Gingrich ignores Constitution in illegal alien debate, willing to take heat!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by johnwk, Nov 24, 2011.

  1. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,565
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +377
    SEE: Gingrich Taking Heat Over Immigration Stance


    ”(CBS) Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Tuesday said the United States should not break up families of immigrants who entered the United States illegally and he was willing to "take the heat" from Republicans for deviating from his party's orthodoxy.

    "I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century," Gingrich said at the CNN debate on foreign policy in Washington, near the White House.”

    From what Gingrich states, he is more concerned with the well-being of those who have entered our country illegally and concerned about their families, than our federal government’s current attempt to prohibit Arizona and other States from regulating aliens within their borders.

    Surely the well being of aliens ought to be of secondary concern to Mr. Gingrich from that of our federal government’s current despotic attempt to forbid the various States to deal with and regulate aliens within their borders__ a power never delegated to the united States, and is one retained by the States under our Constitution‘s Tenth Amendment!

    Unfortunately, Mr. Gingrich in expressing his opinion about “immigration policy” seems to give legitimacy to what Eric Holder is arguing in Court, that:


    “In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress.”

    But is our federal government vested with a “preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters” within the various State borders and adopt “immigration policy“ which suits Mr. Gingrich‘s vision? Let us review some facts so Mr. Gingrich may rethink his priorities.

    FACT: Congress may not assume a power not granted by the Constitution. And so, Eric Holder’s statement that the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration matters is “derived from numerous acts of Congress” is totally without foundation! Congress cannot by legislative acts delegate enforceable powers to itself which the States have not expressly granted to Congress under the Constitution!

    This leaves us with the question: under what provision of our Constitution, as opposed to “acts of Congress” has Congress been delegated power to “regulate immigration matters” which Eric Holder alleges exists?


    OBSERVATION:

    With reference to the meaning of words as they appear in our Constitution ”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”_ 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language.

    FACT: Nowhere in our federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear! And so, Eric Holder’s assertion that the federal government has “preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters” and “This authority derives from the United States Constitution” is not to be found or substantiated from the text of our Constitution! However, the word “naturalization” does appear in the text of our Constitution and involves an exclusive power granted to Congress!

    This leaves us with two important questions which Mr. Gingrich has avoided while promoting his compassionate political views concerning the families of aliens who have entered a State illegally. The two questions being: What are the limitations of this power (naturalization) granted to Congress? And, does such power allow the federal government to interfere with a State’s authority to adopt legislation regulating aliens within its borders?

    In answering these questions we are bound to observe the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is stated as follows:

    “The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”( numerous citations omitted).___ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

    So, to answer the above questions we must determine the meaning of “naturalization’ as our founders used the word with respect to a power granted to Congress, and, we must likewise determine the legislative intent for which said power was granted, and if such power was intended to allow Newt Gringrich’s compassion to interfere with a state's power to regulate aliens within its borders.

    In documenting the meaning of “naturalization” as our founders used the word, and the legislative intent for which such power was granted to Congress, let us turn to Federalist No. 42 in which Madison questions how “obnoxious” aliens may have “acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship“ within a State proscribing them.

    Madison goes on to say “The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.”

    The irrefutable fact is, the meaning of “naturalization” as used by our founders, is nothing more than a power to establish a rule(s) by which an alien is granted citizenship, and was never intended, nor does it include, a power granted to the federal government to interfere with a state regulating aliens within its borders!

    This of course is confirmed when studying our founder’s very own words when debating our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, in February of 1790, e.g., REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says:

    “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148

    In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152

    And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157

    And so, Newt Gingrich, in posturing his compassion towards the families of aliens who have invaded our borders, while ignoring Eric Holder’s attempted usurpation of power and his assault upon the powers retained by the States, especially Arizona‘s retained power to regulate aliens in preserving its general welfare under our Constitution’s Ten Amendment, gives us an indication that Mr. Gringrich’s priority is in harmony with that of Eric Holder and Obama, and not with their sworn oath to support and defend our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.

    JWK

    Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. johnwk
    Offline

    johnwk VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    1,565
    Thanks Received:
    151
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +377
    Newt Gingrich has offered his vision for America with respect to aliens who have invaded the borders of the united States, and he would impose that vision upon each of the various States. And in the process he ignores that we have a Constitution which includes the power retained by each State to regulate their internal affairs. And this retained power includes regulating aliens within their own borders to preserve the State‘s general welfare!


    Our federal government’s limited power in the area under discussion is that of “naturalization” ___ the setting of a rule by which an alien becomes a citizen of the united States ___ and its power does not extend to circumventing a State’s retained power to adopt regulatory legislation to control aliens while in the State’s own borders!


    Instead of Newt Gingrich respecting our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment which was specifically adopted to preserve and protect “federalism” our Constitution’s plan, Mr. Gingrich has worked for years to centralize and concentrate power in Washington, as he did with impunity when voting to create Jimmy Carter’s un-constitutional federal department of education!


    Is it not apparent that Mr. Gingrich intentionally spat upon our founder’s expressed intentions when helping to create the federal department of education, especially the expressed intentions of Representative Page spoken on Feb.7th, 1792?


    "The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power. And surely nothing could be less dangerous to the sovereignty or interest of the individual States than the encouragement which might be given to ingenious inventors or promoters of valuable inventions in the arts and sciences. The encouragement which the General Government might give to the fine arts, to commerce, to manufactures, and agriculture, might, if judiciously applied, redound to the honor of Congress, and the splendor, magnificence, and real advantage of the United States; but the wise framers of our Constitution saw that, if Congress had the power of exerting what has been called a royal munificence for these purposes, Congress might, like many royal benefactors, misplace their munificence; might elevate sycophants, and be inattentive to men unfriendly to the views of Government; might reward the ingenuity of the citizens of one State, and neglect a much greater genius of another. A citizen of a powerful State it might be said, was attended to, whilst that of one of less weight in the Federal scale was totally neglected. It is not sufficient, to remove these objections, to say, as some gentlemen have said, that Congress in incapable of partiality or absurdities, and that they are as far from committing them as my colleagues or myself. I tell them the Constitution was formed on a supposition of human frailty, and to restrain abuses of mistaken powers.” SEE: Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Rep Page


    JWK




    Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

     
  3. Dot Com
    Offline

    Dot Com Nullius in verba Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    49,457
    Thanks Received:
    7,548
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Fairfax, NoVA
    Ratings:
    +16,307
    Gingrich? Oh yeah, the guy who rec'd $1.6- $1.8 million from Freddie Mac? :) THAT Gingrich :confused:
     
  4. JDzBrain
    Offline

    JDzBrain Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2011
    Messages:
    519
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Back woods of Kentucky
    Ratings:
    +140
    That was a long and drawn out posting that could have been boiled down to...the founders didn't waste words. They used them intentionally. And the WORDS they chose to use were these, as stated in Article II, Section 8 of the Constitution...titled Powers of Congress. "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

    The words "Rule" and "Laws" being the operative words. They chose to capitalize these words for emphasis. Laws are just that. Congress has the power to make laws so that all states MUST enforce. Rules are guidance...NOT legislation that carries the force of law!

    It's pretty dang simple!

    It is ALSO clear that the founders DID intend that the Congress have a say on immigration. THAT is made plain by the first clause of Section 9 of Article II, titled 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."

    As I said, the founders did NOT waste words. They would not have gone to the extraordinary measure of placing a restriction on Congresses ability to prohibit the importation or migration of people into a State as the State saw fit until 1808 if they Congress did not have the power to prohibit that importation or migration in the first place.

    The founders intended that the Congress SHOULD set the Rules for who and how many people a state could "admit" into their states. NOT that they HAVE TO admit them, but if and who they could!

    THAT is just common sense!

    BY the way John. The critics should have kept reading or listening to Newt. He says he wants to set up citizen's panels at the LOCAL level to determine the disposition of each illegal on a case by case basis. THAT puts the implementation back in the state and local level.

    See, I view THAT as a guidance to the states just as directed by the Constitution.

    So...I say hear the man out...COMPLETELY before deciding whether or not he is a Federalist.
     
  5. Flopper
    Online

    Flopper Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    15,241
    Thanks Received:
    2,700
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    Washington
    Ratings:
    +5,311
    Gingrich is simply taking a practical approach to the problem, control the boarders and hiring of illegals so as to reduce the size of the problem, then deal with those that remain, probably with some form of permanent resident status or a path to citizenship. It's really the only workable solution. The public does not support mass deportations.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. USArmyRetired
    Offline

    USArmyRetired BANNED

    Joined:
    May 29, 2010
    Messages:
    2,601
    Thanks Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +346
    Has the public been asked?
     
  7. Avorysuds
    Offline

    Avorysuds Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    13,834
    Thanks Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Eugene Oregon
    Ratings:
    +2,141
    Newt turned out worse than Cain... lol.

    Newt supports:

    Obamacare

    Global warming

    Amnesty (well only for some). Newt thinks deportation of 12 million illegal’s is too hard, but advocated deporting 11 million + lol.

    War with Iran

    Eroding the Constitution with the Patriot Act.

    Yeah, Newt will do real well against Obama, lol.
     
  8. Dot Com
    Offline

    Dot Com Nullius in verba Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Messages:
    49,457
    Thanks Received:
    7,548
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    Fairfax, NoVA
    Ratings:
    +16,307
    We need LadyGunslinger's "take" on this ;)
     
  9. Avorysuds
    Offline

    Avorysuds Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2010
    Messages:
    13,834
    Thanks Received:
    1,655
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    Eugene Oregon
    Ratings:
    +2,141
    I wana see Gramps and 44 blame the liberal media... That's why Newt did it!!!! Then vote for Newt anyways...
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    Here:

    There are virtually no limitations:

    Yes.

    Actually, it’s the states which are not allowed to interfere with Federal immigration law:

    Remember also that the Constitution exists only in the context of its case law.

    Consequently both Gingrich and Holder are correct. In the case of Gingrich, however, it’s likely inadvertent.

    Per the case law noted above, therefore, no state has any ‘retained power’ to regulate aliens.

    Source for the cited above:

    Chapter 2: The source and scope of the federal power to regulate immigration and naturalization
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Nov 26, 2011

Share This Page