https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/23/us/maine-new-hampshire-border-patrol-checkpoints/index.html

Border patrol agents are stopping people on highways in New England to check their citizenship


More hysteria from the left ..... 11 hour check point's



let not compare this to a sobriety check point they are announced.. but some one will say they are no different

If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. Your comparison of this to Nazi germany is absurd, and it’s why trump won.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence said it's not illegal to be here illegally so I don't know what all the fuss is about...

If you aren’t doing anything wrong, you have nothing to fear. Your comparison of this to Nazi germany is absurd, and it’s why trump won.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since when have your rights to freedom of movement been based on the requirement you need to prove your not doing anything wrong... but if this was a weapons check you would be singing a different tune ..... Nazi Germany became they way it was with people who think like you and accept these actions as a good party member

Did you hear about the landscaping company in Ohio that ice busted?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yesterday cops were all over the place in south county yesterday.

Are we all enjoying our liberty, persuit of happiness and freedom?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Since when have your rights to freedom of movement been based on the requirement you need to prove your not doing anything wrong... but if this was a weapons check you would be singing a different tune ..... Nazi Germany became they way it was with people who think like you and accept these actions as a good party member

I’ve been stopped at checks for seat belts, Dui checks, registration checks, emissions checks. I think it’s well established that these are legal and pursuint to public safety. You sound like an antifa spokesman.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yesterday cops were all over the place in south county yesterday.

Are we all enjoying our liberty, persuit of happiness and freedom?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They’re risking their lives for you. Did it infringe on your freedoms?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/23/us/maine-new-hampshire-border-patrol-checkpoints/index.html

Border patrol agents are stopping people on highways in New England to check their citizenship


More hysteria from the left ..... 11 hour check point's



let not compare this to a sobriety check point they are announced.. but some one will say they are no different

What is your opinion? Is this Trump's fault? Or is this a government program run amok, independent of Trump? Or is it an agency doing its job?

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/23/us/maine-new-hampshire-border-patrol-checkpoints/index.html

Border patrol agents are stopping people on highways in New England to check their citizenship


More hysteria from the left ..... 11 hour check point's



let not compare this to a sobriety check point they are announced.. but some one will say they are no different

This is not new
It has been happening for quite a while as it also happens on the southern border inland also.

I find it wrong as a Libertarian and not a left vs right issue but you are entitled to your opinion to frame it however you choose.

It is just as wrong as sobriety checks since you brought it up. Both of these stops you should be allowed to move passed without speaking or even opening your window.

There should be specific instructions given to all involved in these type of blocks and if they are not legally followed by some, they should be reprimanded accordingly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

@realDonaldTrump
Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump
More
We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order. Most children come without parents...


its all part of his bigger plan ... whos next once he has saved us from the invasion Liberals , elites , the educated . his political opponents his critics ....

@realDonaldTrump
Follow Follow @realDonaldTrump
More
We cannot allow all of these people to invade our Country. When somebody comes in, we must immediately, with no Judges or Court Cases, bring them back from where they came. Our system is a mockery to good immigration policy and Law and Order. Most children come without parents...


its all part of his bigger plan ... whos next once he has saved us from the invasion Liberals , elites , the educated . his political opponents his critics ....

Calm down we still have the constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Calm down we still have the constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-calls-deporting-migrants-immediately-without-trial-n886141

For how long?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

President Trump doesn't seem to understand that the fifth and Fourteenth Amendment apply to all people in the u.s. whether year legally or not
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

President Trump doesn't seem to understand that the fifth and Fourteenth Amendment apply to all people in the u.s. whether year legally or not
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Paul, can you translate for those of us who happen to speak English?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Paul, can you translate for those of us who happen to speak English?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really? You aren't capable of figuring out the meaning of the typo?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Would you rather challenge me than correct your error?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really? You aren't capable of figuring out the meaning of the typo?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I usually just ignore him as he really doesn't have anything to add
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you honestly feel you are making a contribution that is noteworthy?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I said
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

President Trump doesn't seem to understand that the fifth and Fourteenth Amendment apply to all people in the u.s. whether year legally or not
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


The Fifth Amendment stipulates some exceptions, including matters of public danger which surely arises with a massive influx of illegal aliens. And the Amendment specifically applies to capital or otherwise infamous crimes. It doesn't apply to misdemeanors.

The Fourteenth Amendment applies to born or naturalized citizens or to "any person within its jurisdiction". Illegal aliens would be under the jurisdiction of their home country, the country to which they are citizens. Not being under the jurisdiction of the U.S, except as illegally being here "equal protection of the laws" would not fully apply to them. They do not have equal access to our system. Nor do they have superior privileges to actual citizens. If citizens can be separated from their children when being detained, certainly illegal aliens can.

The Trump administration last week opened a trade investigation into vehicle imports, which could result in a 25 percent tariff on cars on the same “national security” grounds


the Trump catch all “national security” grounds


Trump’s unprecedented disregard for the role of Congress is particularly evident in the administration’s trade investigations under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which grants the president broad powers to “adjust” imports to prevent threats to “national security.”

But we still have the constitution (you have to believe in it 1st Trumps not looking like he does unless it suites him)

The Trump administration last week opened a trade investigation into vehicle imports, which could result in a 25 percent tariff on cars on the same “national security” grounds


the Trump catch all “national security” grounds


Trump’s unprecedented disregard for the role of Congress is particularly evident in the administration’s trade investigations under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which grants the president broad powers to “adjust” imports to prevent threats to “national security.”

But we still have the constitution (you have to believe in it 1st Trumps not looking like he does unless it suites him)

Not sure what your point is in this post. But tinkering with the Constitution by Progressive "interpretation" of it in the way that it suits judges and politicians has been going on for a century. In that time, the piling on of bad precedent as well as destructive novel interpretations is now beginning to bite the azz of the Progressives, as warned that it would, by giving their enemies the phony legal ammunition to do what the Constitution should prevent. From what you've said in several previous posts, I don't understand your objection to "interpreting" in ways that suit the interpreter.

Wayne - I am still looking forward to your answer re: What is your opinion? Is this Trump's fault? Or is this a government program run amok, independent of Trump? Or is it an agency doing its job?





The Fifth Amendment stipulates some exceptions, including matters of public danger which surely arises with a massive influx of illegal aliens. And the Amendment specifically applies to capital or otherwise infamous crimes. It doesn't apply to misdemeanors.

The Fourteenth Amendment applies to born or naturalized citizens or to "any person within its jurisdiction". Illegal aliens would be under the jurisdiction of their home country, the country to which they are citizens. Not being under the jurisdiction of the U.S, except as illegally being here "equal protection of the laws" would not fully apply to them. They do not have equal access to our system. Nor do they have superior privileges to actual citizens. If citizens can be separated from their children when being detained, certainly illegal aliens can.


The Fourteenth does apply most standards to illegal aliens. While they do not get all rights they do get equal protection. But you are correct, they should not get superior protection.

The Fourteenth does apply most standards to illegal aliens. While they do not get all rights they do get equal protection. But you are correct, they should not get superior protection.

I agree with your stipulation of "most" standards. Which is why I said "'equal protection of the laws' would not fully apply to them."

But are illegals "under the jurisdiction" of the U.S. government?

The way the Amendment is written does not say they are. It starts "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Thus CITIZENS are under the jurisdiction of our State and Federal governments. Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the country in which they are citizens.

The last sentence in section 1 of the Amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The way the Amendment is written does not say they are. It starts "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Thus CITIZENS are under the jurisdiction of our State and Federal governments. Illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the country in which they are citizens.

The last sentence in section 1 of the Amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
How the Amendment is written is less important than how the courts have found...in which case they have found that due process is entitled for undocumented immigrants.

How the Amendment is written is less important than how the courts have found...in which case they have found that due process is entitled for undocumented immigrants.

And therein lies the heart of Progressive jurisprudence. In essence, what the Constitution says is irrelevant. What the Judges say is what counts. Spence, why would you be concerned, as you've implied, about how long the Constitution exists? For you it's the Judges that matter. There doesn't seem to be any danger of the Judges disappearing. Quite the contrary, they are stronger and more important than ever. Long live the Judges. Who needs the Constitution?

And therein lies the heart of Progressive jurisprudence. In essence, what the Constitution says is irrelevant. What the Judges say is what counts. Spence, why would you be concerned, as you've implied, about how long the Constitution exists? For you it's the Judges that matter. There doesn't seem to be any danger of the Judges disappearing. Quite the contrary, they are stronger and more important than ever. Long live the Judges. Who needs the Constitution?
Not progressive jurisprudence just common sense.

due process is entitled for undocumented immigrants.

why do they need due process if they aren't doing anything wrong?

Not progressive jurisprudence just common sense.

Common sense would dictate that Judges should interpret and apply the law as it is written, not as they choose.

Common sense would dictate that Judges should interpret and apply the law as it is written, not as they choose.
I’m not sure you understand how the judicial branch works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

due process is entitled for undocumented immigrants.

They ARE getting due process. But in cases of removal proceedings, some undocumented immigrants get almost no due process: In 1996, Congress created expedited removal for undocumented immigrants without a hearing. Initially it only applied at the U.S. border. Then it was expanded to within 100 miles of a border for undocumented immigrants who had been in the country less than 14 days.


But, in general they are getting due process. However they cannot not have equal protection of the laws in every respect. If they did, they could not be deported.

The 14th Amendment says that no State can "deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law". Obviously, Congress can create laws that apply specifically to immigration, as noted above.

So they are not being deprived of life or property. And they are given due process which may be, in some cases, limited by immigration law.

I’m not sure you understand how the judicial branch works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I understand how it works under Progressive jurisprudence, which gives Judges the ability to "interpret" law according personal opinion and according to some institutionally created principles that are expressive of various supposedly higher principles but are not expressed nor inherent in the Constitution.

And I understand how it should work. That is, Constitutional Judges are to apply the law, as it is written, no matter how inconvenient that might be for some parties in the dispute. If a law is not deemed by a Judge to be "just," that Judge, or Judges, can recommend that Congress fix it. But, constitutionally, the Supreme Court Judges are not given the power to do the fixing. They certainly are not given the power to judge by personal whim.

I’m not sure you understand how the judicial branch works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

appears as though neither you, nor Sotomayor, understand how the American judicial system is supposed to work :confused:

We now have to negotiate to enforce laws
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And I understand how it should work. That is, Constitutional Judges are to apply the law, as it is written, no matter how inconvenient that might be for some parties in the dispute.
If that was really the case we wouldn't need judges. Hell, think of the savings.

We now have to negotiate to enforce laws
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
We negotiate to enforce all pretty much all laws. Always have, always will.

We negotiate to enforce all pretty much all laws. Always have, always will.

Huh?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If that was really the case we wouldn't need judges. Hell, think of the savings.

Judges resolve disputes--disputes between government entities, disputes between private entities, and disputes between private and government entities. Judges are referees in a dispute, they are not to be an opposing party in a dispute. Referees are bound by rules. If there were no rules which bound and guided a referee, a judge could not be impartial. The judge would become a party to the dispute. The verdict would be in favor of the side whose argument the judge preferred, rather than on the side whose argument was consistent with fundamental rules.

This all is particularly true of a SCOTUS Justice since it affects the supreme law of the land. Which is why I said that "Constitutional Judges are to apply the law, as it is written, no matter how inconvenient that might be for some parties in the dispute." When a Supreme Court decision is based on a majority preference rather than on the law, the law is abridged. In effect, a new law, written by judges, not by Congress, is created and becomes precedent for further judicial mischief and destruction of the Constitution. Which further vitiates the true role of judge as referee bound by rules, and turns judges into legislators who create rules rather than being bound by them.

And this fits nicely into what role a judge plays in Progressive jurisprudence. The Progressive judge becomes an added party to the dispute, on the side of the progressive argument rather than a referee, thus further advancing Progressive rule of unlimited government power. The Progressive judge, in effect, becomes redundant, an addition to one side of the dispute. And this fits well into your statement that "we wouldn't need judges. Hell, think of the savings."

Our constitutional system requires judges who can finally and impartially resolve a dispute by applying the law. Progressive political ideology has no need of judges. Government can do as it wishes. There are no rules to which it must adhere. There is no need for judges.

Our constitutional system requires judges who can finally and impartially resolve a dispute by applying the law. Progressive political ideology has no need of judges. Government can do as it wishes. There are no rules to which it must adhere. There is no need for judges.
Equal application of the law requires judges to interpret the Constitution. This isn't progressive jurisprudence, it's how the branch of government operates. You're just spinning the decades old complaint by some that judges legislate from the bench, which only seems to be a problem for findings that mostly appeal to the left.

Equal application of the law requires judges to interpret the Constitution.

Interpreting the Constitution means interpreting what the words meant when it was written, not what meaning can conveniently be conjured up today in order to approve of what the original meaning would not approve. The interpretation process is completed by applying the correctly used words, the law, to the case in hand.

If, however, you choose to agree with the argument that times change, meanings of words change, therefor the constitutional text means something different than what it originally meant, then you fundamentally agree that a constitution becomes irrelevant with time and change. Ergo, "interpreting" it is an exercise of competing personal opinions--which don't even require the outdated text to exist. Under this regime of thought, the obvious conclusion is that a binding, immutable constitution stands in the way of justice for the current society.

Think of other, non-political "constitutions" such as the rules that govern various professional sports. Do the meanings of the words change over time? Does time change the notion of how a strike is to be called? Or what constitutes a field goal? There are procedures on how to change the rules in sports. None of the ways I am aware of allow an umpire or referee to change or update the rules on the spot, nor in conference with other umpires. The rules must be changed by the governing body, not the referees. The referees only apply the rules, regardless of how they feel about them or which team they root for. And if the governing body decides that their sport is totally outdated, too quaint for current times, too unproductive, too unappealing to the present population, it can disband their sport and let it rest as a memory or object of history in museums and books, and let it be practiced for fun by nostalgic amateurs.

The same method applies to constitutional change. It must be done by the governing body, the Congress, not the judges (referees). So, either you have the Constitution and abide by it, or you discard it as being an impediment to current times and meanings.

This isn't progressive jurisprudence, it's how the branch of government operates.

Perhaps you have not noticed that the SCOTUS adjudicates (operates) in basically two ways. The Progressive way, which strays from original meanings, original intents, and original construction AS HAS BEEN DEMNSTRATED SEVERAL TIMES ON THIS FORUM. (Check it out, it's in the archives.) And the other way, "Conservative," Originalist, call it what you will, which adheres to the Constitution as written. You may have not noticed that there are competing notions such as loose and strict construction, Constitution being a living breathing document and it being an permanent immutable one, and so forth. You might want to check that out.

You're just spinning the decades old complaint by some that judges legislate from the bench, which only seems to be a problem for findings that mostly appeal to the left.

I am not spinning it. I am stating it. And you're not denying that it happens. Progressive judges do legislate from the bench. And it doesn't "seem" to be a problem to you and the rest of the Progressives because it is by far mostly Progressive judges that do it. It is a problem for those who see that as being tyrannical. Who see that as a way to transfer more power to the federal government than it has been given in the Constitution.

And yes, yes, yes--it does appeal to the left. That is the hallmark of the Progressive left. Growth of central government power to the eventual point that it has all of it. Which absolutely and intentionally includes Judicial legislation intruding on and usurping Congress's power and on the constitutional power granted to the people in order to transfer that power to a one size fits all irresistible government.

I am not spinning it. I am stating it. And you're not denying that it happens. Progressive judges do legislate from the bench. And it doesn't "seem" to be a problem to you and the rest of the Progressives because it is by far mostly Progressive judges that do it. It is a problem for those who see that as being tyrannical. Who see that as a way to transfer more power to the federal government than it has been given in the Constitution.

And yes, yes, yes--it does appeal to the left. That is the hallmark of the Progressive left. Growth of central government power to the eventual point that it has all of it. Which absolutely and intentionally includes Judicial legislation intruding on and usurping Congress's power and on the constitutional power granted to the people in order to transfer that power to a one size fits all irresistible government.

I guess the court
Did not just legislate from the bench overturning 41 years of presedent on a claim it a violation of the 1st amendment of course not ... only liberal judges do that !!!! Or the ones you don't agree with it's crystal clear

I guess the court
Did not just legislate from the bench overturning 41 years of presedent on a claim it a violation of the 1st amendment of course not ... only liberal judges do that !!!! Or the ones you don't agree with it's crystal clear

No, they didn't create legislation. They overturned the 41 years of unconstitutional legislation with its ensuing bad precedent. They freed up the rights of people to enjoy their First Amendment rights. That did not proscribe the free speech rights of others as did the legislation that they overturned.

Removing a law is not creating a law. Removing laws that abridge freedoms in the Constitution reverts the status of law back to its original position.

And I didn't say only "liberal" judges legislate from the Bench. I said that it was predominantly Progressive ones that do so.

No, they didn't create legislation. They overturned the 41 years of unconstitutional legislation with its ensuing bad precedent. They freed up the rights of people to enjoy their First Amendment rights. That did not proscribe the free speech rights of others as did the legislation that they overturned.

Removing a law is not creating a law. Removing laws that abridge freedoms in the Constitution reverts the status of law back to its original position.

And I didn't say only "liberal" judges legislate from the Bench. I said that it was predominantly Progressive ones that do so.

So are you implying the court 41 years ago had no understanding of the Constitution and we're legislating from the bench and let stand a Un constitutional ruling stand for 40 years ... that had be litigated mutiple time's over those years....
But 2018 new info came to light and changed their minds
Ya OK

So are you implying the court 41 years ago had no understanding of the Constitution and we're legislating from the bench

No. It knew well how and why the Constitution was originally written. It's majority disagreed with that. So, rather than being true to their duty as judges, they put on the hats of Congress and legislated their opinion with a ruling from the bench.

and let stand a Un constitutional ruling stand for 40 years ... that had be litigated mutiple time's over those years....

This is the second time this case was adjudicated by SCOTUS. The first time, because of Scalia's death, it was a 4 to 4 decision. So the law stood as is. This time it was 5 to 4 because the "Conservatives" outnumbered the Progressives.

But 2018 new info came to light and changed their minds
Ya OK

No. It was not new info. It was the original Constitution that came into light regarding this issue.. It had been covered for 40 years by the darkness of Progressive legislation from the bench. The Court does not instigate trials on its own. Constitutional challenges have to be brought to the Court by those who have standing to do so.

No. It was not new info. It was the original Constitution that came into light regarding this issue.. It had been covered for 40 years by the darkness of Progressive legislation from the bench. The Court does not instigate trials on its own. Constitutional challenges have to be brought to the Court by those who have standing to do so.


It had been covered for 40 years by the darkness of Progressive legislation


WOW you are really out there ..

WOW you are really out there ..

The truth can be confusing to those inside the bubble.