Posted on 06/28/2010 6:01:30 PM PDT by Star Traveler
Star...can you clarify this a little more in laymans language...the issue of immigration and illegal aliens is confusing this for me...one of those Dah days....Thanks.
Well, I'm just the layman as you are ... :-) ... but let me venture a few comments on it, anyway ...
"Immigration" -- a generic term that covers the entire subject of legal and illegal modes of getting into this country; both kinds happen and both kinds are "immigration", but one kind is not legal.
"Illegal alien" -- the individual who falls under the "illegal kind of immigration"
So, the law is about "immigration" -- but it addresses the "illegal kind", specifically.
...after Kagan has taken her SCOTUS seat...........
Thank you....I often see that demo-rats use immigration law to soft sell the actual illegals. They do so with everything! You have to be so dang careful how you discern their language. They are never straight forward in their presentations on any issue.
It’s like when they state something was made known to the public in the Times....so you look and find a two sentence spread three paragraphs down, hidden in a section without tile reference to that content...let alone the article itself having to do with the issue....deception is their game and they know the plays.
She should recuse herself. The law involves her people so she cannot be impartial.
The Arizona employer sanctions law had been challenged by the Chamber of Commerce business group, the American Civil Liberties Union, immigration groups and others. A federal judge and then a U.S. appeals court upheld the law.
I would surmise that it is highly unlikely that the USSC would overturn this case considering that both the original judge and the appellate court are in agreement regarding the law's constitutionality.
I would surmise that it is highly unlikely that the USSC would overturn this case considering that both the original judge and the appellate court are in agreement regarding the law's constitutionality.
Then..., if that's the case, all the Supreme Court needed to do was to refuse to take the case ... end of story ... :-)
I wonder why the USSC would agree to even hear the case if there were not some questions?
No, besides the new one has already been challenged by multiple groups and will be heard by the bozos in the 9th circus court before being appealed.
I'm pretty sure that the law was written in accordance with the provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 regarding punitive sanctions against employing illegals ...
This case is no different than the current AZ immigration law controversy - a state law that mandates the enforcement of a federal law that is already on the books ...
Possibly to send a message to Obama? His lawsuit is a stupid exercise in futility, IMHO.
Thanks for the ping; post; thread. Very interesting. Americans and America’s robed mullahs will be very busy from here on out.
And the Supreme Court will hear the challenge to nationalized heath care when??... 2020?
And the Supreme Court will hear the challenge to nationalized heath care when??... 2020?
Well, in answer to that... let me ask, "What case are they supposed to hear at the Supreme Court?" ...
You give me that answer and I'll have a pretty good idea of a time-table ... :-)
I thought there was something on the “rocket docket.”
In the McDonald v. Chicago Second Amendment case that the Supreme Court just issued its ruling on, both the lower court and the appeals court ruled against McDonald.
Bring it. The sooner the better. Arizona can win both cases.
....and then there’s Article IV, Section 4 of our Constitution to back up the lower court’s decisions.
Isn't the case brought to one judge and they convince the Court to take the case? If that's true it would be interesting to find out which judge convinced the Court to hear the case.
I don't have the exact dates and numbers that were quoted by the commenter but the above is close to what was said.
The SC just upheld the RKBA. The groundwork for this was the Heller v District of Columbia case. Part of the evidence in Heller case was from the View of the Constitution by George Tucker. Written in 1803, this was part of a larger work put in pamphlet form and distributed at the request of Congress to the public at large in order to explain the newly created Constitution to the people.
Here's what Tucker said about the federal government's authority concerning naturalization-
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shalt have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
Volume 1 — Appendix, Note D, [Section 9 — Powers of Congress (cont.)]
------
If the SC insists on continuing the expansion of illegitimate federal power to control every person and State in the country.......the People will be just about out of options.
However true, therefore, it may be, that the judicial department is, in all questions submitted to it by the forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, this resort must necessarily be deemed the last in relation to the authorities of the other departments of the government; not in relation to the rights of the parties to the constitutional compact, from which the judicial, as well as the other departments, hold their delegated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation of judicial power would annul the authority delegating it; and the concurrence of this department with the others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the very Constitution which all were instituted to preserve.
James Madison, Report on the Virginia Resolutions
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.