, too.

Now back to our regularly scheduled breakdown of Professor Belter's nutty ideas.  Take it away, KBD.

Well, Tom, this should come as a surprise to no one, but everyone who wants our laws followed are all racist national socialist xenophobes who also hate women and children.  What reasonable person could possibly argue with that?

I'm learning so much from Professor Belter about what I actually mean.  As a "Know Nothing", I never knew that when I married one of those "brown people" he referred to, who also happens to be first generation legal immigrant, and then proceeded to have children with her, that I was actually increasing the number of "brown people" living in America.  I never would've figured that out if he hadn't pointed it out to me.

My wife must not like her fellow "brown people", either, because she also wants our immigration laws followed.  I also never thought about the fact that I would be further increasing the number of "brown people" in America by bringing her sister's family here from Viet Nam.  All the jumping through hoops we've done with our federal government was just promoting racism towards "brown people".  Professor Belter believes we should ignore our immigration laws because he thinks they're racist and therefore unconstitutional.  Who needs permission from their government to cross international borders when the stunningly brilliant legal mind of Professor Belter is on the case?

Now back to you, Tom.

Fantastic journalistic work, KBD.  I see you've found another flying pig.

Well, Tom, a pig may not have wings but if you put enough hot air behind anything you can make it fly!

Offline

#22 2018-10-12 15:15:08

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

I disagree with court rulings that aren't consistent with the Constitution.  There are dozens of them.   Plessy.  Dred Scott.  Helvering.  Wickard.  Kelo.  Roe.  Bush v Gore.  Maryland.  Raich.  Chy Lung.  All of them had one thing in common.  They were decided based on the political majority of the Court, not based on what the Constitution allows.   Not one of them changed the what is or is not constitutional.   They only decided how they would rule - for or against the government - on specific issues.

Are you done embarrassing yourself yet?

Offline

#23 2018-10-12 16:08:23

kbd512
Member
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 2,221

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Belter,

Unless you recently became a member of SCOTUS, neither you nor I determine what's constitutional and therefore lawful.  Humans have ideas and humans commit their ideas to paper for other humans to read, interpret, and apply as they see fit.  The act of reading is interpretation.  Other people who are members of SCOTUS disagreed with your interpretation of our laws.  Feel free to substitute whatever personal beliefs you have regarding their decision making for their own thought process, but they still determine what is lawful and what is not.

If you want to double down on your sophomoric assertion that scribbling on paper grants authority, be my guest.  In the real world, the American people grant the authority to our government.  Whether foolish in your mind or not, our Judiciary has authority to determine what is constitutional and what is not.  As long as our government is comprised of humans, they will invariably all have their own preferences, prejudices, opinions, and personal beliefs, some or even many of which may not match your own.

After all the slander against me for daring to hold the opinion that SCOTUS determines constitutionality, not Belter, nor any quantity of paper, you think I've embarrassed myself?

The only thing I'm embarrassed about is the idea that someone who holds your beliefs is a product of our educational system.

Offline

#24 2018-10-14 14:21:18

Belter
Member
Registered: 2018-09-13
Posts: 184

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

kbd512 wrote:

Belter,

Unless you recently became a member of SCOTUS, neither you nor I determine what's constitutional and therefore lawful.  Humans have ideas and humans commit their ideas to paper for other humans to read, interpret, and apply as they see fit.  The act of reading is interpretation.  Other people who are members of SCOTUS disagreed with your interpretation of our laws.  Feel free to substitute whatever personal beliefs you have regarding their decision making for their own thought process, but they still determine what is lawful and what is not.

If you want to double down on your sophomoric assertion that scribbling on paper grants authority, be my guest.  In the real world, the American people grant the authority to our government.  Whether foolish in your mind or not, our Judiciary has authority to determine what is constitutional and what is not.  As long as our government is comprised of humans, they will invariably all have their own preferences, prejudices, opinions, and personal beliefs, some or even many of which may not match your own.

After all the slander against me for daring to hold the opinion that SCOTUS determines constitutionality, not Belter, nor any quantity of paper, you think I've embarrassed myself?

The only thing I'm embarrassed about is the idea that someone who holds your beliefs is a product of our educational system.


Yes, you are embarrassing yourself.    In your world, if they say the sky is red, it suddenly is red.  In my world, facts are independent of opinion.

Offline

#25 2018-10-14 17:30:36

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 4,037

Re: The Constitution, not what you think it says....

Of course you are right kbd. One hopes you have a culture that does not encourage what I would call "adventurous" readings of your constitution. If you want to change your constitution, use the constitutional means to do so. I do certainly object to judges taking it upon themselves to change the meaning of constitutions as understood by previous generations. But clearly judicial decisions in the USA are a "full contact sport".

kbd512 wrote:

Belter,

Unless you recently became a member of SCOTUS, neither you nor I determine what's constitutional and therefore lawful.  Humans have ideas and humans commit their ideas to paper for other humans to read, interpret, and apply as they see fit.  The act of reading is interpretation.  Other people who are members of SCOTUS disagreed with your interpretation of our laws.  Feel free to substitute whatever personal beliefs you have regarding their decision making for their own thought process, but they still determine what is lawful and what is not.

If you want to double down on your sophomoric assertion that scribbling on paper grants authority, be my guest.  In the real world, the American people grant the authority to our government.  Whether foolish in your mind or not, our Judiciary has authority to determine what is constitutional and what is not.  As long as our government is comprised of humans, they will invariably all have their own preferences, prejudices, opinions, and personal beliefs, some or even many of which may not match your own.

After all the slander against me for daring to hold the opinion that SCOTUS determines constitutionality, not Belter, nor any quantity of paper, you think I've embarrassed myself?

The only thing I'm embarrassed about is the idea that someone who holds your beliefs is a product of our educational system.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB