Replies

The intent of the first ten amendments is not to grant a list of rights - they are already pre-existent per the Declaration of Independence. They are a sampling of rights the feds are not to violate as confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Aliens did not delegate the powers to the feds via the Constitution. "We the People" did via the States. Aliens are not under the purview of the Constitution. They are like U.S. territories, under federal authority but outside the purview of the Constitution.

So, if a right is explicitly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights but not a pre-existing right, it is not actually protected by the Bill of Rights? That makes no sense.

Aliens are under the purview of the Constitution if the States say they are when they ratified the Constitution. They did so here by using the term "person" instead of citizen.

"ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States" U.S. Const., Art I, Sec. 1.

The Constitution trumps whatever uncited portion of Federalist 78 you are referring.

However, Federalist 78 does say, "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."

An invalid law or unconstitutional decision may be ignored by any other branch of government and/or the sovereign states. However, good faith demands they give a reasoned constitutional basis for their rejection of such federal acts.

Determining whether a law conflicts with the Constitution is a judicial function, not a legislative one.

Hamilton, in Fed. 78, was describing the judiciary's power to declare a legislative act void as unconstitutional.

A more sophisticated version of your view of the Constitution was advanced long ago in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. It is problematic because it undermines both federalism and separation of powers.

Again, you seem to want to recognize in the President unchecked power to ignore the other branches of government. Obama would have loved that power. I'm glad he didn't have it. I think violent resistance would be warranted against any President who claimed such a power.

18 U.S. Code § 16 is not a "delegation of power", but a legislative act. This was never argued in the case and the whole issue of vagueness is a non-sequitur concerning Dimaya (And any other immigrant with permanent resident status that commits a violent crime).

United States Sentencing Commission's Guidelines Manual pointed out that residential burglary is a crime of violence. United States v. Pinto, 875 F. 2d 143, 144 (CA7 1989) along with Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U. S. 1 (2004), etc... affirmed this designation.

This guy with permanent legal residence, non-citizen, is under privileges, not rights in terms of his immigration status. Dimaya was convicted 2 times of first-degree residential burglary (Due process established in his case) and the government had every right to strip Dimaya of his privileges and deport this criminal. This was a terrible decision by the Court.

All rights listed in the first ten amendments ARE pre-existing rights.

Read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

Determining whether a law conflicts with the Constitution is EVERYONE’s job. The Constitution does not say otherwise. Any Branch or State may validly reject an unconstitutional act of any other branch but good faith requires notification with a rational constitution-based explanation. This is not as difficult as you make it out to be.

For example, Roe v. Wade. There is NO constitutional basis for that decision whatsoever. It would not be hard for the states and the executive and legislative branch reject the decision with notification as to why. The best way would be for Congress to affirm states rights in the matter of abortion. But they won’t, so the states and executive branch must act accordingly, again with notification.

You forget that the ONLY legitimate authority of the feds, whether SCOTUS, POTUS, or Congress, is the Constitution. The feds have NO other basis of authority. So if the feds commit an especially clearly unconstitutional act, they have strayed beyond their legitimate power and MUST be ignored. Unconstitutional federal acts are acts of tyranny and it is the right and DUTY of every free man to reject and defeat tyranny.

And regardless of the constitutionality of the decision, the Constitution does NOT give SCOTUS the power to make national law. Even if their decision is constitutional, it reaches only to the parties of the case.

“ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States” U.S. Const., Art I, Sec. 1.