Judge will not block Alabama immigration law

[Venix]

Here's a translation of the 10th amendment for simpletons:

• The Constitution contains a list of powers that are given to the federal government.
• The Constitution contains a list of powers that are denied to the states.
• If a power is not in either of those lists it is denied to the federal government.
• If a power is not in either of those lists it is given to the states.

That's all. It's just a restatement of the implied fact that the states can make whatever laws they want, but the federal government can only make laws about a limited set of things.

The state v. federal issue is obviously more complicated (commerce clause, incorporation, etc.), but it would be more constructive to discuss the nuances of Constitutional law with my dog than with someone who can't even comprehend the one sentence of the 10th amendment.

 

[fskimospy]

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

A law is any piece of legislation that is correctly passed through both houses of Congress and signed by the president. (or passed over his veto) Laws CAN be a vehicle to implement powers delineated in the Constitution, but they can also be legislation passed that is outside the powers granted by the Constitution, and thereby at risk of being tossed out for that reason. This is particularly salient when you're talking about what powers who has under the Constitution.

I seriously cannot take any more of this.

 

[xBiffx]

Here's a translation of the 10th amendment for simpletons:

• The Constitution contains a list of powers that are given to the federal government.
• The Constitution contains a list of powers that are denied to the states.
• If a power is not in either of those lists it is denied to the federal government.
• If a power is not in either of those lists it is given to the states.

That's all. It's just a restatement of the implied fact that the states can make whatever laws they want, but the federal government can only make laws about a limited set of things.

The state v. federal issue is obviously more complicated (commerce clause, incorporation, etc.), but it would be more constructive to discuss the nuances of Constitutional law with my dog than with someone who can't even comprehend the one sentence of the 10th amendment.

This! Thank you for putting that plainly.

 

[sportage]

On the other hand... My niece has a lot of Hispanic friends, many illegal. Last night she was leaving in her car and I ask where she was going. She said to bring some cans of chili to one of her friends. An illegal. Hasn’t eaten for 4 days. No food. And, too weak to even stand up. She was really worried. So as to illegal’s... what are we expected to do? Watch them die of starvation? They come here, they “ARE” here, for a chance at a better life and freedom. Is that so different from what you would want if you were in their shoes? Can you blame anyone for seeking the American way of life? So this guy is illegal, so he cannot get work, has few friends to help him, he is starving, and our answer is to turn a cold shoulder? Yes illegal’s are a problem, maybe, but I myself have not lowered myself to not caring for a fellow man/woman when they are literally at deaths door starving. How cold hearted can one be towards the human race? This is the result in passing such laws as in Alabama and other states. And what if this starving illegal were you or your child in some foreign land seeking hope and dreams? Society and our people have become cold hearted bastards, which is where I draw my line in taking part. I still have respect and a sense of humanity towards life and the living, regardless of national origin or the color of their skin. Yes republicans… cheer for the poor, cheer the sick, cheer for the destitute, cheer that you are no better than the scum of the earth. And these people have the audacity to call themselves Christian or part of the conservative religious right. No.... they are simply part of that ever growing group I call “The Evil Bastards of Society”. Their reward of glory, in the end, will be a confirmed place in hell. Try re reading the bible as to what it is to be Christian. Christian in works deeds, not just some bull shitting bastard wearing the cross on the sleeve.

 

[First]

This! Thank you for putting that plainly.

lmao!

 

[xBiffx]

Sportage, I feel sorry for the individual you mentioned, and as a human being, yes he is entitled to life and not to starve to death. I would give someone food in that situation but this is not what we are talking about here. They have a right to life, yes, but being here illegally means that they are not subject to our rights and privileges under the constitution, that is all we are saying. They do not have a right to be here unless they obtain citizenship legally. You are taking your bleeding heart liberal bible thumping a little too far when you say that republicans don't care for these people and don't see them as human beings.

We are a humane society but we are also a society of laws. If you do not follow those laws, then you are subject to the consequences, whatever they may be. The human part of me is sorry for your friends but the just part of me does not feel one ounce of pity. There are plenty of people who came, or want to come to this country and do it legally. Some of them wait years before they obtain their citizenship. If we are to just ignore our laws for some, then it devalues what these people have spent years working for.

 

[GaryJohnson]

The human part of me is sorry for your friends but the just part of me does not feel one ounce of pity.

The sum of what you said here is "justice (in the case of our current naturaltization laws) is inhumane." I don't think anyone is suggesting we ingore the laws, I think they're suggesting we fix them.

 

[woolfe9999]

Here's a translation of the 10th amendment for simpletons:

• The Constitution contains a list of powers that are given to the federal government.
• The Constitution contains a list of powers that are denied to the states.
• If a power is not in either of those lists it is denied to the federal government.
• If a power is not in either of those lists it is given to the states.

That's all. It's just a restatement of the implied fact that the states can make whatever laws they want, but the federal government can only make laws about a limited set of things.

The state v. federal issue is obviously more complicated (commerce clause, incorporation, etc.), but it would be more constructive to discuss the nuances of Constitutional law with my dog than with someone who can't even comprehend the one sentence of the 10th amendment.

I don't know what you did that I didn't do to make him understand, but there it is.

 

[BoomerD]

On the other hand... My niece has a lot of Hispanic friends, many illegal. Last night she was leaving in her car and I ask where she was going. She said to bring some cans of chili to one of her friends. An illegal. Hasn’t eaten for 4 days. No food. And, too weak to even stand up. She was really worried. So as to illegal’s... what are we expected to do? Watch them die of starvation? They come here, they “ARE” here, for a chance at a better life and freedom. Is that so different from what you would want if you were in their shoes? Can you blame anyone for seeking the American way of life? So this guy is illegal, so he cannot get work, has few friends to help him, he is starving, and our answer is to turn a cold shoulder? Yes illegal’s are a problem, maybe, but I myself have not lowered myself to not caring for a fellow man/woman when they are literally at deaths door starving. How cold hearted can one be towards the human race? This is the result in passing such laws as in Alabama and other states. And what if this starving illegal were you or your child in some foreign land seeking hope and dreams? Society and our people have become cold hearted bastards, which is where I draw my line in taking part. I still have respect and a sense of humanity towards life and the living, regardless of national origin or the color of their skin. Yes republicans… cheer for the poor, cheer the sick, cheer for the destitute, cheer that you are no better than the scum of the earth. And these people have the audacity to call themselves Christian or part of the conservative religious right. No.... they are simply part of that ever growing group I call “The Evil Bastards of Society”. Their reward of glory, in the end, will be a confirmed place in hell. Try re reading the bible as to what it is to be Christian. Christian in works deeds, not just some bull shitting bastard wearing the cross on the sleeve.

In this case, the most humane thing you could do is to turn him in...let ICE gather him up, feed him and send him back to where ever he came from...it often takes several days, so he'd get a few good meals, a shower or two...and a warm place to sleep.

Seriously...if this guy hadn't come here illegally, he wouldn't be in this situation.
It's too bad your daughter can't be charged with aiding and abetting a criminal.

 

[PokerGuy]

Back up to your OP for a minute and I think we can resolve this confusion. The 10th Amendment has no bearing on this particular ruling. You quoted it so you should know that. It says powers not enumerated to the federal government are given to the states (or the people.)

Immigration IS a power granted to the federal government (read Section 8 "uniform rules of naturalization"). Accordingly, how is the 10th Amendment even relevant here?

Let's have a quick primer on federal versus state power in the Constitution.

There are powers enumerated to the Federal Government. Some of those powers are specified as expressly prohibited to the states, i.e. printing money, declaring war.

All powers not explicitly mentioned are powers exclusive to the states, per the 10th amendment.

So we have 3 categories of powers.

1. Powers exclusive to the federal government because they are granted to the federal government and are expressly prohibited to the states. Only the federal government can make laws in these areas.

2. Powers shared by both because they are granted to the federal government but NOT prohibited to the states. Immigration is one of these by the way. Either the federal or state governments, or both, can make laws in these areas.

3. Powers exclusive to the states. Per the 10th amendment, this consists of all powers not enumerated to the federal government. Only the states can make laws in these areas.

For category 2 situations, the Constitution has something called the Supremacy Clause, which says if both the federal and state government choose to enact laws in one area, the federal laws trump the state laws to the extent that they conflict.

The case you link in the OP is a category 2 situation. Immigration can be regulated by either the federal government or the states. The court upheld the Alabama law because it didn't conflict with anything in an existing federal statute so there was no problem with the supremacy clause.

The 10th Amendment is irrelevant in this case because that is what establishes category 3 powers - those that are exclusive to the states. Your case, however, is a category 2 situation and hence it has nothing to do with the 10th amendment.

- wolf

Thanks for that clear summary and explanation, that makes sense. :thumbsup:

What I find puzzling or even distressing is that the way the commerce clause and the constitution in general have been interpreted, it doesn't seem that there is really *any* area where the federal government doesn't have the power granted by the constitution to create laws. In light of that, isn't the 10th amendment kind of a moot point?

 

[PokerGuy]

This thread presents a fine contrasting view of elitist versus well informed. eskimo is correct in saying this has nothing to do with the 10th, but he's a jackass about it and essentially thinks his way of thinking is the absolute correct way and everything else is just stupid.

wolfe on the other hand is well informed, and isn't a jackass about it. He also is smart enough to understand that his interpretation of what constitutes enforcement etc is in line with what the court has held before, but is just that, an interpretation. The court could come up with a more narrow interpretation of what is part of enforcement powers the federal government has as part of their regulation of conditions of citizenship etc.

 

[xBiffx]

I don't know what you did that I didn't do to make him understand, but there it is.

This is nothing more than the short version of what I was saying. All of your conclusions took everything a step further. At its core, this is not a 10th amendment issue, I said that. I also said that the 10th amendment will surely be brought up when this decision reaches higher court. You, on the other hand, want to take the approach that this has nothing and will never has nothing to do with the 10th amendment, a very myopic approach to the issue at hand.

 

[xBiffx]

This thread presents a fine contrasting view of elitist versus well informed. eskimo is correct in saying this has nothing to do with the 10th, but he's a jackass about it and essentially thinks his way of thinking is the absolute correct way and everything else is just stupid.

wolfe on the other hand is well informed, and isn't a jackass about it. He also is smart enough to understand that his interpretation of what constitutes enforcement etc is in line with what the court has held before, but is just that, an interpretation. The court could come up with a more narrow interpretation of what is part of enforcement powers the federal government has as part of their regulation of conditions of citizenship etc.

The court doesn't have to "come up" with a more narrow interpretation. Currently there is no federal law pertaining to the Alabama law. Why? Because the government has already made laws that fit within the already narrow definition of its powers of enforcement over the rules of naturalization. I have been saying that all along.

 

[xBiffx]

The sum of what you said here is "justice (in the case of our current naturaltization laws) is inhumane." I don't think anyone is suggesting we ingore the laws, I think they're suggesting we fix them.

In a way you are correct in that interpretation. I like the lifeboat analogy the best for describing this. If we think of the US as a lifeboat then there is only so much room for survivors to climb on. After a certain point, too many people climb onto the boat and it capsizes. Its not the humane thing, but sometimes you have to leave survivors in the water to fend for themselves, and some will surely die because of this. If you don't, then everyone will eventually drown when the lifeboat goes down. So in justice, you have humanity through greater good. The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, a law of nature. You can choose to ignore that, at your own peril.

 

[GaryJohnson]

If we think of the US as a lifeboat then there is only so much room for survivors to climb on. After a certain point, too many people climb onto the boat and it capsizes.

There are 240 other lifeboats and 178 of them manage to fit more people in less space than we do. I'm looking at some of those 178 lifeboats and some of them are really shitty lifeboats and are nowhere near as magnificent as our great nation lifeboat. And they haven't sank yet - some of them are actually doing quite well.

The current laws don't acknowledge any sort of maximum capacity or influx, but meanwhile establish arbitrary limits on certain types of immigration. We're telling people that are already in the boat to bring as many family members as they want with them and to have as many babies as they want, but we're randomly turning away other people.

 

[ElFenix]

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.

uh, no.

if the federal government and the states both had the ability to regulate something, then both could pass laws and the supremacy clause picks the winner (the feds). if the feds passed a law prohibiting immigration checks by the states, the supremacy clause says that beats any state law to the contrary.


if you're basing your ruling on some particular law it'd be very peculiar to not mention or reference that law at all.

 

[xBiffx]

uh, no.

if the federal government and the states both had the ability to regulate something, then both could pass laws and the supremacy clause picks the winner (the feds). if the feds passed a law prohibiting immigration checks by the states, the supremacy clause says that beats any state law to the contrary.


if you're basing your ruling on some particular law it'd be very peculiar to not mention or reference that law at all.

Again, the supremacy clause only applies when the federal law is within the powers given to the federal government by the constitution to make that law. The argument becomes whether or not the feds passing a law prohibiting citizenship status checks falls within the naturalization powers outlined in the Constitution.

Its not completely correct to say that the supremacy clause means that any federal law trumps state law. There is a rather large caveat to that statement.

 

[ElFenix]

Again, the supremacy clause only applies when the federal law is within the powers given to the federal government by the constitution to make that law. The argument becomes whether or not the feds passing a law prohibiting citizenship status checks falls within the naturalization powers outlined in the Constitution.

Its not completely correct to say that the supremacy clause means that any federal law trumps state law. There is a rather large caveat to that statement.

i wrote if the federal government and the states both had the ability to regulate something. maybe you didn't read that part.

 

[xBiffx]

i wrote if the federal government and the states both had the ability to regulate something. maybe you didn't read that part.

I did, what you wrote makes no sense. If the federal government regulates it, then the states do not.