Federal Government Has NO AUTHORITY To Detain and Deport Aliens. NONE.

Keep on lying. I QUOTED the relevant portion of Section 8 article 1 of the US Constitution which CLEARLY does give authority.

In the Chae Chang Pin case the SCOTUS ruled that fedgov could detain and deport foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, and who are consequently "dangerous to our peace and security" by simply USURPING the power. They did not, and could not cite, their Constitutional authority .

They merely created a new legal fiction - when there is an "emergency" the federal government can USURP powers. So that that is the reason we always have an emergency which "requires" federal intervention.

.

The Constitution also does not explicitly state that the power of the SCOTUS includes that of voiding acts of Congress where same are "found" to violate the Constitution.

It is inherent, however, or so the claim goes, in the powers which are explicitly granted.

There are other examples in Constitutional analysis where powers not explictly granted are nonetheless deemed inherent -- implicit components of the powers which are explicitly granted.

Pretend you can't grasp that.

Or, possibly, you are so fucking stupid you really cannot grasp it.


"The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.


If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

Supreme Court of the United States

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)
 
In the Chae Chang Pin case the SCOTUS ruled that fedgov could detain and deport foreigners of a different race in this country, who will not assimilate with us, and who are consequently "dangerous to our peace and security" by simply USURPING the power. They did not, and could not cite, their Constitutional authority .

They merely created a new legal fiction - when there is an "emergency" the federal government can USURP powers. So that that is the reason we always have an emergency which "requires" federal intervention.

.

The Constitution also does not explicitly state that the power of the SCOTUS includes that of voiding acts of Congress where same are "found" to violate the Constitution.

It is inherent, however, or so the claim goes, in the powers which are explicitly granted.

There are other examples in Constitutional analysis where powers not explictly granted are nonetheless deemed inherent -- implicit components of the powers which are explicitly granted.

Pretend you can't grasp that.

Or, possibly, you are so fucking stupid you really cannot grasp it.


"The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.


If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

Supreme Court of the United States

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

Yes. It WAS in Marbury that the Court took it upon itself WITHOUT ANY CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT of EXPLICIT AUTHORITY to "say" what the law is. They took it upon themselves on that same illicit basis to CLAIM the right of nullification of laws passed by Congress. One can argue whether they should have such authority and, if so, whether it is theirs and theirs alone. But one can never find the provision in the Constitution that explicitly grants them such power.

It is an implicit power to the extent it exists at all.

So, thank you for proving the point I had made, Confusedatious.
 
The Constitution also does not explicitly state that the power of the SCOTUS includes that of voiding acts of Congress where same are "found" to violate the Constitution.

It is inherent, however, or so the claim goes, in the powers which are explicitly granted.

There are other examples in Constitutional analysis where powers not explictly granted are nonetheless deemed inherent -- implicit components of the powers which are explicitly granted.

Pretend you can't grasp that.

Or, possibly, you are so fucking stupid you really cannot grasp it.


"The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.


If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

Supreme Court of the United States

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

Yes. It WAS in Marbury that the Court took it upon itself WITHOUT ANY CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT of EXPLICIT AUTHORITY to "say" what the law is. They took it upon themselves on that same illicit basis to CLAIM the right of nullification of laws passed by Congress. One can argue whether they should have such authority and, if so, whether it is theirs and theirs alone. But one can never find the provision in the Constitution that explicitly grants them such power.

It is an implicit power to the extent it exists at all.

So, thank you for proving the point I had made, Confusedatious.

"the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

ALEXANDER HAMILTON
May 28, 1788


.
 
"The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.


If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

Supreme Court of the United States

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

Yes. It WAS in Marbury that the Court took it upon itself WITHOUT ANY CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT of EXPLICIT AUTHORITY to "say" what the law is. They took it upon themselves on that same illicit basis to CLAIM the right of nullification of laws passed by Congress. One can argue whether they should have such authority and, if so, whether it is theirs and theirs alone. But one can never find the provision in the Constitution that explicitly grants them such power.

It is an implicit power to the extent it exists at all.

So, thank you for proving the point I had made, Confusedatious.

"the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

ALEXANDER HAMILTON
May 28, 1788


.

The words of Mr. Hamilton are not IN the Constitution. His interpretation is not binding, by the way.

As I correctly noted before, we are still left with the FACT that the Court took upon itself an authority and power NOT explicitly granted to it by the TEXT of the Constitution.

There ARE, as I also correctly noted earlier, OTHER classic examples of powers being deemed INHERENT as incident to the powers that ARE explicitly granted.

Your would-be point, therefore, is a void. You remain a void, too. And adults having sexual intercourse with drugged minors is a fucking filthy degenerate crime, too. I note that since the obviously truthful statement (like many other things in life) totally eludes you.

,

!
 
Last edited:
Yes. It WAS in Marbury that the Court took it upon itself WITHOUT ANY CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT of EXPLICIT AUTHORITY to "say" what the law is. They took it upon themselves on that same illicit basis to CLAIM the right of nullification of laws passed by Congress. One can argue whether they should have such authority and, if so, whether it is theirs and theirs alone. But one can never find the provision in the Constitution that explicitly grants them such power.

It is an implicit power to the extent it exists at all.

So, thank you for proving the point I had made, Confusedatious.

"the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

ALEXANDER HAMILTON
May 28, 1788


.

The words of Mr. Hamilton are not IN the Constitution. His interpretation is not binding, by the way.

The Federalist


Many scholars of the Supreme Court and many justices assert the importance of the Federalist Papers. They provide important evidence of original meaning and interpretation of the Constitution, and there is evidence that there is an increase in citations to the Federalist Papers in Supreme Court opinions. While some may view this increased citation use as a positive development because it demonstrates reliance on legal authority in judicial decisions, we provide evidence that in a period marked by dissensus and controversy, the use of the Federalist Papers represents externally and internally oriented strategic attempts by the justices to add legitimacy to constitutional interpretation, and to sway colleagues. We use a combination of descriptive and multivariate techniques to examine Federalist citations from 1953 to 1995 to demonstrate our interpretation.".

.
 
"the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

ALEXANDER HAMILTON
May 28, 1788


.

The words of Mr. Hamilton are not IN the Constitution. His interpretation is not binding, by the way.

The Federalist


Many scholars of the Supreme Court and many justices assert the importance of the Federalist Papers. They provide important evidence of original meaning and interpretation of the Constitution, and there is evidence that there is an increase in citations to the Federalist Papers in Supreme Court opinions. While some may view this increased citation use as a positive development because it demonstrates reliance on legal authority in judicial decisions, we provide evidence that in a period marked by dissensus and controversy, the use of the Federalist Papers represents externally and internally oriented strategic attempts by the justices to add legitimacy to constitutional interpretation, and to sway colleagues. We use a combination of descriptive and multivariate techniques to examine Federalist citations from 1953 to 1995 to demonstrate our interpretation.".

.

Yes, you fucking moron. We know that Mr. Hamilton had some actual influence on the Constitution.

Still, as I correctly noted, his opinion is not binding.

Others had different opinions, even at the time. And the Constitution was crafted in a spirit of compromise. So, you can pretend to be a scholar on such matters all you wish, but in reality, all you are doing is confirming how ignorant you are.

,


.



!


.



,
 
When I look out my front window, it’s not America that I see anymore. It’s becoming a third world hell hole. American culture, American principles are vanishing with every “immigrant”. All the high-minded principles that the US constitution embodies are growing distant to me. I WILL NOT ask, nor should I have to be in the position of, determining a person’s immigration status. Ironically enough, it’s unconstitutional to inquire. I am not bashing Thomas Jefferson or any of the founding fathers of our country. But if Jefferson was alive today, I would like to believe that he would want to revise the document written 200 years ago to better reflect the times. I doubt if Jefferson could have dreamt of 9/11, carbon footprints, psychotropic drugs, the world wide web, let alone conceive of an uncontrolled flood of immigrants who’s true intentions are unknown. The generally assumed notion is that illegal aliens are beneficial, innocuous and in need of sanctuary. I question that assumption. As mentioned, the US had open borders with Canada and Mexico until the 1930’s. Borders are just lines on maps, an abstraction. Rights guaranteed in the Constitution are just as abstract and are only words on paper. Borders, like the rights we take for granted, only work if people recognize those concepts and believe in them. The generalized negative stereotypes about illegal aliens have a lot more truth to them than paranoid racist delusions. Call me a pessimist, not a racist. What bothers me are the naïve and overly optimistic people that cling to a dogmatic belief that all immigrants are perfect beings and beyond scrutiny. These new “immigrants” a crude and disorderly bunch. I doubt if they believe in much of anything more than not being caught. They seem to see their “rights” as a means for exploitation to further dishonest ends. They remind me of grifters, con artists and opportunists looking for a big score, not of someone truly interested in acclimating to American culture as a honest immigrant would. I doubt if Thomas Jefferson would have perceived such scoundrels as “immigrant friends”. Perhaps immigrating legally is symbolic of respect for the culture. It’s symbolic of acceptance. Immigrating illegally is symbolic of a mindset of deception, dishonesty and contempt. If these persons won’t immigrate legally, and we can’t insist that they DO, then it’s time to resolve this absurdity. Revise the laws. Amend the Constitution, do what it takes. What is the point of continuing this farce? The future isn’t looking very pretty if we continue down this track.
 
The U.S. Constitution is like the Bible - it all depends on INTERPRETATION - whatever floats people's boat. Now, the Rule of Law is entirely something different - It IS as it is written. Thus I think that all this arguing and different opinions really are a moot point.
 
The U.S. Constitution is like the Bible - it all depends on INTERPRETATION - whatever floats people's boat. Now, the Rule of Law is entirely something different - It IS as it is written. Thus I think that all this arguing and different opinions really are a moot point.

The LAW is -- for better or for worse -- also subject to interpretation.

And the discussion about and arguments about the Constitution serve a valuable purpose, in fact.

The fact that disagreements exist, and thus get explored, opens the door to the prospect that those who don't quite grasp what the Constitution really is and what it was intended to achieve might yet have a chance to learn.
 
It only serves a valuable purpose when your constitutional rights are stepped on. Other wise, The Supreme Court will educate you via interpretation. The Rule of Law needs no interpretaion - it is what it is. Don't confuse interpretation with loop holes.
 
It only serves a valuable purpose when your constitutional rights are stepped on. Other wise, The Supreme Court will educate you via interpretation. The Rule of Law needs no interpretaion - it is what it is. Don't confuse interpretation with loop holes.

Pure blather.

The SCOTUS is not actually supposed to be engaging in "interpretation," except as absolutely necessary.

The "rule of Law" is a great concept but has no true meaning in a vacuum.

Don't confuse your lack of comprehension with understanding what you're talking about.
 
"The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the Constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.


If an act of the legislature, repugnant to the Constitution, is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the courts, and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory; and would seem at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on. It shall, however, receive a more attentive consideration.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

Supreme Court of the United States

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137; 2 L. Ed. 60 (1803)

Yes. It WAS in Marbury that the Court took it upon itself WITHOUT ANY CONSTITUTIONAL GRANT of EXPLICIT AUTHORITY to "say" what the law is. They took it upon themselves on that same illicit basis to CLAIM the right of nullification of laws passed by Congress. One can argue whether they should have such authority and, if so, whether it is theirs and theirs alone. But one can never find the provision in the Constitution that explicitly grants them such power.

It is an implicit power to the extent it exists at all.

So, thank you for proving the point I had made, Confusedatious.

"the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts.A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."

ALEXANDER HAMILTON
May 28, 1788


.

However, the Courts were NEVER meant to be the FINAL ARBITOR on any question. The Congress and-OR- POTUS are equally as potent.

In the case of the Court? They MAY be overridden. Remember? Separate but Equal branches. It is just it rarely happens if at all.

But in all actuality? The PEOPLE are the final arbitor no matter what you say...and no matter what History lesson YOU try to foist.
 
Last edited:
When I look out my front window, it’s not America that I see anymore. It’s becoming a third world hell hole. American culture, American principles are vanishing

True.

But you can not blame immigrants, well, at least, not Hispanics immigrants since they have never been in a position of power.

American principles began to disappear with Abrahamm Lincoln. I don't think he was Hispanic or Mexican.

He slaughtered over 600,000 Americans, he imposed centralized power concentrated in DC and reduced the states to mere provinces. He introduced paper money and suggested the 1st Income Tax.


Second major scumbag , Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was not Hispanic or Mexican. He introduced the fascistic welfare/warfare state and the unreedamable paper money.

Third major scumbag George Bush. He was not Hispanic or mexican. He cemented the fascistic policies adopted by FDR . He astronomically increased the powers of the police states and involved the US in two unnecessary , expensive military conflicts.


.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top