Does a strict construction of the constitution provide for INS?

[Agit8r]

Since a strict construction of the constitution is a major goal of the incoming congress, it is worth noting that there is no specific enumeration for the powers that the agency exercises.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

14th Amendment moves all Questions of citizenship to the Federal level.


14th amendment also provides congress has the authority to pass any legislation to enforce the rules on citizenship set up by the 14th Amendment. That sort of includes setting up various burocratic offices dealing with the issue, and officers engaged in enforcement of those rules.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Constitution itself before the 14th also gave the power to the Fed. The only restriction was that the Fed could do nothing but tax for new people before 1808.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The Constitution itself before the 14th also gave the power to the Fed. The only restriction was that the Fed could do nothing but tax for new people before 1808.

Article 1, section 8 includes:

Emphasis added

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I was also referring to this...

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

1st Paragraph restricts the Feds but only until 1808. As written and taken with the power listed in the previous section it is beyond clear to the most casual observer that the power for INS clearly resides with in the Constitution.

 

[goldcatt]

You're misreading Sec 9 Cl 1 just a little bit there, RGS.

While Congress was granted power to regulate naturalization, what this clause does is restrict them until 1808 from barring entry to any person a State wants to allow in. If the Fed and any State were at odds over allowing entry to an individual or group, the State was to win the argument. The only power Congress had was in placing a barrier in the form of a tax.

It was an ingenious method of immigration control, actually. Ten bucks was pretty steep for most people in the late 18th Century, especially after buying transatlantic passage, and might keep out those unlanded peasants the Framers considered riff raff without stepping on any State toes.

 

[goldcatt]

Since a strict construction of the constitution is a major goal of the incoming congress, it is worth noting that there is no specific enumeration for the powers that the agency exercises.

I'm no strict constructionist. But to look at a modern strict constructionist's interpretation of the clause that gives the INS power to operate and allows many other expansions of enumerated Congressional powers, see Scalia's concurrence in Gonzales v. Raich.

 

[editec]

Contrary to all the partisan blather that some of you buy into, there is no such thing as a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution, folks.

There's interpretations of meaning and the final aribtor of those rests with the SCOTUS.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You're misreading Sec 9 Cl 1 just a little bit there, RGS.

While Congress was granted power to regulate naturalization, what this clause does is restrict them until 1808 from barring entry to any person a State wants to allow in. If the Fed and any State were at odds over allowing entry to an individual or group, the State was to win the argument. The only power Congress had was in placing a barrier in the form of a tax.

It was an ingenious method of immigration control, actually. Ten bucks was pretty steep for most people in the late 18th Century, especially after buying transatlantic passage, and might keep out those unlanded peasants the Framers considered riff raff without stepping on any State toes.

Only until 1808. It clearly states that the States may only import people with out a say from the Federal Government UNTIL 1808.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You're misreading Sec 9 Cl 1 just a little bit there, RGS.

While Congress was granted power to regulate naturalization, what this clause does is restrict them until 1808 from barring entry to any person a State wants to allow in. If the Fed and any State were at odds over allowing entry to an individual or group, the State was to win the argument. The only power Congress had was in placing a barrier in the form of a tax.

It was an ingenious method of immigration control, actually. Ten bucks was pretty steep for most people in the late 18th Century, especially after buying transatlantic passage, and might keep out those unlanded peasants the Framers considered riff raff without stepping on any State toes.

Here it is again...

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

pretty simple concept to grasp. Until 1808 the States may do as they please with immigration with no hindrance from the Congress except a tax. After 1808 the Congress is free to set rules laws and regulations dealing with immigration into any State or Territory in the Union.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Contrary to all the partisan blather that some of you buy into, there is no such thing as a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution, folks.

There's interpretations of meaning and the final aribtor of those rests with the SCOTUS.

One of the requirements of the Judges when sitting to determine what the Constitution means IS what the Framers INTENDED it to mean. And we have a lot of information on THAT.

 

[daveman]

Since a strict construction of the constitution is a major goal of the incoming congress, it is worth noting that there is no specific enumeration for the powers that the agency exercises.

Apparently there is.

 

[Agit8r]

You're misreading Sec 9 Cl 1 just a little bit there, RGS.

While Congress was granted power to regulate naturalization, what this clause does is restrict them until 1808 from barring entry to any person a State wants to allow in. If the Fed and any State were at odds over allowing entry to an individual or group, the State was to win the argument. The only power Congress had was in placing a barrier in the form of a tax.

It was an ingenious method of immigration control, actually. Ten bucks was pretty steep for most people in the late 18th Century, especially after buying transatlantic passage, and might keep out those unlanded peasants the Framers considered riff raff without stepping on any State toes.

Here it is again...

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

pretty simple concept to grasp. Until 1808 the States may do as they please with immigration with no hindrance from the Congress except a tax. After 1808 the Congress is free to set rules laws and regulations dealing with immigration into any State or Territory in the Union.

That is about slavery

 

[Agit8r]

Contrary to all the partisan blather that some of you buy into, there is no such thing as a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution, folks.

There's interpretations of meaning and the final aribtor of those rests with the SCOTUS.

One of the requirements of the Judges when sitting to determine what the Constitution means IS what the Framers INTENDED it to mean. And we have a lot of information on THAT.

perhaps it is, but we have never had a strict constructionist court. EVER

 

[goldcatt]

You're misreading Sec 9 Cl 1 just a little bit there, RGS.

While Congress was granted power to regulate naturalization, what this clause does is restrict them until 1808 from barring entry to any person a State wants to allow in. If the Fed and any State were at odds over allowing entry to an individual or group, the State was to win the argument. The only power Congress had was in placing a barrier in the form of a tax.

It was an ingenious method of immigration control, actually. Ten bucks was pretty steep for most people in the late 18th Century, especially after buying transatlantic passage, and might keep out those unlanded peasants the Framers considered riff raff without stepping on any State toes.

Here it is again...

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

pretty simple concept to grasp. Until 1808 the States may do as they please with immigration with no hindrance from the Congress except a tax. After 1808 the Congress is free to set rules laws and regulations dealing with immigration into any State or Territory in the Union.

That is about slavery

Slavery and indentured servitude under "importation", fugitives and the poor under "migration". It was a compromise that rather nicely covered all the bases, don't you think?

 

[Big Fitz]

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

The Peelousy/Greid congress has been violating the shit outta this one.

 

[MaggieMae]

Contrary to all the partisan blather that some of you buy into, there is no such thing as a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution, folks.

There's interpretations of meaning and the final aribtor of those rests with the SCOTUS.

One of the requirements of the Judges when sitting to determine what the Constitution means IS what the Framers INTENDED it to mean. And we have a lot of information on THAT.

perhaps it is, but we have never had a strict constructionist court. EVER

No, only strict constructionist jurists, such as Scalia and Thomas. Section 2 of Article III gives wide berth for the USSC to interpret the intent of the Constitution.

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

That clause assumes that laws will be created in the future. If it didn't, it would have ended at "...arising under this Constitution."

 

[uscitizen]

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

No longer term than two years huh?

 

[sangha]

Contrary to all the partisan blather that some of you buy into, there is no such thing as a "strict" interpretation of the Constitution, folks.

There's interpretations of meaning and the final aribtor of those rests with the SCOTUS.

One of the requirements of the Judges when sitting to determine what the Constitution means IS what the Framers INTENDED it to mean. And we have a lot of information on THAT.

Yes, we have a lot of info on what the Framers intended the Constitution to mean. However, much of that info contradicts itself.

 

[jillian]

Since a strict construction of the constitution is a major goal of the incoming congress, it is worth noting that there is no specific enumeration for the powers that the agency exercises.

there are three branches of government. the 'incoming congress' is one half of one of those branches. and congress is an irrelevancy in terms of constitutional construction.

there are 200 plus years of constitutional law that say so.

we're not talking about some fundie's bible.