You keep looking in the WRONG places.
Try THIS: http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt
Point to the Article, Section and Clause or Amendment.
[do remember that naturalization deals with Citizenship and NOT immigration]
Regard$,
--MJ
The Constitution does not authorize the federal government to control immigration. Nor does it say anything about illegal aliens. ... Sadly, lawmakers have repeatedly interpreted this silence as license for ill-conceived legislation. Congress began barring entry to the nation in 1875 with prostitutes and convicts. Soon, all sorts of people fell short of congressional glory: ex-convicts in 1882, along with Chinese citizens, lunatics, and idiots. Paupers, polygamists, and people suffering from infectious diseases or insanity made the list in 1891, while the illiterate were banned in 1917. -- Becky Akers
At 10:49 AM 5/3/2011, you wrote:
I just don't know what to say, other than this:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/8/usc_sup_01_8_10_12_20_II_30_IV.html
On May 3, 10:42 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Greg, The fed is not given the right to control immigration, just to see
> that migration "between the states" is unfettered, but the States are.....
> they simply may not control movements at "Interstate" crossings... there is
> no limit placed at ports of foreign entry for the states.
>
> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 8:37 AM, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>
>
> > Want better schools ?? move east
> > -------------------------
>
> > East of me is the ocean.
>
> > Point taken, and I have made the same point RE Dept of Education is
> > illegal BECAUSE of the very amendment you cite.
>
> > But on one hand, MJ claims, the US govt has no power over immigration,
> > because its not explicit in the constitution (Naturalization,
> > schmation), and that the FDA is illegal, yet then goes on to purport
> > that no, explicit constitutional authority is not requisite.
>
> > Allllllllllllllllll-righty then!
>
> > On May 3, 10:27 am, Mark <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Greg,
>
> > > ALL things not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as the
> > > responsibility of the Federal Government was to be left to the States to
> > > each deal with separately.
>
> > > What most people do not, or refuse, to see is that the USA was always
> > meant
> > > to be a union of 50 separate and sovereign states. Each very distinct and
> > > offering to its citizens that which suited its specific citizens most.
> > There
> > > was never an intension of "One law for all".
>
> > > Citizens (and only citizens of the several states) were to be allowed to
> > > travel freely between the states, There was to be no import/export tax
> > > between the states only at ports handling foreign trade ...(the biggest
> > > failure of the Articles of Confederation, and the main reason for the new
> > > Constitution, and Lincolns excuse for Ft. Sumter...tax collection). Only
> > the
> > > President is elected by all and only he was meant to be responsible at
> > > large. It is the responsibility of Congressmen to represent their
> > > constituency only (pork was just fine as deals had to be made that would
> > get
> > > enough votes...there was very little Federal money to go around),
> > Senators
> > > were originally designed to represent the needs of their state only under
> > > the guiding hand of each governor. The Feds were responsible for only a
> > VERY
> > > LIMITED military (basically the "officer corps") with the "standing army"
> > > made up ENTIRELY of the forces supplied by the states (thus the need to
> > > "Declare War" only by Congress assembled as their constituents were to be
> > > "called up")
>
> > > Laws about food safety, drugs, taxes, social welfare, medical, schools,
> > etc.
> > > are the absolute responsibility of each separate state ..... separately.
> > > This is what would make different states attractive to different people
> > and
> > > cause migration from one to another of both people and industry. States
> > were
> > > allowed to sue one another over (literally) bad things flowing
> > > downstream...this was the interstate control factor... the federal
> > courts.
>
> > > That these things are now dealt with by the Feds is indeed a usurpation
> > of
> > > and by the Feds.
>
> > > Want better schools ?? move east, The Feds were never meant to make
> > things
> > > equal... the states were never meant to be equal, all laws were never
> > meant
> > > to be equal....
>
> > > On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 6:34 AM, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > Dockside Greeters & Crew (Boston Harbor)
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Date: 2011-04-28, 6:55PM EDT
> > > > Reply to: job-tyes2-2351913...@craigslist.org [Errors when replying to
> > > > ads?]
>
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > > GREAT SUMMER JOBS!! Work outside or in our ticket booth on Long Wharf
> > > > or on one of the Boston Harbor Islands as a Dockside Assistant or
> > > > Guest Services agent for Boston's Best Cruises. We need happy,
> > > > energetic, outgoing people to provide information and assistance to
> > > > the public and passengers boarding our vessels for the only official
> > > > New England Aquarium Whale Watch, Boston Harbor Island Cruises, our
> > > > Boston Harbor Tour, the Salem Ferry, and the Harbor Express Commuter
> > > > boats. We are also looking for Cruise Directors and Narrators to work
> > > > onboard several vessels for additional compensation. Join our crew and
> > > > enjoy the excitement and fun interacting with the public, guiding
> > > > passengers to our boats, and generally supporting Boston's finest
> > > > fleet of passenger vessels. You can help us deliver an outstanding
> > > > recreational experience in and around Boston Harbor and the Boston
> > > > Harbor Islands. More than a dozen full time and part time jobs still
> > > > available right now through Labor Day.
>
> > > > Location: Boston Harbor
>
> > > > On May 2, 8:49 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > You're being silly.
> > > > > Where in the constitution does it say government has the power
> > > > toregulatefood and drugs?
> > > > > Nowhere ... yet ANOTHER usurpation.The very reason for the US Code
> > (laws)
> > > > is to pick up where the
> > > > > constitution leaves off, AND to limit where it doesn't
> > > > > ROTFLMAO!
> > > > > Jeffrey Tucker, Ditch the PlannersNo one so much as suggested such a
> > > > thing as the US Code in the first hundred years after the US
> > Constitution
> > > > was enacted. It would have been only a little longer than the
> > Constitution
> > > > itself. The first attempt to create such a compilation of laws occurred
> > in
> > > > 1878 but it languished because no one felt the need to update it. Then
> > in
> > > > 1926, in the midst of Prohibition when the feds became deeply involved
> > in
> > > > regulating the details of life, Congress made the thing come into
> > existence.
> > > > It is printed every six years.An institution was born, though most
> > people
> > > > know nothing of it. The next printing will come out in 2012, but the
> > 2006
> > > > with annotations was 356 thousand-plus-page volumes that cover every
> > aspect
> > > > of life as we know it. The next one will add many new sections and
> > probably
> > > > more than 100,000 pages.This is America's central plan -- or
> > ownGosplan, so
> > > > to speak -- and it is as elaborate and detailed as any set of laws that
> > have
> > > > ever governed any society in the history of the world. Much of this
> > central
> > > > plan is absorbed into our daily lives in ways that we don't notice or
> > aren't
> > > > aware of. This is supplemented by an additional layer of state and
> > local
> > > > regulations that have been pushed on these governments by higher
> > government
> > > > or grew up from within to adapt the central-planning ethos to the
> > particular
> > > > circumstances of place and time. The effect is the same: life amidst an
> > > > impossibly tangled legal thicket that grows more elaborate and complex
> > by
> > > > the day.It defies human comprehension but it is not without human
> > effect.
> > > > Every aspect of our lives is subjected to it from birth to death. Every
> > > > product we buy, every service we use, every decision we make is
> > filtered
> > > > through this morass. You can try this on your own by going
> > > > togpoaccess.govand typing in anything from chicken stock to funerals,
> > and
> > > > observe the state at work, managing the whole of life as we know it in
> > the
> > > > most minute detail one can imagine. Think of anything and search it,
> > and
> > > > then see if you think we enjoy "free enterprise."Regard$,
> > > > > --MJ"It is hard for the plain people to think about a thing, but easy
> > for
> > > > them to feel. Error, to hold their attention, must be visualized as a
> > > > villain, and the villain must proceed swiftly to his inevitable
> > retribution.
> > > > They can understand that process; it is simple, usual, satisfying; it
> > > > squares with their primitive conception of justice as a form of
> > revenge….
> > > > [The average reader] is not at all responsive to purely intellectual
> > > > argument, even when its theme is his own ultimate benefit…. But he is
> > very
> > > > responsive to emotional suggestion, particularly when it is crudely and
> > > > violently made, and it is to this weakness that the newspapers must
> > ever
> > > > address their endeavors. In brief, they must try to arouse his horror,
> > or
> > > > indignation, or pity, or simply his lust for slaughter. Once they have
> > done
> > > > that, they have him safely by the nose. He will follow blindly until
> > his
> > > > emotion wears out. He will be ready to believe anything, however
> > absurd, so
> > > > long as he is in his state of psychic tumescence." -- H. L. MenckenOn
> > Apr
> > > > 30, 3:50 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> > > > > > That Government has AGAIN usurped Power nowhere provided it
> > > > notwithstanding, your claim makes no sense.
> > > > > > What about all those seeking to exercise their right to migrate who
> > > > have ZERO interest in Naturalization? Oh well.
> > > > > > Here is the Constitution:
> > > > http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txtNowhereisCongress
> > empowered
> > > > to make any laws/rules or otherwise concerning Immigration.
> > > > > > It is a necessity for the Nanny State to infringe rather than
> > secure
> > > > this right which is why we see this usurpation occurring at the outset
> > of
> > > > the (unconstitutional) Nanny State.
> > > > > > Regard$,
> > > > > > --MJ"Bryan Caplan has a damn good argument against the welfare
> > state:
> > > > Its existence will always be raised as a reason why free immigration
> > cannot
> > > > be permitted. Thus the theory of human rights is set against itself.
> > The
> > > > winner is power." -- Sheldon RichmanAt 12:26 PM 4/30/2011, you wrote:Oh
> > for
> > > > christ's sake MJ, controlling how people can become citizens
> > > > > > once they get here certainly includes whether or not then can get
> > > > > > here, and what we can do when they do.
> > > > > > Here is the US Code, as constitutionally enacted by Congress.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment