Where are your papers
 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2018/06/23/u...nts/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...

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

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

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

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?

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 ....

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

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...-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

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

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

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)

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 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."

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?

Not progressive jurisprudence just common sense.

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

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

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 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.

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

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

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

Huh?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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.

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.