Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
Liar I've never said that not once since 2012Sir, you said there are no natural Rights. .
Liar I've never said that not once since 2012Sir, you said there are no natural Rights. .
There is no such thing as you present it. EVRYBODY is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - including undocumented workers.Illegals are not citizens you are confusing the subject.
You are absolutely right. I made a mistake in responding to you when, in fact, that response was that of another poster. Hope you will accept the apology.Liar I've never said that not once since 2012
My personal opinion sometimes runs afoul of the facts, so I stick with the facts. What I tell you with regard to the law is easily confirmed and documented.Of course. Just like you have YOUR opinion.
God Bless America!
WRONG Once a person is identified as being here without authorization (they have no I-94, no passport with stamp, no legal SS Card, no legal DL, nothing) they can be deemed to be illegal and DHS can take the necessary steps to begin deportation proceedings, no court of law is required. Again this is all basic immigration law, that you claim to have 6 years in.There is no such thing as you present it. EVRYBODY is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - including undocumented workers.
Sometimes? LMFAO What you state of the law is your opinion of what you think it means, usually completely out of context as has been shown continuously as inane.My personal opinion sometimes runs afoul of the facts, so I stick with the facts. What I tell you with regard to the law is easily confirmed and documented.
What exactly is wrong with our immigration system, other than the laws aren't being followed? The law does exist, the present administration is failing to enforce the law.IF we had a credible Guest Worker Program, there would be no undocumented foreigners, for the most part. If the people and the government don't do their duty, then employers who hire the undocumented nor the undocumented can be held to a law that does not exist. If you don't want people to enter improperly, then create the proper path.
They can merely apply to return, there is no guarantee that they will be allowed back once deported. What makes you believe that politicians realize illegals have a Right to Liberty in the way you are trying to poorly and out of context, define Liberty?The politicians are already agreeing with the above position 50 percent of the way. If you are going to kick them out and then let them return, the issue is WHY? It's because the politicians realize that the undocumented foreigner has a Right to Liberty. You and I are arguing over limiting your Rights and my Rights in a vain attempt to deny the foreigner HIS Rights.
Same here, so what's the problem?My personal opinion sometimes runs afoul of the facts, so I stick with the facts. What I tell you with regard to the law is easily confirmed and documented.
I tend to agreed here. He stated Uncle Sam wasn't coming for anyone's guns, yet he neglects to mention LW anti-gun efforts to ban and restrict guns over the years.Sometimes? LMFAO What you state of the law is your opinion of what you think it means, usually completely out of context as has been shown continuously as inane.
Private-Sector Rulers Own the Government. Their Sons Will Pay for That.While I wholly disagree with what you're saying, the real deal is that I would fight to the death for your Right to say it.
America was founded upon the principle that unalienable Rights emanate from a higher power. In order to believe such a proposition, the founders did not presume to have to prove it, they merely stated that the truth is self evident.
The anti-immigrant position is rooted in what you're describing and it fairly answers what the OP was after. The Declaration of Independence listed the reasons we separated from Great Britain and the Constitution codified those unalienable Rights into a Bill of Rights.
Unfortunately, when you need your Rights, you are not going to be able to access them, having given all power to the government.
The Second Amendment doesn't protect your right to have a gun. Only your gun protects that right.I tend to agreed here. He stated Uncle Sam wasn't coming for anyone's guns, yet he neglects to mention LW anti-gun efforts to ban and restrict guns over the years.
Agreed. Like all the other rights, they are not limits on citizens; they are limits on government action.The Second Amendment doesn't protect your right to have a gun. Only your gun protects that right.
Illegals are not citizens you are confusing the subject.
You do understand that all your link says is that they have 5th and 6th Due Process (Federal) Protections and 14th Due Process and Equal (State) Protection.Your government would want to have a word with you:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm
I'm just the messenger. I didn't write the freaking law, so don't nobody get their boxers in a bunch.
The U.S. Constitution trumps it all FYI courts do not write laws.Your government would want to have a word with you:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/illegalrights.htm
I'm just the messenger. I didn't write the freaking law, so don't nobody get their boxers in a bunch.
I agree with you in theory; however, in 1803 the United States Supreme Court decided that they (not we, the people) were the final arbiters of what the law is in a case called Marbury v. Madison. In effect, the High Court claimed to be the most powerful branch of government.The U.S. Constitution trumps it all FYI courts do not write laws.
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.
Federalist 51 seems to disagree with you, along with the precedent set by Marbury.I agree with you in theory; however, in 1803 the United States Supreme Court decided that they (not we, the people) were the final arbiters of what the law is in a case called Marbury v. Madison. In effect, the High Court claimed to be the most powerful branch of government.
Justices interpret the law, which is why each party wants the court stacked in their parties favor.In practice NOBODY has ever challenged the Supreme Court's claim. So, the way all this works is that courts interpret the law.
YepIf you don't like the current holdings when you go to court, you can appeal to a higher court. Let's put this on a federal level since we're talking federal law here.
You don't agree with the law, so you challenge it. You may have to break a law just to be able to do so. So, you go to federal court and lose. Your next step is to take your case to a federal appeals court. Whatever the previous decisions interpreting the law will be enforced there. So, you still don't like the answer you get... so you go to the United States Supreme Court. The answer you get there is one that is like saying the buck stops here.
Congress can can take actions to lessen, or even negate, the effect of a court ruling, which is why the 1866 Civil Rights Act and subsequently the 1870 Naturalization Act was passed after the Dred Scott decision.The legislature cannot overturn the United States Supreme Court barring a treaty or a constitutional amendment. The president can't do it; the voters can't do it. If that's all it took, some of the bad laws on the books would be gone.
And failing badly at it.I'm telling you what the law is. I can only tell you what the law says in the real world.
It's not a theory the supreme court does not make laws.I agree with you in theory; however, in 1803 the United States Supreme Court decided that they (not we, the people) were the final arbiters of what the law is in a case called Marbury v. Madison. In effect, the High Court claimed to be the most powerful branch of government.
In practice NOBODY has ever challenged the Supreme Court's claim. So, the way all this works is that courts interpret the law. If you don't like the current holdings when you go to court, you can appeal to a higher court. Let's put this on a federal level since we're talking federal law here.
You don't agree with the law, so you challenge it. You may have to break a law just to be able to do so. So, you go to federal court and lose. Your next step is to take your case to a federal appeals court. Whatever the previous decisions interpreting the law will be enforced there. So, you still don't like the answer you get... so you go to the United States Supreme Court. The answer you get there is one that is like saying the buck stops here.
The legislature cannot overturn the United States Supreme Court barring a treaty or a constitutional amendment. The president can't do it; the voters can't do it. If that's all it took, some of the bad laws on the books would be gone.
I'm telling you what the law is. Politicians can afford to lie to you. They can give you false promises of hope. I can only tell you what the law says in the real world. Having watched many of my friends end up dead, in prison, or working on the opposite side after ignoring sound counsel, I simply refuse to tell you what you want to hear when the costs are so high.
Yes, they do. They legislate from the bench and they even say "we are making new law."It's not a theory the supreme court does not make laws.
You need to cite your inane claim. What you are stating so far is nothing more than your inept opinion.Yes, they do. They legislate from the bench and they even say "we are making new law."
Is it what the founding fathers intended? No. Is it constitutional by your standards or mine? I'm guessing no. But, what I'm telling you is reality. A statute can mean one thing today and the complete polar opposite the very next day. And, nobody, not even Jesus himself, has disputed the Supreme Court's claim to be the final arbiter of what the law is in the 213 years the practice has been going on.