Does a strict construction of the constitution provide for INS?

[WillowTree]

Christmas cheer. A lawyer thinks she's more admired than a "fundie".




Merry Christmas.

 

[sangha]

Happy Holidays

 

[Baruch Menachem]

An interpretation of the constitution that you disagree with does not mean that interpretation has to be stupid beyond hope.

A strict construction only requires that you accept that changes should only take place using the mechanisms in place, and a sensible understanding of English.

Liberals have taken the "Establishment" clause of the first amendment and put in on a rack and stretched it all out of recognition.

As far back as the 1920s Conservatives decided that the prohibition on Ex post facto laws doesn't apply to taxes. where they got that from, I have no idea. It was Emanation beyond all emanations, the penumbra that covers the whole universe.

 

[sangha]

An interpretation of the constitution that you disagree with does not mean that interpretation has to be stupid beyond hope.

A strict construction only requires that you accept that changes should only take place using the mechanisms in place, and a sensible understanding of English.

Liberals have taken the "Establishment" clause of the first amendment and put in on a rack and stretched it all out of recognition.

As far back as the 1920s Conservatives decided that the prohibition on Ex post facto laws doesn't apply to taxes. where they got that from, I have no idea. It was Emanation beyond all emanations, the penumbra that covers the whole universe.

Wingnuts are a lot like christians. Neither group knows much about the ideology they claim to believe in.

This wingnut doesn't even not what Strict Constructionism means, but I'm sure he's all for it because his other wingnuts told him to

 

[Big Fitz]

Tell me Sane?Nah. Does christmas inspire some overall religious bigotry in you, or is this a new years resolution you're starting earlier to be a bigger ass?

 

[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.

That is about slavery

You made a claim that the Constitution does not address INS, we have provided you the passage in section 8 that clearly does provide for it and the passage in section 9 that lists the ONLY restriction on it.

You claim it only applies to slavery, PROVE IT.

 

[daveman]

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?

Yes. That means the budget has to be appropriated every year.

 

[sangha]

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?

Yes. That means the budget has to be appropriated every year.

Nothing is too simple for Dave to screw it up

It means the budget has to be appropriated every OTHER year, moron. Dont you know what "longer term than two Years" means?

It means "every TWO years", not "every year"

 

[daveman]

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?

Yes. That means the budget has to be appropriated every year.

Nothing is too simple for Dave to screw it up

It means the budget has to be appropriated every OTHER year, moron. Dont you know what "longer term than two Years" means?

It means "every TWO years", not "every year"

And yet, oddly, the defense budget is appropriated every single year.

It makes a funny noise when reality and leftist non-thought collide.

 

[jillian]

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.

they weren't strict constructionists even when the framers were alive.

Marbury v. Madison

before you rant and rave and tell other people they don't know what they're talking about, you should make sure you get your information straight.

 

[sangha]

Yes. That means the budget has to be appropriated every year.

Nothing is too simple for Dave to screw it up

It means the budget has to be appropriated every OTHER year, moron. Dont you know what "longer term than two Years" means?

It means "every TWO years", not "every year"

And yet, oddly, the defense budget is appropriated every single year.

It makes a funny noise when reality and leftist non-thought collide.

But it doesn't HAVE TO be appropriated every year.

I take a shower at least once a day (and I hope you do too) but that doesnt mean I HAVE TO

There is nothing too simple for Dave to screw it up. He thinks "can" means "must"

 

[daveman]

Nothing is too simple for Dave to screw it up

It means the budget has to be appropriated every OTHER year, moron. Dont you know what "longer term than two Years" means?

It means "every TWO years", not "every year"

And yet, oddly, the defense budget is appropriated every single year.

It makes a funny noise when reality and leftist non-thought collide.

But it doesn't HAVE TO be appropriated every year.

I take a shower at least once a day (and I hope you do too) but that doesnt mean I HAVE TO

There is nothing too simple for Dave to screw it up. He thinks "can" means "must"

Sangha thinks (well, that's not entirely accurate, but we'll go with it for now) that "lie" means "anything I disagree with".

 

[sangha]

And yet, oddly, the defense budget is appropriated every single year.

It makes a funny noise when reality and leftist non-thought collide.

But it doesn't HAVE TO be appropriated every year.

I take a shower at least once a day (and I hope you do too) but that doesnt mean I HAVE TO

There is nothing too simple for Dave to screw it up. He thinks "can" means "must"

Sangha thinks (well, that's not entirely accurate, but we'll go with it for now) that "lie" means "anything I disagree with".

Dave just showed how willing he is to say things that he knows are inaccurate ("but we'll go with it for now")

Pssst!! Here's a hint, Dave. Your lies would work better if you didn't admit to lying.