Foxnews’ Judge Napolitano ignores constitutional limits in immigration/refugee debate

[ThoughtCrimes]

Are Foxnews personalities delinquent in their fair and balanced reporting?


I wonder why Judge Napolitano was not asked by a Foxnews personality to point to the wording in our Constitution under which the federal government was granted a power to allow tens of thousands or millions of foreigners to enter upon American soil, and then allows the federal government to force a State to accept any of them.

Where is the fair and balanced reporting on Foxnews with regard to this issue? It appears that Foxnews repeatedly asserts our federal government has exclusive power over "immigration", but constantly fails to establish the wording in our Constitution granting this power to our federal government. WHY?


JWK



The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

Don't read much, eh?

You wrote in part, "It appears that Foxnews repeatedly asserts our federal government has exclusive power over "immigration", but constantly fails to establish the wording in our Constitution granting this power to our federal government. WHY?"

The answer to the WHY is contained in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 of the Constitutional enumerated powers granted Congress EXCLUSIVELY which reads:
"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States"

There is no reason for even Faux Noise to routinely broadcast the obvious!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Jake remind us where the Constitution makes it illegal or grants to the fed the power to make it illegal to have a garden?

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

So you believe the Federal Government has the right under implied powers to tell people they can not have vegetable gardens at their homes?

It has nothing to do with what anyone ‘believes.’

As a fact of Constitutional law the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate markets to maintain their integrity; where all markets are interrelated regardless their size and economic scope (see e.g. Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2003)).

Likewise, the Supreme Court has placed restrictions on Congress’ authority to regulate markets (see e.g. US v. Lopez (1995), US v. Morrison (2000)).

You many not like the case law, you may not agree with the case law, that doesn’t change the fact that this is indeed the intent and meaning of the Commerce Clause and Congress’ authority to enact regulatory measures pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence – where what anyone might ‘think’ or ‘believe’ is irrelevant.

 

[BULLDOG]

You seem to forget that we live in a post-constitutional America. The supreme court has nullified 90% of the restrictions on the feds provided in the Constitution. The only solution now is an Article 5 convention where the States can put all 3 branches back in their respective boxes.

You have been listening too much to Mark Levin. Our Constitution is still the law of the land. Apparently Mr. Levin wants a convention to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional, instead of working to enforce our existing Constitution.

JWK

Really, show me where the Constitution gives congress the power to regulate how much water can pass through your shower head.

No need to show you anything. You have a constitutional right to whine, but, unless you get elected and can convince enough elected people to agree with you, your opinion doesn't count.

 

[Moonglow]

The United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) was an amendment to the earlier Immigration and Nationality Act and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, and was created to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to the United States of refugees of special humanitarian concern to the U.S., and to provide comprehensive and uniform provisions for the effective resettlement and absorption of those refugees who are admitted.[1] The act was completed on March 3, 1980, was signed by President Jimmy Carter on March 17, 1980 and became effective on April 1, 1980. This was the first comprehensive amendment of U.S. general immigration laws designed to face up to the realities of modern refugee situations by stating a clear-cut national policy and providing a flexible mechanism to meet the rapidly shifting developments of today's world policy.[2] The main objectives of the act were to create a new definition of refugee based on the one created at the UN Convention and Protocol on the Status of Refugees, raise the limitation from 17,400 to 50,000 refugees admitted each fiscal year, provide emergency procedures for when that number exceeds 50,000, and to establish the Office of U.S. Coordinator for Refugee Affairs and the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Most importantly, it established explicit procedures on how to deal with refugees in the U.S. by creating a uniform and effective resettlement and absorption policy

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Jake remind us where the Constitution makes it illegal or grants to the fed the power to make it illegal to have a garden?

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

So you believe the Federal Government has the right under implied powers to tell people they can not have vegetable gardens at their homes?

It has nothing to do with what anyone ‘believes.’

As a fact of Constitutional law the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to regulate markets to maintain their integrity; where all markets are interrelated regardless their size and economic scope (see e.g. Wickard v. Filburn (1942), Gonzales v. Raich (2003)).

Likewise, the Supreme Court has placed restrictions on Congress’ authority to regulate markets (see e.g. US v. Lopez (1995), US v. Morrison (2000)).

You many not like the case law, you may not agree with the case law, that doesn’t change the fact that this is indeed the intent and meaning of the Commerce Clause and Congress’ authority to enact regulatory measures pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence – where what anyone might ‘think’ or ‘believe’ is irrelevant.

Commerce IS NOT growing food for your sole use and not to be sold. But then any 5 year old knows that.

 

[OKTexas]

You seem to forget that we live in a post-constitutional America. The supreme court has nullified 90% of the restrictions on the feds provided in the Constitution. The only solution now is an Article 5 convention where the States can put all 3 branches back in their respective boxes.

You have been listening too much to Mark Levin. Our Constitution is still the law of the land. Apparently Mr. Levin wants a convention to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional, instead of working to enforce our existing Constitution.

JWK

Really, show me where the Constitution gives congress the power to regulate how much water can pass through your shower head.

How about agreeing with me that no such power allows the federal government to regulate how much water can pass through my shower head, and any attempt to do so violates the defined and limited powers granted to the federal government?

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Agreed, yet the supreme court has upheld such extra-constitutional actions, hence we are living in a post-constitutional America. You can't say the Constitution is the supreme law of the land when the people and all three branches created by it do not hold themselves to its limits.

 

[OKTexas]

You seem to forget that we live in a post-constitutional America. The supreme court has nullified 90% of the restrictions on the feds provided in the Constitution. The only solution now is an Article 5 convention where the States can put all 3 branches back in their respective boxes.

You have been listening too much to Mark Levin. Our Constitution is still the law of the land. Apparently Mr. Levin wants a convention to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional, instead of working to enforce our existing Constitution.

JWK

Really, show me where the Constitution gives congress the power to regulate how much water can pass through your shower head.

No need to show you anything. You have a constitutional right to whine, but, unless you get elected and can convince enough elected people to agree with you, your opinion doesn't count.

Either answer the question or take your ignorant deflection and shove it. How many times have you gotten face to face with your congressman in the last month?

 

[johnwk]

You seem to forget that we live in a post-constitutional America. The supreme court has nullified 90% of the restrictions on the feds provided in the Constitution. The only solution now is an Article 5 convention where the States can put all 3 branches back in their respective boxes.

You have been listening too much to Mark Levin. Our Constitution is still the law of the land. Apparently Mr. Levin wants a convention to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional, instead of working to enforce our existing Constitution.

JWK

Really, show me where the Constitution gives congress the power to regulate how much water can pass through your shower head.

How about agreeing with me that no such power allows the federal government to regulate how much water can pass through my shower head, and any attempt to do so violates the defined and limited powers granted to the federal government?

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Agreed, yet the supreme court has upheld such extra-constitutional actions, hence we are living in a post-constitutional America. You can't say the Constitution is the supreme law of the land when the people and all three branches created by it do not hold themselves to its limits.

What is to be said under the circumstances you correctly have pointed out is, our federal government, all three branches, are acting in rebellion to our written Constitution which is still the supreme law of the land. To assume otherwise is to assume

”the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”___ quoting Hamilton in Federalist No 78.


What we are living under is Judicial, Executive and Congressional tyranny!

JWK





"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

 

[OKTexas]

You seem to forget that we live in a post-constitutional America. The supreme court has nullified 90% of the restrictions on the feds provided in the Constitution. The only solution now is an Article 5 convention where the States can put all 3 branches back in their respective boxes.

You have been listening too much to Mark Levin. Our Constitution is still the law of the land. Apparently Mr. Levin wants a convention to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional, instead of working to enforce our existing Constitution.

JWK

Really, show me where the Constitution gives congress the power to regulate how much water can pass through your shower head.

How about agreeing with me that no such power allows the federal government to regulate how much water can pass through my shower head, and any attempt to do so violates the defined and limited powers granted to the federal government?

JWK

“He has erected a multitude of new offices , and sent hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and eat out their substance” ___Declaration of Independence

Agreed, yet the supreme court has upheld such extra-constitutional actions, hence we are living in a post-constitutional America. You can't say the Constitution is the supreme law of the land when the people and all three branches created by it do not hold themselves to its limits.

What is to be said under the circumstances you correctly have pointed out is, our federal government, all three branches, are acting in rebellion to our written Constitution which is still the supreme law of the land. To assume otherwise is to assume

”the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves.”___ quoting Hamilton in Federalist No 78.


What we are living under is Judicial, Executive and Congressional tyranny!

JWK





"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

What you have to ask yourself, is a law really a law if the people charged with enforcing it refuse to do so?

 

[johnwk]

The United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) was an amendment to the earlier Immigration and Nationality Act and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, and was created to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to the United States of refugees of special humanitarian .....

Congress cannot exercise powers not granted. There is no wording in our federal Constitution granting a power to Congress to allow 10s of thousands or millions of foreigners to enter on American soil for "humanitarian" reasons, and then force a State to accept any of them. If I am in error, post the wording in our Constitution delegating such power.

JWK


The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

 

[Moonglow]

The United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) was an amendment to the earlier Immigration and Nationality Act and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, and was created to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to the United States of refugees of special humanitarian .....

Congress cannot exercise powers not granted. There is no wording in our federal Constitution granting a power to Congress to allow 10s of thousands or millions of foreigners to enter on American soil for "humanitarian" reasons, and then force a State to accept any of them. If I am in error, post the wording in our Constitution delegating such power.

JWK


The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

Buddy, your a fool to think that Congress can't ad onto a document that was written 200 years ago..

 

[johnwk]

The United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) was an amendment to the earlier Immigration and Nationality Act and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, and was created to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to the United States of refugees of special humanitarian .....

Congress cannot exercise powers not granted. There is no wording in our federal Constitution granting a power to Congress to allow 10s of thousands or millions of foreigners to enter on American soil for "humanitarian" reasons, and then force a State to accept any of them. If I am in error, post the wording in our Constitution delegating such power.

JWK


The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

Buddy, your a fool to think that Congress can't ad onto a document that was written 200 years ago..

The way to "ad onto" to our Constitution is articulated in Article V, and requires a three fourths consent of the governed as described in the Article.


JWK

Obamacare by consent of the governed, Article 5, our Constitution`s amendment process. Tyranny by a majority vote in Congress or a Supreme Court's majority vote

 

[Moonglow]

The United States Refugee Act of 1980 (Public Law 96-212) was an amendment to the earlier Immigration and Nationality Act and the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act, and was created to provide a permanent and systematic procedure for the admission to the United States of refugees of special humanitarian .....

Congress cannot exercise powers not granted. There is no wording in our federal Constitution granting a power to Congress to allow 10s of thousands or millions of foreigners to enter on American soil for "humanitarian" reasons, and then force a State to accept any of them. If I am in error, post the wording in our Constitution delegating such power.

JWK


The surest way for Obama to accomplish his fundamental transformation of America is to flood America with the poverty stricken and destitute populations of other countries.

It doesn't say the George Washington could give 40k to the French for the rebellion in Haiti, but he did it anyway.....

 

[BULLDOG]

You seem to forget that we live in a post-constitutional America. The supreme court has nullified 90% of the restrictions on the feds provided in the Constitution. The only solution now is an Article 5 convention where the States can put all 3 branches back in their respective boxes.

You have been listening too much to Mark Levin. Our Constitution is still the law of the land. Apparently Mr. Levin wants a convention to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional, instead of working to enforce our existing Constitution.

JWK

Really, show me where the Constitution gives congress the power to regulate how much water can pass through your shower head.

No need to show you anything. You have a constitutional right to whine, but, unless you get elected and can convince enough elected people to agree with you, your opinion doesn't count.

Either answer the question or take your ignorant deflection and shove it. How many times have you gotten face to face with your congressman in the last month?

Why so nasty before you even ask your question? My current congressmen are crazy teabaggers, so I usually just tell them they don't represent my interests. They don't listen to anyone but religious nuts and right wing radio anyway, so I don't bother that often. I have yet to have one respond to an Email other than to ask for money.

 

[OKTexas]

You seem to forget that we live in a post-constitutional America. The supreme court has nullified 90% of the restrictions on the feds provided in the Constitution. The only solution now is an Article 5 convention where the States can put all 3 branches back in their respective boxes.

You have been listening too much to Mark Levin. Our Constitution is still the law of the land. Apparently Mr. Levin wants a convention to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional, instead of working to enforce our existing Constitution.

JWK

Really, show me where the Constitution gives congress the power to regulate how much water can pass through your shower head.

No need to show you anything. You have a constitutional right to whine, but, unless you get elected and can convince enough elected people to agree with you, your opinion doesn't count.

Either answer the question or take your ignorant deflection and shove it. How many times have you gotten face to face with your congressman in the last month?

Why so nasty before you even ask your question? My current congressmen are crazy teabaggers, so I usually just tell them they don't represent my interests. They don't listen to anyone but religious nuts and right wing radio anyway, so I don't bother that often. I have yet to have one respond to an Email other than to ask for money.

Are you senile like fakey jakey, you said no one has to show me anything, what exactly was that in response to? Also maybe you should attend some of the town hall meetings your congressmen have. I make sure I get fact time with mine and either he or one of his staff have answered every email I've sent.

 

[BULLDOG]

You have been listening too much to Mark Levin. Our Constitution is still the law of the land. Apparently Mr. Levin wants a convention to make constitutional that which is now unconstitutional, instead of working to enforce our existing Constitution.

JWK

Really, show me where the Constitution gives congress the power to regulate how much water can pass through your shower head.

No need to show you anything. You have a constitutional right to whine, but, unless you get elected and can convince enough elected people to agree with you, your opinion doesn't count.

Either answer the question or take your ignorant deflection and shove it. How many times have you gotten face to face with your congressman in the last month?

Why so nasty before you even ask your question? My current congressmen are crazy teabaggers, so I usually just tell them they don't represent my interests. They don't listen to anyone but religious nuts and right wing radio anyway, so I don't bother that often. I have yet to have one respond to an Email other than to ask for money.

Are you senile like fakey jakey, you said no one has to show me anything, what exactly was that in response to? Also maybe you should attend some of the town hall meetings your congressmen have. I make sure I get fact time with mine and either he or one of his staff have answered every email I've sent.

Your demand to show you something is not a question.
Of course they always respond to you. They need to keep the crazies happy and on their side.

 

[OKTexas]

Really, show me where the Constitution gives congress the power to regulate how much water can pass through your shower head.

No need to show you anything. You have a constitutional right to whine, but, unless you get elected and can convince enough elected people to agree with you, your opinion doesn't count.

Either answer the question or take your ignorant deflection and shove it. How many times have you gotten face to face with your congressman in the last month?

Why so nasty before you even ask your question? My current congressmen are crazy teabaggers, so I usually just tell them they don't represent my interests. They don't listen to anyone but religious nuts and right wing radio anyway, so I don't bother that often. I have yet to have one respond to an Email other than to ask for money.

Are you senile like fakey jakey, you said no one has to show me anything, what exactly was that in response to? Also maybe you should attend some of the town hall meetings your congressmen have. I make sure I get fact time with mine and either he or one of his staff have answered every email I've sent.

Your demand to show you something is not a question.
Of course they always respond to you. They need to keep the crazies happy and on their side.

Looks like you're the minority in your area, maybe they consider you the crazy. Now go away child.

 

[BULLDOG]

No need to show you anything. You have a constitutional right to whine, but, unless you get elected and can convince enough elected people to agree with you, your opinion doesn't count.

Either answer the question or take your ignorant deflection and shove it. How many times have you gotten face to face with your congressman in the last month?

Why so nasty before you even ask your question? My current congressmen are crazy teabaggers, so I usually just tell them they don't represent my interests. They don't listen to anyone but religious nuts and right wing radio anyway, so I don't bother that often. I have yet to have one respond to an Email other than to ask for money.

Are you senile like fakey jakey, you said no one has to show me anything, what exactly was that in response to? Also maybe you should attend some of the town hall meetings your congressmen have. I make sure I get fact time with mine and either he or one of his staff have answered every email I've sent.

Your demand to show you something is not a question.
Of course they always respond to you. They need to keep the crazies happy and on their side.

Looks like you're the minority in your area, maybe they consider you the crazy. Now go away child.

Demographics are changing quickly. Texas will be royal blue in a few short years.