Posted on 07/08/2017 2:32:40 PM PDT by Jim W N
No. These are wrong. Let them come here for treatment on their dime, but no citizenship or residency. No lottery for parents with sick kid, our citizenship is not so cheap.
I agree with you 100%.
I chose to respond to an idiot. Go away.
A socialist argument by many who have surrendered to unconstitutional socialism in the U.S.
Time to KICK socialism OUT of America and let those seeking Life and Liberty IN.
This kind of high profile case, now even for a foreign national, isn’t really good national stewardship on the part of these GOP congressmen.
If they personally want to fund further care for a profoundly brain damaged baby in another first-world country, that’s their business. But they shouldn’t be enacting legislation to get the US government and US taxpayers involved.
Save the drama for your mama. We’re all still here.
They have $2 Million and still rising...
We need to dismantle unconstitutional socialism in the U.S. and it wouldn’t be a taxpayer issue. I say force the issue and maybe save a life.
You’re the one who made the idiotic comment that this is a bill of attainder dork nothing to back it up. What a waste.
You’ve done your best, obviously, to elevate the level of discourse. Keep trying. If you think my opinion is idiotic, fine. But I’ve expressed an opinion. And like noses, everyone has one.
How is this a bill of attainder, Mr. Dork?
Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution states, “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
According to William Rehnquist, “A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.” In U.S. v. Brown, the ruling was as follows: "The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." (U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965)).
Now, people are making the case that the Schaivo Legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President is unconstitutional based on this clause. I am still struggling with whether this clause pertains specifically to criminal acts, which should be relegated to the judiciary, or whether it is applied to ALL legislation directed at a specific person. James Madison stated the following, "Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." (Federalist Number 44, 1788).
Madison's statement seems to imply that it applies to ALL legislation directed at a specific individual, while Rehnquist and the Brown decision point to "trial and punishment by legislature."
This is the part where you provide a cogent, reasoned response explaining why you disagree with Madison. You do know James Madison is, I presume.
Your smugness and condescension aside, at least you filled in your otherwise empty assertion with some rationale. Whether the rationale stands the test of sound constitutional-based reasoning, that being applying the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended, is another question. Most SCOTUS decisions since 1900 do not stand such test. Why all the histrionics to get to to support your assertion I don’t know.
On the face, it would appear Rehnquist is trying to redefine the original meaning of “bill of attainder” as US vs Brown was a decision unsupported by the Constitution.
Madison’s statement revolves around “cases affecting personal rights” which appears to be more in line with the original (and continuing) meaning of bill of attainder.
Notwithstanding Rehnquist’s application in a deeply flawed decision, “bill of attainder” is a legal term of art which this act does not appear to be.
Their hearts are in the right place - their brains are not -— especially since they took oaths to uphold the Constitution, not make us the world’s welfare monitor. Public pressure is all they should engage in.
How is this not constitutional?
Cherry picking non-residents for what comes down to welfare reasons, for instant citizenship - how is it constitutional for the Congress to write/pass specific bills for individuals - kind of throws our whole system of laws that apply to everyone under the bus when they start writing their own little loopholes on a case-by-case basis.
I dunno. Bills of Attainder apply to US citizens. These are foreign nationals we are talking about. It is a weird legal thing....
That’s not particularly unusual or unconstitutional. Congress usually passes a couple of hundred laws a year that grant a federal court jurisdiction on a matter to specific people. That’s not unconstitutional or extra constitutional, as the power to grant jurisdiction to federal courts is explicit in the constitution and has a long history.
How pray tell is it a violation of Congressional legislative power to grant permanent residence to somebody for the purpose of saving a life? Seems to me there has been legislation in the past for certain individuals, war heroes for instance, who received special legislative recognition and status.
I see no untoward or unconstitutional expansion for federal powers here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.