DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks.

[johnwk]

I am not there yet. I think the Judge is a good guy and I am not quite sure he is controlled opposition since he was thrown off FOX for speaking the truth.

Judge Napolitano is a libertarian who constantly ignores the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction. That rule requires the documented legislative intent of our Constitution to be adhered to which gives context to its text.


JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

[johnwk]

In regard to Napolitano, and his disregard for constitutionally limited system of government, while on FoxNews awhile back he indicated the right of a same sex couple to marry is “settled law” and pointed to Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) as his authority that people have a right to marry who they please. However what the Supreme Court ruled in the Loving Case was:

Virginia’s statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment


What Napolitano forgot to put into context on FoxNews was the Loving Case was an interracial couple and the 14th Amendment was specifically adopted to prevent States from discriminating on the basis of race! The Loving Case had nothing to do with a same sex couple.


It should also be noted that in **Standhardt v. Superior Court, October 8, 2003 ** Napolitano’s assertion about “settle law” is proven to be erroneous!


The Court stated in its CONCLUSION


For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the fundamental right to marry protected by our federal and state constitutions does not encompass the right to marry a same-sex partner.   Moreover, although many traditional views of homosexuality have been recast over time in our state and Nation, the choice to marry a same-sex partner has not taken sufficient root to receive constitutional protection as a fundamental right.   Because Arizona’s prohibition against same-sex marriage rationally furthers a legitimate state interest, we further decide that the prohibition does not deprive Petitioners of their constitutional rights to substantive due process, privacy, or equal protection of the laws.   Consequently, it is for the people of Arizona, through their elected representatives or by using the initiative process, rather than this court, to decide whether to permit same-sex marriages.   Having accepted jurisdiction of this special action, we deny relief.


Judge Napolitano put his libertarian views ahead of our Constitution and needs to retract his comments made on FoxNews about “settle law“ and same sex marriage, and start respecting our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and federalism, our Constitution’s plan!


JWK

[Superfluous Man]

It does violate the right of American citizens to control their territory.

If I welcome someone onto my territory, and then you come along and kick them off the territory that I own and welcome them onto just because you consider them "illegal immigrants" because you insist they get your permission to be in the country and they didn't do that, then it's not that guest of mine who is violating my right to control my territory, but you who are doing that.

[Superfluous Man]

Judge Napolitano is a libertarian and not a defender of our Constitution.

Sounds like he fits in with the mission of this website pretty well then.

Are you just trolling?

[Superfluous Man]

Judge Napolitano is a libertarian who constantly ignores the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction. That rule requires the documented legislative intent of our Constitution to be adhered to which gives context to its text.

That's not the most fundamental rule.

Another rule is even more fundamental than that one, which is this: When the Constitution contradicts natural law, the Constitution is wrong, and must not be followed. Any unjust laws that are passed pursuant to the Constitution are void on account of being unjust, regardless of their constitutionality.

[Swordsmyth]

If I welcome someone onto my territory, and then you come along and kick them off the territory that I own and welcome them onto just because you consider them "illegal immigrants" because you insist they get your permission to be in the country and they didn't do that, then it's not that guest of mine who is violating my right to control my territory, but you who are doing that.

You don't own "territory" you own "property".

[Superfluous Man]

You don't own "territory" you own "property".

When the property I own is land and not movable things, that's territory.

At any rate, whether you call it territory or not, what I said remains true. I have a right to decide whom I let on my land. Donald Trump does not. If he kicks someone off my land that I want there, then it's not my guest who is violating my rights, but Donald Trump who is.

[CCTelander]

You don't own "territory" you own "property".

And you're merely parsing words and splitting hairs rather than actually answering the substance of the objection.

[Swordsmyth]

When the property I own is land and not movable things, that's territory.

At any rate, whether you call it territory or not, what I said remains true. I have a right to decide whom I let on my land. Donald Trump does not. If he kicks someone off my land that I want there, then it's not my guest who is violating my rights, but Donald Trump who is.

And you're merely parsing words and splitting hairs rather than actually answering the substance of the objection.

Territory is held by nations and it includes all property within it, it confers few powers over the property within it but the eviction of invaders is one of them.

[loveshiscountry]

Judge Napolitano is a libertarian who constantly ignores the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction. That rule requires the documented legislative intent of our Constitution to be adhered to which gives context to its text.


JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Isn't the most fundamental rule the rights of the individual?

[johnwk]

That's not the most fundamental rule.

Another rule is even more fundamental than that one, which is this: When the Constitution contradicts natural law, the Constitution is wrong, and must not be followed. Any unjust laws that are passed pursuant to the Constitution are void on account of being unjust, regardless of their constitutionality.

Rub your natural law on your chest. We are living under the Constitution of the United States of America. And the fact is, the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction requires the documented legislative intent of our Constitution to be adhered to which gives context to its text.

The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.--- numerous citations omitted__ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19 - - - Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling.


JWK






The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

[johnwk]

I have a right to decide whom I let on my land.

And the people of the United States have the collective right to regulate who may enter the borders of the geographical area call the United States of America. If you don't like it, TOUGH !


JWK



American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

[johnwk]

Isn't the most fundamental rule the rights of the individual?

Your question has nothing to do with the rules which govern constitutional construction.


JWK

[johnwk]

See ‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says

1/18/2018

”The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.

“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.”


What this nitwit AG fails to understand is our court has already indicated state officials cannot require interested parties to not cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.

To confirm this fact see Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s WRITTEN OPINION


“The constitutionality of Section 1373 has been challenged before. The Second Circuit in City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999), addressed a facial challenge to Section 1373 in similar circumstances. By executive order, New York City prohibited its employees from voluntarily providing federal immigration authorities with information concerning the immigration status of any alien. Id. at 31-32. The city sued the United States, challenging the constitutionality of Section 1373 under the Tenth Amendment.

Id. at 32.

The Second Circuit found that Section 1373 did not compel state or local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program or conscript local employees into its service, and therefore did not run afoul of the rules gleaned from the Supreme Court’s Printz and New York decisions. City of New York, 179 F.3d at 35. Rather, the court held that Section 1373 prohibits local governmental entities and officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. Ibid. The Court found that the Tenth Amendment, normally a shield from federal power, could not be turned into “a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs.”


The fact is, local government officials cannot forbid voluntary cooperation with federal law enforcement officers.


Attorney General Xavier Becerra can rub his unenforceable law on his chest and that’s about all its good for.

JWK

American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

[timosman]

It looks like the mobsters are going to go to the mattresses to protect their business.

[fcreature]

Rub your natural law on your chest. We are living under the Constitution of the United States of America.

By that same logic, you could just as easily disregard the Constitution because it's no longer even pretended to be adhered to in original intent.

[johnwk]

By that same logic, you could just as easily disregard the Constitution because it's no longer even pretended to be adhered to in original intent.

What you quoted had nothing to do with logic. It was a factual statement and suggestion.

Simply because anarchists disregard the Constitution, does not mean it's not the rule book we are supposed to be living under. If anarchists spent more time defending the Constitution rather than attacking it and those who support it, we would not be suffering as we are today.


JWK




The unavoidable truth is, the social democrats’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

[johnwk]

It looks like the mobsters are going to go to the mattresses to protect their business.

Huh? Would you elaborate on that for me? I think we agree but I'm not sure what you mean by protecting their business.


JWK

[TheCount]

I didn't. I am using the analogy of an actual battalion of foreign troops to make the point that sometimes one must consider the effects of a group and not just individuals.

It's helpful that you are so explicit about needing to redirect the conversation to talk about groups rather than individuals. Normally I have to point that out to people; they don't just say it themselves.

I have no problem shaking the hand of an individual from any nation or having a conversation.

Good thing there's none of those pesky individuals around, then. There's only:

construction crews

families

their population

To my knowledge virtually every one, at least 95% of the representatives from my state in districts with majority immigrant populations opposes gun rights, vaccine choice, and all other meaningful issues that we have made progress on except perhaps certain aspects of criminal justice reform.

First, I highly doubt that you have any districts in your state which are majority immigrant.

Second, would you like to discuss all of the negative things that the representatives in majority non-immigrant districts support? Are all of those the fault of each and every non-immigrant? Is it, perhaps, the fault of their construction crews, families, and population?

[fcreature]

What you quoted had nothing to do with logic. It was a factual statement and suggestion.

Perhaps the second sentence was a factual statement, however it was preceded by opinion.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your general point, but you can't say that natural law doesn't matter because we live under the Constitution. Natural law supersedes the Constitution... the idea is largely the basis of the document. That is a fact as well. And if you want to talk about the reality we all actually live in, the Constitution (as you understand it) has almost as little real world relevance as natural law.

So whats to stop someone from saying...

Rub your Constitution on your chest. We are living in a post-constitutional United States of America.

[William Tell]

It's helpful that you are so explicit about needing to redirect the conversation to talk about groups rather than individuals. Normally I have to point that out to people; they don't just say it themselves.





Good thing there's none of those pesky individuals around, then. There's only:

Of course they are individuals and I said I have good conversations with them. Doesn't change the fact that mass immigration is turning red states blue. The point was that the effects of mass immigration go beyond the work that individuals do and into the type of government we have. This should be obvious to anyone.

Second, would you like to discuss all of the negative things that the representatives in majority non-immigrant districts support?

Yes, I would. in red districts it just depends. Some have establishment Republicans. A growing number of red districts though are electing Constitutionalists who I agree with 90% of the time. It is an uphill fight but it is a lost cause in blue districts.

Are all of those the fault of each and every non-immigrant?

Absolutely it is the fault of everyone who votes for them! Electing Constitutionalists is the fault of the people who elect them! Electing Ron Paul was the fault of the people in his district who supported him! Same thing with RINOs and Democrats. The problem is that the districts that you say don't exist only elect socialists. I have a problem with the people they elect, if they elected liberty politicians I would be all for that. Yes, there are a handful of immigrants who oppose socialism and that's great. But the massive influx of immigrants is without a doubt turning regions of the southwest blue. Just a fact.

[Ender]

Perhaps the second sentence was a factual statement, however it was preceded by opinion.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your general point, but you can't say that natural law doesn't matter because we live under the Constitution. Natural law supersedes the Constitution... the idea is largely the basis of the document. That is a fact as well. And if you want to talk about the reality we all actually live in, the Constitution (as you understand it) has almost as little real world relevance as natural law.

So whats to stop someone from saying...

Rub your Constitution on your chest. We are living in a post-constitutional United States of America.

Exactly.

[Superfluous Man]

Rub your natural law on your chest. We are living under the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is true that we are living under the regime that was created by the Constitution of the US. And if might makes right, then there's nothing more that I could say.

But might does not make right. And we're not discussing simply what is, but also what ought to be.

And the fact is, the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction requires the documented legislative intent of our Constitution to be adhered to which gives context to its text.

And to what authority do you appeal where you find this fundamental rule?

The Constitution itself? Or something higher?

Or are you just re-asserting an assertion that someone else made before you on no authority other than the fact that someone said it? Yes, I know that you can produce quotes from people saying the same thing you said. The question is, what makes them right.

[CCTelander]

And the people of the United States have the collective right to regulate who may enter the borders of the geographical area call the United States of America. If you don't like it, TOUGH !


JWK



American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

There are no "collective rights." Only individuals have rights.

[TheCount]

Of course they are individuals and I said I have good conversations with them.

You said that you can do that but for the purposes of immigration conversations, you must consider them as groups rather than individuals. Am I misunderstanding your point?

To me, this is especially nonsensical because groups do not immigrate, individuals do.

But the massive influx of immigrants is without a doubt turning regions of the southwest blue. Just a fact.

What's the difference between blue and red? Populism has thrown the last of the conservatism out of the conservative movement. All that's left is culture wars and race-based welfare.

[William Tell]

You said that you can do that but for the purposes of immigration conversations, you must consider them as groups rather than individuals. Am I misunderstanding your point?

Of course you are, I already made my point. Which is that you can't dismiss the established fact of a group's overall political leaning and impact by saying they are all individuals. Take California, it is a liberal hellhole. Does that mean every Californian is a liberal? Of course not, but if every citizen in California movies to Kansas you and I both know what the change in state government in Kansas will look like.

To me, this is especially nonsensical because groups do not immigrate, individuals do.

And if you live in a precinct that only has 10 citizens and they are libertarians, and then 100 Democrats move in how do you think that will effect city council elections? Individuals bring their ideologies with them and we have seen time and time again what that is with the vast majority of immigrants.

What's the difference between blue and red?

Are you serious? I watch the actual votes. Do you want links to actual votes? Here blue always votes against gun rights, parental rights etc. On the state level red is mixed bag, some on team red are consistently good. But team blue is consistently wrong with the exception of certain criminal justice reform.

Populism has thrown the last of the conservatism out of the conservative movement. All that's left is culture wars and race-based welfare.

So you are saying that gun control, fiscal responsibility, parental rights, medical freedom etc are no longer issues? That's insane. Politics isn't defined by MSNBC headlines it's decided by the record votes taken in legislative bodies across the country.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk

And the people of the United States have the collective right to regulate who may enter the borders of the geographical area call the United States of America. If you don't like it, TOUGH !


JWK



American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

There are no "collective rights." Only individuals have rights.

It is nice of you to post your opinion. Now, what does our Constitution declare? Does it not articulate a collective right that our federal government "repel Invasions"? Does it not also establish a collective right ". . . of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?

I suggest you actually read the Constitution before making comments which are not in harmony with the true intent and meaning of our Constitution.


JWK



"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

[johnwk]

Perhaps the second sentence was a factual statement, however it was preceded by opinion.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your general point, but you can't say that natural law doesn't matter because we live under the Constitution. Natural law supersedes the Constitution... the idea is largely the basis of the document. That is a fact as well. And if you want to talk about the reality we all actually live in, the Constitution (as you understand it) has almost as little real world relevance as natural law.

So whats to stop someone from saying...

Rub your Constitution on your chest. We are living in a post-constitutional United States of America.

The problem with your logic is, if the people, including anarchists and those promoting "natural law" would spend more time defending our written Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, our constitutionally limited system of government may very well be saved. Mark Levin, who you seem to follow by writing "we are living in a post-constitutional United States of America" [wording which he often uses] seems to be part of the problem in that he is promoting an Article V constitutional convention, during which time America's most dangerous enemies would have the opportunity to make constitutional, that which is now un-constitutional.


Are you a fan of Mark Levin? BTW, he is very much on target with many things he says. But when it comes to calling a convention, I view him as either ignorant to the dangers such a convention would surely bring, or, perhaps he has been a sleeper for many, many years, [since the Reagan Administration] giving the impression he is a lover of our Constitution to gain the confidence of unwitting conservatives who are now buying into his call for a convention, which would open the doors to a total re-write of our Constitution and perhaps establishing the Constitution for the Newstates of America as our supreme law of the land.


JWK

[johnwk]

.

Is there no interest in California’s AG threatening local citizens who may cooperate with ICE Agents?

JWK

[Swordsmyth]

There are no "collective rights." Only individuals have rights.

Tell that to members of clubs or partnerships etc.