Oh, so “people” no longer means “municipalities” as you argued of the 2nd Amendment a year or so ago?..
… What? What are you talking about? What was the context?
It may have been more than a year ago; I can’t remember for sure. I only know that, as usual, I got tired of going 'round the hampster wheel with you (again). Look up your own argument, if you want. Or not. I don’t care.
Yes, they don’t have to help Federal authorities enforce the law. They don’t have to cooperate.
They just can’t stop Federal Authorities from doing things themselves.
… Your court case isn’t changing that, it’s just taking away Federal funds if the city doesn’t comply with what the Federal government wants, which I’m all for.
Federal funds are not mandatory, and in most cases can be removed at the Federal Government’s pleasure.
Round hamster wheel on what?
What I hope you’re not saying, is that I was trying to imply that the 2nd amendment doesn’t apply to individual people. Because I would never do that, I staunchly believe in gun rights & always have.
In which case, you’re either misremembering something, or this discussion was with someone else.
Found the thread FC:
But I never talked about the verbiage of the 2nd amendment, I mentioned the word “persons” only once (never mentioned “people”), in connection with the 10th amendment, and I was not linking it to municipalities, clearly, because I said individual.
So either you are misremembering something, or you’re conflating your debate with me, with one you had with someone else.
I am not impressed with what other people’s opinions are of these court decisions. Consider this simple fact:
If “people”, “persons” and “The People” were all synonymous, why did the high court make these differentiations regarding “The People”: “all members of the political community”, “part of a national community”, or have “substantial connections” to the United States???
You may think that some of these terms are synonymous with “all warm bodies within out borders” and you are entitled to your opinion as is the Harvard Law Review author and everyone else. You are NOT entitled to your own facts. Whether the Supreme court rulings are “correct” or not, they are the law of the land today.
Illegal aliens are not entitled to ALL of the rights than apply to citizens and legal Permanent Resident immigrants.
These definitions are in conflict. Have you recognized that yet?
Which is the opinion of the Founders, ergo, the one going back 200 years? Which Madison himself spoke on, in rejection of the exclusionary definitions people tried to create through the Aliens & Sedition Acts of 1798?
If you want to make a broad constructionist viewpoint, so you can be consistent with these external ideas you’re having about Nationalism, fine. But I’m sticking to what the document originally meant, and the legacy of the American Experiment.
Because that’s what made America work; gaming on Liberty, gaming on freedom, gaming on the individual character of each person who came here, and only throwing someone out when they proved individually that their character was deficient.
That’s what you’re doing though, you’re projecting that onto me right now;
The court decisions conflict (you can’t deny that), and Heller tries to establish one thing, while Verdugo-Urquidez tried to be more in concert with prior decisions of what the words meant.
Verdugo-Urquidez points out what the consensus has been. The law review points out that even Undocumented immigrants enjoyed rights under that decision in lower court decisions, that they didn’t under Heller.
That’s a fact that is observable, and they list out court decisions that demonstrate this, particularly in how it maintains that illegal immigrants have 5th amendment rights.
What the decision removed for for undocumented immigrants was observance of 1st and 4th ammendment rights , and this. is. stated. to be an about face move compared to what the Court had been doing before:
Ergo, the further back we look in the jurisprudence, the more apparent the position I foreword becomes. Textualism, and Originalism, is on the side of recognizing them as having rights.
And that’s just for illegal immigrants, for legal ones, you’re right back to what I stated; You must treat them in Good Faith.
If you allow the Gov’t treat them in Bad faith when the immigrants showed us Good faith, the Gov’t is more responsible for the resulting trouble than they are when these legal immigrants become illegal immigrants.
And that’s a pretty easy principle for me to substantiate. Because we have a system which has affirmed time & again that laws cannot be unjust. Laws that enforce unjust provisions are more wrong than the people breaking them. There’s plenty of examples for me to pull from to show that.
The simple fact remains, it is the law of the land today PERIOD
Have a nice day.
You got there by ignoring what the Founders wanted. Them and their ideas.
And even as how the law currently sits, certain amendments still apply to illegals, and you have no excuse for the way legal immigrants are treated, which generates the problem we have with illegals.
Your approach creates the problems you deal with in this area. You are your own worst enemy.
Just like how SJW BS generated the alt right; people willing to embody their worst fears.
The founding fathers had many differing opinions on almost all issues. It makes interesting reading but what actually counts are the wording they agreed to that was written down in the Constitution.
… Wording which disagrees with you, because they affirmed that aliens have rights, hence why the Aliens and Sedition Acts of 1798 were struck down/expired.
And those, weren’t parsing the issue as one of immigration, but as naturalization.
Yet even that was looked at as too draconian, by both Jefferson and Madison. Their viewpoints that aliens had rights equal to that of Americans won out.
So no old Dog, your entire statement here is sophistry. The Founders, disagreed with you, by a majority. To include an Anti-Federalist who wrote the Declaration, and the Federalist who was the Framer of the Constitution.
You can’t talk your way past that. You’ve made yourself their opponent.
I don’t take anyone’s opinion or any ideology as infallible. If an interpretation of the Constitution turns it into a suicide pact (which I believe open borders and full civil rights for illegal aliens does) I will look for another interpretation. Thankfully, the high court discerns a special status for “We the People of the United States”. The issue of immigrants and borders is not the same today as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries. Enemies no longer come in uniforms, the vast untamed frontier is long gone and there is no comparison in ease of movement. The opinion of the founders on this issue is a historical artifact, the black letter law remains.
If you don’t like the Constitution as it stands, you, the Chamber of Commerce, the democrat party, la Raza and the communist faculty in our universities have the tools to try and change it.
Except none of these illegals have shown us “good faith.” They failed to do that when they KNOWINGLY and INTENTIONALLY violated our sovereign borders.
Which you say, without acknowledging that we were “unfenced” for 140 years. And that these years represented our period of strongest growth, while the immigration rate was double of where it is today. All without any sort of collapse, in a smaller, poorer America.
You offer no observation that perhaps, sociology and economics already mediates the harsher edges that immigration produces, that it already seeks to create stability and order all on its own over time.
Because human societies are more emergent, than they are intentionally created.
What I’ve seen you voice here Old dog, is an overpriviliging of what the Government knows and can functionally do. Assigning it power it doesn’t know how to rationally wield, and when used, tending to result in either dysfunction, or what are at best symbolic gestures.
The Society knows itself & its needs better than the Government knows it for them. This has always been the case. No Government Bureaucrat understands someone’s needs, better than that person knows it themselves.
Just the same as needs, you can’t look at a societal problem, and automatically assume that the answer to solve it is more exercise of Gov’t power.
That’s what the Prohibitionists got wrong, and we paid dearly for it. And in this case, we know that the dysfunction is connected to other Gov’t mismanagement of our society.
Tasking Government power to fix an issue it created, through force only, is a case of putting things at cross-purposes.
You can’t have stability, you can’t have order, if you antagonize societal forces that are more implicit, more present, within the Society than the Government itself.
Government has to seek a policy of co-existence with these implicit societal trends. It has to seek after the efficacy of its laws, or it has no reasonable expectation that the law it writes will be followed. Just like that gun law in New York.
Which is the same argument the left makes about guns.
Appealing to changing circumstances, when circumstance was never the reason the right existed in the first place.
Half were in the legal system when they first came here. The system railroads them into noncompliance.
And yes Dave, the definition of immigrant, does include people who come here on a student visa. You weren’t right about that.
Printz does not apply. Stop rehashing assertions already proven to be BS!
We are here talking about lawless state political hack officials in sanctuary cities prohibiting their law enforcement officers from voluntarily cooperating with federal law enforcement officers.
Your continue references to Printz are irrelevant!
From Judge Harry D. Leinenweber opinion.
The constitutionality of Section 1373 has been challenged before. The Second Circuit in City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999), addressed a facial challenge to Section 1373 in similar circumstances. By executive order, New York City prohibited its employees from voluntarily providing federal immigration authorities with information concerning the immigration status of any alien. Id. at 31-32. The city sued the United States, challenging the constitutionality of Section 1373 under the Tenth Amendment.
Id. at 32.
The Second Circuit found that Section 1373 did not compel state or local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program or conscript local employees into its service, and therefore did not run afoul of the rules gleaned from the Supreme Court’s Printz and New York decisions. City of New York, 179 F.3d at 35. Rather, the court held that Section 1373 prohibits local governmental entities and officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. Ibid. The Court found that the Tenth Amendment, normally a shield from federal power, could not be turned into “a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs.”
STOP MAKING CRAP UP AND THEN REHASHING THAT CRAP!
So illegal immigrants are “sovereign” and have a “natural right” to my property, but as a citizen I am not “sovereign” and I have no “natural right” to what I have earned.
And the “Founders” were in agreement about this, they just died before they got around to establishing the Welfare State which makes their “opinions” possible to execute.
Thank goodness for the public education system, we would be so lost without their entirely logical perspective and conclusions.
I suppose it could be best summed up like this; “The extreme Left have a Natural Right to remain in power in perpetuity, all property and earned wealth are to be used as the Extreme Left thinks will best solidify their authority over every citizen of the United States”.
If our Founders had been a bit more articulate they would have said that but thankfully we have the Extreme Left to educate us all in their absence.
Not at all, you can chase them off your property.
You just can’t drag them off the property of a farmer who invited them onto theirs.
You don’t have natural right, to stop the farmer from hiring them. He does have Natural right to do what he wishes on his own land, to include inviting those people onto it.
Natural rights operate on an individual level, not a collective one. You get to do one thing, he another.
And that’s the problem with your approach RET, you’re entirely focused on the Collective and what it wants, when most of the rights the Constitution itself outlines are addressed to the individual.
The Government doing stupid things, does not give it an excuse to take complete power over an issue.
If that were the case, Government could limit the number of guns in the country, just by agreeing to subsidize their purchase.
The right pre-existed the Government; nothing the Government does changes that, nor changes that the right is a right.
? Uh John, the issue is whether State officials can ignore enforcing Federal Law.
Printz says they can.
John… that decision is about Federal Grants. Whether the Feds can revoke federal money from a state/city for not following their laws.
It doesn’t change what Printz established.
You can take Federal money away, but Printz stops you from putting State/city officials in jail.