Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

So the US cannot issue green cards?

So anything government powers not mentioned in the Constitution is unconstitutional and therefore illegal? There's no mention of space exploration, so that's illegal, I guess. Federal funding for any kind of R&D must also be illegal. Is disaster relief also illegal?

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

US Constitution:

Source: THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION - We the People

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Dream Act defeated in the Senate: Immigration bill blocked in U.S. Senate | Politics | Reuters

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Contumacious

Correct.

Let's see what Thomas Jefferson - Founding Father and 3rd President - had to say about the subject matter:



"4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "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," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the -- day of July, 1798, intituled "An Act concerning aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force."

zxc

Since it failed to get votes today, will they try to pass the Act again?
When will this be?
Would they make modifications to the Act to make it pass, if so what?

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Didn't feel like reading the excerpt from the Constitution I posted in post 12? Didn't feel like answering my questions about other activities that would be illegal in post 11?

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

I would imagine after the next election, perhaps in 2009, however if Thompson wins the Presidency, then perhaps not.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Contumacious

The Federal authority extends to naturalization only.

Either the Constitution is the Law and fedgov is the one acting illegally or the Constitution has been abolished and the doctrine of "Might Is Right" is the Law Of The Land.

"If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained? The distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers is abolished, if those limits do not confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed are of equal obligation. It is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an ordinary act.


Marbury v. Madison, 1803

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Too bad I'm making a Constitutional argument. Marbury vs Madison refers to powers not granted by the Constitution.

Look up the word naturalize:

naturalization - Definitions from Dictionary.com
Conferring upon aliens the rights and privileges of a citizen. That seems pretty clear.


WEB

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Contumacious

My point precisely.

The right to naturalize is an issue AFTER AFTER AFTER the individual applies for naturalization. The federal government can not force an individual to apply for naturalization.


"Mr. Chief Justice TANEY delivered the opinion of the court.

In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the [60 U.S. 393, 406] rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.



U.S. Supreme Court
DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)