Gingrich ignores Constitution in illegal alien debate, willing to take heat!

11-24-11 | JOHN W K

[muawiyah]

It doesn't really matter ~ at the time the issue in Madison's mind was the slave trade. Later on it could very well have been bringing in Eastern Europeans to live in primitive sod houses on the Prairie while growing wheat for the railroads.

The point is, however, that CONGRESS acted and the question was set aside. But what that means is that because Congress acted in a timely manner, the US government picked up the control of MIGRATION or IMPORTATION of "such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit".

Later amendments related to the abolition of slavery or the circumstances of former slaves are often said to have superseded this clause but they couldn't have since the event changing the clause had occurred years before.

The question on the floor here is where in the Constitution is it clearly provided that the Congress has authority to write legislation regarding immigration ~ and there it is ~ right in the original text but buried under verbiage directed at the slave trade.

The Constitution also failed to say Congress had authority to "defend the borders of the United States" ~ yet they legislation in that regard! See "Implied Powers" and take a good look at powers authorized the United States (individually) in the Treaty of Paris 1783 or there abouts.

[Publius6961]

``I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century,``

The third smartest man in the US can't figure out that the family can't be destroyed unless the parents decide to destroy it, either by creating it illegally or by refusing the option to go back home as a family and doing things the right way if they wish to return.

I think we're more than generous to not require them to pay their own way home.

[SaraJohnson]

Unlike most Rinos, Newt is a real good talker. If he gets in, he will be sticking his fingers in our eyes a lot.

[South40]

Damn straight.

Newt has lost three votes in this household.

N O A M N E S T Y

[JOHN W K]

You bring nothing to the discussion but you unsubstantiated personal opinions. When you are able to substantiate you opinions from the words of those who framed and later ratified the Constitution, post that documentation and we can continue from there. But as of now, I have provided sufficient documentation to support my contentions.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[Cobra64]

Who is your choice?

[muawiyah]

The Federalist Papers are NOT THE FINAL WORD on Original INTENT.

You, yourself, noted that it was PASSED, in part, with a public referendum. To a great degree what those folks understood about what it meant was pretty much public knowledge ~ which, at the time of passage the Federalist Papers simply were not.

There are conflicts between the subtle nuances of the Federalist Papers and common public knowledge at the time. It's simply not sufficient to do what you propose. Yours, is, in fact, an unsubstantiated opinion. That you don't realize that fact is a clarion call for further research on your part into the source material.

[muawiyah]

BTW, the idea that the USA can defend a national border is still not mentioned in the Constitution ~ the existence of the border itself derives from Treaties ~ and the agreed upon background for what a border is derives from the Peace of Westphalia, a document never agreed to by the United States (since that's the one that ended the 30 Years War).

Some might argue it's a right implicit in the Rights of States ~ dating back thousands of years, and some document in ancient Egypt (the first state), or maybe Sumer covers the problem ~ but even if it did those documents could not be translated at the time the USA began defending its borders.

[JOHN W K]

You still bring nothing to the discussion but you unsubstantiated personal opinions. When you are able to substantiate your opinions from the words of those who framed and later ratified the Constitution, post that documentation and we can continue from there. But as of now, I have provided sufficient documentation to support my contentions.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[muawiyah]

Not quite sure what your game is ~ you want QUOTES or what?

How about the CLEAR LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. Why must we go to secondary sources to figure out that "President" means "President" and "Congress" means "Congress"?

[JOHN W K]

You make absolutely no sense. I think your mission is to troll the thread and forum.

[BunnySlippers]

Driving to work this morning, the talk show host said that if conservatives are going to vote for Newt, they are not voting for a conservative.

I will never vote for him.

[muawiyah]

I think you are operating under mistaken notions.

[editor-surveyor]

Desperation?

* ANWR

* Department of Education

* U.N. funding

* NPR/PBS public funding

* Toffler’s “Third Wave”

* AGW / Nancy’s couch

* Amnesty

Yes Newt has been a true desperado, and will continue to be if ever elected to anything again.

[editor-surveyor]

JWK, it is you, the border eraser, and opponent of our constitution, that makes no sense.

Plain language rules; the founders were not obfuscators like the spincter-wipe lawyers of our time.

[jessduntno]

Geez, you forgot getting Obama elected and the last eclipse.

[editor-surveyor]

Geez, wouldn’t it be wonderful to elect an intelligent, Republican ‘Obama’ that could really screw us good!

[JOHN W K]

editor-surveyor wrote:

JWK, it is you, the border eraser, and opponent of our constitution, that makes no sense.

And what do you base that accusation on? Eh?

I still would like to know why Mr. Gingrich, during the debate, chose to show compassion for aliens and the children of aliens here illegally rather than call out the Obama Administration for filing a number of court actions interfering with a number of State’s who dare to exercise their constitutionally recognized reserved power to regulate aliens within their borders. Exactly where does Mr. Gingrich’s loyalty lie? In this case it seems to be in harmony with Obama‘s “humane” immigration policy and quest to defend aliens who are here illegally along with their children.

JWK

Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!