Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gingrich ignores Constitution in illegal alien debate, willing to take heat!
11-24-11 | JOHN W K

Posted on 11/24/2011 11:29:28 AM PST by JOHN W K

SEE: Gingrich Taking Heat Over Immigration Stance

``(CBS) Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Tuesday said the United States should not break up families of immigrants who entered the United States illegally and he was willing to ``take the heat`` from Republicans for deviating from his party`s orthodoxy.

``I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century,`` Gingrich said at the CNN debate on foreign policy in Washington, near the White House.``

From what Gingrich states, he is more concerned with the well-being of those who have entered our country illegally and concerned about their families, than our federal government`s current attempt to prohibit Arizona and other States from regulating aliens within their borders.

Surely the well being of aliens ought to be of secondary concern to Mr. Gingrich from that of our federal government`s current despotic attempt to forbid the various States to deal with and regulate aliens within their borders__ a power never delegated to the united States, and is one retained by the States under our Constitution`s Tenth Amendment!

Unfortunately, Mr. Gingrich in expressing his opinion about ``immigration policy`` seems to give legitimacy to what Eric Holder is arguing in Court, that:

``In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress.``

But is our federal government vested with a ``preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters`` within the various State borders and adopt ``immigration policy`` which suits Mr. Gingrich`s vision? Let us review some facts so Mr. Gingrich may rethink his priorities.

FACT: Under our constitutional system Congress may not assume a power not granted by the Constitution. And so, Eric Holder’s statement that the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration matters is “derived from numerous acts of Congress” is totally without foundation! Congress cannot by legislative acts delegate enforceable powers to itself which the States have not expressly granted to Congress under the Constitution!

This leaves us with the question: under what provision of our Constitution, as opposed to “acts of Congress” has Congress been delegated power to “regulate immigration matters” which Eric Holder alleges exists?

OBSERVATION:

With reference to the meaning of words as they appear in our Constitution ”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”_ 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language.

FACT: Nowhere in our federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear! And so, Eric Holder’s assertion that the federal government has “preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters” and “This authority derives from the United States Constitution” is not to be found or substantiated from the text of our Constitution! However, the word “naturalization” does appear in the text of our Constitution and involves an exclusive power granted to Congress!

This leaves us with two important questions which Mr. Gingrich has avoided while promoting his compassionate political views concerning the families of aliens who have entered a State illegally. The two questions being: What are the limitations of this power (naturalization) granted to Congress? And, does such power allow the federal government to interfere with a State’s authority to adopt legislation regulating aliens within its borders?

In answering these questions we are bound to observe the most fundamental rule of constitutional law which is stated as follows:

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

So, to answer the above questions we must determine the meaning of “naturalization’ as our founders used the word with respect to a power granted to Congress, and, we must likewise determine the legislative intent for which said power was granted, and if such power was intended to allow Newt Gringrich’s compassion to interfere with a state's power to regulate aliens within its borders.

In documenting the meaning of “naturalization” as our founders used the word, and the legislative intent for which such power was granted to Congress, let us turn to Federalist No. 42 in which Madison questions how “obnoxious” aliens may have “acquired the character of citizens under the laws of another State, and then asserted their rights as such, both to residence and citizenship“ within a State proscribing them.

Madison goes on to say “The new Constitution has accordingly, with great propriety, made provision against them, and all others proceeding from the defect of the Confederation on this head, by authorizing the general government to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States.”

The irrefutable fact is, the meaning of “naturalization” as used by our founders, is nothing more than a power to establish a rule(s) by which an alien is granted citizenship, and was never intended, nor does it include, a power granted to the federal government to interfere with a state regulating aliens within its borders!

This of course is confirmed when studying our founder’s very own words when debating our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization in February of 1790, e.g., REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says:

“that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148

In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, PAGE 1152

And finally, REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages PAGE 1156 and PAGE 1157

And so, Newt Gingrich, in posturing his compassion towards the families of aliens who have invaded our borders, while ignoring Eric Holder’s attempted usurpation of power and his assault upon the powers retained by the States, especially Arizona‘s retained power to regulate aliens in preserving its general welfare under our Constitution’s Ten Amendment, gives us an indication that Mr. Gringrich’s priority is in harmony with that of Eric Holder and Obama, and not with their sworn oath to support and defend our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted.

JWK

Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!


TOPICS: Government; History; Politics
KEYWORDS: 2012; aliens; amnesty; campaign; debate; gingrich; illegalaliens; illegals; immigrantlist; immigration; iowa; newtgingrich

1 posted on 11/24/2011 11:29:31 AM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

We are only a nation of laws when the lawmakers want us to be. Gov’t first passes so many laws that anybody can be in violation at any given time. The gov’t can decide when they want to enforce a law, but we can’t decide when we want to obey a law. Far too many immigration laws just aren’t enforced.


2 posted on 11/24/2011 11:38:05 AM PST by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Hey Newt...Elian Gonzalez was sent back to live with his father...
3 posted on 11/24/2011 11:45:03 AM PST by stylin19a (obama - "FREDO" smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Yeah! Screw Newt!

...and Cain for those women he allegedly abused. The media woiuld never outright lie.

Principal first, even if it means 4 mores years of Obama and the death of our republic.

/s


4 posted on 11/24/2011 11:45:33 AM PST by Eddie01 (Liberals lie about everything all the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01

I didn’t make any reference to Newt.


5 posted on 11/24/2011 11:49:32 AM PST by umgud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Gingrich is not a federalist. He believes he is smart enough to have all the answers and he tries to push them from the top down every chance he gets.

He also does not believe in the strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution. His shilling for Harriet Miers should tell you all you need to know about his future judicial appointments.


6 posted on 11/24/2011 11:52:17 AM PST by BarnacleCenturion (Heartless & Inhumane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

“He also does not believe in the strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution. His shilling for Harriet Miers should tell you all you need to know about his future judicial appointments.”

Oh, please.

“It’s very clear to me from talking with people in the White House that the president personally believes that Harriet Miers is very smart, works very hard, and is very conservative,” Gingrich said.

Never met with her. Gingrich was relying on his discussions with others he trusted. Presumably, his own picks would not be second hand. And he was not involved in the vetting process. But you knew that. Who was this from Rubin, The Compost’s George Will?

He endorsed Bush’s choice, not his choice. A little truth and critical thinking might go a long way while we are determined to turn over every rock to kill one of our own.


7 posted on 11/24/2011 12:18:29 PM PST by jessduntno ("They say the world has become too complex for simple answers... they are wrong." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Hey GOP ... Newt is DAMAGED goods. Stop backing that loser or we are going to wind up with 4 more years of Zero


8 posted on 11/24/2011 12:22:32 PM PST by clamper1797 (Hoping to have some change left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01

An otherwise president who gives us Amnesty is no better than electing Obama and a Democrat Congress. The results will be delayed by a couple of years but they will be the same, that is a one party Democrat/socialist state with micromanagement powers that would be the envy of the old Russian Communists.


9 posted on 11/24/2011 12:23:32 PM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Eddie01

An otherwise conservative president who gives us Amnesty is no better than electing Obama and a Democrat Congress. The results will be delayed by a couple of years but they will be the same, that is a one party Democrat/socialist state with micromanagement powers that would be the envy of the old Russian Communists.


10 posted on 11/24/2011 12:24:30 PM PST by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's "Economics In One Lesson.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: umgud

We are definitely more a nation of lawyers than of laws.


11 posted on 11/24/2011 12:32:26 PM PST by 353FMG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

Damn straight.

Newt has lost three votes in this household.

N O A M N E S T Y

Why would anyone want to reward criminals? This is like saying, well, your father robbed a bank, stole $500,000 and used that money to buy a house. But we won’t make you give the money back because it will hurt your family. So keep the house that was bought with stolen money. For the children.


12 posted on 11/24/2011 12:37:03 PM PST by Cowgirl of Justice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Ginrich has always ignored the constitution.

To people like him, the constitution is a mere inconvenience.


13 posted on 11/24/2011 12:37:35 PM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - NoTrig’s not perfect, but he’s perfectly awesome. What a nice way to loo Wa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Newt may be your own, but he is not “our own”

He has raped and bludgeoned us through his entire career.


14 posted on 11/24/2011 12:43:40 PM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - NoTrig’s not perfect, but he’s perfectly awesome. What a nice way to loo Wa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

“He has raped and bludgeoned us through his entire career.”

Hahahaha...smells of desperation, that crap does.


15 posted on 11/24/2011 2:09:55 PM PST by jessduntno ("They say the world has become too complex for simple answers... they are wrong." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

16 posted on 11/24/2011 2:16:51 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Why did the writer jump over “import persons”?


17 posted on 11/24/2011 3:34:39 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

He is not ignoring the Constitution — the Constitution has already been ignored. He’s just trying to pick up the pieces. His plan is an effort at culling the herd.
My only proviso is: no ifs, ands or buts, fix the border first. Then we can afford to get humane.
Inhumane is continuing what we’re doing.


18 posted on 11/24/2011 4:06:01 PM PST by Migraine (Diversity is great; until it happens to YOU.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
Why? Because it is irrelevant!

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

I am somewhat concerned that you would cite the above provision of our Constitution when the provision in question was addressed by Mr. Madison in Federalist No. 42 and he specifically explains its intention is ” to prohibit, after the year 1808, the importation of slaves, and to lay an intermediate duty of ten dollars per head, as a discouragement to such importations.”

The irrefutable fact is, the provision you cite was never intended by its authors, nor the States when ratifying the Constitution, to remotely suggest that immigration was to be regulated by the federal government.

JWK

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

19 posted on 11/24/2011 4:25:15 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Mr. Speaker! Point of Order!

And HOW MANY OF THESE WERE KILLED BY THOSE WHO WERE ILLEGALLY FROM LATIN AMERICA AND ELSEWHERE ON OUR AMERICAN SOIL FOR OVER 10, 15, MAYBE 20 YEARS??!!

This is unsustainable. This is an invasion. There are countless graves and grieving American families to prove it. How DARE YOU SIR!?


20 posted on 11/24/2011 5:32:18 PM PST by AmericanInTokyo (Dislaimer: I am in full support of Mr. Herman Cain for the GOP Nomination for President of the USA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
It doesn't really matter ~ at the time the issue in Madison's mind was the slave trade. Later on it could very well have been bringing in Eastern Europeans to live in primitive sod houses on the Prairie while growing wheat for the railroads.

The point is, however, that CONGRESS acted and the question was set aside. But what that means is that because Congress acted in a timely manner, the US government picked up the control of MIGRATION or IMPORTATION of "such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit".

Later amendments related to the abolition of slavery or the circumstances of former slaves are often said to have superseded this clause but they couldn't have since the event changing the clause had occurred years before.

The question on the floor here is where in the Constitution is it clearly provided that the Congress has authority to write legislation regarding immigration ~ and there it is ~ right in the original text but buried under verbiage directed at the slave trade.

The Constitution also failed to say Congress had authority to "defend the borders of the United States" ~ yet they legislation in that regard! See "Implied Powers" and take a good look at powers authorized the United States (individually) in the Treaty of Paris 1783 or there abouts.

21 posted on 11/24/2011 5:40:04 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
``I don't see how the party that says it's the party of the family is going to adopt an immigration policy which destroys families that have been here a quarter century,``

The third smartest man in the US can't figure out that the family can't be destroyed unless the parents decide to destroy it, either by creating it illegally or by refusing the option to go back home as a family and doing things the right way if they wish to return.

I think we're more than generous to not require them to pay their own way home.

22 posted on 11/24/2011 5:56:41 PM PST by Publius6961 (My world was lovely, until it was taken over by parasites.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Unlike most Rinos, Newt is a real good talker. If he gets in, he will be sticking his fingers in our eyes a lot.


23 posted on 11/24/2011 6:17:04 PM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cowgirl of Justice
Damn straight.

Newt has lost three votes in this household.

N O A M N E S T Y


24 posted on 11/24/2011 6:41:23 PM PST by South40
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
You bring nothing to the discussion but you unsubstantiated personal opinions. When you are able to substantiate you opinions from the words of those who framed and later ratified the Constitution, post that documentation and we can continue from there. But as of now, I have provided sufficient documentation to support my contentions.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

25 posted on 11/24/2011 7:21:24 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: clamper1797

Who is your choice?


26 posted on 11/24/2011 10:31:15 PM PST by Cobra64 (Common sense isn't common anymore.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
The Federalist Papers are NOT THE FINAL WORD on Original INTENT.

You, yourself, noted that it was PASSED, in part, with a public referendum. To a great degree what those folks understood about what it meant was pretty much public knowledge ~ which, at the time of passage the Federalist Papers simply were not.

There are conflicts between the subtle nuances of the Federalist Papers and common public knowledge at the time. It's simply not sufficient to do what you propose. Yours, is, in fact, an unsubstantiated opinion. That you don't realize that fact is a clarion call for further research on your part into the source material.

27 posted on 11/25/2011 3:33:44 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
BTW, the idea that the USA can defend a national border is still not mentioned in the Constitution ~ the existence of the border itself derives from Treaties ~ and the agreed upon background for what a border is derives from the Peace of Westphalia, a document never agreed to by the United States (since that's the one that ended the 30 Years War).

Some might argue it's a right implicit in the Rights of States ~ dating back thousands of years, and some document in ancient Egypt (the first state), or maybe Sumer covers the problem ~ but even if it did those documents could not be translated at the time the USA began defending its borders.

28 posted on 11/25/2011 3:39:36 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah
You still bring nothing to the discussion but you unsubstantiated personal opinions. When you are able to substantiate your opinions from the words of those who framed and later ratified the Constitution, post that documentation and we can continue from there. But as of now, I have provided sufficient documentation to support my contentions.

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

29 posted on 11/25/2011 5:04:13 AM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K
Not quite sure what your game is ~ you want QUOTES or what?

How about the CLEAR LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION ITSELF. Why must we go to secondary sources to figure out that "President" means "President" and "Congress" means "Congress"?

30 posted on 11/25/2011 5:14:48 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

You make absolutely no sense. I think your mission is to troll the thread and forum.


31 posted on 11/25/2011 7:52:34 AM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: BarnacleCenturion

Driving to work this morning, the talk show host said that if conservatives are going to vote for Newt, they are not voting for a conservative.

I will never vote for him.


32 posted on 11/25/2011 7:55:02 AM PST by BunnySlippers (I LOVE BULL MARKETS . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

I think you are operating under mistaken notions.


33 posted on 11/25/2011 8:13:25 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Desperation?

* ANWR

* Department of Education

* U.N. funding

* NPR/PBS public funding

* Toffler’s “Third Wave”

* AGW / Nancy’s couch

* Amnesty

Yes Newt has been a true desperado, and will continue to be if ever elected to anything again.


34 posted on 11/25/2011 10:23:31 AM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - NoTrig’s not perfect, but he’s perfectly awesome. What a nice way to loo Wa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K; muawiyah

JWK, it is you, the border eraser, and opponent of our constitution, that makes no sense.

Plain language rules; the founders were not obfuscators like the spincter-wipe lawyers of our time.


35 posted on 11/25/2011 10:31:03 AM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - NoTrig’s not perfect, but he’s perfectly awesome. What a nice way to loo Wa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Geez, you forgot getting Obama elected and the last eclipse.


36 posted on 11/25/2011 10:42:23 AM PST by jessduntno ("They say the world has become too complex for simple answers... they are wrong." - RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Geez, wouldn’t it be wonderful to elect an intelligent, Republican ‘Obama’ that could really screw us good!


37 posted on 11/25/2011 2:26:22 PM PST by editor-surveyor (No Federal Sales Tax - NoTrig’s not perfect, but he’s perfectly awesome. What a nice way to loo Wa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
editor-surveyor wrote:

JWK, it is you, the border eraser, and opponent of our constitution, that makes no sense.

And what do you base that accusation on? Eh?

I still would like to know why Mr. Gingrich, during the debate, chose to show compassion for aliens and the children of aliens here illegally rather than call out the Obama Administration for filing a number of court actions interfering with a number of State’s who dare to exercise their constitutionally recognized reserved power to regulate aliens within their borders. Exactly where does Mr. Gingrich’s loyalty lie? In this case it seems to be in harmony with Obama‘s “humane” immigration policy and quest to defend aliens who are here illegally along with their children.

JWK

Mr. Gingrich, keep you freaken nose out of Arizona’s retained power to regulate aliens within its borders!

38 posted on 11/25/2011 3:26:15 PM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson