They Are Vital To our Economy...Not

Quote from dddooo:

You mean the average salary in this country will be the same as the average salary in China or Mexico - $0.50hr so it won't make sense for them to come here any more? You're right, that's exactly what's going to happen as a result of free market, free trade and open border policies, I just don's see turning the US into a third-world country as a good thing.
More...

Not sure if it's a good thing, but it's fair, and I say let the invisible hand take care of the outcome. It can't be wrong.
 
Quote from kjkent1:

The above statement is simply wrong. Find a different object of your ire.

Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution, States cannot discriminate against persons on the basis of their non-resident status, and illegal immigrants are non-residents. The federal government can discriminate, because the Privileges and Immunities Clause, by its express language only applies to the States.

In order for Prop 187 to have been constitutional, it would have also been necessary to amend the U.S. Constitution to define a "citizen" of a State, as a person who is also a "citizen" of the United States. Because, the common law definition of a State citizen, well-established for over 100 years, is: a person who resides in a state with the intention to remain therein permanently.

So, any judge, liberal, conservative or in between, while recognizing that the federal government is free to deport an illegal immigrant at any time for lack of U.S. citizenship status, would be constrained by the U.S. Constitution to instruct State officials to give the immigrant equal treatment to other State citizens, if the immigrant states his/her intention to remain in the State permanently.

That's just the way it is -- so, don't go blaming it on a liberal judiciary, because the judges who made this particular set of rules were likely all dead before you were born -- and they were all almost certainly more conservative than you will ever be.
More...

If it was such a slam dunk, why didn't Gray Davis appeal it to the liberal 9th Circuit and on to the Supreme court? The answer is obvious, they were afraid they would win and Prop 187 would have been upheld.
 
I think I found the object of my ire, because only an epidemic of liberal attorneys and judges pervert Law and precedent so that any Constitutional amendment and clause can mean just about anything. So, of course they got away with equating Congress’ Bill of Rights extension to the States to any individual residing in a state having the "right" for state ENTITLEMENTS. Lol. What bullshit; just as much as “States cannot discriminate against persons on the basis of their non-resident status.” We are talking about access to state service and monetary entitlements, not Congress’ Bill of Rights. What does the right for state entitlements have anything to do with the privilege or immunity clause in the 14th Amendment?

No wonder Latino ethnocentrics and Mexican nationalists are trying hard to ride the coat tails of the Civil Rights movements: They take advantage of a liberal lopsided legal system to pervert legal precedent created from original post Civil War civil rights laws designed to protect African American citizens from the wrath of States, and expand it to illegal alien squatters jacking themselves in for State entitlements. Sheesh. They make themselves out like victims of racism, like blacks in the Jim Crow South --because such rhetoric is persuasive to a glut of liberal attorneys and judges.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws "

The first part is irrelevant because they are not citizens of the U.S. It's the second part that has been corrupted by liberal legal scholars. How can it mean that individuals residing in a State have the right for state monetary welfare and other state services paid for by state legal citizens? How can people make such a ridiculous legal leap? Because there are too many liberal attorneys and judges in the system, who have already screwed up other interpretations, like the meaning of "property," and "equal protection of the laws."

And since the Law is already corrupted with ridiculous precedent, we may as well have the Feds define what a “citizen” is in the states, as you suggest.
Quote from kjkent1:

The above statement is simply wrong. Find a different object of your ire.

Under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the U.S. Constitution, States cannot discriminate against persons on the basis of their non-resident status, and illegal immigrants are non-residents. The federal government can discriminate, because the Privileges and Immunities Clause, by its express language only applies to the States.

In order for Prop 187 to have been constitutional, it would have also been necessary to amend the U.S. Constitution to define a "citizen" of a State, as a person who is also a "citizen" of the United States. Because, the common law definition of a State citizen, well-established for over 100 years, is: a person who resides in a state with the intention to remain therein permanently.

So, any judge, liberal, conservative or in between, while recognizing that the federal government is free to deport an illegal immigrant at any time for lack of U.S. citizenship status, would be constrained by the U.S. Constitution to instruct State officials to give the immigrant equal treatment to other State citizens, if the immigrant states his/her intention to remain in the State permanently.

That's just the way it is -- so, don't go blaming it on a liberal judiciary, because the judges who made this particular set of rules were likely all dead before you were born -- and they were all almost certainly more conservative than you will ever be.
More...
 
Kj is that a strict construction of the constitution you just argued.
What about doing justice for the litigants.

Why shoud the judge even be constrained by such a narrow reading of the constitution when a judge could do justice for the majority.

Perhaps the court should be pragmatic.

just having a little fun here.

A pragmatic judge would realize there is a difference between a "non resident" of a particular state (but legally in the u.s. or the resident of another state). Consequently a pragmatic judge would not be artifically constrained by your "forced" reading of the privileges and immunities clause.
 
Oh, yeah sure.

The Liberals are all to blame:

<img src=http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/04/bushflag.jpg>

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/04/04/bush-waves-mexican-flag/

Quote from Sam123:

I think I found the object of my ire, because only an epidemic of liberal attorneys and judges pervert Law and precedent so that any Constitutional amendment and clause can mean just about anything. So, of course they got away with equating Congress’ Bill of Rights extension to the States to any individual residing in a state having the "right" for state ENTITLEMENTS. Lol. What bullshit; just as much as “States cannot discriminate against persons on the basis of their non-resident status.” We are talking about access to state service and monetary entitlements, not Congress’ Bill of Rights. What does the right for state entitlements have anything to do with the privilege or immunity clause in the 14th Amendment?

No wonder Latino ethnocentrics and Mexican nationalists are trying hard to ride the coat tails of the Civil Rights movements: They take advantage of a liberal lopsided legal system to pervert legal precedent created from original post Civil War civil rights laws designed to protect African American citizens from the wrath of States, and expand it to illegal alien squatters jacking themselves in for State entitlements. Sheesh. They make themselves out like victims of racism, like blacks in the Jim Crow South --because such rhetoric is persuasive to a glut of liberal attorneys and judges.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws "

The first part is irrelevant because they are not citizens of the U.S. It's the second part that has been corrupted by liberal legal scholars. How can it mean that individuals residing in a State have the right for state monetary welfare and other state services paid for by state legal citizens? How can people make such a ridiculous legal leap? Because there are too many liberal attorneys and judges in the system, who have already screwed up other interpretations, like the meaning of "property," and "equal protection of the laws."

And since the Law is already corrupted with ridiculous precedent, we may as well have the Feds define what a “citizen” is in the states, as you suggest.
More...
 
Quote from Sam123:

I think I found the object of my ire, because only an epidemic of liberal attorneys and judges pervert Law and precedent so that any Constitutional amendment and clause can mean just about anything. So, of course they got away with equating Congress’ Bill of Rights extension to the States to any individual residing in a state having the "right" for state ENTITLEMENTS. Lol. What bullshit; just as much as “States cannot discriminate against persons on the basis of their non-resident status.” We are talking about access to state service and monetary entitlements, not Congress’ Bill of Rights. What does the right for state entitlements have anything to do with the privilege or immunity clause in the 14th Amendment?

No wonder Latino ethnocentrics and Mexican nationalists are trying hard to ride the coat tails of the Civil Rights movements: They take advantage of a liberal lopsided legal system to pervert legal precedent created from original post Civil War civil rights laws designed to protect African American citizens from the wrath of States, and expand it to illegal alien squatters jacking themselves in for State entitlements. Sheesh. They make themselves out like victims of racism, like blacks in the Jim Crow South --because such rhetoric is persuasive to a glut of liberal attorneys and judges.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws "

The first part is irrelevant because they are not citizens of the U.S. It's the second part that has been corrupted by liberal legal scholars. How can it mean that individuals residing in a State have the right for state monetary welfare and other state services paid for by state legal citizens? How can people make such a ridiculous legal leap? Because there are too many liberal attorneys and judges in the system, who have already screwed up other interpretations, like the meaning of "property," and "equal protection of the laws."

And since the Law is already corrupted with ridiculous precedent, we may as well have the Feds define what a “citizen” is in the states, as you suggest.
More...

Fundamentally, the conservatives are in power and have been for some time. So what's this epidemic you're talking about?
 
Quote from Ricter:

Fundamentally, the conservatives are in power and have been for some time. So what's this epidemic you're talking about?
More...
This is not about elected officials. The epidemic I’m referring to is how people entering the legal system, and other noble professions, think in the same manner. I’m not complaining about an attorney who broadly interprets the law. I’m complaining about the fact that there are too many people interpreting the law the same way: too broadly. And if you have too many of them thinking the same way and if this has been going on for some time, chances are the best and brightest legal scholars, judges and attorneys will eventually convince a court that “equal protection of the law” also means “equal access to entitlements.” Then it becomes a precedent that corrupts the Law, so future attorneys and judges can cite to it. The Legal system, like all noble professions and practices, demand a balance of conservative and liberal interpretations of things, to avoid a rigid and unchanging system, on one hand, and a perverted junkyard of bad precedents, on the other.
 
Quote from Sam123:

This is not about elected officials. The epidemic I’m referring to is how people entering the legal system, and other noble professions, think in the same manner. I’m not complaining about an attorney who broadly interprets the law. I’m complaining about the fact that there are too many people interpreting the law the same way: too broadly. And if you have too many of them thinking the same way and if this has been going on for some time, chances are the best and brightest legal scholars, judges and attorneys will eventually convince a court that “equal protection of the law” also means “equal access to entitlements.” Then it becomes a precedent that corrupts the Law, so future attorneys and judges can cite to it. The Legal system, like all noble professions and practices, demand a balance of conservative and liberal interpretations of things, to avoid a rigid and unchanging system, on one hand, and a perverted junkyard of bad precedents, on the other.
More...

So even though the conservative position is essentially more logical, more appealing to the masses, and currently holds the upper hand, it somehow can't quite bend reality, read precedents, to its will?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top