But if congress miraculously overrode Obama's veto, Obama is getting ready for that contingency:
Posted on 05/26/2009 5:27:42 AM PDT by Sinschild
Edited on 05/26/2009 5:30:31 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
U.S. Rep. Nathan Deal, a Republican candidate for governor of Georgia, has proposed changing the long-standing federal policy that automatically grants citizenship to any baby born on U.S. soil, a move opposed by immigrant rights advocates.
Supporters of Deal
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
Excuse me? Since when are conservatives calling for the passage of ex post facto laws? Just because the liberals and Democrats don't give a damn about the Constitution doesn't mean we shouldn't follow their lead. In fact, we ought to shine the light on every unconstitutional law that they pass!
I would dare to say that birthright citizenship may be a bigger draw for illegal aliens to the US than jobs. An anchor baby AUTOMATICALLY and LEGALLY entitles illegal alien families to collect state and federal benefits.
Excuse me? Since when are conservatives calling for the passage of ex post facto laws? Just because the liberals and Democrats don’t give a damn about the Constitution doesn’t mean we shouldn’t follow their lead. In fact, we ought to shine the light on every unconstitutional law that they pass!
Excuse me??? I am tired of fighting with two hands tied behind my back. I recognize the law...I also reconize the severe damage done to our country by the circuses that have run it. We do need to go backwards here.
I’m not backpedaling on ANYTHING, nor would I.
You and Bill Clinton and Janet Reno agree. Sean Hannity agrees with me.
Believe what you want. Again, you avoided the Moses story. I stand on the moral high ground. Xenophobia is the ground you stand on.
The Constitution is an all-or-nothing proposition that must be upheld completely and consistently.
If you want to show that a certain law was unconstitutional to begin with, I’m all with you.
If you want to start passing retroactive laws in clear violation of the Constitution, then you will have none of my support.
Conservatives who go against the Constitution are no better than the liberals who go against the Constitution, irrespective of how noble their intentions may be.
Ping
Nice. I agree with that.
He is my rep. I was worried when they redrew the lines a few years ago—we almost lost him.
Heard he was going to run for Gov. He is one of the good guys. A quiet work horse.
Apparently you cannot read, or choose to be ignorant, that is your own problem - not mine. As I stated, I do not agree with the handling of Elian Gonzalez, but that is a differnt situation than what we were originally arguing.
I did address the Moses question - it is not for me to judge God’s plans. But, you still refuse to answer my questions regarding if we should invade these countries for failing to life up to your sense of decency.
Let’s just agree to disagree, since you think you have moral high ground. Besides, I don’t judge my decisions on whether or not Sean Hannity agrees with me.
Which one?
If it's a Supreme Court decision, then the Constitution would have to be amended to change it. I really doubt that's going to happen.
Some people think the ends justify the means, no matter what. And since when did thinking about the welfare of innocent children become a “liberal” position?
Read posts 57 and 75.
When did the United States take on the job of world Child Daycare? I care about innocent children, but it is NOT the job of the US to take care of illegal immigrant’s children - no matter HOW important it is for the future of the child.
Now, there are exceptions as in the Elian Gonzalez discussion that I was having throughout this thread. He was running from an oppressive communist government and we ALWAYS give those guys citizenship. But illegal immigrants that are just simply running to avoid their own miserable lifes that they are not willing to work and care for in their own country - NO! Go home and fix your problems!
Since we are thinking about the welfare of innocent children, I ask you this: should we invade Mexco to care for all those innocent children that will grow up with less opportunities than our own? I mean it is for the “good of the children.”
One would think this a good thing all the way around. It would discourage illegals from risking their lives coming here, we would not have to "separate" families when deporting illegals and it would save tax dollars. But, I'm afraid they're about ten years tooooooooo late and most everyone knows it. There are to many anchors who are of voting age for this to pass. Had they pushed for this twenty years ago, when it was pointed out to them, something could have been done. Seems to me, this is all just for show.
I’m imagining a country where the military / police / fire / rescue makes up a sizable percentage of voters
But if congress miraculously overrode Obama's veto, Obama is getting ready for that contingency:
The Constitution is an all-or-nothing proposition that must be upheld completely and consistently.
If you want to show that a certain law was unconstitutional to begin with, I’m all with you.
If you want to start passing retroactive laws in clear violation of the Constitution, then you will have none of my support.
I understand what you are saying but I respectfully disagree. We are fighting a gurrilla war here and I will be da**ed that I won’t be a Redcoat getting shot. We have to get back to a place that the Constitution can be enforced. In case you haven’t notice it hasnt been in effect for a while.
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.