Excerpt from Article 1, Section 8

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Excerpt from Article 1, Section 8

    Article I, section 8 of the United States Constitution states in part: Congress shall have power to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.

    Our dear leader intends as soon as tomorrow to usurp this power from Congress. Let's see if Congress has the testicular fortitude to stand up to this wannabe dictator.

  • #2
    The LEFT never let's the U.S. Constitution and the intent of the Framers to get in the way of its agenda in advancing progressivism/socialism.

    Whether the dems won in Nov or not Obama was going to play this card. This all has to do with 2016 and holding the repubs up as against the poor illegals in order to get the Hispanic vote.

    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

    Comment: (For off-topic replies)


    • #3
      The Constitution is pretty useless nowadays.
      GOLDWING AND F6B MAINTENANCE VIDEOS
      Save $1000 a year in labor by doing your own maintenance!

      Website | YouTube | 2001-2017 Videos | 2018+ Videos

      Comment: (For off-topic replies)


      • #4
        Too many RINO'S® scared sh*tless to stand up for America...
        INSIDE EVERY LIBERAL & RINO® IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT

        Comment: (For off-topic replies)


        • PeteSelf
          PeteSelf commented
          Editing a comment
          It is a simple as votes. ALL of our political leaders would sell this Country wholesale if they could get more votes. Point is currently being proven...

      • #5
        I disagree that the Constitution is pretty much useless. To the contrary it's our pols who are useless. The Constitution is tattered but still intact and is what separates the U.S. from Canada, Mexico and the rest of the world. As much as some disagree with the SC, it has upheld the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Free Speech - unlike to our neighbors and the rest of the world, the Right to assemble and Petition the gov and other cases from equality to striking down discrimination all because of the U.S. Constitution.

        The Constitution was created to limit gov's negative control/impact on citizens and make gov accountable to the citizens. The Constitution was never created to be document for democracy within the context the LEFT uses the word but for compromise and thus shackle gov from overreaching. The Constitution provides for Free Elections at precise points in time so that the People have the opportunity to change the face of gov and make gov accountable to the People. The Constitution is relevant but is as only as strong as the People demand of their pols to follow the Constitution.
        .
        "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

        Comment: (For off-topic replies)


        • #6
          Originally posted by Lone Ranger View Post
          I disagree that the Constitution is pretty much useless. To the contrary it's our pols who are useless. The Constitution is tattered but still intact and is what separates the U.S. from Canada, Mexico and the rest of the world. As much as some disagree with the SC, it has upheld the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Free Speech - unlike to our neighbors and the rest of the world, the Right to assemble and Petition the gov and other cases from equality to striking down discrimination all because of the U.S. Constitution.

          The Constitution was created to limit gov's negative control/impact on citizens and make gov accountable to the citizens. The Constitution was never created to be document for democracy within the context the LEFT uses the word but for compromise and thus shackle gov from overreaching. The Constitution provides for Free Elections at precise points in time so that the People have the opportunity to change the face of gov and make gov accountable to the People. The Constitution is relevant but is as only as strong as the People demand of their pols to follow the Constitution.
          .
          Agreed!

          Comment: (For off-topic replies)


          • #7
            Another case of selective outrage by you goofy rightists.

            http://www.businessinsider.com/reaga...orders-2014-11
            .

            Comment: (For off-topic replies)


            • PeteSelf
              PeteSelf commented
              Editing a comment
              you let out "after a major overhaul by Congress was found to have holes in it." How convenient is that odd little fact? That Congress acted first and then the President cleaned up. Do you see the precedence here as well as the order of events? Congress acted first, per the Constitution, and the President followed up. That is not unilateral...

              "In 1986, Congress and Reagan enacted a sweeping overhaul that gave legal status to up to 3 million immigrants without authorization to be in the country, if they had come to the U.S. before 1982. Spouses and children who could not meet that test did not qualify, which incited protests that the new law was breaking up families."

          • #8
            Well Ill tell you it cost my daughter in law around $10,000 dollars and more than a few years of going through the system to get her citizenship. And as far as Im concerned these people can go pee up a rope along with our leader. If you look at what it costs to deport these people and the costs to feed and house the families. And all of this comes out of the states pockets and not the Feds,send them home.

            Comment: (For off-topic replies)


            • #9
              Progressives/socialists are such revisionists.

              As with any progressive/socialist revisionism points are always left out when only viewed from the surface. CONGRESS supported Reagan and Bush. Did I say Congress. Something this Congress does not support Obama on for going it alone. Big difference and one easily overlooked by progressives/socialists and illegal activists when referring to Reagan and Bush.

              Another point that progressives/socialists fail to say is that Congress under Reagan and Bush were controlled by democrats in the House and republicans in the Senate in 1986 and in the subsequent years through Bush both Houses were controlled by democrats.
              "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

              Comment: (For off-topic replies)


              • #10
                Originally posted by Lone Ranger View Post
                Progressives/socialists are such revisionists.

                As with any progressive/socialist revisionism points are always left out when only viewed from the surface. CONGRESS supported Reagan and Bush. Did I say Congress. Something this Congress does not support Obama on for going it alone. Big difference and one easily overlooked by progressives/socialists and illegal activists when referring to Reagan and Bush.

                Another point that progressives/socialists fail to say is that Congress under Reagan and Bush were controlled by democrats in the House and republicans in the Senate in 1986 and in the subsequent years through Bush both Houses were controlled by democrats.
                Very true and Congressional support makes a big difference when comparing then to now.
                Richard
                Darksider #390
                Murgie's FAQ

                Comment: (For off-topic replies)


                • #11
                  The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, is very clear: the Congress has the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. Even if previous presidents violated then existing laws enacted by Congress, it does not make it right for the current president to do it now. If someone got away after committing a murder, does that mean it's now okay for everyone to get away with murder?

                  Comment: (For off-topic replies)


                  • #12
                    Obozo makes the constitution quite useless. Of course it exists, but he is the emperor.

                    Comment: (For off-topic replies)


                    • #13
                      Originally posted by on the road View Post
                      Another case of selective outrage by you goofy rightists.

                      http://www.businessinsider.com/reaga...orders-2014-11
                      That article is a lie like everything you leftists choose to believe.

                      Congress passed laws and the president signed them in each of those cases. The only thing even similar about the current threat of unconstitutional acts by the muslim fraud and those two previous honorable presidents is the subject of immigration.
                      Harvey Barlow
                      Crosby County, TX
                      2010 Goldwing Level II Pearl Yellow (sold at 93,000 miles)
                      2014 Goldwing Level II Pearl Blue (sold at 27,000 miles to forum member)

                      Comment: (For off-topic replies)


                      • #14
                        Originally posted by Lone Ranger View Post
                        I disagree that the Constitution is pretty much useless. To the contrary it's our pols who are useless. The Constitution is tattered but still intact and is what separates the U.S. from Canada, Mexico and the rest of the world. As much as some disagree with the SC, it has upheld the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Free Speech - unlike to our neighbors and the rest of the world, the Right to assemble and Petition the gov and other cases from equality to striking down discrimination all because of the U.S. Constitution.

                        The Constitution was created to limit gov's negative control/impact on citizens and make gov accountable to the citizens. The Constitution was never created to be document for democracy within the context the LEFT uses the word but for compromise and thus shackle gov from overreaching. The Constitution provides for Free Elections at precise points in time so that the People have the opportunity to change the face of gov and make gov accountable to the People. The Constitution is relevant but is as only as strong as the People demand of their pols to follow the Constitution.
                        .
                        I agree. A very well said explanation!

                        Harvey Barlow
                        Crosby County, TX
                        2010 Goldwing Level II Pearl Yellow (sold at 93,000 miles)
                        2014 Goldwing Level II Pearl Blue (sold at 27,000 miles to forum member)

                        Comment: (For off-topic replies)


                        • #15
                          Originally posted by on the road View Post
                          Another case of selective outrage by you goofy rightists.

                          http://www.businessinsider.com/reaga...orders-2014-11
                          First of all, it's not nearly as "selective" as you and others tend to make it out to be. There were many that were very much against the moves of both Reagan and Bush 41 when they enacted their executive orders.

                          Even with that said, what we are talking about in President Obama's case is far different than what Presidents Reagan and Bush did. They expanded existing law (and it was a law very recently passed when they enacted their executive orders). President Obama is not adding to existing law, he is creating his own. Further, he's doing it after repeatedly saying that to do so would be illegal and unconstitutional. I heard a very good analogy this morning. One kid is given permission to use his parent's car, and instead of coming home at 9:00pm from the football game as he promised, he goes to the burger joint and hangs with his friends until 10:30. Another kid who has been told by his parents not to drive the car at all, takes the keys and heads off in it without letting them know where he's going. Both broke the rules, but they are totally different "events".

                          Finally - is that really the best you folks have? I had to give up the "but mom, all the other kids are doing it" "reason" back in high school...

                          2012 Honda Goldwing | 2009 Timeout Camper



                          Patriot Guard Rider since 2007 | IBA member #59823

                          Comment: (For off-topic replies)


                          • #16
                            Originally posted by Ghostman View Post
                            Well Ill tell you it cost my daughter in law around $10,000 dollars and more than a few years of going through the system to get her citizenship. And as far as Im concerned these people can go pee up a rope along with our leader. If you look at what it costs to deport these people and the costs to feed and house the families. And all of this comes out of the states pockets and not the Feds,send them home.
                            The reality is, few people are asking for active deportations. What most are talking about is "self-deportation". Remove the incentives for them to come here - no more free health care, no employment opportunities, allow cities and states to impose housing restrictions, and do away with the "anchor baby" program, and they will "deport" themselves.
                            2012 Honda Goldwing | 2009 Timeout Camper



                            Patriot Guard Rider since 2007 | IBA member #59823

                            Comment: (For off-topic replies)


                            • #17
                              ..
                              "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

                              Comment: (For off-topic replies)


                              • #18
                                Interesting read as to who does not get deported. Well, thank you Mr. President for making U.S. citizens safer!!!



                                New DHS immigration rules: Drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, gun offenders not top deportation priorities

                                By Byron York | November 21, 2014 | 3:16 pm

                                Politics,Beltway Confidential,Opinion,Byron York,Immigration,Barack Obama,Jeh Johnson The Department of Homeland Security has just released new "Policies for the Apprehension, Detention, and Removal of Undocumented Immigrants." Designed to fill in the details after President Obama's announcement that at least four million currently illegal immigrants will be given work permits, Social Security numbers, and protection from deportation, the DHS guidelines are instructions for the nation's immigration and border security officers as they administer the president's directive.

                                The new priorities are striking. On the tough side, the president wants U.S. immigration authorities to go after terrorists, felons, and new illegal border crossers. On the not-so-tough side, the administration views convicted drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, and gun offenders as second-level enforcement priorities. An illegal immigrant could spend up to a year in prison for a violent crime and still not be a top removal priority for the Obama administration.

                                In the memo, DHS chief Jeh Johnson says his department must develop "smart enforcement priorities" to exercise "prosecutorial discretion" in order to best use his agency's limited resources. Johnson establishes three enforcement priority levels to guide DHS officers as they decide whether to stop, hold, or prosecute an illegal immigrant.

                                Priority One is the "highest priority to which enforcement resources should be directed," the memo says. The category includes "aliens engaged in or suspected of terrorism or espionage, or who otherwise pose a danger to national security." It also includes "aliens apprehended at the border or ports of entry while attempting to unlawfully enter the United States." In addition, any illegal immigrant convicted of an offense involving a criminal street gang, or convicted of a felony -- provided that immigration status was not an "essential element" of the charge -- is targeted. Finally, any illegal immigrant convicted of an aggravated felony is included in Priority One.
                                The guidelines say Priority One aliens "must be prioritized" for deportation unless they qualify for asylum or unless there are "compelling and exceptional" factors that indicate the alien is not a threat.

                                Priority Two offenders, whose cases are less urgent then criminals in Priority One, include the following:
                                aliens convicted of a "significant misdemeanor," which for these purposes is an offense of domestic violence; sexual abuse or exploitation; burglary; unlawful possession or use of a firearm; drug distribution or trafficking; or driving under the influence; or if not an offense listed above, one for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90 days or more (the sentence must involve time to be served in custody, and does not include a suspended sentence)
                                DHS further defines a "significant misdemeanor" as an offense for which the maximum term of imprisonment is one year or less, but greater than five days. In addition, the guidelines contain a possible out for illegal immigrants accused of domestic abuse. "Careful consideration should be given to whether the convicted alien was also the victim of domestic violence," the guidelines say. "If so, this should be a mitigating factor."

                                Priority Two also includes "aliens convicted of three or more misdemeanor offenses, other than minor traffic offenses or state or local offenses for which an essential element was the alien's immigration status." But there's an important footnote to that. The three offenses must arise out of three separate incidents. If an illegal immigrant committed a single act that resulted in multiple misdemeanor charges, it would count as one charge for DHS counting purposes.
                                The guidelines say Priority Two aliens "should" be removed -- not "must," as with Priority One -- unless they qualify for asylum or there are "factors" indicating the alien is not a threat. It's a significantly lower standard than Priority One.

                                Finally, Priority Three includes those who have simply violated the nation's immigration laws seriously enough to have been issued a final order of removal. The DHS memo describes them as the "lowest priority for apprehension and removal." They can be allowed to stay not only if they qualify for asylum but also if, "in the judgment of an immigration officer, the alien is not a threat to the integrity of the immigration system or there are factors suggesting the alien should not be an enforcement priority." In practice, that could prove a remarkably lenient standard.
                                So there they are: the rules that will guide implementation of President Obama's new "prosecutorial discretion" policy. Illegal immigrants who are also terrorists are clearly a top priority, as they should be. Illegal immigrants who are drunk drivers, sex abusers, drug dealers, and gun offenders -- not so much. In addition, an illegal immigrant can run up a significant number of misdemeanor convictions -- not arrests, not charges, but convictions -- and still fall short qualifying for deportation. The president's new policies will likely make a number of illegal immigrants who are also criminals very happy.
                                "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

                                Comment: (For off-topic replies)


                                • #19
                                  Originally posted by on the road View Post
                                  Another case of selective outrage by you goofy rightists.

                                  http://www.businessinsider.com/reaga...orders-2014-11
                                  I believe Reagan acted within an existing law.......Obummer is NOT working within existing law...he is creating his own.

                                  Comment: (For off-topic replies)

                                  Sorry, you are not authorized to view this page
                                  Loading...
                                  Working...
                                  X