Posted on 03/25/2008 9:43:10 AM PDT by indcons
“If they commit a crime by entering a country illegally, I’d say that they forfeit all rights.”
Well, get back to me when you talk about it with God and tell him you’ve decided his “unalienables” are really alienable.
The irony is that the illegals want to have it both ways: U.S. and state government benefits with protection from their home government. And the fact that our elected officials coddle these border-straddlers is repugnant, to say the least.
And, it appears that some are intent on defending his every action, no matter what as well...
How can you be so sure that the Bushes will be pleased over this? It’s not good to assume anything about anyone - most especially a politician! And, at the end of the day that is what Bush is - a politician!
When he’s right I will defend him, when he’s wrong (as is the case here) I will definitely question him, and yes even criticize those decisions and stances (i.e. Illegal Amnesty, and the $23 Million dollar wall we are going to help Egypt build - instead of building our own!).
(Of course, at the end of the day I STILL pray for President Bush & his family, as he IS our President! But, then I pray for ALL our leaders whether R or D, and always will).
This guy entered the country illegally, therefore forgoing any normal protections such as visas and diplomatic immunity.
This guy forfeited his God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness when he deprived two girls - through rape and murder - those same rights.
Hope that clears it up for you Bob.
“Imagine what will happen if McCain is not elected”
I wouldn’t be so quick to let McCain carry our water.
If he selects judges who think like he does, we’re in trouble.
When the natural born latinamerican says "we", I wonder who he is referring to. Too bad the Founders didn't think to put a safeguard in the Constitution against this sort of latinamerican-invasion-leading character, who was born in latinamerica, away from the White House...
The delegates need to reject McCain based on his ineligibility for the presidency, if not for his liberalism. It's time for a petition.
These days, I pray that God protect us from President Bush...and from most of our nation's leaders.
This issue goes far beyond getting one in on the illegals, it imperils every American who travels abroad and subjects them to the depravity of every corrupt local official or policeman in about 80% of the worlds second and third world.
The myopia and short sightedness of some conservatives can be truly astounding at times.
Score one for the home team!!
At one time he was against the World Court.
“What has that to do with this ruling?”
Everything. Apparently you are not familiar with the case.
I understand... So many things going on right now, and almost none of it good. THIS ruling however, gives me a LITTLE renewed hope (and it’s REAL hope - not the Obama kind! LOL).
Maybe there's hope after all. Senor Jorge Boosh is probably apologizing to Mexican President Calderon as we speak. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the World Court.
So President Bush violated the Constitution in order to enforce it. Did you get dizzy spinning that much?
This isn't about whether the guy should be juiced, he's a pig and I'll pull the lever myself, it's about whether a foreigner in another country who has been arrested has the right to meet with their consular or embassy officials.
For the SC, this may have been an issue of whether this law is applicable since it was never codified into federal law. But if someone asserts the feds have no jurisdiction over aliens, then you'll have to throw out the treaties the US gubmint has with other nations regarding immunity for ambassadors and other certain embassy officials.
Some here would argue that would be a good thing but in reality it imperils every US ambassador or high ranking embassy official in 3/4 of the stinking rat holes around the world.
Hence my 'illegal entry' qualifier. Had he gone through proper channels, then this man should have access to the council of his own country. But he didn't.
Because I don't see our own ambassadors hoofing it over the border to another country.
I thought of that Bob, but as the laws stand TODAY, HERE AND NOW - the President is not allowed to overstep his bounds and proceed to tell individual states what they can and can’t do about things that are DEFINITELY not within his powers as a President.
If there is a problem here, it’s laws that need to be passed for these folks. We can’t stand for politicians (or justices, esp. on the Supreme Court) who do not understand ALL of the Constitution (not just the parts that are agreeable to them and the rest of the world).
If Bush truly wanted to make a case for humanity’s sake, then he should be pushing for a new LAW that supercedes the state’s rights in these regards (dealing with foreign nationals and others when it comes to crime). He KNOWS the law and can’t decide to enforce the ones he likes, and NOT enforce others!
That is what’s at the heart of the whole illegal immigration issue with those of us who are “stuck” on it. Our politicians continually pick and choose parts of the Constitution to highlight and ignore depending on the laws they are trying to pass. (I.E. Kind of like people getting upset about the illegal warrantless “voluntary” searches proposed in Boston and DC, but not minding when it’s done in the name of drugs...).
The point remains — it is our Constitution, and these Justices were COMPLETELY right in their decision as it is based on the LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS! Even McCain, Bush, Kennedy and Graham realized that the law would need to change before they could grant amnesty to those who had already broken our laws.
I agree that every human being deserves a fair trial in court, so let’s work on changing the laws then if they are wrong, instead of bellyaching that our Supreme Court actually upheld the Constitution (after all, that IS their job, isn’t it???).
Praise be!!!
Article II, Section 3: "..,he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,..."
Article VI:"...;and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Article II, Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;..."
So the president has to enforce the laws, treaties are binding laws, but the courts have the right to decide what the laws and treaties mean.
maybe
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.