National Guard won't be allowed to stop illegal aliens!

[MaggieMae]

Didn't you know the Commerce Clause covers everything?

I love the pretend constitutionalists who pick and choose the parts of the constitution they like.

From what I understand from what I have read “General welfare” only considers what congress has seen as fitting under the term General. Meaning to me, that congress must vote on something to see if it fits under GW, like the HC bills. IMO that means that the elected officials need to be representing their people here and they clearly are not.

Your definition of GW could mean anything at any given time. Your version does what I have read the term GW was exactly NOT meant to do. Your version of GW would outright void the rest of the constitution as at any point congress could just vote of something and stuff it under the CW clause, like the HC bills.

For example, congress could just decide to put up a bill that says it would be safer to not have guns and BAM, just like that it’s over… The constitution turned on itself without citizens having a say. In a sense, your version would mean that congress could pass any law and make themselves kings.

Many of the programs the GW clause was used for (and forced upon the people by FDR it seems with the Supreme Court takeover) have failed, horribly. We are now looking at new entitlement programs that are only hear today as to act as a refurbished version of past failures, nothing more.

Congress can pass any law they want, but if a law is challenged, the decision of the USSC is final. Must be most of the existing entitlement programs were just fine with everyone, before now, that is. Suddenly the country is filled with self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" and I find that absolutely phony.

 

[ConHog]

I love the way Ravi ran away again when her lies were exposed.

 

[MaggieMae]

Talking points are the life blood of conservatives. How about you show me Olbermann's and I'll counter with Limbaugh/Hannity ones (they are the same).

Me first: "Tax cuts grow the economy"

As I said, I don't listen to Hannity or Rush, nor do I listen to Olbermann

Be that as it may, you didn't address my question. Why do you assume that most if not all conservatives DO listen to them? Most I know do not.

I don't assume ALL conservatives listen to Limbaugh or Hannity. I do believe that the self defined conservatives on this and other message boards repeat the talking points of Limbaugh and Hannity, because they do. Now, repeating the talking points does not require listening to talk radio, there are dozen and dozens of sources of RW propaganda, including Fox TV 'News', the "Washington Times" web sites by the Hetitage Foundation, message boards such as this.
By self defined I am not suggesting they are really conservative; they seem to hold so many contradictory positions on issues it's hard to characterize them as conservatives - Fringers seems most appropriate.

PS, a good example of someone not understanding an issue, or our Constitution, and framing the talking point they do understand was posted by Avorysuds above.

 

[Ravi]

Yes, I fully understand what the AZ national guard web page says Jillian. I also understand that the President can declare ANYTHING to be under federal jurisdiction and that's that. Just as has been done with the war on drugs, just as what was done with the gulf oil spill. Just as was done in 1957 in LR. So yes, technically a governer has control of her state Guard, but in reality, no she doesn't.

If I am wrong, then why in the five situations I described did NONE of the governors I mentioned simply deploy their national guard without obama's approval and move on? Because they can't.

Same as during Katrina, Bush declared that as a federal disaster area and boom the USNG was under federal authority. Otherwise, why were NG members from multiple states there, the governor of Texas for damn sure doesn't have the authority to deploy troops in Louisiana.

Because Obama federalized the response to the oil spill...even then, the state's could have deployed their own guard to work on shore. But none of them did because it's bad for tourism.

And no, the governor of LA was always in charge of her own National Guard...this is what led the Bush Administration and the fucktard Republicans to change the law to allow the federal government to take over the duties of a governor...luckily, it was repealed.

Wow you are a liar, first you say that Bush federalized the disaster area and so he could send troops from other states in then you say the LA Governor was in charge of her own troops? it's one or the other.

And if as you contend, then why did Jindahl need permission to deploy his own troops this time around?

Oh by the way stupid liar. HR 5122 was never repealed, it does however have a sunset date of 2012.

H.R. 5122 (2006) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your link:

Expansion of the President's power to declare martial law under revisions to the Insurrection Act, and take charge of United States National Guard troops without state governor authorization when public order has been lost and the state and its constituted authorities cannot enforce the law (repealed as of 2008[1]);

 

[del]

Because Obama federalized the response to the oil spill...even then, the state's could have deployed their own guard to work on shore. But none of them did because it's bad for tourism.

And no, the governor of LA was always in charge of her own National Guard...this is what led the Bush Administration and the fucktard Republicans to change the law to allow the federal government to take over the duties of a governor...luckily, it was repealed.

Wow you are a liar, first you say that Bush federalized the disaster area and so he could send troops from other states in then you say the LA Governor was in charge of her own troops? it's one or the other.

And if as you contend, then why did Jindahl need permission to deploy his own troops this time around?

Oh by the way stupid liar. HR 5122 was never repealed, it does however have a sunset date of 2012.

H.R. 5122 (2006) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your link:

Expansion of the President's power to declare martial law under revisions to the Insurrection Act, and take charge of United States National Guard troops without state governor authorization when public order has been lost and the state and its constituted authorities cannot enforce the law (repealed as of 2008[1]);

i thought you ran away?

 

[Ravi]

Limbaugh: "Obama is a statist. He's an authoritarian. He doesn't want to govern; he wants to rule."

That's where that word came from. I never heard it until Bush took office but Dud says it every day, five or six times.

 

[Ravi]

Wow you are a liar, first you say that Bush federalized the disaster area and so he could send troops from other states in then you say the LA Governor was in charge of her own troops? it's one or the other.

And if as you contend, then why did Jindahl need permission to deploy his own troops this time around?

Oh by the way stupid liar. HR 5122 was never repealed, it does however have a sunset date of 2012.

H.R. 5122 (2006) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your link:

Expansion of the President's power to declare martial law under revisions to the Insurrection Act, and take charge of United States National Guard troops without state governor authorization when public order has been lost and the state and its constituted authorities cannot enforce the law (repealed as of 2008[1]);

i thought you ran away?

Sometimes I go to lunch.

 

[del]

From your link:

i thought you ran away?

Sometimes I go to lunch.

lyre

 

[Ravi]

i thought you ran away?

Sometimes I go to lunch.

lyre

I swear...mac and cheese.

 

[MaggieMae]

"Provide for the common defense" is in the Constitution. "Provide Health Care" is not.

The Constitution didn't call for the common OFFENSE, either. Where were you when certain tenets of the Constitution were expanded before?

Sometimes the best defense is a good offense. Meaning I'd rather fight them there then here. Now that doesn't apply to Mexico of course , I don't suggest we invade Mexico... I want that clear so later on some loon isn't posting that I said let's invade Mexico. But it does apply to the border situation in general, taking an offensive defensive posture ( I know, sounds weird but it's a legitimate military doctrine) is better than just simply waiting til they are here and then dealing with them.

But none of that is elaborated in the Constitution either. That was the point I was trying to make to Mad Scientist.

 

[Yurt]

"Provide for the common defense" is in the Constitution. "Provide Health Care" is not.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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

So is to promote the general welfare, preventing and mitigating the effects of disease fits nicely into promoting the general welfare which healthcare provides, as much or more so then defending against unarmed immigrants seeking work, many of whom are women and childern.
Should all aspects of healthcare and prevention be cut from the Federal Budget? Funds such as those which helped Salk develop the polio vaccine, should they be cut too?

Further to your first point, the cons want to repeal the 14th Amendment now. It doesn't fit with their agenda for the cleansing of America.

lord...hyperbole much...

 

[Yurt]

It is when the Governor deploys them during a state emergency. There is no reason Brewer can't deploy her NG to help fight drug trafficking.

I've decided to neg you each time you lie about me...fair warning.

How did I lie? That is exactly what you said. AND you are wrong.

The National Guard is OFFICIALLY part of the US Army, it is no longer an independent branch of the military. I explained this to you before. The state governor CAN declare a state emergency and the President can over ride that and federalize the Guard and there isn't a goddamn thing a governor can do about it.

If you want to discuss the Guard and there role in the so called war on drugs, fine, have it I think I might know something about that. Let's see it goes like this...... Oh yeah, in that case yes the Guard is technically under state control because if they were under federal control then posse commitatus would apply. No FEDERAL troops may act as law enforcement within US borders, however that is just a nicety. The dirty truth is that the NG in that case answers to the DEA a FEDERAL agency and the governor has NO actual say in the deployment or use of those troops once he/she has agreed to assign certain troops to whatever task force is set up. nor can a governor just ignore the DEA and send troops out to fight the war on drugs by themselves. IT's called a task force for a reason, and the neither the Guard nor the state governor are calling the shots.




I find it hilarious that you are threatening to neg rep over so called lies. You are easily the biggest liar on this board. so go ahead, neg rep away. The fact remains you did claim what I said you claimed and you are STILL wrong.

Wrong. Under Bush a law was passed allowing the Federal government to seize control of the NG that was deployed by the state's governor...but that law was repealed.

The Federal government can only federalize the guard on matters of national security, i.e. the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to use along the border.

exactly...so why do people havea problem with the guard beign deployed to the border?

 

[MaggieMae]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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

So is to promote the general welfare, preventing and mitigating the effects of disease fits nicely into promoting the general welfare which healthcare provides, as much or more so then defending against unarmed immigrants seeking work, many of whom are women and childern.
Should all aspects of healthcare and prevention be cut from the Federal Budget? Funds such as those which helped Salk develop the polio vaccine, should they be cut too?

Further to your first point, the cons want to repeal the 14th Amendment now. It doesn't fit with their agenda for the cleansing of America.

Please don't generalize. Not all "cons" want to repeal the 14th , and even those who do, don't want to repeal the whole thing, MOST sane people simply want a clarification on whether illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of the US. if it is ruled that they do qualify under the 14th then yes there is talk of AMENDING the COTUS to rectify that, but guess what, that's the American Way. Guess what else? It is unAmerican to suggest that people shouldn't advocate for an Amendment if they believe one is needed.

It's no fun when you get thrown in with everybody else, is it. Consider that's what dems/libs have been subject to ever since Obama got elected. We're ALL bad; we're ALL wrong; we're all liars; if one person says it, must be we're ALL in his camp; EVERYTHING we do/say/think is stupid. That said, once again those who make the loudest noise direct the talking point du jour, and for the last couple of days, it's been over repealing the 14th Amendment, with accompanying Internet chatter. So you're not one of them, but I'd venture the majority who read the blogs, etc., on this topic are.

You might be surprised to learn that I also think the 14th needs to be more specific by at least containing a caveat that immigrating to America should not be allowed if the sole intent is to bear children here. But I don't know how that would ever be enforced.

And I'm a HUGE advocate of calling for a whole Constitutional Convention, which would be a lot easier to get organized and passed through Congress and the States rather than trying to do individual amendments. There are a number of clauses that desperately need clarification, in my opinion, and it could be accomplished all at once.

 

[Yurt]

From your link:

i thought you ran away?

Sometimes I go to lunch.

conjob will now runaway from the thread or make up some lie about this

everytime he gets busted he runs or makes stuff up

 

[del]

Sometimes I go to lunch.

lyre

I swear...mac and cheese.

mmmmmmm, mac and cheese.

did you eat it on the proposed site of your new driveway?

 

[Wry Catcher]

As I said, I don't listen to Hannity or Rush, nor do I listen to Olbermann

Be that as it may, you didn't address my question. Why do you assume that most if not all conservatives DO listen to them? Most I know do not.

I don't assume ALL conservatives listen to Limbaugh or Hannity. I do believe that the self defined conservatives on this and other message boards repeat the talking points of Limbaugh and Hannity, because they do. Now, repeating the talking points does not require listening to talk radio, there are dozen and dozens of sources of RW propaganda, including Fox TV 'News', the "Washington Times" web sites by the Hetitage Foundation, message boards such as this.
By self defined I am not suggesting they are really conservative; they seem to hold so many contradictory positions on issues it's hard to characterize them as conservatives - Fringers seems most appropriate.

PS, a good example of someone not understanding an issue, or our Constitution, and framing the talking point they do understand was posted by Avorysuds above.

Okay, and an example on the left could be found in any of the numerous threads about say AZ SB1070 in which people were just repeating what they have heard or read about the bill even though they had never read the bill and had no clue as to what it actually said.

So , we're agreed that SOME people from the left and from the right spew shit out of their cock holsters without actually knowing what they are talking about? Because I will certainly stipulate THAT happens from SOME of the righties on this board, will you agree that it also comes from SOME of the lefties?

Perhaps we could call it the parrot syndrome

It's true, most on both sides of the issue didn't read the entire text of 1070 and that includes me. However, I understand the signifigance of having the authority to stop/detain with probable cause vis a vis a reasonable suspicion.
I retired as a manager in a LE Agency and have seen and disciplined deputies in my agency who acted without PC. I have also participated in defending such inappropriate actions in civil matters.
Giving a street cop, deputy or agent carte blanche is not a good policy and IMHO violates the spirit if not the intent of our Constitution.

 

[MaggieMae]

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, 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

So is to promote the general welfare, preventing and mitigating the effects of disease fits nicely into promoting the general welfare which healthcare provides, as much or more so then defending against unarmed immigrants seeking work, many of whom are women and childern.
Should all aspects of healthcare and prevention be cut from the Federal Budget? Funds such as those which helped Salk develop the polio vaccine, should they be cut too?

Further to your first point, the cons want to repeal the 14th Amendment now. It doesn't fit with their agenda for the cleansing of America.

the 14th amendment, like many things, has outlived its usefulness.

How do you figure that?

 

[Ravi]

How did I lie? That is exactly what you said. AND you are wrong.

The National Guard is OFFICIALLY part of the US Army, it is no longer an independent branch of the military. I explained this to you before. The state governor CAN declare a state emergency and the President can over ride that and federalize the Guard and there isn't a goddamn thing a governor can do about it.

If you want to discuss the Guard and there role in the so called war on drugs, fine, have it I think I might know something about that. Let's see it goes like this...... Oh yeah, in that case yes the Guard is technically under state control because if they were under federal control then posse commitatus would apply. No FEDERAL troops may act as law enforcement within US borders, however that is just a nicety. The dirty truth is that the NG in that case answers to the DEA a FEDERAL agency and the governor has NO actual say in the deployment or use of those troops once he/she has agreed to assign certain troops to whatever task force is set up. nor can a governor just ignore the DEA and send troops out to fight the war on drugs by themselves. IT's called a task force for a reason, and the neither the Guard nor the state governor are calling the shots.




I find it hilarious that you are threatening to neg rep over so called lies. You are easily the biggest liar on this board. so go ahead, neg rep away. The fact remains you did claim what I said you claimed and you are STILL wrong.

Wrong. Under Bush a law was passed allowing the Federal government to seize control of the NG that was deployed by the state's governor...but that law was repealed.

The Federal government can only federalize the guard on matters of national security, i.e. the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to use along the border.

exactly...so why do people havea problem with the guard beign deployed to the border?

No idea. I'd rather see the border patrol get more funding though and leave the NG for "real" problems.

 

[ConHog]

Because Obama federalized the response to the oil spill...even then, the state's could have deployed their own guard to work on shore. But none of them did because it's bad for tourism.

And no, the governor of LA was always in charge of her own National Guard...this is what led the Bush Administration and the fucktard Republicans to change the law to allow the federal government to take over the duties of a governor...luckily, it was repealed.

Wow you are a liar, first you say that Bush federalized the disaster area and so he could send troops from other states in then you say the LA Governor was in charge of her own troops? it's one or the other.

And if as you contend, then why did Jindahl need permission to deploy his own troops this time around?

Oh by the way stupid liar. HR 5122 was never repealed, it does however have a sunset date of 2012.

H.R. 5122 (2006) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your link:

Expansion of the President's power to declare martial law under revisions to the Insurrection Act, and take charge of United States National Guard troops without state governor authorization when public order has been lost and the state and its constituted authorities cannot enforce the law (repealed as of 2008[1]);

the portion of the law to which this editorial refers has been repealed as of 2008.)

The ONLY portion that was repealed is this part

Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies". It provided that:

The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[3]


However this part of the Bill was NOT repealed

Sec. 328. Active Guard and Reserve duty: Governor's authority

(a) Authority- The Governor of a State or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, or the commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard, as the case may be, with the consent of the Secretary concerned, may order a member of the National Guard to perform Active Guard and Reserve duty, as defined by section 101(d)(6) of title 10, pursuant to section 502(f) of this title.

(b) Duties- A member of the National Guard performing duty under subsection (a) may perform the additional duties specified in section 502(f)(2) of this title to the extent that the performance of those duties does not interfere with the performance of the member's primary Active Guard and Reserve duties of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, and training the reserve components.'.

(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

Secretary meaning Sec of Defense.

Here's the entire Bill if you wold like to read it

Read The Bill: H.R. 5122 [109th] - GovTrack.us

 

[Ravi]

lyre

I swear...mac and cheese.

mmmmmmm, mac and cheese.

did you eat it on the proposed site of your new driveway?

Don't get me started...I'm all ready for the driveway but the city is giving me a hassle. Something about zoning rules and drainage.