Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Steve,

Personally congressional solutions to anything.....history has shown me tha “comprehensive”tends to mean that Congress is telling voters “we keep talking about it, we gather votes on it, but we never actually solve it”!

I would be happier at this point with a series of small step, incremental changes to laws that will, eventually, result in a stronger immigration plan for America. I am for rigid border security, NO adult who crossed here illegally gets citizenship and voting rights but they are not sent back, and any who came illegally as children can get in line with the rest of the world to try to gain citizenship, and all immigrants must assimilate.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

The sad part is that you progressives really think it’s okay for a court to decide the constitution is a living, changing document to be determined by appointed judges.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

There is NO news source today that is not distorted by their own “truths”!

SteveR Loc: Michigan

That's like putting all 11 men on defense on the line of scrimmage. The problem is that if the runner breaks through, or the qb completes a pass, it's a TD. According to your plan, anybody who makes it over the border would be allowed to stay. Apparently the problem in Reagan's time is that amnesty was granted without securing the borders. If it had been we wouldn't have the problem we have now.

hondo812 Loc: Massachusetts

So, demoted.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

No!

Everything needs a start point, and we both know NOTHING will be enacted if it sends people back that have been here more than x years. So, we need a real solution that can be enacted.

So, SEAL the border, use that as seminal event one, and move forward.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

You sounded like you didn't want to send anybody back that was already here. I agree, though, that people who have been her 30 years and have established lives shouldn't be at risk. The question is.....who should be and who shouldn't be and Congress needs to decide that but they're sittin' on their hands.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Even sadder is the fact that you actually believe that.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

You're on the distorted side to think that it is.
The Constitution is the written law. It is not to be interpreted. It is used to determine whether other laws created by legislatures are legal.
Any judge who sees fit to change what the Constitution states to justify another law is not fit to be a judge.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

The constitution is vague on many issues. For example, it does not say the SCOTUS has the authority to decides whether a law is constitutional. It was designed to be the final appeals court but does not say they can overturn a law. The court gave itself that authority in "Madison vs Marbury". They only have the constitutional authority to determine if some act complies with the law. This was certainly unworkable hence we have allowed it to work the way it does. It is a living document by necessity since it like other things produced be humans, is not perfect. This is not the only area of the constitution that we do by adhere to, there are many others.

The 4th and 5th amendment both address searches and the taking of property. Police routinely take cell phones and search them without a warrant. Some say this is OK in order to prove if a crime has been committed. This is another case where we don't adhere to the constitution and which makes it a living document again.

The constitution does not say there are to be 9 Supreme Court judges....but that is what we seem to think is mandatory.

When it comes to immigration, the constitution does not say non-citizens can't stay here. Other laws say that. These laws could be changed as there is no constitutional basis for these laws. One thing the constitution does say, and many arguing for deportation seem to ignore, is that, anyone born in this country is a citizen of the US. So what do you do with "anchor babies"? I have not seen that discussed.

Your comment that, "The Constitution is the law that mandates how things are supposed to be.[/quote]", is simplistic and has been found to be unworkable. Jefferson thought the constitution would only last a generation or two. It has lasted much longer as we have made subtle changes to it and have ignored parts of it.

mwalsh Loc: Houston

Well Bear does you silly ninny! I mean, in his spare time, when he isn't acting as senior advisor to SCOTUS!

mwalsh Loc: Houston

If you illuminate the back side of the original document with green iridium light, the handshakes, secret phrases, salutes, and hand signs are all disclosed. The founders utilized a rare 18th century 3D inking process.

BigBear Loc: Northern CT

First off, Congress was given the power to setup the courts as deemed appropriate including the number of members.
The primary role of the SC is to protect the rights of the citizens, which includes ruling against any laws that violate those rights.
The SC is also responsible for maintaining the boundaries of each branch as dictated by the Constitution.
It is also required to rule on specific laws as they are written and not based on perceived intent.
Every part of the Constitution is vital for maintaining law and order. Ignoring any part of it no different than ignoring all of it and is totally unacceptable.

Immigration is strictly a problem of Congress as it is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Constitutionally, just because someone is born here by non-citizens does not automatically make them a citizen as they are subjects of the country where the parents came from.

Frosty Loc: Minnesota

*******
1. Where in the constitution does it day this?
"The SC is also responsible for maintaining the boundaries of each branch as dictated by the Constitution."

2. This must be your interpretation.
"It is also required to rule on specific laws as they are written and not based on perceived intent."
3. As I said, the Supreme Court is an appellate court except where Article 3. Sec. 2. ( see below) says it has original jurisdiction.

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases? before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

4. This is incorrect: "Immigration is strictly a problem of Congress as it is not mentioned in the Constitution."

Since immigration is not mention in the constitution it is up to to individual states according to the 10th amendment, which reads as follows: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

This would be clumsy and unworkable.....so we just ignore it, contrary to what you said...... "Ignoring any part of it no different than ignoring all of it and is totally unacceptable."

The constitution does mention naturalization but does not mention immigration. Article 1. Sec. 8 says congress shall, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, ".

5. Lastly. I have no idea where you got this idea........"Constitutionally, just because someone is born here by non-citizens does not automatically make them a citizen as they are subjects of the country where the parents came from.[/quote" . Anyone born in the US is a US citizen. The14th amendment says:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. This would be clumsy and unworkable.....so we just ignore it, contrary to what you said...... "Ignoring any part of it no different than ignoring all of it and is totally unacceptable."

Pay particular attention to the last sentence!!!!!

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

And you believe it should just exist for all of us to interpret to what we conceive of as our own best interest? How does that work when you and I meet in court, each interpreting it differently? Or do you believe we should settle it ourselves and whoever survives wins?