Newt has lost three votes in this household.
N O A M N E S T Y
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!
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.
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.
Unlike most Rinos, Newt is a real good talker. If he gets in, he will be sticking his fingers in our eyes a lot.
Newt has lost three votes in this household.
N O A M N E S T Y
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.
Who is your choice?
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.
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.
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.
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"?
You make absolutely no sense. I think your mission is to troll the thread and forum.
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.
I think you are operating under mistaken notions.
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.
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.
Geez, you forgot getting Obama elected and the last eclipse.
Geez, wouldn’t it be wonderful to elect an intelligent, Republican ‘Obama’ that could really screw us good!
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!
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.