Where are you?

[Texan]

Where are you states-rights supporters? The ones that complained so much during the Bush Administration?

Now that the Holder Justice Department is suing Alabama for trying to enforce the immigration laws that the feds refuse to enforce, I figured we would be hearing something out of you. Nothing?

 

[Mike]

Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell
2 Feb. 1816Writings 14:421--23

No, my friend, the way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. Let the national government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? The generalizing and concentrating all cares and power into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate. And I do believe that if the Almighty has not decreed that man shall never be free, (and it is a blasphemy to believe it,) that the secret will be found to be in the making himself the depository of the powers respecting himself, so far as he is competent to them, and delegating only what is beyond his competence by a synthetical process, to higher and higher orders of functionaries, so as to trust fewer and fewer powers in proportion as the trustees become more and more oligarchical. The elementary republics of the wards, the county republics, the State republics, and the republic of the Union, would form a gradation of authorities, standing each on the basis of law, holding every one its delegated share of powers, and constituting truly a system of fundamental balances and checks for the government. Where every man is a sharer in the direction of his ward-republic, or of some of the higher ones, and feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs, not merely at an election one day in the year, but every day; when there shall not be a man in the State who will not be a member of some one of its councils, great or small, he will let the heart be torn out of his body sooner than his power be wrested from him by a Caesar or a Bonaparte. How powerfully did we feel the energy of this organization in the case of embargo? I felt the foundations of the government shaken under my feet by the New England townships. There was not an individual in their States whose body was not thrown with all its momentum into action; and although the whole of the other States were known to be in favor of the measure, yet the organization of this little selfish minority enabled it to overrule the Union. What would the unwieldy counties of the Middle, the South, and the West do? Call a county meeting, and the drunken loungers (Oldtimer) at and about the courthouses would have collected, the distances being too great for the good people and the industrious generally to attend. The character of those who really met would have been the measure of the weight they would have had in the scale of public opinion. As Cato, then, concluded every speech with the words, "Carthago delenda est," so do I every opinion, with the injunction, "divide the counties into wards." Begin them only for a single purpose; they will soon show for what others they are the best instruments. God bless you, and all our rulers, and give them the wisdom, as I am sure they have the will, to fortify us against the degeneracy of our government, and the concentration of all its powers in the hands of the one, the few, the well-born or the many.

The Founders' Constitution
Volume 1, Chapter 4, Document 34

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch4s34.html

The University of Chicago Press

The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Edited by Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert Ellery Bergh. 20 vols. Washington: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association, 1905.

 

[Anonymous]

Interesting when you look at the history of Jefferson... He was one of the biggest states rights backers for years- until he became President-- and then he became one of the strongest backers of a strong federal government-- sending the navy and marines to invade/attack the Barbary Coast and buying the Louisiana Purchase- both on his own without Congressional approval...

I still disagree with our governments handling of the immigration and Border security issue--but as far as I can see both those issues along with national citizenship are Federal issues- not individual state issues...Same as I believe it was with the Bush's, Clinton, Reagan (remember the last Amnesty which was supposed to make it illegal to hire an illegal? Never was enforced.. ) , and Ike...
And Ike was probably the last President that seriously took any action to solve the illegal alien problem... So I've given up much hope of anyone (R or D) doing anything...

 

[Mike]

Interesting when you look at the history of Jefferson... He was one of the biggest states rights backers for years- until he became President-- and then he became one of the strongest backers of a strong federal government-- sending the navy and marines to invade/attack the Barbary Coast and buying the Louisiana Purchase- both on his own without Congressional approval...

LIAR!!!!

By a hasty annexation and treaty approval, a Congress dominated by Democratic- Republicans provided Jefferson with sole executive power over the entire Louisiana Purchase territory, which he then to delegate to two territorial governors, William Claiborne and his deputy, James Wilkinson.

Liar Again!!!!

The U.S. Ambassador to France, Thomas Jefferson, complained that paying ransom to Hassan would only encourage more attacks. The U.S. Congress chose bribery. The U.S. paid Algiers its ransom and as much as $1 million each year for the next fifteen years, to the year 1800 -- something like 20 percent of government revenues, Federal revenues in 1800 adding up to a little more than 10 million dollars.

In France, Jefferson asked Tripoli's ambassador what right Tripoli had to extort money and take slaves. According to Jefferson, the ambassador answered that such a right was founded on the Laws of the Prophet: that it was written in the Koran that all nations who did not recognize their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found; and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Muslim slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.

Following Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, the pasha of Tripoli, Yussif Karamanli, demanded $225,000. Jefferson refused. In May, the pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate in Tripoli. Morocco, Algiers and Tunis joined their ally Tripoli against the United States. Jefferson sent some frigates to the Mediterranean, with the approval of Congress -- without having declared war.

Jefferson rightly justified any Congressional "Declaration Of War" because Karamanli had already declared war on the USA. He was merely protecting his fellow citizens. :roll:

In response, Jefferson sent a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress. Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."

 

[Mike]

But then you are diverting the issue of States Rights, the subject, again. You have no credibility here.
There are two things you do not want to debate me on. Thomas Jefferson and Gen. R.E. Lee.

Now back to topic.

 

[Anonymous]

Interesting when you look at the history of Jefferson... He was one of the biggest states rights backers for years- until he became President-- and then he became one of the strongest backers of a strong federal government-- sending the navy and marines to invade/attack the Barbary Coast and buying the Louisiana Purchase- both on his own without Congressional approval...

LIAR!!!!

By a hasty annexation and treaty approval, a Congress dominated by Democratic- Republicans provided Jefferson with sole executive power over the entire Louisiana Purchase territory, which he then to delegate to two territorial governors, William Claiborne and his deputy, James Wilkinson.

Liar Again!!!!

The U.S. Ambassador to France, Thomas Jefferson, complained that paying ransom to Hassan would only encourage more attacks. The U.S. Congress chose bribery. The U.S. paid Algiers its ransom and as much as $1 million each year for the next fifteen years, to the year 1800 -- something like 20 percent of government revenues, Federal revenues in 1800 adding up to a little more than 10 million dollars.

In France, Jefferson asked Tripoli's ambassador what right Tripoli had to extort money and take slaves. According to Jefferson, the ambassador answered that such a right was founded on the Laws of the Prophet: that it was written in the Koran that all nations who did not recognize their authority were sinners; that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found; and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners; and that every Muslim slain in battle was sure to go to heaven.

Following Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, the pasha of Tripoli, Yussif Karamanli, demanded $225,000. Jefferson refused. In May, the pasha declared war on the United States, not through any formal written documents, but by cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate in Tripoli. Morocco, Algiers and Tunis joined their ally Tripoli against the United States. Jefferson sent some frigates to the Mediterranean, with the approval of Congress -- without having declared war.

Jefferson rightly justified any Congressional "Declaration Of War" because Karamanli had already declared war on the USA. He was merely protecting his fellow citizens. :roll:

The History Channel life of Jefferson said that he signed the agreement with Napoleon (because he feared Napoleon was starting to back out) endebting the country for $15 million before he told anyone about the negotiations...Also he not only sent frigates- but he invaded a country with Marines- and tried to overthrow the government of the Pasha of Tripoli- and set up a new government friendly to the U.S...(sound familiar :???: )

As far as states rights- I don't think the states were granted powers over citizenship- foreign invaders- or US security with other countries borders as these are spelled out specifically as- and have been interpreted for a long period as federal powers....

 

[Mike]

Liar again!!!!!

Jefferson signed nothing. He sent I believe, James Monroe and someone else to negotiate with Napolean. They did indeed sign a preliminary agreement but the treaty had to be ratified to be effective.

The Senate concurred with this decision and voted ratification on Oct. 20, 1803.

There were no provisions for or against Land Treaties in the Constitution at that time. :roll: :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Liar again!!!!!

Jefferson signed nothing. He sent I believe, James Monroe and someone else to negotiate with Napolean. They did indeed sign a preliminary agreement but the treaty had to be ratified to be effective.

The Senate concurred with this decision and voted ratification on Oct. 20, 1803.

There were no provisions for or against Land Treaties in the Constitution at that time. :roll: :roll:

No Lie- they were working under Jeffersons approval without approval of Congress...
But Jefferson authorized them to- even tho he and many others questioned the Constitutionality...The Senate/Congress did not become involved until 6 months later...

The American representatives were prepared to pay up to $10 million for New Orleans and its environs, but were dumbfounded when the vastly larger territory was offered for $15 million. Jefferson had authorized Livingston only to purchase New Orleans. However, Livingston was certain that the U.S. would accept such a large offer.

The Americans thought that Napoleon might withdraw the offer at any time, preventing the United States from acquiring New Orleans, so they agreed and signed the Louisiana Purchase Treaty on April 30, 1803.
----

On Saturday April 30, 1803, the Louisiana Purchase Treaty was signed by Robert Livingston, James Monroe, and Barbé Marbois in Paris. Jefferson announced the treaty to the American people on July 4. After the signing of the Louisiana Purchase agreement in 1803, Livingston made this famous statement, "We have lived long, but this is the noblest work of our whole lives...From this day the United States take their place among the powers of the first rank." The United States Senate ratified the treaty with a vote of twenty-four to seven on October 20;

 

[Mike]

Would we have owned The La. Purchase had Congress not approved? No.

The negotiations were carried out at Jeffersons wish but the deal was still ratified by Congress.

You said he did it WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL!!!!! That could NOT have happened.

You Lied!!!

[/quote]

 

[Mike]

Sure throws OT's thinking about immigration statutes and who enforces them out the window. :roll:

Supreme Court upholds states rights on illegal immigration statutes

Warren Richey | The Christian Science Monitor | Jun 07, 2011

The US Supreme Court on Monday ordered a federal appeals court to reexamine whether Hazleton, Pa., can restrict illegal immigrants' ability to work and rent housing.

A federal judge and a panel of the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia had blocked the local laws, saying they clash with the careful balance struck by Congress in federal immigration statutes.

On Monday, the Supreme Court, in a summary order, vacated the Third Circuit's September 2010 decision and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the high court's May 26 opinion upholding a similar law in Arizona that punishes companies that employ illegal immigrants.

In that case, Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, the high court ruled 5 to 3 that the Arizona law was not preempted by federal immigration statutes. The justices upheld Arizona's use of its business licensing scheme to require that employers hire only authorized immigrants or other legal workers and use the federal e-Verify system to check an immigrant's legal status.

The high court's decision in the Arizona case is providing new momentum to efforts at the state and local level to enact measures to counter perceived lax federal enforcement of immigration laws.

Frustration over immigration issues is not unique to Hazleton or Arizona. Similar immigration measures have been adopted in Mississippi, Oklahoma, Utah, Tennessee, Louisiana, West Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota, Georgia, and Rhode Island.

In 2009, more than 1,500 bills were introduced at the local and state level in an attempt to beef up immigration enforcement. Of the 1,500 bills, 222 became law and 131 were adopted as resolutions.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, lawyers for Hazleton said the local ordinances work in concert with federal immigration law, not at cross purposes with it.



Hazleton is a city of 30,000 in northeastern Pennsylvania. During the past decade the town saw an influx of more than 10,000 new residents. Most of them were Hispanic and moved to the town from New York and New Jersey.

The city government believed that many of the new residents were not legally present in the US. After concluding that illegal immigrants were contributing to a higher crime rate and imposing greater costs in terms of government social services, local officials passed two ordinances designed to deter illegal immigrants from settling in Hazleton.

One ordinance made it illegal to hire or continue to employ an illegal immigrant in Hazleton. A second ordinance made it illegal to rent a house or apartment to an illegal immigrant.

.

Like the Arizona law upheld by the Supreme Court, the Hazleton ordinances were tied to local licensing schemes. Under the employment ordinance, the city would revoke a company's business license if it employed an illegal immigrant. The rental ordinance threatened to revoke an individual's rental license if the landlord was found to be renting to an illegal immigrant.

The city said the provisions did not clash with federal immigration law, rather they complimented the federal framework.

A group of immigrants – including some illegal immigrants – and a Hispanic business group filed suit with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union. They sought to block enforcement of the two provisions.

Although it is illegal under federal law to harbor an illegal immigrant and to hire an illegal immigrant, the a federal judge and the Third Circuit ruled that the local ordinances were preempted by federal immigration laws.

Lawyers for the city had argued local officials were forced to pass the ordinances because the federal government was not effectively enforcing federal immigration laws.

Lawyers for the immigrants countered that Congress established a comprehensive regulation of immigration that carefully balanced the goal of deterring illegal immigration while protecting employers from harm and authorized workers from discrimination.

The case is Hazleton v. Lozano (10-772).

 

[Mike]

Interesting when you look at the history of Jefferson... He was one of the biggest states rights backers for years- until he became President-- and then he became one of the strongest backers of a strong federal government-- sending the navy and marines to invade/attack the Barbary Coast and buying the Louisiana Purchase- both on his own without Congressional approval...

Just to show you are a HUGE liar:
[quote]"Immediately prior to Jefferson's inauguration in 1801, Congress passed naval legislation that, among other things, provided for six frigates that 'shall be officered and manned as the President of the United States may direct.' … In the event of a declaration of war on the United States by the Barbary powers, these ships were to 'protect our commerce & chastise their insolence — by sinking, burning or destroying their ships & Vessels wherever you shall find them.'"[14] On Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, Yusuf Karamanli, the Pasha (or Bashaw) of Tripoli, demanded $225,000 from the new administration. (In 1800, Federal revenues totaled a little over $10 million.) Putting his long-held beliefs into practice, Jefferson refused the demand. Consequently, on May 10, 1801, the Pasha declared war on the U.S., not through any formal written documents but in the customary Barbary manner of cutting down the flagstaff in front of the U.S. Consulate.[15] Algiers and Tunis did not follow their ally in Tripoli.

In response, "Jefferson sent a small force to the area to protect American ships and citizens against potential aggression, but insisted that he was 'unauthorized by the Constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go beyond the line of defense.'" He told Congress: "I communicate [to you] all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of this important function confided by the Constitution to the Legislature exclusively their judgment may form itself on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight."[14] Although Congress never voted on a formal declaration of war, they did authorize the President to instruct the commanders of armed American vessels to seize all vessels and goods of the Pasha of Tripoli "and also to cause to be done all such other acts of precaution or hostility as the state of war will justify."





Enterprise capturing Tripoli
The schooner USS Enterprise defeated the 14-gun Tripolitan corsair Tripoli after a fierce but one-sided battle on August 1, 1801.

In 1802, in response to Jefferson's request for authority to deal with the pirates, Congress passed "An act for the Protection of Commerce and seamen of the United States against the Tripolitan cruisers", authorizing the President to "…employ such of the armed vessels of the United States as may be judged requisite… for protecting effectually the commerce and seamen thereof on the Atlantic ocean, the Mediterranean and adjoining seas."[16] "The statute authorized American ships to seize vessels belonging to the Bey of Tripoli, with the captured property distributed to those who brought the vessels into port."[14]

The U.S Navy went unchallenged on the sea, but still the question remained undecided. Jefferson pressed the issue the following year, with an increase in military force and deployment of many of the Navy's best ships to the region throughout 1802. The USS Argus, Chesapeake, Constellation, Constitution, Enterprise, Intrepid, Philadelphia and Syren all saw service during the war under the overall command of Commodore Edward Preble. Throughout 1803, Preble set up and maintained a blockade of the Barbary ports and executed a campaign of raids and attacks against the cities' fleets.
[/quote]

 

[Anonymous]

Sure throws OT's thinking about immigration statutes and who enforces them out the window. :roll:

Supreme Court upholds states rights on illegal immigration statutes

Warren Richey | The Christian Science Monitor | Jun 07, 2011

The US Supreme Court on Monday ordered a federal appeals court to reexamine whether Hazleton, Pa., can restrict illegal immigrants' ability to work and rent housing.

A federal judge and a panel of the Third US Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia had blocked the local laws, saying they clash with the careful balance struck by Congress in federal immigration statutes.

On Monday, the Supreme Court, in a summary order, vacated the Third Circuit's September 2010 decision and remanded the case for further consideration in light of the high court's May 26 opinion upholding a similar law in Arizona that punishes companies that employ illegal immigrants.

In that case, Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, the high court ruled 5 to 3 that the Arizona law was not preempted by federal immigration statutes. The justices upheld Arizona's use of its business licensing scheme to require that employers hire only authorized immigrants or other legal workers and use the federal e-Verify system to check an immigrant's legal status.

The high court's decision in the Arizona case is providing new momentum to efforts at the state and local level to enact measures to counter perceived lax federal enforcement of immigration laws.

Frustration over immigration issues is not unique to Hazleton or Arizona. Similar immigration measures have been adopted in Mississippi, Oklahoma, Utah, Tennessee, Louisiana, West Virginia, Colorado, Minnesota, Georgia, and Rhode Island.

In 2009, more than 1,500 bills were introduced at the local and state level in an attempt to beef up immigration enforcement. Of the 1,500 bills, 222 became law and 131 were adopted as resolutions.

In appealing to the Supreme Court, lawyers for Hazleton said the local ordinances work in concert with federal immigration law, not at cross purposes with it.



Hazleton is a city of 30,000 in northeastern Pennsylvania. During the past decade the town saw an influx of more than 10,000 new residents. Most of them were Hispanic and moved to the town from New York and New Jersey.

The city government believed that many of the new residents were not legally present in the US. After concluding that illegal immigrants were contributing to a higher crime rate and imposing greater costs in terms of government social services, local officials passed two ordinances designed to deter illegal immigrants from settling in Hazleton.

One ordinance made it illegal to hire or continue to employ an illegal immigrant in Hazleton. A second ordinance made it illegal to rent a house or apartment to an illegal immigrant.

.

Like the Arizona law upheld by the Supreme Court, the Hazleton ordinances were tied to local licensing schemes. Under the employment ordinance, the city would revoke a company's business license if it employed an illegal immigrant. The rental ordinance threatened to revoke an individual's rental license if the landlord was found to be renting to an illegal immigrant.

The city said the provisions did not clash with federal immigration law, rather they complimented the federal framework.

A group of immigrants – including some illegal immigrants – and a Hispanic business group filed suit with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union. They sought to block enforcement of the two provisions.

Although it is illegal under federal law to harbor an illegal immigrant and to hire an illegal immigrant, the a federal judge and the Third Circuit ruled that the local ordinances were preempted by federal immigration laws.

Lawyers for the city had argued local officials were forced to pass the ordinances because the federal government was not effectively enforcing federal immigration laws.

Lawyers for the immigrants countered that Congress established a comprehensive regulation of immigration that carefully balanced the goal of deterring illegal immigration while protecting employers from harm and authorized workers from discrimination.

The case is Hazleton v. Lozano (10-772).

So then the Alabama law is where it should be then- in the courts deciding its Constitutionality..

You do know Alabama has a long history and precedent of doing things outside the laws of the United States and even of rebellion and anarchy involving their failure to follow US laws- and the rules of civilized societies :???: ...

The American purchase of the Louisiana territory was not accomplished without domestic opposition. Jefferson's philosophical consistency was in question because of his strict interpretation of the Constitution. Many people believed he, and other Jeffersonians such as James Madison, were being hypocritical by doing something they surely would have argued against with Alexander Hamilton. The Federalists strongly opposed the purchase, favoring close relations with Britain over closer ties to Napoleon, and concerned that the U.S. had paid a large sum of money just to declare war on Spain. Both Federalists and Jeffersonians were concerned about whether the purchase was unconstitutional. Many members of the United States House of Representatives opposed the purchase. Majority Leader John Randolph led the opposition. The House called for a vote to deny the request for the purchase, but it failed by two votes 59–57

And it appears as tho even Jefferson had to deal with Tea Party folks that wanted NO debt-- said NO to everything- and had NO vision past the nose on their head for this countries progress.....

So if Jefferson hadn't have changed much of his ideals from what he said about the government- and what he actually did when he was President- and acted as a strong union President adopting many of Washington/Hamiltons Federalist ideals in his actions for expansion- and did things he even questioned the Constitutionality of himself - much of our area that is now the US- may have still been New France...

Jefferson's Secret Message to Congress
While Jefferson made no effort to hide the Lewis and Clark expedition from Spanish, French, and British officials, he did try to shield it from his political enemies. By the time he was ready to request funds for the enterprise, Jefferson's relationship with the opposition in Congress was anything but friendly. When the president suggested including expedition funding in his regular address to Congress, Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1761-1849) urged that the request be made in secret. The message purported to focus on the state of Indian trade and mentioned the proposed western expedition near the end of the document.

Jefferson even had to use less than total transparency in getting funding for the Lewis & Clark exploration...

Kind of sounds like history repeating itself....I wonder if in 1800 $15 Million was thought of the same as the $Trillions are today :???: ....

 

[Mike]

So then the Alabama law is where it should be then- in the courts deciding its Constitutionality..

The Constitutionality has been decided and is settled law. The Obama Admin wants to change it. :roll:

Jefferson was no spendthrift like Buckwheat and his minions. Jefferson reduced the national debt by one third.

Your above post shows one thing for sure. In your earlier post you claimed that Jefferson bought the La. purchase "Without Approval Of Congress".

Now you are posting the votes of the House towards that purchase. I already showed where the Senate ratified the treaty.

You are digging yourself into a large LIAR'S Hole!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When Buckwheat comes up with a spending plan as good as the La. Purchase, please let us know. We would be very interested to entertain such an unrealistic notion. :lol:

 

[Anonymous]

And if you have 50 different immigration laws- you will probably end up with 50 Constitutional challenges/rulings...The reason interstate and international laws were to be handled by the Federal government....

Mike-- look at the dates on the Louisiana Purchase Treaty/agreement...All the Congressional action was AFTER Jefferson had already had his representatives shaking hands and signing off on the deal - a deal that even he questioned the Constitutionality of...
Even with the approval of Congress afterward- the whole issue was a huge move away from states rights and toward a more powerful federal government...

 

[Mike]

Mike-- look at the dates on the Louisiana Purchase Treaty/agreement...All the Congressional action was AFTER Jefferson had already had his representatives shaking hands and signing off on the deal - a deal that even he questioned the Constitutionality of...
Even with the approval of Congress afterward- the whole issue was a huge move away from states rights and toward a more powerful federal government...

How many times are you going to change your mind? First you say Jefferson signed the deal all by himself with Napolean "without approval of Congress".

Then after I showed you where he sent negotiators to seek a deal and cut a preliminary deal, you admit to it.

You can't have it both ways.

Jefferson did not ink the deal without approval of Congress. He could not ratify a treaty by himself. Besides, how would he have paid for it without Congress? THE TREATY was ratified by the Senate. Is that "without approval of Congress"?

You're still a liar.

You are so wishy washy on immigration law it's not even funny. You claim to want someone to enforce it. When the Obama Admin refuses to adequately protect the states, they make up their minds to protect their own and you even disagree with that! What a tool!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Anonymous]

I don't know where you get wishy washy on immigration... Just like I thought it was Constitutionally Ikes duty, Reagans duty, and GW's duty (along with all other Presidents) to secure our borders and enforce immigration law- I think it is Obama's duty under Federal Law-- but do not believe the States have the authority to go around, override, or even enforce those federal laws unless specifically given the authority by the Administration in control...
One of the reasons Reagan signed Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986- altho after he implemented the amnesty part he (and every President since him) fell far short on the enforcement part....

As far as Jefferson- political historians are pretty much in agreement that during Jeffersons first term he did more to build a strong central federal government- and usurp states rights than any other President of the early days period- even possibly Washington and Hamilton who he had previously criticized...

If you can't agree that negotiating the first purchase of new land for the federal govt., invading a sovereign nation, and trying to overthrow a foreign government and establish a new one friendly to your side is not a strong use of Federal power-- so be it..

You're still a liar.

With you and a couple of your buddies on this site- your frequent use of this to challenge anyone that has a differing opinion/ideals is almost a compliment...Especially when I am very proud not to have many of your beliefs and mores....

 

[Mike]

I will type this real slow..........................

You claim to want Illegal Immigration laws enforced. The Fed refuses. The States say they will. You disagree with that claiming it to be Fed power.

Lots of irony here................................

Lots of transparency into your illogical thinking too.

 

[Anonymous]

Mike,

why do you think the federal govt does not want to stop illegal immigration?

 

[Mike]

Mike,

why do you think the federal govt does not want to stop illegal immigration?

Votes