Debate Over U.S Immigration Policy
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-06-19/debate-over-us-immigration-policy
Immigration reform activists are applauding President Obama’s move to shield some younger immigrants from deportation. The decision allows immigrants younger than 30 who were brought to this country illegally by their parents to stay. GOP presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney criticized the decision. The Supreme Court is about to decide the constitutionality of an Arizona law tough on illegal immigrants, a decision that will likely have important implications for other states and and for national immigration policy. Please join to talk about the ongoing debate over illegal immigration.
Guests
Pamela Constable
Foreign correspondent at the Washington Post, author of "Fragments of Grace" and co-author of "A Nation of Enemies: Chile Under Pinochet."
Steven Camarota
director of research, Center for Immigration Studies.
Angela Kelley
vice president for immigration policy and advocacy, Center for American Progress.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
LibVet wrote: " Be consistent or come out and admit that government does have a reasonable role in our lives."
Perfectly consistent and the idea that any Conservative believes the government, whether federal or state does not have a role is a strawman, LibVet. The Federal Government absolutely does have a role. And it is defined primarily in Article 1, Section 8. Beyond that, the marketplace should rule. Part of the Constitution requires that the FG defend our borders, so that is a legitimate role.
"Even conservatives (real ones not just those who want to win at all costs) have admitted that Citizens United was a s-t-r-e-t-c-h decision at best. "
OK, let's consider that. I went back and found my exchange with someone called mellifluous. SCOTUS hears individual cases, but it does not make narrow rulings. That's not its purpose. That's what we have lower courts for. The court has to consider the broader implications of its rulings. Imaginging that SCOTUS had decided AGAINST CU, I posed the following hypothetical:
Based on the opposite decision with respect to CU v FEC, it's September, 2012 and Michael Moore's production company wants to release a movie about the Mormon faith. It never mentions Mitt Romney, but it's not very complimentary. Can he do it?
Oliver Stone wants to release a full length movie, the following month, through 20th Century, about George W Bush's Presidency casting heavily negative aspersions on him, Dick Cheney, and Republicans. Is that ok?
For SCOTUS to make a narrow ruling in the CU v FEC case, leaves hypotheticals like these (which are bound to become reality at some point) as a sloppy, unresolved mess. The decision of the court in CU v FEC was in concert with the founders with respect to speech; allow everything.
Dear ecgberht (posting on June 20, 2012 @ 11:06 am):
PART ONE
Yes, sometimes inevitable delay (I’m in Arizona, three hours behind the East Coast) forces me to reply to what I consider to be “goofy posts” after “the folks making them have moved on”, so I feel your pain. (Of course, we often disagree as to which posts are “goofy”.)
While I honor the noble sacrifices made in both World Wars (including by my father, stationed in the Pacific, and my mother, who had to endure their separation, never knowing if she was about to become a widow), I can’t agree with your simplistic view of American compassion.
It was desire for revenge over the sinking of the Lusitania that got us into the first war, and (of course) Pearl Harbor for the second. Our leaders may have seen the wisdom of “fighting the Kaiser” and stopping Hitler, but many in this country favored isolationism instead. Those tragic incidents overcame that objection. Even then, one can question if pure compassion, or enlightened self-interest, governed our war efforts. (I suspect both.)
(Even the greatest example of American generosity, the Marshall Plan, had a tinge of self-interest in it. Still, that doesn’t change the fact that for the first time in history the victor in a war, America, aided and rebuilt its enemies, Germany, Italy, and Japan, instead of merely subjugating them and demanding tribute.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
As for politics, you may accuse the President of that only if you concede that his detractors are playing the same game. There’s politics on both sides of this issue. (Although, as I’ve said before, I also question the legality of what he’s done.)
“Building the wall” won’t solve anything either, so by your “logic” that’s just politics too. However high it goes, those desperate enough will climb over it. However low it goes, they will tunnel under it. And, of course, they can always get explosives to go through it. (Plus, a wall will do nothing about the “illegals” who actually came here legally, but overstayed their visas - which may be the greater problem.) It certainly won’t do anything about the problem of the innocent children dragged into this mess by their parents. “Build the dang wall” is a great political soundbite, but that’s all it is.
ecgberht on June 20, 2012 @ 3:50 pm wrote: “Actually, Obama has been doing almost nothing. His perpetually bad economy has been doing it for him as some posters have pointed out. . . . . some people believe that, as a nation of laws, whose Constitution says that it is the Federal Government's job to control its borders, . . . .”
Actually, Obama has stepped up deportations from Bush the Second’s reign. I’d hardly call that “nothing”.
And speaking of our own George The Third, a few facts conservatives love to ignore are:
1) It was his policies, and theirs, which caused our “Great Recession” in the first place. And they want us to resume those policies?!
2) The economy has actually improved under Obama. In fact, it’s nearly back to where it was when he took office (when unemployment was rising, thanks to Bush, and began to fall thanks to Obama). Are things “just fine”? No. (Which is why Obama deserved the ridicule he received for using that inane phrase.)
3) Romney’s empty “promise” to lower unemployment by the end of his first term is hardly inspiring when you consider most economists expect that to happen anyway! (Of course, Romneyomics could change all that, by making things worse.)
Meanwhile, just who are those “some people” who believe the Constitution makes immigration a Federal matter? Certainly not advocates for SB1070 (and similar proposals). While I fully expect a “political” decision by the Supreme Court (4 justices on either side, with Kennedy casting the deciding vote), I hope for a “surprise” where the Court actually follows precedent (and the Constitution) and declares such laws an invasion of “Federal rights”!
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
It’s interesting, though, that like most conservatives you fixate on the “brown skins” from “south of the border”, and ignore the (at least equally large) problem of illegals who flew here from East, West, and North, with “yellow” or even “white” skin. I don’t scream “racism” when discussing immigration. But with Comments like yours, it’s hard not to.
ecgberht on June 21, 2012 @ 12:10 pm wrote: “you have conflated a Constitutional requirement with free market principles.”
True, he did. The funny thing is: usually it’s conservatives who are guilty of doing that. Last I checked the Constitution does not favor, much less mandate, any economic system, but try telling that to conservatives who insist Laissez-Faire is constitutionally required!
By the way, the Constitution doesn’t require we prevent immigration (legal or otherwise). In fact, during the nation’s early years “open borders” and encouragement of immigration was the policy. Congress, through legislation, has decided to exercise its plenary power over immigration to “control our borders”, and how to execute those laws is a matter of Presidential discretion. (Though how far that discretion goes is a very interesting question.)
Your discussion of Congress’s powers is simplistic, and largely wrong. I’ll just point out that the first of those is the power to “tax and spend”. Thus, aiding in home ownership is a legitimate exercise of that power, as is the regulation of interstate commerce represented by Glass-Steagle. Whether the way those powers have been exercised (deductions for mortgage interest, repeal of the latter law) is wise or foolish is not a constitutional question. And that is just a fact.
Citizen’s United is far too complex to discuss here, but there certainly are “other positions” the Supremes could have taken. At the very least, there is no basis for saying corporations are people from the constitutional standpoint. They are artificial people, a legal fiction created by statute. I see no reason why a creation of legislation cannot have its powers and rights restricted by that same legislative body. There is no constitutional right to form a corporation, only a statutory one.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
As for the question of Eminent Domain, and the Takings Clause (which is what I believe the two of you are discussing) a few points:
1) It was a case arising in Connecticut, not Boston.
2) I believe it was the more liberal justices who joined in the decision.
3) The issue wasn’t actually whether the government could take private property (it can, so long as it pays “just compensation”, which was paid in that case). The issue was whether Eminent Domain can only be used for “public purposes”, and whether taking land to give to a developer (so as to boost the local economy) constituted such a purpose. That was the issue on which the Court split, not the “sacredness” of property rights.
ecgberht on June 21, 2012 @ 4:38 pm wrote: “Perfectly consistent and the idea that any Conservative believes the government, whether federal or state does not have a role is a strawman, LibVet.”
While I obviously don’t agree with everything LibVet wrote (in fact, I think I’ve disagreed with the majority of it), he does have a point. If his position is a “strawman”, it’s one conservative rhetoric created. Except when talking about the police, the military, or “morality” (i.e.: conservative, fundamentalist, Christian “morality”), conservatives almost always and only prattle about the “evils” of big government, regulation, and laud the virtues of the absolutely “free” market.
Even you demonstrate that fallacy, with your insistence that beyond Article 1, Section 8 (as you improperly construe it) “the marketplace should rule”. Sorry, but that’s not “in the Constitution” (another bit of rhetoric conservatives love to employ).
Here’s how Federalism (the legal topic in question) actually works. There are certain powers delegated to the Federal government (most found in Article 1, Section 8, but not exclusively). Some are stated expressly, some in general terms (with the specifics to be worked out), and some are implied. Whatever powers are not delegated, and haven’t been forbidden to the States in turn, remained with the States. That’s what the Tenth Amendment says.
As a result, relatively speaking, the Federal government is a government of limited powers, and the State governments have broad general power. Specifically, they have the power to do almost anything in order to promote the health, safety, and welfare of their residents. That includes stomping on the “free market” as much as they wish. (This is literally known as “the Police Power”.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
That’s why no one has challenged the “individual mandate” in Romneycare (his Massachusetts health insurance plan). There’s simply no constitutional question that the States are free to impose such a mandate. Whether the Federal government can do the same is another question entirely. But in neither case are questions of Capitalism involved.
Oh, and the Supreme Court does indeed “make narrow rulings”. Like all courts it is supposed to. Indeed, when it makes a decision that includes statements not actually necessary to achieve the final judgment, that’s called dicta and has no precedential value. (It’s the power of precedent which makes the Court’s pronouncements binding law on the nation.) Furthermore, another aspect of Federalism (known as the Case or Controversy requirement) forbids the Court from addressing issues not properly before it. Thus, it should only make “sweeping pronouncements” when absolutely necessary and integral to deciding the rights of the parties before it under the facts of the case. In short, if the Court can grant relief by a narrow decision, it should only render a narrow decision.
(But, of course, the Court is the “final judge” of all that!)
The point is that the plaintiff in Citizens United could have received full relief without raising the issue of corporate personhood. Therefore, it can be argued the Court went too far. (A moot point now, however.)
The fact that you indulge in hypotheticals proves my point. One part of the Case or Controversy requirement is that the Federal Courts do not exist to decide hypothetical questions. Thus the answer to your argument is: let Mr. Moore and Mr. Stone produce their films, and the Court may then decide the question.
I can't spend too much time on this - you really need to raise your game a bit to take you seriously, but here we go.
"I can’t agree with your simplistic view of American compassion"
No people is perfect. But name a more compassionate people in history in a country with the power of the U.S. Good luck.
"Actually, Obama has stepped up deportations"
Most of the slowdown in illegal immigration has to do with the recession.
"It was his policies, and theirs, which caused our “Great Recession” in the first place"
False. And a meme of the left. "Everybody should own a house" a Democratic idea, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a
Republican idea (which led to CDSs, etc.) caused the recession. Democrats blew up the bubble, Republicans popped it.
"Certainly not advocates for SB1070"
What should states do if the FG stops minting money or fielding an army? Duh. Now, what should states do if the FG is not defending the borders?
"It’s interesting, though, that like most conservatives you fixate on the “brown skins” from “south of the border".
Fixate? Hardly. Most immigrants are not white. Look at the picture at the top of this page. Then, read my point a
little closer and you will see that it says skin color does not matter - except to the PC left. And you were the only one who mentioned "south of the border".
"Last I checked the Constitution does not favor, much less mandate, any economic system"
A restriction of the FG to the duties outlined in the Articles of the Constitution mandates a market-based system because
the FG would not be able to meddle in markets the way it does.
"By the way, the Constitution doesn’t require we prevent immigration"
prevent immigration <> control borders
Read up on Article 1, Section 8,
"Our leaders may have seen the wisdom of “fighting the Kaiser” and stopping Hitler, but many in this country favored isolationism instead."
The U.S. was in the war before Germany declared against us and months before Pearl Harbor, which of course, you didn't know - few do, but I try to educate when I can. Read up about the USS Kearny, Greer, and Reuben-James.
“Building the wall” won’t solve anything either."
Of course it will. And as for it not being virtually impregnable, there are plenty of examples in history to prove you wrong. Check into how well Israel protects its boarder with Syriah.
"Article 1, Section 8 (as you improperly construe it)"
Well, I construe it the same way the CONSTITUTION does, so I'm not sure how that's "improper".
"Here’s how Federalism (the legal topic in question) actually works"
Good wiki explanation. And we are in agreement on the strong state model.
"government does have a reasonable role in our lives" is a strawman argument whether you like it or will admit it or not and that is not the "fault" of Conservatives. A strawman is as follows: "To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the
"straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position". LibVet represented Conservatives with a view they don't take. That's a strawman. Oh, and “evils” of big government" are
YOUR words and sorry, but your point does not work without the adjective "big". Get it?
Your position on the cases the court hears is simply wrong. Has the court held on narrow case decisions. Yes. But generally their decisions determine broad application of the Constitution. Most narrowly decided cases are determined in the lower courts and the high court WILL NOT HEAR THEM. Unless there is a broader principle to decide or there was clear injustice in the lower court, the high court would not have heard CU v FEC.
And as for the hypotheticals, those were not for the "court to hear". Those were for LibVet - or you - to consider in the light of the CU v FEC decision. Your dismissal of them tells me, you don't have an answer. The decision of the high court in CU v FEC decided these hypotheticals as well, which was the genious of the decision in CU v FEC. You just don't like the outcome.
To ecgberht, writing on June 22, 2012 @ 12:15 am:
Ah, there’s the ecgberht I known and “love”, the one who employs vituperation instead of ratiocination (name calling instead of reason), and who pays little attention to what I write.
Name a more compassionate people in history? What part of:
“for the first time in history the victor in a war, America, aided and rebuilt its enemies, Germany, Italy, and Japan, instead of merely subjugating them and demanding tribute”
was too hard for you to understand? The fact that our compassion may have been leavened with self-interest doesn’t destroy it. Haven’t you ever heard of enlightened self-interest? Or, as usual, must everything be truly Manichean with you: black or white, yes or no, with no shades of gray or subtlety allowed?
Whether or not the slowdown in illegal immigration is due to the (Bush caused) Great Recession doesn’t change the fact that Obama has increased deportations! Once again, by refusing even to address this fact, you admit that you have no response to make, only a partisan refusal to give the President any credit for anything. (Thus discrediting yourself.)
No, “everybody should own a house” wasn’t exclusively a “Democratic ideal”. (Talk about a “meme of the right”!) Republicans pushed the same idea of making home ownership more affordable. As the report of The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission noted: both Clinton and Bush the Second “set aggressive goals to increase home ownership”. (Page xxvii) And it was Bush who “introduced a “Zero Down Payment Initiative”. (Page 41) Get yourself a copy and read it.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
Also false is the notion that this, and this alone, was largely (or even solely) the cause of the Recession - another right-wing “meme”. It’s a claim that’s been destroyed in many places, but consider the words of Sheila Bair, FDIC chair, and one of the few “heroes” in this mess: the majority of the subprime loans were made by private banks and mortgage companies who acted not by government “decree”, but by a desire for greater market share and revenue growth. (See, "Did Low-income Homeownership Go Too Far? - http://www.fdic.gov/news/news/speeches/archives/2008/chairman/spdec1708....)
It’s worth recalling that as early as 2001 she warned of the dangers from abuses in subprime lending. If anyone has credibility on this subject, it’s her! (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/sheila-bair-the-for...)
In your obsession with viewing everything from a partisan standpoint, you forget that I didn’t say it was a Democratic vs. Republican issue. I mentioned both Bush the Second and conservatives. News flash! There are conservatives in the Democratic Party, and that party has at times pursued (or gone along with) conservative policies (deregulation, for example).
Take the repeal of Glass–Steagall. That happened in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, passed in 1999 by the Republican controlled Congress, and signed by Democratic President Clinton. If partisanship is the only concern, there’s plenty of blame to go around!
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
The same is true of another example of mindless deregulation, which gave us the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. That allowed all those “innovative” new financial instruments (derivatives, credit default swaps) to be traded free from the control of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (another “present” by Phil Gramm and Clinton).
And then, of course, under Bush, it was more deregulation, and refusal to enforce the regulations we had. The point is that these were conservative policies, and the Republicans want to continue them. (What’s the definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result.) If you insist on being partisan about this, then you ignore the facts: there’s plenty of partisan blame to go around for both parties, but it’s conservative ideology that deserves the lion’s share of the blame, no matter which party follows it.
(Oh, and since “the bubble” grew between 2001 and 2006, when the Republicans were almost completely in charge, how could the Democrats have been ‘blowing it up’?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“What should states do if the FG stops minting money or fielding an army?”
According to the Constitution? NOTHING!
You should try reading Article 1, Section 8, instead of merely invoking it. Congress, and only Congress can “coin money” (Paragraph 5). Indeed, if you also bothered to look at Section 10, Paragraph 1, you’ll see the States are expressly forbidden from doing so.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART FOUR
And, of course, it’s Congress that has the power to “raise and support armies”. (Paragraph 12 of your precious Article 1, Section 8). While Paragraph 3 of Section 10 (again) expressly says the States cannot keep troops in time of peace, “or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay”. That refers to the ability of a State militia to defend that particular State until the Federal troops can arrive, but it doesn’t apply to an “invasion” of illegal immigrants. Political sophistry is no substitute for sound constitutional law.
(Plus, Congress and the President can take control of the militia - Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 15, and Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 1. So, even that “State power” is limited.)
Thus, you prove to be a true conservative: babbling about following the Constitution, while simultaneously revealing you know nothing about it!
Plus, since your original Comment was about how the Constitution makes immigration a Federal matter, you have now contradicted yourself. Essentially, your position now is: it’s a Federal matter, unless a State disagrees with how it’s being handled, in which case it becomes a State matter. You can’t have it both ways! (What next? States can write their own Bankruptcy Code if they don’t like the Federal one?)
If the Federal government isn’t doing its job to your satisfaction, or that of other conservatives, there’s one remedy, and only one: elect a new government. (If it’s behaving contrary to law, the remedy is to sue.)
Duh.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART FIVE
And where do you get the idea that most immigrants are not white? (Or even most illegal immigrants?) From what I’ve read more illegal immigrants come from places other than “south of the border”, and that includes (as I pointed out before) both those with white and yellow skin!
The best “proof” you offer is “the picture on the top of this page”! All that shows is what the web designer thought relevant (probably because in the political debate both the “left” and the “right” fixate on Hispanics). That proves nothing!
Oh, and your original remark was that “the people against whom we're controlling the borders happen to have brown skin”. I repeat, that was your fixation, and your false assertion this was the reason LibVet allegedly “hated and ridiculed” those who seek enforcement of immigration laws. He can defend himself if he wishes, but the fixation on skin color was yours.
As for me, children brought here by their parents (and thus innocent of breaking the law) shouldn’t be exiled from the only country they’ve ever known regardless of their skin color, or which border they crossed! (And when it comes to “PC”, no one does it more than the right-wing. Ever hear of RINO’S? A perfect illustration of the right-wing’s demand for political correctness and purity.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART SIX
And, finally, there’s this piece of nonsense: “A restriction of the FG to the duties outlined in the Articles of the Constitution mandates a market-based system because the FG would not be able to meddle in markets the way it does.”
BALONEY!
As I’ve already demonstrated (and again, you avoid and evade the point), the States have unlimited power to “meddle in markets”, and even the Federal government has the express power to regulate commerce, a key part of any market. (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 3 - did you ever bother to read that Section?) It can also “meddle” through its power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises” (Paragraph 1), to borrow (Paragraph 2), to write Bankruptcy laws (Paragraph 4 - something the States can’t do), to regulate the value of money, including foreign money (Paragraph 5), to create patents and copyrights under Paragraph 8 (if you don’t believe that “meddles”, need I remind you what happens to the price of drugs once their patents expire?).
No matter how narrowly you want to construe those powers, they do not constitute an endorsement of Laissez-Faire, the notion that all government regulation of the marketplace is wrong and should be forbidden. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed: the Constitution did not enact Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics - the “bible” of Social Darwinism, which championed pure Laissez-Faire.
I’d say it’s you who need to “up your game” but for two things:
1) This isn’t a game.
2) You don’t got game.
To ecgberht, writing on June 22, 2012 @ 12:17 am:
Gee, for someone who allegedly hasn’t got the time, you sure do write a lot. (And, since truth takes longer to write than fiction, I have to write even more.)
Tell me, oh wise one, where does the Constitution say (in your precious Article 1, Section 8, or anywhere else) that the government is required to prevent immigration? Answer: nowhere!
It obviously gives the Federal government authority to either allow, limit, or prohibit immigration. To set the terms and conditions under which people may enter and stay in this country. But nowhere does it require the government to do any of that. In fact, it wasn’t until 1875 that the first Federal law restricting immigration was passed. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Act_of_1875) Just because a government (Federal or State) possesses a power, doesn’t mean it has to use it! Whether it does is a public policy issue, not a constitutional one.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
“The U.S. was in the war before Germany declared against us and months before Pearl Harbor”.
Gosh, your ignorance (and simplistic views) are breathtaking. Yes, the U.S. engaged in “neutrality patrols” prior to Pearl Harbor, and there were naval incidents involving German submarines. It also began the Lend-Lease program before then. But I’d hardly call those examples of us coming “to the defense of Europe in WWI and WWII” (your original words), nor of being “in the war”. We had not yet entered the Second World War at that time, and though FDR wanted to fight Germany, his hands were tied by the isolationists I mentioned. Thus we could provide limited aid (Lend-Lease), and we could maintain our neutrality through naval patrols, but that was it. It wasn’t until Pearl Harbor (and the formal declaration of war) that the full might of the U.S. could be sent “to the defense of Europe”, and that was because the “Day of Infamy” erased the isolationist’s power. I repeat: revenge, not just compassion, got us into the War. (I note you’ve said nothing about the First World War and the Lusitania.)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART THREE
“Check into how well Israel protects its boarder with Syriah.”
Gee, I never knew illegal immigration was a problem with Syria!
On the other hand, I note that terrorists manage to get into Israel when they wish to. Clearly, no wall has “solved” that problem.
And please don’t “move the goalpost”. The question isn’t whether a border wall will be “virtually impregnable”, but whether it will actually solve our illegal immigration problem. It won’t, for the reasons I previoulsy mentioned. Denying my argument is not a refutation of it. (And, once again, you’ve said nothing about the problem of illegal immigrants who first arrived here legally. How will a wall “solve” that problem? More evasion and avoidance from you!)
TO BE CONTINUED
PART FOUR
You, like most (so-called conservatives) construe Article 1, Section 8 as limiting Congress only to specific powers that are expressly stated in that Section. That has never been the law. Read McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579 (1819), and Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1, 6 L.Ed. 23 (1824). You might also try Steward Machine Co. v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937).
In fact, try reading a book on Constitutional Law sometime (there’s an excellent one by Gerald Gunther). That way you won’t keep making howlingly funny mistakes (such as those I pointed out in my previous Comments today).
TO BE CONTINUED
PART FIVE
“Good wiki explanation. And we are in agreement on the strong state model.”
My “Cliftnotes” discussion of Federalism didn’t come from “wiki”, but from my studies in law school, and my practice of law. And there’s no “strong state model”, a remark which only shows your complete lack of understanding of Federalism.
There are some matters committed to the States (tort law for example). As to those things the States have almost unlimited powers. (We’ll ignore, for example, things like the Bill of Rights for simplicity’s sake.) There are other matters committed to the Federal government (Bankruptcy for example). As to those things the States have no power. And then there are areas of overlap, but even there Federal law is supreme! Article 6, Paragraph 2. Like most conservatives, you take the phrase “limited government” to mean limited as you wish it to be, but that’s not the case. The Federal government has broader powers than you admit, it just doesn’t have powers as broad as the States. It cannot pass any law simply to benefit “health, safety, or welfare”. But, provided it is exercising powers granted by the Constitution (such as the power to tax and spend granted by Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1), it can pass laws addressing those concerns.
PART SIX
And no, LibVet neither created a straw man, or did any of the other things you falsely claim. It is conservatives, with their constant blather about the “evils” of regulation, big government, etc., who create a strawman, precisely because (as he observed) they abandon all that rhetoric the minute the regulation is one they prefer.
Case in point: so-called partial birth abortion. Conservatives love to rail against a broad exercise of Congress’ power under the Interstate Commerce Clause. (You essentially did that with your blather about the Constitution mandating a “market-based system”.) Need I remind you that conservatives are busy arguing that clause doesn’t support the new health care law? But guess what? Conservatives love the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Know where the power to pass that comes from? Regulation of interstate commerce! So do the powers for many other Federal criminal laws, such as those on bank robbery, kidnapping, and prostitution. But nowhere does the Constitution expressly grant a general power to pass criminal laws for the nation. There are limited powers over counterfeiting, crimes at sea, or laws for Federal property, but no general power of criminal legislation - apart from general powers like the Commerce Clause.
Oh, and given how many strawman arguments you indulge in, this is really a case of the pot and the kettle!
Get it? (No, you won’t, because you keep your ideological blinders glued on!)
ecgberht on June 22, 2012 @ 12:18 am wrote: “Your position on the cases the court hears is simply wrong. Has the court held on narrow case decisions. Yes. But generally their decisions determine broad application of the Constitution.”
Yeah, like the case of Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1 (2004). That was the case wherein the Court determined a “broad application” of the First Amendment to the Pledge of Allegiance, declaring that the phrase “under God” did not violate the Constitution because . . . .
Oh, wait, no it didn’t. It decided the case on the extremely narrow ground that the man (Newdow) challenging the Pledge didn’t have standing! That’s one of those Case or Controversy requirements I mentioned previously, and the Supremes used it (as they often do) to “duck” broader questions of law, including constitutional law.
You know, there’s a reason one has to pass a bar exam in order to practice law, and your paramount ignorance of this subject, combined with your arrogant assumption that you even know what you’re talking about, perfectly illustrates that reason.
But don’t believe me. Go ahead, represent someone in court with your truly pathetic understanding of Law, and after you've finished losing the case, being held in contempt of court, being sued for fraud and/or malpractice, and released from prison, you can return here and inform us that it’s all the fault of those “liberal, activist” judges!
P.S. - The Supreme Court hears many kinds of cases, some involving very narrow matters, some of broader interest. Since they have absolute discretion as to what cases they will hear, we can never know precisely what triggers their interest. However, a few general rules apply.
TO BE CONTINUED
PART TWO
The Court will usually not hear a “case of first impression” (that is, raising an novel issue) until it has been decided in more than one of the Federal circuits. Even then, the odds of “granting cert.” (the technical term for deciding to hear a case) go up if there is a division in the circuits, with some courts ruling one way and others ruling in a different way. That’s because the Supreme Court’s chief role is to insure uniformity of law nationwide. (That’s Federal law, of course.)
I’m not going to give you a seminar on this topic, I’ve already gone on long enough tonight (my apologies to anyone else brave enough to read this). If you really want to inform yourself on this subject, I suggest you read a textbook on Federalism. The one I studied with was The Federal Courts And The Federal System. It’s only 1,629 pages long - light reading!
(Oh, “clear injustice”, by itself, is almost never a reason cert. is granted.)
Finally, don’t be too sure I dislike the “outcome” of Citizens United. It’s the reasoning I object to (in part). But as I said before, this is not the place for a full discussion.
Ciao.
More open-minded...what a joke. If this clip tells us anything, the future is really scary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TchxL4Zd-kw
I would like to ask the panel when are the media going to call Governor Romney on the blatant lies he continues to tell on a daily basis. I just saw a clip in which he states the President never, I repeat, never tried to pass immigration reform, yet we know and he knows, legislation passed the house and the vote was 55-45 in the Senate, which was short of the 60 votes necessary to pass the legislation. In addition, on April 3rd Governor Romney stated he "read" where the Obama Administration was trying to implement Secularism as the national religion and there had been meetings among his staff. It is dangerous the man who could lead this country can continue to let lies roll off his tongue and not be called on it.
I'm going to waste little further time with you, and let me tell you, I did little more than skim your book.
Part I
"What part of:“for the first time in history the victor in a war, America, aided and rebuilt its enemies, Germany, Italy, and Japan, instead of merely subjugating them and demanding tribute” was too hard for you to understand?"
This part: "I can’t agree with your simplistic view of American compassion."
Name a more compassionate peoples in history. You can't.
Part II
Dems pushed the housing bubble, (Without them there wouldn't be FHLMC or FNMA). Republicans popped it. That's overall a pretty good summary of what happened. Clinton signed the legislation, but he didn't originate it. Get it?
I've gone at it with a few people on mb's that thought they were smart. A sign of intelligence is being able to appreciate the nuances of issues, but also know how to see the forest and not just the trees. You, like others I've encountered, seem unable to do that. Draw your own conclusion. I already have.
Part III
"“What should states do if the FG stops minting money or fielding an army?”
According to the Constitution? NOTHING!"
Baloney. The FG is the glue that holds the states together. If that glue were to melt, states would do what they had to do. The Constitution is a contract between the people, the states, and the FG. When one of them breaks that contract ....
Part IV
"it’s a Federal matter, unless a State disagrees with how it’s being handled, in which case it becomes a State matter."
See previous post on "strawman". If the FG ABROGATES its duty, the states must pick up the slack.
Part V
Nothing worth reading in there.
Part VI
Learn to distinguish between the FG (stands for Federal Government in case you were unclear on that) and the states.
Part I (again?!)
"where does the Constitution say (in your precious Article 1, Section 8, or anywhere else) that the government is required to prevent immigration? "
Strawman. Never said it. prevent immigration <> control borders (symbol <> means "does not equal" since you appear not to know that).
Part II
"But I’d hardly call those examples of us coming “to the defense of Europe in WWI and WWII” (your original words), nor of being “in the war”.
You're simply wrong. And until you study the matter more deeply, I'm not going to discuss with you. Read about the destroyers I recommended and things like FDR's "shoot on sight"order. You are not educated on this subject.
Part III
"The question isn’t whether a border wall will be “virtually impregnable”, but whether it will actually solve our illegal immigration problem."
-solve our illegal immigration problem - is a strawman. Look at my original post on the subject. You have to stop the bleeding before you do anything else.
Part IV
"You, like most (so-called conservatives) construe Article 1, Section 8 as limiting Congress only to specific powers that are expressly stated in that Section."
Read: the enumeration of powers in Article I, Section 8 has no meaning. Congress can do what it wants.
Part V
Nothing there
Part VI
"LibVet neither created a straw man, or did any of the other things you falsely claim"
Denying my argument is not a refutation of it.
"Oh, and given how many strawman arguments you indulge in, this is really a case of the pot and the kettle!"
Name one.