Filipinos Against Arizona Immigration Law SB1070

[Tahoma 2,291]

Actually, I don't believe the founding fathers even contemplated judicial review,

or lifetime tenure of judges.

Changed cite

Of course, you understand that Marbury v. Madison was in 1803, when there were more than a few founding fathers still around.

But, allow me to quote from your link: "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."

By the way, where did I say anything about lifetime tenure?

Back to history class with you!

Next!

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Of course, you understand that Marbury v. Madison was in 1803, when there were more than a few founding fathers still around.

But, allow me to quote from your link: "No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid."

By the way, where did I say anything about lifetime tenure?

Back to history class with you!

Next!

read on,

this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

In other words, judges should not substitute their will, for that of the people, or the legislature.

Edited August 5, 2010 by ##########

[dluke77 9]

I like to think I consider both sides Tahoma and the issues the three issues I included are pretty well defined as truths (not just in the media)--yes you are right innocent until proven guilty--problem is sometimes regardless if it is Bush or Obama in office the State or Federal Government just ignore any evidence and doesn't try to prove one guilty in the courts or even implement disciplinary actio--because of the Administrations agenda.

Bush took responsibility and didn't pretend to know all the answers--had made it clear he had advisors for that. And when those advisors didn't get it right he had no problem holding them and/or himself accountable.

And no I do not blame the BP oil spill on Obama--its BP fault. I don't blame Katrina on Bush--its a natural disaster. I think folks in both situations were given the best possible treatment and assistance--under the circumstances... Name one country that would have handled either situation better than the Good Ole US of A!!

I am neither Republican or Democrat--some of what was done in the Bush administration was no more or less appalling than what is being done in the Obama administration. Obama is the Kennedy of our error (yep meant error/era used together), winning in part due to their unique charisma and the ability to get minorities out to vote-and no it is not racist statement. It is a truth, by virtue of his color, people of every color (including more white voters) got out and voted. That is a positive step forward in this country where not enough people excercise the wonderful right to vote.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

read on,

this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

In other words, judges should not substitute their will, for that of the people, or the legislature.

This is like the Fundamentalists who take a literal approach the Bible. Interpretation as well as practical application of law is inevitable and unavoidable. Logic and reason applied to vague generalities is what judges have to do all the time. For example, "All men are created equal..." is not a specific set of instructions that can be applied uniformly.

[Tahoma 2,291]

read on,

Quote

this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.

In other words, judges should not substitute their will, for that of the people, or the legislature.

Nice try...but you forgot to read this part.

According to your theory, our founding fathers were fine with unconstitutional laws.

[Tahoma 2,291]

I like to think I consider both sides Tahoma and the issues the three issues I included are pretty well defined as truths (not just in the media)--yes you are right innocent until proven guilty--problem is sometimes regardless if it is Bush or Obama in office the State or Federal Government just ignore any evidence and doesn't try to prove one guilty in the courts or even implement disciplinary actio--because of the Administrations agenda.

Truths? It must be a mere coincidence that your "truths" are indistinguishable from the rubbish of the right-wing spin machine.

Bush took responsibility and didn't pretend to know all the answers--had made it clear he had advisors for that. And when those advisors didn't get it right he had no problem holding them and/or himself accountable.

Bush was a moron who didn't even know the right questions, let alone the answers. He took no responsibility for anything. He has not taken responsibility for selling us a bogus war that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people and caused two million people to flee their country, and another two million people to become internally displaced within their country. He didn't take responsibility for his budget deficits. He didn't call ####### Cheney on the carpet when traitor Scooter Libby outed Valerie Plame. He didn't even hold "Brownie" responsible for FEMA's abysmal response to Katrina. Just exactly who did he hold accountable?

And no I do not blame the BP oil spill on Obama--its BP fault. I don't blame Katrina on Bush--its a natural disaster. I think folks in both situations were given the best possible treatment and assistance--under the circumstances... Name one country that would have handled either situation better than the Good Ole US of A!!

Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand...

I am neither Republican or Democrat--some of what was done in the Bush administration was no more or less appalling than what is being done in the Obama administration. Obama is the Kennedy of our error (yep meant error/era used together), winning in part due to their unique charisma and the ability to get minorities out to vote-and no it is not racist statement. It is a truth, by virtue of his color, people of every color (including more white voters) got out and voted. That is a positive step forward in this country where not enough people excercise the wonderful right to vote.

Not a Republican? Are they too far to the left for you?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Nice try...but you forgot to read this part.

According to your theory, our founding fathers were fine with unconstitutional laws.

The other way around. Judges have ventured beyond the confines of the Constitution a long time ago, beginning with John Marshall.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The other way around. Judges have ventured beyond the confines of the Constitution a long time ago, beginning with John Marshall.

But that's your opinion. Judges have to make legal opinions based on parameters of the Constitution. It really comes down to opinion and whether such opinion was grounded in reason and logic and a practical application of constitutional law.

Let me ask you, as someone who considers himself more conservative - do you think SCOTUS' ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was strict constructive approach or a more contextual approach, and why do you think it was?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

But that's your opinion. Judges have to make legal opinions based on parameters of the Constitution. It really comes down to opinion and whether such opinion was grounded in reason and logic and a practical application of constitutional law.

Let me ask you, as someone who considers himself more conservative - do you think SCOTUS' ruling on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was strict constructive approach or a more contextual approach, and why do you think it was?

It was an easy first amendment issue on individuals' right to assemble, right there is plain English.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You can read the decision, and decide for yourself:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It was an easy first amendment issue on individuals' right to assemble, right there is plain English.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

That part right there indicates that you think constitutional law requires little or no interpretation for reasonable application, which is amusing considering that campaign money is no where mentioned in the First Amendment, nor is there any indication that money is equated to speech. So coming from a guy who believes that it has been the Left (Liberals, Progressive) Judges that have gone beyond the scope and meaning of the Constitution, that is rich.

....

Textualism vs. constructionism

The strict constructionist says that the literal meaning of a law is the best way to interpret that law; the law should be understand to mean what it says, on its face, that it means. An example of this is when Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said that the First Amendment's command that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech" meant exactly that, "no law."

This approach has the virtue of simplicity. Critics say it can also lead to problems. Parts of a law, in isolation, can be rigid. Reading sentences of the Constitution in isolation, in the name of a "strict construction", can leave questions about whether the meaning of the text at issue can be fully understood without considering the context (the legal, political and social environment) in which the law was written. Although Justice Black would have said that "no law" can be passed that abridges the freedom of speech, he would not have said that treasonous speech should be protected, or that shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater is an act of speech that should be protected under the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of freedom of speech.

http://judgepedia.or..._interpretation

Edited August 6, 2010 by El Buscador

[ryanrec 0]

On this Immigration topic:

I am an American who has lived in many countries, all of which have strict Immigration Laws. Everywhere i have ever lived, UK, Italy, Philippines, Kuwait and I have also visited many countries including Russia. If you are caught as an undocumented or with an expired visa of any sort you will be deported immediately, go home to your country where ever you came from. End of story. In most cases you will be fine and not allowed to return unless these are paid and they grant you permission in advance. Illegal is illegal.

You are actually helping illegal aliens by deporting them or having them become legal so that they can earn correct wages and be treated fairly by all government agencies and employers.

Illegal Immigrants are costing us natural American citizens and legal working Immigrants billions of our hard working tax dollars.

The down side of deporting all of these illegal immigrants, who will do all of these job, such as, fruit picking, agriculture, yard working, moving,house keeping (domestic), and all other jobs you are not willing to do even for a fair price. As stated earlier, being legal would require all of these immigrants to be paid and treated fairly which would now increase cost of all these goods and services. But i don't think deporting all illegals would ever decrease your taxes...

I have a problem with giving illegal immigrants anything, they need to be sent back to where ever they came from and charged for their ride home and learn the correct way to file all necessary paperwork and do things as stated by law. I also have a problem with illegal immigrants being given state ID cards and other social services, once they are found as illegal immigrants in any State in our great country they should be sent on their way home.

Illegal is illegal.

The only people making noise about all these Immigration Laws, old and new are either illegal themselves or have family members or friends that are here illegal or they are employers of these under paid mistreated illegal immigrants.

I can't wait to hear all of your great comments.

Great Post!

[evli1966 88]

I got a chuckle from the way you got sidetracked with your numerous Jefferson quotes about majority rule. Of course, you conveniently "forgot" to address the point that was made. By your silence on the subject, should I assume that you believe that our founding fathers were wrong in their belief that the courts have a role in our American system of checks and balances? Are you advocating that SCOTUS should not be the final arbiter of constitutional questions? Are you saying that unconstitutional laws should remain in place because they are popular? I eagerly await your "common sense" reply!

I work for a living and will post when I am able to do so.

I get a chuckle out of your higher than everyone else attitude in your posts. The intellect or was it education that is better than 99% of everyone else.

The point made was clear to anyone with reading comprhension following the chain of posts. go back and reread maybe you will understand the point.

Please keep waiting

Edited August 7, 2010 by evli1966

[Tahoma 2,291]

I got a chuckle from the way you got sidetracked with your numerous Jefferson quotes about majority rule. Of course, you conveniently "forgot" to address the point that was made. By your silence on the subject, should I assume that you believe that our founding fathers were wrong in their belief that the courts have a role in our American system of checks and balances? Are you advocating that SCOTUS should not be the final arbiter of constitutional questions? Are you saying that unconstitutional laws should remain in place because they are popular? I eagerly await your "common sense" reply!

I work for a living and will post when I am able to do so.

I get a chuckle out of your higher than everyone else attitude in your posts. The intellect or was it education that is better than 99% of everyone else.

The point made was clear to anyone with reading comprhension following the chain of posts. go back and reread maybe you will understand the point.

Please keep waiting

I must say, you have a finely-honed set of avoidance techniques. Now you're pretending that you originally said something else (that you mysteriously can't seem to remember) in order to avoid answering my questions. That's rich! Of course, it has not gone unnoticed that you in full avoidance mode.

And by the way, playing the "I'm-so-busy" card and the "everyone's-smarter-than-me" card is not going to help you either. Anyone with your "common sense" would know that it's an obvious and lame attempt to deflect. Wouldn't it be easier if you simply owned up to what you said and answered the questions?

[demarvell 4]

The following are statements from the National Federation of Filipino American Association (NaFFAA) on this controversial anti-immigration law.

http://www.filamako....ion-law-sb1070/

DUHHH, What part of "illegal" don't you understand? If I were an illegal in any other country, including the Philippines, I would be prosecuted. I have waited and waited for the right time to get my fiance' here, LEGALLY, so anybody who did not pay the time and the fees, doesn't belong here. No jobs in your country? Change your laws and your dishonest politicians. (Yes, we have those here, too.)

Jim