Judge will not block Alabama immigration law

[xBiffx]

The Constitution gives the power to regulate immigration to the federal government. See section 8, where the power to enact "uniform rules of naturalization" is given, and then it can enact all laws necessary and proper to carry out this power. That is the full power to regulate immigration, and has been held as such by the SCOTUS. This precedent will not be overturned because it is nonsensical that the federal governemnt can set conditions for naturization but not have the power to regulate immigration itself.

However, this power is not prohibited to the States in Section 10. Accordingly, the states can also regulate immigration. However, the supremacy clause says that the federal law prevails where there is a conflict between the two.

None of this has anything to do with the 10th Amendment.

- wolf

Yes you are correct, the Constitution does give the Federal Government the power to regulate immigration, more specifically how to handle immigrants seeking citizenship. BUT this issue isn't really about the act of immigration at all. This issue is how to handle non citizens, specifically should states or law enforcement be allowed to check citizenship status. The power that you are talking about has nothing to do with this. Just because Section 8 is about naturalization this doesn't mean that it is blanket power for anything with regard to immigrants, immigration, or non citizens. This is where the 10th Amendment argument comes in. If the Federal Government isn't given a power SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution then those powers are left to the states. This is why many states laws are clarifications on more general Federal Laws in which they outline specific statues governing these powers.

For example, and to make eskimo happy, the 2nd Amendment says the Federal Government cannot infringe upon your right to own a gun. Many states clarify this with gun laws that outline specifics such as types of guns, age requirements, etc.

 

[ElFenix]

This is only true where the States are not prohibited to pass such laws. Nothing prohibits the States currently from passing these such laws. Hence the reason for the decision today.

i don't know what you're trying to get at here.

the state must have its own power to pass the law, the source of that would be the state constitution. that's always the case.

not prohibiting or prohibiting would be a supremacy clause question.

whether the federal government has the power to prohibit the passage of such laws would be a question of the federal constitution, which may nor may not include consideration of the 10th amendment (in this case, it doesn't because the feds clearly have the ability to pass immigration laws). but that's not the question asked.

 

[woolfe9999]

Yes you are correct, the Constitution does give the Federal Government the power to regulate immigration, more specifically how to handle immigrants seeking citizenship. BUT this issue isn't really about the act of immigration at all. This issue is how to handle non citizens, specifically should states or law enforcement be allowed to check citizenship status. The power that you are talking about has nothing to do with this. Just because Section 8 is about naturalization this doesn't mean that it is blanket power for anything with regard to immigrants, immigration, or non citizens. This is where the 10th Amendment argument comes in. If the Federal Government isn't given a power SPECIFICALLY in the Constitution then those powers are left to the states. This is why many states laws are clarifications on more general Federal Laws in which they outline specific statues governing these powers.

For example, and to make eskimo happy, the 2nd Amendment says the Federal Government cannot infringe upon your right to own a gun. Many states clarify this with gun laws that outline specifics such as types of guns, age requirements, etc.

OK, but like I said, you're going to have to overturn what, if memory serves, is very old SCOTUS precedent. The thing is, the federal government can define the conditions of citizenship, and it has all powers necessary and proper to carry out each enumerated power. If necessary and proper means anything, it means they have the power of *enforcement*. Your interpretation is hyper narrow, and you're entitled to it, but it isn't going anywhere.

- wolf

 

[xBiffx]

OK, but like I said, you're going to have to overturn what, if memory serves, is very old SCOTUS precedent. The thing is, the federal government can define the conditions of citizenship, and it has all powers necessary and proper to carry out each enumerated power. If necessary and proper means anything, it means they have the power of *enforcement*. Your interpretation is hyper narrow, and you're entitled to it, but it isn't going anywhere.

- wolf

Enforcement of immigration law. This isn't about immigration law. The laws in question are about weather or not the State of Alabama has the right to verify citizenship status, nothing more. No one is applying for citizenship in this scenario, which is all the "enforcement" power the Federal Government has over immigration.

 

[woolfe9999]

Enforcement of immigration law. This isn't about immigration law. The laws in question are about weather or not the State of Alabama has the right to verify citizenship status, nothing more. No one is applying for citizenship in this scenario, which is all the "enforcement" power the Federal Government has over immigration.

The federal government defines conditions of citizenship, i.e. "naturalization" and has enforcement powers over it. That means it gets to decide the penalties, or lack thereof, for being here without meeting citizenship requirements, be they deportation, detention, having no right to work, having no right to sue, having no right to attend schools, etc. The Alabama statute says, if you aren't a citizen, you're deprived of a variety of different rights. That is a power given to the federal government. It's also implicitly given to the states because they aren't prohibited in that area, but the Supremacy Clause means federal law, if it exists, will trump state law. The judge in this case understood and accepted all of that. Her ruling is solely on the Supremacy Clause. You're free to disagree with that, but as I read it, your position wasn't even in controversy in this case.

- wolf

 

[chucky2]

So when the Fed abstains from doing its job, and it affects the States, exactly what are the States supposed to do? Say 'Thank you Fed, may We have another (few million)'?

 

[woolfe9999]

So when the Fed abstains from doing its job, and it affects the States, exactly what are the States supposed to do? Say 'Thank you Fed, may We have another (few million)'?

When the Fed does not enact legislation in a particular area, the states may do so. No one has argued to the contrary.

 

[xBiffx]

The federal government defines conditions of citizenship, i.e. "naturalization" and has enforcement powers over it. That means it gets to decide the penalties, or lack thereof, for being here without meeting citizenship requirements, be they deportation, detention, having no right to work, having no right to sue, having no right to attend schools, etc. The Alabama statute says, if you aren't a citizen, you're deprived of a variety of different rights. That is a power given to the federal government. It's also implicitly given to the states because they aren't prohibited in that area, but the Supremacy Clause means federal law, if it exists, will trump state law. The judge in this case understood and accepted all of that. Her ruling is solely on the Supremacy Clause. You're free to disagree with that, but as I read it, your position wasn't even in controversy in this case.

- wolf

Again, yes the federal government defines conditions of citizenship. You are taking that definition way too far. The constitution defines how an immigrant becomes a citizen and how to determine citizenship, nothing more. It doesn't say what power the Federal Government has to do to non citizens. You are jumping way of base here.

You are being kind of idiotic saying that the power over immigration is given to the Federal Government and therefore implicitly given to the States. You are dead wrong on that one. Nothing says that a power the Federal Government has is implicitly given to the States, nothing. And then you contradict yourself by saying they aren't prohibited in that area. Actually, if there is a federal law that is exactly what the states are prohibited in. If there was a federal law stating that states could/could not check the citizenship status of its occupants then the states would be prohibited from making such a law. None exists, this is why we are at this decision.

 

[Texashiker]

xBiffx, thank you for posting in this thread and clearing things up.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When the Fed does not enact legislation in a particular area, the states may do so. No one has argued to the contrary.

woolfe9999, eskimospy has argued that the 10th does not allow states to pass their own laws in the absence of federal law.

You seriously may be the only person on planet Earth who thinks that the 10th amendment's purpose is to state that the states can operate as they wish in the absence of a federal law.

This post by xBiffx makes it very clear what the 10th is supposed to do.

So, the 10th Amendment was ratified to specifically address any issues where a law is not specifically outlined in the Constitution. If the Constitution hasn't given a power to the Federal Government, then that power is strictly reserved for the States or the people as long as its not prohibited to the States. This means that if it is not spelled out in the Constitution, or its Amendments, then the States have the power.

 

[woolfe9999]

Again, yes the federal government defines conditions of citizenship. You are taking that definition way too far. The constitution defines how an immigrant becomes a citizen and how to determine citizenship, nothing more. It doesn't say what power the Federal Government has to do to non citizens. You are jumping way of base here.

You are being kind of idiotic saying that the power over immigration is given to the Federal Government and therefore implicitly given to the States. You are dead wrong on that one. Nothing says that a power the Federal Government has is implicitly given to the States, nothing. And then you contradict yourself by saying they aren't prohibited in that area. Actually, if there is a federal law that is exactly what the states are prohibited in. If there was a federal law stating that states could/could not check the citizenship status of its occupants then the states would be prohibited from making such a law. None exists, this is why we are at this decision.

No, I'm not "jumping way off base here." The power to determine citizenship carries with it the power to enforce whatever citizenship rules the federal government enacts. That generally encompasses what "to do to non citizens." I understand you disagree with me, but my interpretation is the prevailing one at this point in time.

Your second paragraph is confusing a lot of issues. Read Article I, section 8, where it enumerates powers to the Fed. Then read Article I, section 10, where it states which powers are prohibited to the states. Note that most of the powers listed in section 10 as prohibited to the states are present in section 8, but not all the powers in section 8 are in section 10. The powers that are in section 10 (prohibited to the states) and also in section 8 (given to the fed) are called exclusive powers of the federal government. Making currency and declaring war are two of them, for example. The powers that are in section 8 but NOT in section 10 are powers of both the federal government and the states.

The reason some powers given to the federal government are implicitly given to the states as well is because those powers aren't listed in section 10, and if they're not prohibited then by definition they are allowed. Otherwise there is no point in spelling out what powers are prohibited to the states. Accordingly, if it isn't prohibitted in section 10, the state has that power by default.

However, saying they have the power to pass a law in a given area doesn't mean the law will stand up because there is also the Supremacy Clause. Where both the fed and the states have the power to legislate in a certain area, and both do actually legislate in that area, the federal law voids the state law if there is a conflict between the two. But that doesn't have to be the case. The fed can decide to just not legislate in a particular area if it so chooses and then the states can legislate in that area as much as they want.

If you're not getting what I'm saying here than I don't know what else to tell you. I can't explain it any better than that.

 

[fskimospy]

Jesus Christ, people. This has been explained ad nauseum originally by me, and then far better and more thoroughly by wolfe. What more do you want?

 

[shortylickens]

As deeply as they are ingrained in society nowadays, it would be better to learn how to deal with them than fighting them.

 

[Texashiker]

Jesus Christ, people. This has been explained ad nauseum originally by me, and then far better and more thoroughly by wolfe. What more do you want?

Please stop posting your opinion as fact.

 

[fskimospy]

Please stop posting your opinion as fact.

Oh jesus, you still haven't come to grips with how wrong you were about the 10th amendment yet?

It's not an opinion, it's reality. Get used to it.

 

[woolfe9999]

By the way, one more point of clarification.

The Tenth Amendment actually adds nothing to the Constitution that isn't already in the core document. It is what we refer to the in the law as surplusage. It just restates something that is implicitly already there.

Why is it already there? Look at Article I of the core document. It describes the powers that the federal government has, but for the states, it only describes the powers they DON'T have. What that means to any rational human being is that the federal powers are limited to those described, and the state powers are everything in the universe EXCEPT the ones expressly listed as prohibited. Think about it.

From Wiki, James Madison's comment on the Tenth Amendment:

I find, from looking into the amendments proposed by the State conventions, that several are particularly anxious that it should be declared in the Constitution, that the powers not therein delegated should be reserved to the several States. Perhaps words which may define this more precisely than the whole of the instrument now does, may be considered as superfluous. I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it.

 

[Lanyap]

As deeply as they are ingrained in society nowadays, it would be better to learn how to deal with them than fighting them.

They have been around my area long enough to where they are able to earn enough money to buy cars. Of course, they don't have a license or insurance. Had one back into me in a parking lot recently. Didn't speak english, no license and no insurance driving a raggedy old van that shouldn't be on the street. Luckily it didn't damage me or my car.

 

[Texashiker]

Oh jesus, you still haven't come to grips with how wrong you were about the 10th amendment yet?

It's not an opinion, it's reality. Get used to it.

Did you miss all of the post by xBiffx?

I think you are both correct and both wrong if I read all the back and forth correctly. So, the 10th Amendment was ratified to specifically address any issues where a law is not specifically outlined in the Constitution. If the Constitution hasn't given a power to the Federal Government, then that power is strictly reserved for the States or the people as long as its not prohibited to the States. This means that if it is not spelled out in the Constitution, or its Amendments, then the States have the power.

eskimospy, the only thing I am getting used to, is your "I am always right, and everyone else is always wrong" attitude.

 

[fskimospy]

Did you miss all of the post by xBiffx?





eskimospy, the only thing I am getting used to, is your "I am always right, and everyone else is always wrong" attitude.

He doesn't understand the difference between laws and powers either. This ruling had ZERO to do with the 10th amendment. Absolutely zero. I'm getting really sick of the Constitutional fetishists on this forum lacking even a 6th grade understanding of the Constitution.

You asked for a lawyer, you got one. He told you that you were wrong too. Did this change your mind? Of course not, because nothing will.

 

[xBiffx]

No, I'm not "jumping way off base here." The power to determine citizenship carries with it the power to enforce whatever citizenship rules the federal government enacts. That generally encompasses what "to do to non citizens." I understand you disagree with me, but my interpretation is the prevailing one at this point in time.

Yes, you are correct that the power to determine citizenship carries with it the power to enforce citizenship laws the government enacts. However, the laws in question do not deal with naturalization powers given to the federal government under the Constitution, as I have stated repeatedly. Again, for the last time, the constitution defines how an immigrant becomes a citizen and how to determine citizenship, nothing more. This is why your statement was correct, because the Federal Government immigration laws only deal with this subject with regards to immigration/immigrants. Also, even if they did, the federal government hasn't enacted the laws in question, meaning the states can. Obviously your interpretation is not the prevailing one at this time or we wouldn't be talking about this judge's decision in the first place.

The powers that are in section 8 but NOT in section 10 are powers of both the federal government and the states.

Again, dead wrong. Just because powers are outlined in section 8 but not prohibited to the states in section 10 does not inherently give the power to the states. The Constitution does not specifically give one single power to the states, not one. The Constitution only creates a protection where if the Federal Government isn't given a power then it is reserved to the states. It is a federal document and not a state document. Both of these are reasons why states each have their own constitutions. So that they may outline what powers they are choosing to enact because again, the rest are reserved for the people.

I don't know where you are drawing any of your opinions besides Wikipedia, but they are mostly wrong. I have pointed out where you are correct since not all of what you have said is incorrect. I know it may or may not be a qualification but I was six credits short of a minor in government. I have plenty of knowledge on the subject and have been in a lot of these types of discussions in the past. I'm not a constitutional attorney by any means, but I have a lot more background than just Wikipedia. In the end I didn't think it was worth another semester to add a minor in government to a degree in chemical engineering. As I anticipated, the major was enough and I can always go back and get the minor.

 

[Texashiker]

This ruling had ZERO to do with the 10th amendment. Absolutely zero.

I disagree.

Even though the judge did not reference the 10th, did she really need to?

The federal government has not passed any laws prohibiting the states from verifying citizen status before attending school; nor has the federal government legislated itself the authority to verify citizen status before attending school.

Since the federal government has neither prohibited the states, or reserved itself the right, then its left to the state.

This is the essence of the 10th.

 

[xBiffx]

I disagree.

Even though the judge did not reference the 10th, did she really need to?

The federal government has not passed any laws prohibiting the states from verifying citizen status before attending school; nor has the federal government legislated itself the authority to verify citizen status before attending school.

Since the federal government has neither prohibited the states, or reserved itself the right, then its left to the state.

This is the essence of the 10th.

There are no Federal laws because this is outside the power given to the government as outlined in the constitution. If they were applying for citizenship then there is federal law governing this. They are applying to school, for example, not subject to federal immigration/naturalization/citizenship/whatever you want to call it laws.

 

[xBiffx]

He doesn't understand the difference between laws and powers either. This ruling had ZERO to do with the 10th amendment. Absolutely zero. I'm getting really sick of the Constitutional fetishists on this forum lacking even a 6th grade understanding of the Constitution.

You asked for a lawyer, you got one. He told you that you were wrong too. Did this change your mind? Of course not, because nothing will.

No I do understand, more than you apparently. Yes powers are outlined in the constitution, not statues. But saying you have a power is meaningless. You have to have statues that outline how you are applying that power. So when you say power in the constitution, you can say laws, since the laws are the enacting of these powers. Powers stated are ineffective without the means to apply them, laws.

 

[fskimospy]

I disagree.

Even though the judge did not reference the 10th, did she really need to?

The federal government has not passed any laws prohibiting the states from verifying citizen status before attending school; nor has the federal government legislated itself the authority to verify citizen status before attending school.

Since the federal government has neither prohibited the states, or reserved itself the right, then its left to the state.

This is the essence of the 10th.

No, it's really, really not.

The federal government has no say as to what powers or rights are reserved to the states, only the Constitution can say that. Whether or not the federal government had passed a law to prohibit Alabama from doing this doesn't just happen to be irrelevant, by the structure of the Constitution it MUST be irrelevant in respect to the 10th amendment or any other amendment. EDIT: The lack of a law was relevant in the case PRECISELY because it had nothing to do with the 10th amendment. If it had something to do with it, the presence or absence of a law would not have mattered.

That's the essence of the entire Constitution. This is not controversial. I am unaware of anyone on earth outside of this forum that has ever attempted to make the legal argument you are making.

 

[fskimospy]

No I do understand, more than you apparently. Yes powers are outlined in the constitution, not statues. But saying you have a power is meaningless. You have to have statues that outline how you are applying that power. So when you say power in the constitution, you can say laws, since the laws are the enacting of these powers. Powers stated are ineffective without the means to apply them, laws.

Nope, you sure can't use them interchangeably. But who am I to argue with you? I only spent six years studying government, I hear you're 6 credits short of a minor in it.

 

[xBiffx]

Nope, you sure can't use them interchangeably. But who am I to argue with you? I only spent six years studying government, I hear you're 6 credits short of a minor in it.

Okay, fine then. How does the federal government execute the powers outlined in the constitution?