3/5 Of A Human Being

[danielpalos]

Your problem is 2 fold
You're not an American citizen
and you are giving the views of the 21st century and trying to make an argument that they should be applied to 18th and 19th century America.
I am defending the constitution as it stood before 1866 and 1868 and furthermore I am defending the Constitution as it stands now
how about the second amendment are you supportive of it?

Your problem is you have nothing but bigotry not any valid solutions; how easily defeated by anyone with better arguments at lower cost.

We have an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of naturalization not immigration. Any infidel can say what you allege, not true patriots to our supreme law of the land.

And, we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

Furthermore, our Civil War should have never happened. Can You tell me why the South chose to levy war against the Union instead of insist on eminent domain, like true patriots who can think for themselves not just parrot a few statements should have been able to do?

4 keys years you need to focus on and are relevant 1790, 1857, 1866, and 1868
Your bigotry is appalling when it comes to certain sections of the Constitution

What sections of our Constitution? You are the one claiming politicians can make up any right wing fantasy they want regardless of what our actual Constitution enumerates.

 

[danielpalos]

"and you are giving the views of the 21st century and trying to make an argument that they should be applied to 18th and 19th century America."

This is a silly argument used to defend past ignorance and it has no merit.

Fallacy is all right wingers have not any valid arguments. They were willing to levy War against the Union for their right wing fantasy regardless of what our Constitution is supposed to be accomplishing.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BECAUSE blacks and slaves were not seen as citizens there is no such 1808 constitution agreeing with you
BLACKS AND SLAVES DID NOT HAVE CITIZENSHIP RIGHTS UNTIL THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866

Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was a citizen of the Union. The North was gradually emancipating their slave population, unlike the South.

Northern STATES began emancipating their slaves. Southern STATES didn't. Unlike today, the Federal government had very little direct power over the states.

The Union was starting to abolish the slave trade after 1808.

Not really Daniel. In fact the number of slaves increased by 1,000 percent between the years 1808 until emancipation. Slave breeding became an industry after 1808.

Illegals refusing to bear true witness to our own supreme law of the land?

African Slave Trade Patrol[1] was part of the suppression of the Atlantic slave trade between 1819 and the beginning of the American Civil War in 1861. Due to the abolitionist movement in the United States, a squadron of U.S. Navy warships and Cutters were assigned to catch slave traders in and around Africa. In 42 years about 100 suspected slave ships were captured.[2][3]--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Slave_Trade_Patrol

The abolitionist movement "gained steam" after 1808.

We are told how the so-called founders of this country created the way to end slavery when they wrote the constitution. Many will cite the fact they made the importation of slaves illegal by 1808 as evidence. But refusing to stop importing slaves did not end the slaving business in the United States. What it produced was an original American industry-slave breeding.

"During the fifty-three years from the prohibition of the African slave trade by federal law in 1808 to the debacle of the Confederate States of America in 1861, the Southern economy depended on the functioning of a slave-breeding industry, of which Virginia was the number-one supplier."

Ned & Constance Sublette, The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry​

You see, if America had continued to import slaves, it would have diluted the market thereby driving down the price for slaves. Slave sellers could not have this. So instead of the truth, we are told that “our nearer to God than thee” founders in all their benevolent glory, looked towards a future whereby slavery would be no more. According to some, the so-called founders had a dream whereby little black boys and little black girls would no longer be enslaved because of the color of their skin. This is the story we are supposed to believe. However, reality does not show that.

“In fact, most American slaves were not kidnapped on another continent. Though over 12.7 million Africans were forced onto ships to the Western hemisphere, estimates only have 400,000-500,000 landing in present-day America. How then to account for the four million black slaves who were tilling fields in 1860? “The South,” the Sublettes write, “did not only produce tobacco, rice, sugar, and cotton as commodities for sale; it produced people.” Slavers called slave-breeding “natural increase,” but there was nothing natural about producing slaves; it took scientific management. Thomas Jefferson bragged to George Washington that the birth of black children was increasing Virginia’s capital stock by four percent annually.”

Ned & Constance Sublette, The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry​

To be blunt, America had slave breeding “factories” where slaves were forced to breed. I call them factories but in most cases they are described as farms. These “farms” generally had at least a 2:1 female to male ratio. In some states, slave production was the number 1 industry. Virginia led the nation in slave production and PRESIDENT Thomas Jefferson was one of the main producers. The slave breeding industry has been hidden and left out of the annals of American history. This was done on purpose.

This industry included the first employer-based health care program. Female slaves were the first people in America to get free health care. I do not say this to be funny because the reason why that happened was both sad and simple; after the importation of slaves was made illegal, white dependence on slave labor hinged on the continued births of healthy children. After importation was made illegal, the only way left to maintain the system was by increasing the number of slaves through births. Due to this, a black women’s ability to reproduce was of the utmost economic importance to southern planters and to the slave breeders.

During slavery, more specifically during the 19th century, wealthy slaveowners looking for a way to get additional capital to buy more slaves came up with an idea- slave backed securities. Your eyes are not playing tricks on you. Slaveowners securitized slavery. Cornell professors Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman detailed how it was done in an article published by the Chicago Sun-Times on its website dated March 7, 2014. This is from the article:

In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.

First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana. Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”

As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved African Americans whose forced labor repaid owners’ mortgages. But investors owed a piece of slave-earned income. Older slave states such as Maryland and Virginia sold slaves to the new cotton states, at securitization-inflated prices, resulting in slave asset bubble. Cotton factor firms like the now-defunct Lehman Brothers — founded in Alabama — became wildly successful. Lehman moved to Wall Street, and for all these firms, every transaction in slave-earned money flowing in and out of the U.S. earned Wall Street firms a fee.

The infant American financial industry nourished itself on profits taken from financing slave traders, cotton brokers and underwriting slave-backed bonds. But though slavery ended in 1865, in the years after the Civil War, black entrepreneurs would find themselves excluded from a financial system originally built on their bodies.

Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves
​

Ned & Constance Sublette, The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry, Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg.1

Ned & Constance Sublette, The American Slave Coast: A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry, Chicago, Lawrence Hill Books, 2016, pg. 84

William Spivey, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms, June 9, 2019, The Truth About American Slave Breeding Farms

Rashid Booker, Slave Breeding Farms of "Africans in North America", https://www.academia.edu/9864206/Slave_Breeding_Farms_of_Africans_in_North_America_

Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936 to 1938, Library of Congress, Articles and Essays | Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project, 1936-1938 | Digital Collections | Library of Congress

Elizabeth Keckley, Behind the Scenes: Or, Thirty Years a Slave, and Four Years in the White House, 1868, New York: G. W. Carleton & Co., Publishers, 1868., pp. 38-39, Keckley, Elizabeth, ca. 1818-1907. "Behind the Scenes, or, Thirty years a Slave and Four Years in the White House",

America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you, February 26, 2020, America’s slaves breeding farms: what history books never told you

Isaac Somto, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped, July 27, 2020, Buck Breaking, How African Male Slaves Were Raped | Vocal Africa

Jason Kottke, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States, Feb 02, 2016, A History of the Slave-Breeding Industry in the United States

Edward E. Baptist and Louis Hyman, American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves, Chicago Sun-Times.com March 7, 2014, derived from: American Finance Grew on the Back of Slaves

​

Anyone born in the Union after 1808 was supposed to be a citizen of the Union as well as one of the several States.

True, but we both know that wasn't the case.

Immigration laws of the time say otherwise

We have a naturalization clause not an immigration clause in our Constitution.

ok dumbass we are talking about before the 14th amendment was created and before the 1866 civil rights act WE HAD IMMIGRATION LAWS

Our supreme law of the land says we have an establishment clause for an uniform rule of naturalization. The several States used to have their own immigration laws until 1808.

and again 1790 immigration laws and the 1857 Supreme court ruling says blacks and slaves did not have citizenship rights 1808 is irrelevant
THIS MAKES CORRECTION NUMBER 53RD

Proof right wingers don't care about our supreme law of the land. And, there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, it is a Naturalization clause for anyone born outside of the Union.

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your problem is 2 fold
You're not an American citizen
and you are giving the views of the 21st century and trying to make an argument that they should be applied to 18th and 19th century America.
I am defending the constitution as it stood before 1866 and 1868 and furthermore I am defending the Constitution as it stands now
how about the second amendment are you supportive of it?

Your problem is you have nothing but bigotry not any valid solutions; how easily defeated by anyone with better arguments at lower cost.

We have an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of naturalization not immigration. Any infidel can say what you allege, not true patriots to our supreme law of the land.

And, we have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States; don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!

Furthermore, our Civil War should have never happened. Can You tell me why the South chose to levy war against the Union instead of insist on eminent domain, like true patriots who can think for themselves not just parrot a few statements should have been able to do?

4 keys years you need to focus on and are relevant 1790, 1857, 1866, and 1868
Your bigotry is appalling when it comes to certain sections of the Constitution

What sections of our Constitution? You are the one claiming politicians can make up any right wing fantasy they want regardless of what our actual Constitution enumerates.

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"and you are giving the views of the 21st century and trying to make an argument that they should be applied to 18th and 19th century America."

This is a silly argument used to defend past ignorance and it has no merit.

You can't do it you can't rewrite history and case laws dumbass even though you try.

 

[danielpalos]

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?

Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Are you a Russian tool?

 

[danielpalos]

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified

I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation. And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified

I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation. And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?

Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Are you a Russian tool?

• The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.

 

[danielpalos]

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified

I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation. And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?

Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Are you a Russian tool?

• The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.

lol. There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers. Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified

I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation. And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?

Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Are you a Russian tool?

• The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.

lol. There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers. Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.

Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land

 

[danielpalos]

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified

I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation. And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?

Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Are you a Russian tool?

• The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.

lol. There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers. Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.

Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land

You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause. There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization. We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes. Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.

Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States. We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified

I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation. And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?

Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Are you a Russian tool?

• The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.

lol. There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers. Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.

Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land

You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause. There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization. We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes. Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.

Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States. We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.

dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land

 

[danielpalos]

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified

I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation. And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?

Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Are you a Russian tool?

• The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.

lol. There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers. Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.

Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land

You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause. There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization. We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes. Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.

Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States. We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.

dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land

You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition. Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction. Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified

I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation. And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?

Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Are you a Russian tool?

• The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.

lol. There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers. Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.

Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land

You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause. There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization. We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes. Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.

Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States. We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.

dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land

You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition. Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction. Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.

YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS FUCKING FOREIGNERS NEED TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICAS

 

[danielpalos]

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified

I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation. And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?

Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Are you a Russian tool?

• The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.

lol. There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers. Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.

Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land

You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause. There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization. We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes. Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.

Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States. We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.

dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land

You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition. Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction. Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.

YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS FUCKING FOREIGNERS NEED TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICAS

You only have a fallacy of composition not facts.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution for federal laws to be Pursuant thereof.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

We have an Establishment clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified

I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation. And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?

Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Are you a Russian tool?

• The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.

lol. There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers. Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.

Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land

You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause. There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization. We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes. Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.

Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States. We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.

dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land

You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition. Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction. Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.

YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS FUCKING FOREIGNERS NEED TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICAS

You only have a fallacy of composition not facts.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution for federal laws to be Pursuant thereof.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

We have an Establishment clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up.

your source is repeating what I've said immigration laws now and back in 1790 are the supreme laws of the land
You're done now

 

[danielpalos]

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified

I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation. And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?

Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Are you a Russian tool?

• The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.

lol. There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers. Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.

Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land

You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause. There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization. We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes. Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.

Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States. We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.

dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land

You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition. Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction. Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.

YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS FUCKING FOREIGNERS NEED TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICAS

You only have a fallacy of composition not facts.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution for federal laws to be Pursuant thereof.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

We have an Establishment clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up.

your source is repeating what I've said immigration laws now and back in 1790 are the supreme laws of the land
You're done now

We have an Establishment clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up. I guess right wingers only know how to be hypocrites not be legal to the laws.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified

I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation. And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?

Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Are you a Russian tool?

• The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.

lol. There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers. Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.

Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land

You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause. There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization. We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes. Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.

Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States. We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.

dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land

You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition. Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction. Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.

YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS FUCKING FOREIGNERS NEED TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICAS

You only have a fallacy of composition not facts.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution for federal laws to be Pursuant thereof.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

We have an Establishment clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up.

your source is repeating what I've said immigration laws now and back in 1790 are the supreme laws of the land
You're done now

We have an Establishment clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up. I guess right wingers only know how to be hypocrites not be legal to the laws.

look dumbass America is a Republic that is governed by the rule of law, IMMIGRATION LAWS ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND AND, IN 1857 THE SUPREME COURT RULED SLAVES AND BLACKS WERE NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.

 

[danielpalos]

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified

I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation. And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?

Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Are you a Russian tool?

• The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.

lol. There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers. Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.

Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land

You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause. There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization. We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes. Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.

Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States. We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.

dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land

You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition. Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction. Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.

YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS FUCKING FOREIGNERS NEED TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICAS

You only have a fallacy of composition not facts.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution for federal laws to be Pursuant thereof.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

We have an Establishment clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up.

your source is repeating what I've said immigration laws now and back in 1790 are the supreme laws of the land
You're done now

We have an Establishment clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up. I guess right wingers only know how to be hypocrites not be legal to the laws.

look dumbass America is a Republic that is governed by the rule of law, IMMIGRATION LAWS ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND AND, IN 1857 THE SUPREME COURT RULED SLAVES AND BLACKS WERE NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.

lol. Proof right wingers don't care about the law. This is our most supreme law of the land: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,. It say naturalization not Immigration. What you claim about that clause could easily be applied to our Second Amendment since You believe Congress can manufacture any form of fascism they want to be the supreme law of the land. Be Consistent or just be hypocritical and immoral and illegal to the law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WOW you don't know that 1790 was our first immigration law?
1857 Supreme court Dread Scott Decision
1866 first civil rights law
1868 14th amendment ratified

I know 1808 was when the federal Government asserted Jurisdiction over entry into the Union and borders superseding former States' rights in that Government obligation. And, our supreme law of the land already had a Civil Rights clause the right wing was not moral enough to Obey: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Furthermore, we should not have had a Civil War over slavery since Eminent Domain is a federal power since Inception: ...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Right wingers in the South had no one to blame but themselves, not blacks.

any American would know we have immigration laws so what country are you living in Russia?

Any American should know there is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Are you a Russian tool?

• The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution of the United States ( Article VI, Clause 2 ), establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the “supreme Law of the Land”, and thus take priority over any conflicting state laws.

In Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859), the Supreme Court held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, citing the Supremacy Clause, and overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Specifically, the court found it was illegal for state officials to interfere with the work of U.S. Marshals enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or to order the release of federal prisoners held for violation of that Act. The Supreme Court reasoned that because the Supremacy Clause established federal law as the law of the land, the Wisconsin courts could not nullify the judgments of a federal court. The Supreme Court held that under Article III of the Constitution, the federal courts have the final jurisdiction in all cases involving the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that the states therefore cannot interfere with federal court judgments.
NOW SHUT THE FUCK UPALREADY.

lol. There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution, right wingers. Why complain when the less fortunate don't obey the laws any more than you right wingers?

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

It is not an Immigration clause but an Establishment clause for an uniform rule of Naturalization whenever right wingers have nothing but Bigotry instead of the uniform Rule of Law.

Dumbass we have immigration laws which are also the supreme law of the land along with the constitution and Treaties are also the supreme law of the land

You are the one who mentioned the supremacy clause. There is no express clause over the whole and entire concept of Immigration only Naturalization. We should have no illegal problem or illegal underclass Because all foreign nationals in the US should be known to the general Government and federally identified for civil purposes. Lawful tax paying Persons is what we should have; not right wing socialism on a national basis.

Tourism is the first, second or third largest employer in twenty-nine States. We have a Commerce Clause and a central bank, yet right wingers allege only in socialism threads that they are for "free market Capitalism" not Government intervention in private sector markets.

dumbass you're the one who mentioned the supremacy clause you stupid mother fucker
The supreme laws of the land consist of the U.S. Constitution, FEDERAL LAWS, and Treaties
Immigration laws are the supreme law of the land

You have nothing but argumentum ad hominem and fallacy of composition. Our supreme law of the land is the most supreme in every conflict of laws under US jurisdiction. Only fascists believe federal law manufactured by Congress is supreme law of the land, it is merely more supreme than State laws regarding the subjects expressed.

YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS FUCKING FOREIGNERS NEED TO STAY THE FUCK OUT OF AMERICAN POLITICAS

You only have a fallacy of composition not facts.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

There is no Immigration clause in our federal Constitution for federal laws to be Pursuant thereof.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

We have an Establishment clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up.

your source is repeating what I've said immigration laws now and back in 1790 are the supreme laws of the land
You're done now

We have an Establishment clause for an uniform Rule of Naturalization to be pursuant thereof; right wing bigotry not withstanding, every time this issue comes up. I guess right wingers only know how to be hypocrites not be legal to the laws.

look dumbass America is a Republic that is governed by the rule of law, IMMIGRATION LAWS ARE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND AND, IN 1857 THE SUPREME COURT RULED SLAVES AND BLACKS WERE NOT CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES.

lol. Proof right wingers don't care about the law. This is our most supreme law of the land: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,. It say naturalization not Immigration. What you claim about that clause could easily be applied to our Second Amendment since You believe Congress can manufacture any form of fascism they want to be the supreme law of the land. Be Consistent or just be hypocritical and immoral and illegal to the law.

no dumbass immigration laws are the supreme law of the land and dumbass democrat fascism has attacked the second amendment. You know nothing of the U.S CONSTITUTION BUT NOT MANY FOREIGNERS DO.