Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

1st Illegal Alien Arrested Under new Alabama Law From Yemen

Page 3 of 4 [ 49 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

12 Oct 2011, 3:20 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
If the courts side with the States on the Fed not following the law or upholding their constitutional obligations, how is the court going to enforce their ruling?


Last time I checked you were still a nation founded on the principle of the Rule of Law, and governments will fall in line when affirmatively instructed by the courts.

But even if they weren't, I suspect there would be little hesitation in reliance on constitutional remedies to compel the executive.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

12 Oct 2011, 3:22 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
If the courts side with the States on the Fed not following the law or upholding their constitutional obligations, how is the court going to enforce their ruling?


Last time I checked you were still a nation founded on the principle of the Rule of Law, and governments will fall in line when affirmatively instructed by the courts.

But even if they weren't, I suspect there would be little hesitation in reliance on constitutional remedies to compel the executive.


Not likely to happen with the Democrats controlling the senate.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

12 Oct 2011, 3:32 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Not likely to happen with the Democrats controlling the senate.


Well, it's well established that the only compulsion on the legislative branch is the electorate. But I think you are failing to consider the consequence of a judicial finging for mandamus.

But I'm not yet persuaded that you are anywhere near this type of circumstance. Crime occurs--but the federal government does not send in the army to do the job that state established police forces are failing to do. Illegal immigration occurs--and I am not persuaded that states are authorized to send the police in to do the job that officials of the Department of Homeland Security are failing to do.

These arguments are, after all, political.


_________________
--James


DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

12 Oct 2011, 3:39 pm

When government has laws that require the use of resources in order to be enforced, and if the government does not have those resources, which must be given to it by the people, then the government's obligation to enforce it's laws pragmatically ends, depending on the circumstances. We have people who do not want to give government resources to do it's job, and then want to hold it accountable when it fails? That is a set up to fail.

Of course, on the immigration issue, you have another problem: the high number of people that feel it is morally wrong to enforce some of the laws at certain times. Those laws aren't exactly fair, and writing them to be fair is nearly impossible, and so we end up with the mess we have: legislators that pass laws that sound like solutions, but aren't, but that make voters happy.

And don't go run that up onto the Democrats. I've seen the Republicans do it just as often. It's called politics, and both liberals and conversations are guilty of it.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

12 Oct 2011, 3:42 pm

I don't recall Republicans giving the Mexican Drug Cartels firearms, let alone hand grenades.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

12 Oct 2011, 4:15 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
I don't recall Republicans giving the Mexican Drug Cartels firearms, let alone hand grenades.


I don't recall the Democrats doing that, either.

But I do recall the Reagan administration selling arms to Iran when that was banned by federal law.

You just haven't lived long enough.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

12 Oct 2011, 4:27 pm

DW_a_mom wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I don't recall Republicans giving the Mexican Drug Cartels firearms, let alone hand grenades.


I don't recall the Democrats doing that, either.


Operation Fast & Furious.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

13 Oct 2011, 12:56 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I don't recall Republicans giving the Mexican Drug Cartels firearms, let alone hand grenades.


I don't recall the Democrats doing that, either.


Operation Fast & Furious.


I think you are diverting the discussion from the constitutional and legal into the partisan and the political.

It matters not one whit whether the adminsitration is Democrat or Republican. Government is never perfect, and should properly be held to account when it acts unconstitutionally or illegally.

But I still maintain that neither unconstitutionality nor illegality on the part of one level of government does not legitimate unconstitutional activity by another level of government in response.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Oct 2011, 1:40 am

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I don't recall Republicans giving the Mexican Drug Cartels firearms, let alone hand grenades.


I don't recall the Democrats doing that, either.


Operation Fast & Furious.


I think you are diverting the discussion from the constitutional and legal into the partisan and the political.

It matters not one whit whether the adminsitration is Democrat or Republican. Government is never perfect, and should properly be held to account when it acts unconstitutionally or illegally.

But I still maintain that neither unconstitutionality nor illegality on the part of one level of government does not legitimate unconstitutional activity by another level of government in response.


I'm implying the illegal behavior is entirely coming from the Executive Branch on this one.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

14 Oct 2011, 11:22 am

Inuyasha wrote:
I'm implying the illegal behavior is entirely coming from the Executive Branch on this one.


But how is that relevant to the issue under discussion?

Illegal behaviour on the part of the federal executive does not legitimate unconstitutional attempts by the legislature of a state to intrude into federal jurisdiction.

Use the courts, use Congress. But do not tear up the Constitution in a vain attempt to score points against an administration with which you disagree.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

14 Oct 2011, 6:21 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I'm implying the illegal behavior is entirely coming from the Executive Branch on this one.


But how is that relevant to the issue under discussion?

Illegal behaviour on the part of the federal executive does not legitimate unconstitutional attempts by the legislature of a state to intrude into federal jurisdiction.

Use the courts, use Congress. But do not tear up the Constitution in a vain attempt to score points against an administration with which you disagree.


It was in response to:

DW_a_mom wrote:
I don't recall the Democrats doing that, either.


Maybe I should have quoted her post so you would know what I was referring to.



DW_a_mom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 13,689
Location: Northern California

14 Oct 2011, 8:14 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I don't recall Republicans giving the Mexican Drug Cartels firearms, let alone hand grenades.


I don't recall the Democrats doing that, either.


Operation Fast & Furious.


I consider attempting to hang that on "Democrats" to be a stretch. It was a law enforcement attempt at a sting operation, which is a common law enforcement tactic even if it seems misguided in this instance, and there is no proof or reasonable innuendo that anyone in a politcal position ever got more than an FYI memo.


_________________
Mom to an amazing young adult AS son, plus an also amazing non-AS daughter. Most likely part of the "Broader Autism Phenotype" (some traits).


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

17 Oct 2011, 2:31 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
It was in response to:

DW_a_mom wrote:
I don't recall the Democrats doing that, either.


Maybe I should have quoted her post so you would know what I was referring to.


Sorry 'bout that. In my own egocentricity, I neglected to recognize that you were fighting a two front war in here.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

18 Oct 2011, 1:14 am

DW_a_mom wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
DW_a_mom wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
I don't recall Republicans giving the Mexican Drug Cartels firearms, let alone hand grenades.


I don't recall the Democrats doing that, either.


Operation Fast & Furious.


I consider attempting to hang that on "Democrats" to be a stretch. It was a law enforcement attempt at a sting operation, which is a common law enforcement tactic even if it seems misguided in this instance, and there is no proof or reasonable innuendo that anyone in a politcal position ever got more than an FYI memo.


Except they were trying to pin this on the Gun Dealerships that they had approached to work with them on the sting operation. This makes the argument that this was a botched sting operation look rather implausible.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

18 Oct 2011, 4:18 pm

Inuyasha wrote:
Except they were trying to pin this on the Gun Dealerships that they had approached to work with them on the sting operation. This makes the argument that this was a botched sting operation look rather implausible.


I don't see how the one makes the other look implausible.

More to the point, I don't see how this is relevant to the subject of this thread.


_________________
--James


Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

18 Oct 2011, 6:18 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Except they were trying to pin this on the Gun Dealerships that they had approached to work with them on the sting operation. This makes the argument that this was a botched sting operation look rather implausible.


I don't see how the one makes the other look implausible.

More to the point, I don't see how this is relevant to the subject of this thread.


Showing a history of this administration thumbing their nose at the law and their oath of office.