Where is James Madison when you need him? Yesterday, the announcement came that the attorney general of the United States, at the direction of the president of the United States, is filing suit against the state of Arizona because . . . because why? The real reason is because they do not want Arizona to enforce the law with respect to illegal immigrants. The stated reason is that they do not want a state to be seen to usurp federal authority.
First, what about that law? Have you read it? It’s not long. Unlike the legislation coming out of Washington, it doesn’t bludgeon citizens with thousands — yes, thousands — of pages of gobbledygook. It’s an 18-page document whose main burden is to say that the federal immigration law already in place should be enforced. You wouldn’t know that from the liberal hysteria that the bill has sparked. But that is the case: you can find the text of Senate Bill 1070 here: read it and see. As Byron York noted in the Washington Examiner,
Contrary to the talk, it is a reasonable, limited, carefully-crafted measure designed to help law enforcement deal with a serious problem in Arizona. Its authors anticipated criticism and went to great lengths to make sure it is constitutional and will hold up in court. It is the criticism of the law that is over the top, not the law itself.
Amen. But why are the attorney general and the president pursuing this suit? To show the world that Big Government is even bigger than you may have supposed. In their view, Washington runs your life. Washington tells you whether you can enforce the law. Washington tells you what sort of health care you can have. Washington tells you how much money you can make. Washington is the machine: you are but a cog.
According to Washington, that is. What would James Madison have thought? It would be interesting to ask Eric Holder or the former law professor, Barack Hussein Obama. Has either read the Federalist? I am thinking in particular of Federalist 45, in which Madison notes the following about the powers relegated by the Constitution to the federal government as distinct from those accorded to the individual states:
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Let’s look at that last sentence again: “The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
Where do you suppose Madison would come down on the debate over Arizona’s decision to secure its borders and enforce the law? To ask the question is to answer it, but Washington isn’t listening.
There are large portions of AZ that are currently controlled by drug cartels. The Federal response has been to put up signs warning Americans not to venture into these areas. Contrast this to the response made by the USA in WWII when the Japanese took control of a couple of small desolate islands in the Aleutions. We sent 30,000+ troops at great cost to take back American sovereign territory. There is nothing more important than maintaining sovereignty as a nation. We have truly lost our way.
Rick, I applaud you for an intelligent comment.Hopefully more Americans like you will vote this November and send a message to those in Washington to get back on the right track of caring out the peoples wishes.
The Democratic Party is controlled by its constituent groups, which include Hispanic politicians. They will never allow themselves to be seen as adverse to their constituent groups interests, regardless of the consequences for the country.
When he files this suit, Obama is arguing that:
“illegal immigrants are like an oil spill in the gulf. There is nothing we can do to keep them off our shores and if a state does solve this problem, it makes the US government look ineffective.”
Why is it that we refer constantly to former law or consitutional law “professor” Obama? Was he tenured somewhere? Isn’t it that he taught part-time like so many idealistic lawyers with small practices? In most cases idealists who teach part-time need the money as well as the opportunity to keep up in a large law library they didn’t have to pay for.
During the campaign a liberal lawyer I know, in his 70s, said to me that Obama was valedictorian at Harvard Law and president of the law review. He then went on to say that Obama was so smart that I couldn’t understand him, because I wasn’t smart enough. I replied that if Obama had been so prominent at Harvard as a student surely his campaign would have made much of it rather than “sealing” his student records. I also asked my friend if it weren’t possible that Obama was so biased and partisan that I wasn’t biased and partisan enough to understand him.
My friend said that if I voted for McCain the country would collapse. I voted for McCain.
“My friend said that if I voted for McCain the country would collapse. I voted for McCain…” And the Country is collapsing.
I remember my first indepth intro to Obama – not long after he gave his stirring keynote address at the Dem’s Kerry Convention in ’04.
It came by way of THE WEEKLY STANDARD – Editor Andrew Ferguson gave a review of DREAMS OF MY FATHER combined with some background on who this new Illinois senator was.
What Ferguson found out when questioning numerous people Obama had worked with or for, as well as some he interviewed with at sine big Law Firms Obama tried at various junctures to hire into, echo’s your observation JackLifton.
A pretty smart guy, real impressive in person, but. Diffident, muddled, and the definition of ‘adrift’ as far as settling on a career. For a guy who was the first Black Man to edit the Harvard Law Review, he did a massive amount of dithering – AND RARELY MADE MUCH MONEY.
Sure he taught as an adjunct prof – for over ten years – and apparently never published anything. Sure there was some actual lawyering ouside of the classroom, but besides the much publizied account of working for Acorn, the public knows nothing of ANY of it.(just like his school records you mentioned Jack)
Truth is Michelle carried the family as far as an income until he published DREAMS{for which he recieved an INSANE ADVANCE – given his obscurity at the time}. That book established his public persona – and made him a lot of money once he won a Senate seat. I do recall that the re-release of DREAMS garnered him over a million when his tax returns were reported once he moved into the White House.
The adoring pundits on the left always refer to Obama’s intellectual bona fides for this package – Harvard, taught law at Chicago U, and is a best-selling author.
But I view Obama like Andrew Ferguson; he is a SOCIAL intellectual; gifted with language (setting aside the possiblity raised by some that he – like JFK before him – didn’t write much if any of DREAMS – the book that ‘made’ him) and socially deft. More Chameleon than Charismatic. A man of little actual accomplishment since Harvard who rode a tightly controlled public image into the Senate over an opponent who convieniently imploded.
And then (after little to distinguish him again in the Senate) 4 years later rode a financial crises into the White House.
Where he has shown zero leadership….on anything. Everything on the legislative side has been to demure to Pelosi & Reid. While the MSM gave him credit for pushing through Health Care – with his 11th hour campaiging – he didn’t really do squat. Even with a once fillibuster proof House & Senate.
The same is true on Afganistan. The Gulf. Foreign Policy – from the Cario Speech to Israel to Iran to Russian …you name it. From the Bowing to Monarchs to morally equating Chavez to China.
He never was an empty suit. Just a Chicago Pol with impeccable timing who woo’d the electorate during a very scary period; exausted by war, shocked by depth and negligence that conservatives under Bush had ravaged the economy.
Now not even an adoring MSM can hide the facts in plain sight; his is a far left adgenda openly hostile to american capitalism. Whether it’s Immigration, the Gulf, Energy policy or a Stimulus debate – what he has to say now matters little.
People are acutely tuned to what he does. Increasingly they reject it – and with that – what little trust remains is going south.
Keep up the good work, fight stupidity with intelligence.
JackLifton, I guess your professor friend may have been correct. We both voted for Mcain and the country is in convulsions ready to collapse. Arizona is not “usurping” power from the fed..it is merely stating it’s intention to uphold the law already in place. In order for them to “usurp” power they would have to have stated that their new law applies to the other 49 states. If I could see that and obama and holder couldn’t we have the wrong people in office. P.S. read “liberty and Tyranny” by Mark Levin. He is an ACTUAL constitution lawyer. VIVA los 1010!!!!
Roger repeats the fallacious mantra that B.O. was a law professor. Such a statement is simply false. B.O. was merely a guest lecturer.
To become a professor at most universities, one must have published at least some journal articles. B.O. has never published anything of the sort.
And, of course, there is absolutely no evidence that B.O. has ever read any of the Federalist papers. He may not even know what they are. He is ignorant to the point of vapidity.
Honestly this took me less time to fact check than it took you to write it.
http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media
In case you can’t be bothered to read:
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.”
From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
“honestly” typical statist claptrap. The rules only apply to those the statist wants them to apply. Firstly, by your math 4+4=12. Since he was “senior” lecturer for eight years then he was “considered” professor for only eight years…As far as I’m concerned, he was a Professor long before he graduated Harvard as the term applies to those who advocate, profess. This does not make him uniquely qualified to teach any more than he is to lead, which he is not. So, the point it irrelevent, as is obama himself.
History has proven that the anti-Federalists were, in every point and sense, correct. What a shame that our noble experiment is failing so thoroughly. Perhaps it’s time to rethink and start over.
One of the things I’ve heard brought up about this filing against Arizona is, where was the DOJ when certain large cities declared themselves “Sanctuary Cities”
I don’t re-call the Feds filing suit against them for upsurping Federal powers, neither do I re-call any of our stellar media
pointing out that refusing to enforce federal law is actually breaking the law.
Hypocrisy in action, a daily program brought to you by the Obama
administration and it’s minions.
I almost hope that AZ loses this, because every state in the Union should then turn to the Feds and say “Here’s a whole list of laws we won’t help you enforce: gun laws, EPA regs, the new healthcare mandate….”
From another tack, the gist of the DOJ case is that for the feds to properly enforce its own laws in AZ would so drain it of its ICE and other resources that interior regions of the country would suffer from lack of manpower/resources. To focus on AZ draws enforcement resources from other regions, they claim.
How incredibly stupid can the DOJ attorneys be? Are these people brain dead? If you stop illegal aliens coming in through the Tucson sector, you won’t have to worry so much about illegals in Omaha or Maryland. Put the manpower on the spigot and there will be no overflow. This is not rocket science.
Yuma was shut down during 2005-2006 when Pres. Bush authorized thousands of ARMED national guard troops to stand on the border, about 10-feet apart, 24/7. Streamlining was employed: you get caught, it’s jail for you, 14-21 days. You talk about a deterrent, that’s it. Armed guys, shoulder to shoulder, jail time, and after you get sent back if you get caught again it’s two years in prison. It worked in Yuma, it can work in the Tucson/Nogales sector. Unless of course, our Leftist leadership WANTS to keep things hot so he can fire up his base to provoke a nation-killing amnesty.
out of the box thinking, hmmm. good job.
Politically speaking I suppose Eric Holder could argue that drug dealing is Foreign Commerce, murder and mayhem by illegal’s is, by definition, Immigration, or the war on drugs is a War, all well within the purview of the federal government. While we are at it since when has being arbitrary and capricious on law enforcement a civil violation? Like a tree falling in the forest, if no one files a law suit has any violation occured? It’s all so esoteric.
The elections of November 2010 and November 2012 are crucial. If we can not vote these criminals out of office in the Socialist Democrat Party and the Marxist in the White House we may have a bloody revolution on our hands.
There is no reason to stand by while our liberties are torn away from American citizens each and every day. How much blood will have to be spilled before our elected politicians begin following the law and the Constitution of the United States?
Perhaps they should be required to read it and know it prior to taking office.
“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Hordes of any race will not be allowed to push and intimidate peaceful American citizens and many are NOT looking to the radical-leftist government for protection!
Warning: Ignoramus in the White House. Open border Attorney General. Arizonians, get your kids off the street.
Obama was never a law professor. He was a lecturer fobbed onto the faculty at the behest of a board member with political connections. This is one of many ways that Obama’s path to “greatness” was greased by backstage actors.
“….they do not want a state to be seen to usurp federal authority.”
That seems to be a pretty weak argument to me. Would the feds like to argue that AZ LEOs shouldn’t enforce laws against robbing banks? After all that is against both AZ and Federal law. IANAL but I always thought that Federal preemption of local laws only comes into play when the laws are in conflict with each other, not when they are in harmony with each other as SB 1070 has been written to be.
jgreene: what a great idea!
I’d love to find a way to make the President of the United States read the Declaration of Independence, and then the Constitution (with all amendments) — ALOUD — on national TV. It wouldn’t take him long — less than some of his speeches, I’d say — and it would constitute (ahem) a great “teachable moment”.
It’s a twofer. He gets millions of people to listen who otherwise might not have read our founding documents… and, as a bonus, we will know for certain that he himself has read them.
Now, how can we get him to do it?
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
then why have a federal government. let’s break up the union, and say have republic of Arizona, Kingdom of Alabama,democratic republic of New York,the Islamic republic of Michigan, united morman of Utah and so on…
this way every state has their own immigation laws and everone is happy.. what do you think Mr. Kimball?
m
In what passes for your mind, we have two options.
Either an all powerfull federal govt, or no federal govt?
And to think, there are people out there who believe liberals have functioning brain stems.
Lesson in irony – the brain stem serves motor and sensory functions, along with autonomic systems, such as cardiac and respiratory activity. In other words, Mr Brain Stem, it don’t mean what you think it do. But thanks for providing such a blazingly obvious example of feigned intellect. Dick Armey would be proud. You done good. Yes you did. You did good. Uh-huh. That’s right. Here’s a cookie. You like that cookie? Here you go. Now, be sure to call all your friends and invite them to the Glenn Beck MLK Celebration. And if you know a darkie, take them along, It helps the optics.
Hail Rush Go Sarah!
You see how this works Mark?
Nobody on the Left can ever be an idiot. You see, you’re an idiot for calling out what was obviously miriam’s exercise in irony. What would appear to the untrained (i.e, conservative) eye to be miriam’s functional illiteracy was really an intentional–and quite sublime–flourish that carries her to even rarer ironic heights.
Suitably incomprehensible. You must be a graduate of Glen Beck University.
OK Miriam couple of points here:
1. We ARE in fact 50 separate states with a significant degree of autonomy. The power of the federal government over those states is limited and specifically defined within the constitution. The 10th amendment of the constitution specifically and clearly says that of you can not find the basis for a proposed federal action specifically listed in the constitution then that power does NOT belong to the federal government.
2. All the Arizona law says is that they are going to attempt to enforce the federal law already in place BECAUSE the federal government refuses to enforce those laws and that refusal is a detriment to the life, liberty and property of the people of Arizona. Keep in mind that this is not the inability of the federal government to enforce the law (although that is at least partially the case) this is the abject refusal of the feds to enforce valid US law and secure the border.
Arizona is not writing immigration law. They accept existing federal immigration law as is. They are simply saying that the failure of the executive branch to enforce that law is already on the books is causing grave harm to their state. The Arizona law is nothing more than clear, specific and even handed guidance to law enforcement on how to enforce existing federal law. Frankly – I do not see how any reasonable person could take issue with that.
GDT: good to hear from a sane conservative!!
I came to the states in 1976 when president carter got elected. every president since carter grappled with immigation issue. however no president since carter sent any troops to protect the borders. why is this? isnt our military suppose to protect our borders? I am not quit sure what the law is, but this is very puzzeling.
from example in Iran, thier borders with Afghanistan is akin to ours and Mexico, drug traficking, crime etc.. they built walls, dug 20X20 ditched and they too have border control, yet they also do not send troops to watch the borders, I just don’t get it.
it is 103 degrees here in NYC and I am off to smoke a cigar, have a stiff scotch with a Sam Adam to back it up!!!
“no president since carter sent any troops to protect the borders”
You must have written that AFTER the Sam Adams. Go back and check. (Hint: You won’t have to go too far back.)
You aren’t very bright are you? Did you read the article? Even though the article is short, I will repost your answer:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
We have a federal government to provide for the common defense, international treaties and commerce. The United States is just that, 50 sovereign states United as a single nation. Since the Federal government has failed to provide for the common defense of Arizona (amongst others) it is the right and responsibility of said state government to protect it’s sovereignty and it’s citizens.
All we need to resolve this issue, is for the Federal Government to secure the border and enforce it’s statutory immigration laws.
If Israel can secure it’s borders from suicide bombers, we can secure ours from migrant workers.
And the Constitution defines how to provide for the common defense, as well as the other objectives of the preamble. It specifically forbids the States from keeping troops in time of peace and grants exclusively to the Congress the right to declare a war. It only allows the army and navy to be funded for two years at a time. Most of the emphasis is placed on the militia which, contrary to a popular misconception, is not a bunch of state militias. In fact, the Second Amendment specifically gives to the people the right to arm their own militias, i.e. local militias which are trained by the states according to federal regulations and called up “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. To the degree that we are being invaded by drug lords, it is that aggregation of local militia — not the Army, not peacetime State “National Guard” troops — to which we must turn. Should the Congress declare war against Mexico, then we can use the army constitutionally and the States can keep their own troops, adding to the forces of the local militias.
So why doesn’t Arizona build a fence along its border? I don’t see any reason why it couldn’t.
And we’re going to get the money for the fence from exactly where? Already our budget includes 2.7 Billion dollars of expenses pertaining to educating, incarcerating, law enforcing, and medicating hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, a pretty hefty chunk of our 8-or-so billion dollar total state budget.
The October 2006 law to build the fence, sponsored by Duncan Hunter, has been HALTED by this current administration. Border security, national sovereignty, and public safety are not issues that overly concern our servants in Washington.
National sovereignty? I seem to recall that somewhere in the deep dark past of this country — NOT A NATION — we fought a war against sovereignty. Some sovereign called George the Third, Hanover not Bush, wanted sovereignty over us. Instead of sovereignty, we had this crazy idea of local, self-government with limited government built up federally from hamlets to townships to counties to states and then to the weakest association of all, a grudging allowance for a federal government because the Brits wouldn’t lay off.
How far we have fallen!
BTW, the famous quote of Jefferson was in response to one of our country’s backlashes against the encroachments of sovereignty. From the Wikipedia article on Shays’ rebellion:
Thomas Jefferson, who was serving as an ambassador to France at the time, refused to be alarmed by Shays’ Rebellion. In a letter to a friend, he wrote that “a little rebellion now and then is a good thing. The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
I do wish someone would explain to me – why it is LEGAL to provide or allow tax funded services to any ILLEGAL.
It just seems to me that when an illegal has the audacity to show themselves, they should then and there be arrested
and deported; and, without having received a goodie bag. With those who repeat the deed, lengthen their incarceration time.
Those who employ illegals should be arrested and heavily fined. Repeated offenders should be incarcerated.
It’s called enforcing the law. What a novel idea!
Now, darcy; with all the money you are not being robbed of, you can secure the border with fence, guards, cameras,
deep trap holes, shock devices; whatever it takes.
Your local and our national security depend upon it – no small matter, especially in these ‘terrorizing’ times.
It’s absolutely crucial that Arizona wins this case. The people of that state have the right to expect protection from the invasion of their border, and if the case is won, the other border states will quickly follow suit. And when they do, most of the other states will do the same. It will be an unstoppable rebellion against the brazen lawlessness of this current administration.
The administration has had a fit of honesty. They state in the complaint:
“…S.B. 1070’s mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives. ”
Here is evidence of their priorities and objectives: The sign warning Americans to not travel in southern Arizona
All the more evidenced since they haven’t said boo to Rhode Island, which has been identifying and reporting illegals found in the course of their lawful actions for years.
“Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid.”
Abraham Lincoln (ca. 1855)
Arizona leads the nation !
The people, and the state governments,
are watching this with great interest, as
an indicator of how far from politics as
usual the current administration will go,
which in turn suggests how much push-back
at the polls should occur in november;
If Obama & Co. do not heed that wake-up
call, every legal means should be used
to resist peacefully the passage and
enforcement of unconstitutional laws.
Obama isn’t interested in the Constitution or the Founding Fathers. They don’t help him.
Like most of our “so called” founding fathers and ancient american great leaders, most of them were selfish slaveowning, rich hypocrites. They talked the talked, but could’nt even begin to walk. However, eventually, our country began to make progress to what they their fantasies only intended. On the other hand, this tinkering with the will of what Arizona has passed in to law cannot be good for the country. The feds must cease and desist and back off a state that has passed a constitutional law. That state has done nothing wrong. Shame on Holder !!….nice article, thanks.
So called founding Fathers? Rich hypocrites?
Can’t say much about the slavery thing except those slave owners signed on to what they knew to be true no matter what their personal holdings were.
Nice to see you supporting the Constitution.
As to your criticism of the Founding Fathers, it is sorely misplaced. Yes, many were slaveholders… in lands where a black could not be free.
Many wished to abolish slavery, but wisely deferred it to another time, because it would tear the nation apart. And it almost did, 80 years later.
They were careful in drafting the Declaration of Independence. Originally, it said… Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness. They edited out Property, because they feared those who supported slavery would seize upon it as a means of supporting continued slavery. Slaves were property.
The Founders chose their battles wisely. One can only do so much at one time. Your criticism of them is unfair, because it doesn’t take into account the circumstances of their time.
You have unknowingly bought into Leftist propaganda. They have put forth these criticisms of the Founding Fathers as a means of discrediting what they wrote, and stood for, and fought for. By doing so, they use a false equivalence: “They thought like this, so all this other stuff is invalid, or of less value.” They attack the messenger, not the message.
The Founders could all have been villains, but their views on Liberty and Government would still be true, nonetheless. It’s the message, not the messenger.
You know the Administration is off its rocker when even the trolls condemn what they’re doing.
The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined.
We have not lived under that Constitution since the Civil War.
S.B. 1070’s mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives
Indeed it will. It conflicts with the federal governments objective of bringing vast numbers of illegals here in defiance of the law and conferring American citizenship on them.
This seemed like a huge bluff to me when I first heard it, and I fully expect the White House to lose their case. It is obvious that they think they are so smart in the law that they can simply overthrow anything they set their minds to (of which they disagree with – screw all else, like what the Constitution says), and/or they are too arrogant to back down.
The evidence is that they have regrouped from the obvious loser of contending the law is a breach of Civil Rights, and have focused on a different avenue, equally a loser, of pre-emption of federal law. It is evidence because they made all that hoopla about Civil Rights, and then, without ever implementing that first course, they come out with pre-emption instead. It shows an ulterior motive was at play the whole time. Decrying the breach of Civil Rights was not the reason at all, but a partisan knee-jerk.
However, it is safe to assume that it is the lawyer’s choice of attack for what must be vague and thin lines in protocol for the particular situation. Perhaps, they figure some sort of default will necessarily fall towards the federal government, and be the best way to W-I-N. Yea, transparency, hope and change, and all that crap.
Oh, and it just dawned on me, because they obviously must know that they have a poor case, it must be for the gesture of it all, too. To consolidate all the illegal-immigrant, nation-of-men loving Latino votes (my apologies to Latinos who do not put ethnicity over America’s rights as a nation). The gesture is, “we tried, we fought for you. Keep us in and we’ll get there.” And it probably is better that they lose, for their ends, because it will put blacks at ease about having to contend with illegals, all the more, for jobs.
I think you’re on the right track. Make a case but make sure you lose. Base and illegals are happy that you tried, and mad at the right for winning. You don’t have to enforce the law because AZ is doing that for you, so you expend your resources elsewhere (NASA/Muslim outreach /sarc).
Humorous cartoon titled “Acting Stupidly” on the Arizona lawsuit at http://drawfortruth.wordpress.com/2010/07/07/acting-stupidly/
Fact Check. Obama was not editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was the President of the Review. His position was elected, it was not based upon his grade point.
Any doubts? Go to link: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
or do a search: Obama president of harvard law review.
Can’t speak for Madison, but I bet the Supremes can not wait to explain reality to Harold Hill Obama.
I didn’t realize that U.S. citizens were responsible for the welfare of mexican citizens….can any prog commie tell me where in American law that tidbit resides? I don’t give a crap about mexicans…….its up to mexico to provide for their citizens…..a fight is coming….are you on the side of freedom or the feds telling you how high to jump and when …..pick a side and prepare
PULEEZE!!!! Barracky boy was NEVER a professor of anything;
Please do not use this association any more; It denegrates the true ‘professors’ whom have worked very hard to EARN that title.
Thank you.
“…the true professors WHO have worked…”.
Madison, a former Secretary of State, would side with Holder. States have enough to do in their own realm, and they shouldn’t be trying to poach legal authority from the federal government.
Cybergeezer, shame on you for dissing that proud line of professors, the adjunct professors of law who bring real world experience to the classroom. Obama was a great professor by all accounts. You could look it up.
Jealous much?
You poor fool; You really do need to get an education, and not from the main stream U.S. media.
In reference to your comment on the thousands of pages of gobbledygook coming out of Washington DC, here is a quote from Tacitus that should explain it, “The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates”. Our government today does not believe in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers or in enforcing federal laws they don’t like. It is time to remove these corrupt politicians by whatever means.
You people have absolutely no understanding of the founding principles or the people who crafted them. In fact, it is your relentless appropriation of their intent, ignorantly and selfishly edited to suit your own cowardly purposes, that is at the heart of this country’s decline. Conservatism, Republicans, Tea Baggers, religious fundamentalists – YOU are the enemy of freedom. YOU are the source of tyranny. America and the world will be better off when your misguided nostalgia for unearned privilege is purged from the human experience.
Hail Rush. Go Sarah!
Yes. Right. So precocious. Cute as a button. The adults are talking seriously here though, so here’s a push pop. Take it into the other room.
TO: Poor Citizen
Please read, (non-Liberal History Books), and understand that the Founding Fathers came from a world we are moving toward. A world where Government runs the lives of it’s people. The founders wanted a world better than the world as it was. Together they formulated the Constitution and set of rules to move toward in the coming centuries.
The Constitution is much like the Bible, a set of rules to live by and evolve towards. The Founding Fathers were men who lived at a time when certain criteria was normal, owning slaves only being one of these. It was normalin those days to own slaves. As for being rich, most honest, successful people work harder than do non-rich people. Successful individuals understand what works and what doesn’t, they’ve paid the price to learn those differences. If some of our Founding Fathers were rich it was because they earned it. Keep in mind most of our Founding Fathers lost most everything because of their decision to fight for your right to be free.
In two hundred years from now it’s possible that anyone who now drives a gasoline powered automobile will be branded as a rich, gas guzzling, elitist. Time changes
thought.
PS. You might want to watch the Glenn Beck Founder’s Fridays at 5:00pm Eastern Standard time
“It was normal in those days to own slaves.”
Here’s a thought, if the Foundering Fathers couldn’t navigate their way through the right and wrong of owning another human being for the purpose of forced labor, then why would you put any credence whatsoever in their opinions about forming a society?
Don’t like that question? Here’s another – Is “normal” really your standard of acceptable? Cuz, for example, the majority of people favor repealing DADT. Does that make it normal? And if it’s normal, I guess we should just go ahead and repeal it. And 17% of Americans approve of Sarah Palin. Does that make the other 83% normal? And if so, we should accept her inevitable slide into shame and obscurity.
It was normal to own slaves at that time. It was also normal to shoot British troops sent by the King. However, this is what was not normal: signing your death warrant to secure freedom for your fellow beings. The abolition of slavery had to come later to maintain the economy to fight the British. A few brave men had the courage to sign their lives and fortunes away for a greater cause.
Hitler drew perty pictures.
You can’t even admit a single wrong. That’s the pathetic part of conservatism, the relentless hubris, the self-righteous indignation, the judgment, without a hint of accountability.
Want proof? Easy.
Were the Found Fathers wrong for owning slaves? Was eagan wrong for granting amnesty to illegals? Was Reagan wrong for never uttering the word “Aids” during the eight yeas of his administration? Was Cheney wrong for claiming 12 million e-mails “were lost” when they became the subject of a criminal investigation?
Until yo get you ass off your petard, nothing you say matters. You know why?
You have no standing.
Kudos to the writer who spoke out concerning the 10 th AMENDMENT; wherein the States retain the power to make laws when they are not specfically prevented from doing so by the CONSTITUTION. OUR US CONSTITUTION was written
in common English so that average people without a lot of advanced education could understand it! Many of you intellectuals have consistantly interpreted the language
therein to mean something other than what is printed in
simple English. As for the First Ten Amendments, they were put into the Constitution for people just like me!
Those of you who continue to demean the character of the Founding Fathers by commenting on their approval of
slavery are ignorant of the conditions and pollitical
climate the first year or two immediately after the USA
was accepted as a New Nation by the European Powers.
Had it not been for George Washington and a few others;
most notably, Ben Franklyn,Tom Jefferson, and Adams.
The USA would have resulted in anarchy and our African-American friends would not have the opportunities they
have today!
In order for Az. to have usurped power they would have had to have made the claim that their new intent to uphold the current laws also applied to the other several states, by Arizona authority. I didn’t read that in the law as proposed in SB-1070. So…can we have an “intelligent” argument?