Granting Illegal Aliens a Pre Deportation Hearing TRANSGRESSES Upon the Constitution's Preamble

[Contumacious]

Rediscovering the Preamble’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation​

This article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges, politicians, and the public in the years before the Constitution was ratified. It demonstrates that courts’ modern treatment of the Preamble is at odds with its original meaning. Eighteenth-century Americans viewed the Preamble as an important tool for understanding and interpreting the Constitution. They would have expected courts to interpret the Constitution’s terms to be consistent with the purposes expressed in the Preamble. Moreover, there is evidence from both judicial decisions and public discourse that members of the public would have expected the Preamble to be used to limit or expand the scope of specific terms of the Constitution if that was necessary to achieve the purposes set out in the Preamble. This means that the way that courts use the Preamble today is at odds with its original meaning. To give the Constitution its original meaning, we must interpret the Constitution’s provisions in light of the purposes identified in the Preamble. For those judges and scholars who are originalists, this may require a shift in how they interpret the Constitution.

Preambles Before the Preamble: Rediscovering the Preamble’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation

This article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges...

brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu

 

[watsup]

Rediscovering the Preamble’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation​

This article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges, politicians, and the public in the years before the Constitution was ratified. It demonstrates that courts’ modern treatment of the Preamble is at odds with its original meaning. Eighteenth-century Americans viewed the Preamble as an important tool for understanding and interpreting the Constitution. They would have expected courts to interpret the Constitution’s terms to be consistent with the purposes expressed in the Preamble. Moreover, there is evidence from both judicial decisions and public discourse that members of the public would have expected the Preamble to be used to limit or expand the scope of specific terms of the Constitution if that was necessary to achieve the purposes set out in the Preamble. This means that the way that courts use the Preamble today is at odds with its original meaning. To give the Constitution its original meaning, we must interpret the Constitution’s provisions in light of the purposes identified in the Preamble. For those judges and scholars who are originalists, this may require a shift in how they interpret the Constitution.

Preambles Before the Preamble: Rediscovering the Preamble’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation

This article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges...

brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu

???????????????????

 

[Bodecea]

Rediscovering the Preamble’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation​

This article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges, politicians, and the public in the years before the Constitution was ratified. It demonstrates that courts’ modern treatment of the Preamble is at odds with its original meaning. Eighteenth-century Americans viewed the Preamble as an important tool for understanding and interpreting the Constitution. They would have expected courts to interpret the Constitution’s terms to be consistent with the purposes expressed in the Preamble. Moreover, there is evidence from both judicial decisions and public discourse that members of the public would have expected the Preamble to be used to limit or expand the scope of specific terms of the Constitution if that was necessary to achieve the purposes set out in the Preamble. This means that the way that courts use the Preamble today is at odds with its original meaning. To give the Constitution its original meaning, we must interpret the Constitution’s provisions in light of the purposes identified in the Preamble. For those judges and scholars who are originalists, this may require a shift in how they interpret the Constitution.

Preambles Before the Preamble: Rediscovering the Preamble’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation

This article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges...

brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu

 

[Contumacious]

???????????????????

The U.S. Constitution: Preamble​

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The U.S. Constitution: Preamble

The preamble sets the stage for the Constitution. It is an introduction to the highest law of the land; it is not the law. It communicates the intentions of the framers and purpose of the document.

www.uscourts.gov

 

[Integrityrespec]

Would have been nice if you had given some specific examples set forth in the article.

 

[Contumacious]

Would have been nice if you had given some specific examples set forth in the article.

HOW does preventing President Trump from quickly deporting illegals promote

1- a more perfect Union,
2- domestic Tranquility,
3- the general Welfare,
4- or secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

 

[soap box]

Rediscovering the Preamble’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation​

This article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges, politicians, and the public in the years before the Constitution was ratified. It demonstrates that courts’ modern treatment of the Preamble is at odds with its original meaning. Eighteenth-century Americans viewed the Preamble as an important tool for understanding and interpreting the Constitution. They would have expected courts to interpret the Constitution’s terms to be consistent with the purposes expressed in the Preamble. Moreover, there is evidence from both judicial decisions and public discourse that members of the public would have expected the Preamble to be used to limit or expand the scope of specific terms of the Constitution if that was necessary to achieve the purposes set out in the Preamble. This means that the way that courts use the Preamble today is at odds with its original meaning. To give the Constitution its original meaning, we must interpret the Constitution’s provisions in light of the purposes identified in the Preamble. For those judges and scholars who are originalists, this may require a shift in how they interpret the Constitution.

Preambles Before the Preamble: Rediscovering the Preamble’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation

This article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges...

brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu

Which part of the preamble are you talking about?

 

[soap box]

HOW does preventing President Trump from quickly deporting illegals promote

1- a more perfect Union,
2- domestic Tranquility,
3- the general Welfare,
4- or secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

Wow, that's a super vague stretch. That requires miles of inferences.

 

[Xilnik]

Rediscovering the Preamble’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation​

This article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges, politicians, and the public in the years before the Constitution was ratified. It demonstrates that courts’ modern treatment of the Preamble is at odds with its original meaning. Eighteenth-century Americans viewed the Preamble as an important tool for understanding and interpreting the Constitution. They would have expected courts to interpret the Constitution’s terms to be consistent with the purposes expressed in the Preamble. Moreover, there is evidence from both judicial decisions and public discourse that members of the public would have expected the Preamble to be used to limit or expand the scope of specific terms of the Constitution if that was necessary to achieve the purposes set out in the Preamble. This means that the way that courts use the Preamble today is at odds with its original meaning. To give the Constitution its original meaning, we must interpret the Constitution’s provisions in light of the purposes identified in the Preamble. For those judges and scholars who are originalists, this may require a shift in how they interpret the Constitution.

Preambles Before the Preamble: Rediscovering the Preamble’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation

This article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges...

brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu

The abstract of that paper does not explain anything. Please refer the actual paper and let us know what the findings are and their conclusions.

In the meantime, allow me to provide a lesson on why the Judiciary is important and why interpretations evolve. The judicial system plays a crucial role in maintaining constitutional integrity while adapting to societal changes. The following points illustrate that adaptation:

• Preserving Rule of Law: Courts ensure laws are applied fairly and consistently, preventing arbitrary governance.
• Adapting to Modern Contexts: Societies evolve, and judicial interpretations must reflect contemporary realities while staying true to constitutional principles.
• Balancing Power: The judiciary acts as a check on legislative and executive branches, preventing overreach.
• Clarifying Ambiguities: Legal texts often require interpretation, and courts provide authoritative rulings to resolve disputes.
• Court Rulings: Past court rulings also set new precedents in interpreting laws and the Constitution.
  • Expanding interpretations to adapt to new circumstances or broaden protections.
  • Refining interpretations by adding clarity to ambiguous language or addressing unforeseen issues.
  • Narrowing interpretations when rulings impose stricter limitations on previously broad applications.

Historically, courts viewed the Preamble as a guiding principle for constitutional interpretation, shaping rulings to align with its stated purposes. Over time, judicial precedent shifted away from this approach, leading to modern interpretations that often disregard the Preamble’s original role. If courts were to reincorporate the Preamble’s original role, it could reshape constitutional law in significant ways that do not fit today's standards nor modern societal views.

 

[Contumacious]

The abstract of that paper does not explain anything. Please refer the actual paper and let us know what the findings are and their conclusions.

In the meantime, allow me to provide a lesson on why the Judiciary is important and why interpretations evolve. The judicial system plays a crucial role in maintaining constitutional integrity while adapting to societal changes. The following points illustrate that adaptation:

• Preserving Rule of Law: Courts ensure laws are applied fairly and consistently, preventing arbitrary governance.
• Adapting to Modern Contexts: Societies evolve, and judicial interpretations must reflect contemporary realities while staying true to constitutional principles.
• Balancing Power: The judiciary acts as a check on legislative and executive branches, preventing overreach.
• Clarifying Ambiguities: Legal texts often require interpretation, and courts provide authoritative rulings to resolve disputes.
• Court Rulings: Past court rulings also set new precedents in interpreting laws and the Constitution.
  • Expanding interpretations to adapt to new circumstances or broaden protections.
  • Refining interpretations by adding clarity to ambiguous language or addressing unforeseen issues.
  • Narrowing interpretations when rulings impose stricter limitations on previously broad applications.

Historically, courts viewed the Preamble as a guiding principle for constitutional interpretation, shaping rulings to align with its stated purposes. Over time, judicial precedent shifted away from this approach, leading to modern interpretations that often disregard the Preamble’s original role. If courts were to reincorporate the Preamble’s original role, it could reshape constitutional law in significant ways that do not fit today's standards nor modern societal views.

SEE POST #6

 

[Contumacious]

Wow, that's a super vague stretch. That requires miles of inferences.

NOT if your mind is FREE and you think like a Patriotic Freeman

 

[Xilnik]

HOW does preventing President Trump from quickly deporting illegals promote

1- a more perfect Union,
2- domestic Tranquility,
3- the general Welfare,
4- or secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

Your interpretation ignores the 14th Amendment, which extends protections granted through the Preamble to noncitizens. The Equal Protection Clause ensures that all individuals, regardless of citizenship status, receive fundamental rights.

Not allowing the President to quickly deport undocumented immigrants safeguards their Blessings of Liberty, protecting their right to life, family, and property. Many have established homes and livelihoods, and deportation without due process could unjustly strip them of these fundamental rights.

Additionally, asylum laws exist to protect individuals facing persecution or life-threatening conditions in their home countries. Denying a fair legal process contradicts the principles of justice and human dignity that underpin constitutional interpretation. Courts have historically upheld these protections, as seen in cases like Plyler v. Doe (1982), which affirmed the rights of undocumented immigrants under the Equal Protection Clause.

If constitutional principles are meant to safeguard justice and fairness, then due process for immigrants aligns with the very foundation of American legal tradition.

 

[Grand Mal]

HOW does preventing President Trump from quickly deporting illegals promote

1- a more perfect Union,
2- domestic Tranquility,
3- the general Welfare,
4- or secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

Are you saying the Constitution gives the President the power to deport people?

 

[NWRatCon]

It's ironic, really, that one so dedicated to ignoring the substance of the document, would present this article in support of the thread title. I happen to agree with the premise of the article, that the preamble should be a guide to interpreting what follows. But that does not mean that the preamble itself is substantive law.

And, it most certainly doesn't support the assertion of the OP. Indeed, quite the opposite. This is what is known as a "non sequitur", the article has no connection to the assertion about immigrant rights.

Frankly, the claim is nonsensical and stupid.

 

[Contumacious]

Are you saying the Constitution gives the President the power to deport people?

ArtII.S1.C8.1.3 Faithful Execution of the Office​

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The oath’s requirement that the President swear or affirm to faithfully execute the Office of President bears close relation to the President’s constitutional duty to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.1 Other provisions of the Constitution require action of various officials, but these two clauses comprise the only requirements that an official act faithfully. Because of these textual similarities, the oath is often discussed in conjunction with the Take Care Clause.2

Loading…

constitution.congress.gov

 

[Cosmo]

All the US Constitution requires is due process. That doesn't necessarily mean a hearing or trial (like many liberals think it does). And it only requires this when depriving them of life, liberty, or property. Kicking an illegal across the border doesn't necessarily do any of those.

 

[Contumacious]

Your interpretation ignores the 14th Amendment, which extends protections granted through the Preamble to noncitizens. The Equal Protection Clause ensures that all individuals, regardless of citizenship status, receive fundamental rights.

Not allowing the President to quickly deport undocumented immigrants safeguards their Blessings of Liberty, protecting their right to life, family, and property. Many have established homes and livelihoods, and deportation without due process could unjustly strip them of these fundamental rights.

Additionally, asylum laws exist to protect individuals facing persecution or life-threatening conditions in their home countries. Denying a fair legal process contradicts the principles of justice and human dignity that underpin constitutional interpretation. Courts have historically upheld these protections, as seen in cases like Plyler v. Doe (1982), which affirmed the rights of undocumented immigrants under the Equal Protection Clause.

If constitutional principles are meant to safeguard justice and fairness, then due process for immigrants aligns with the very foundation of American legal tradition.

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT​

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT - Bare Foots World

The following is a treatise on the unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment, based upon the most comprehensive research and documentation of every angle in the unlawful procedures involved in its purported adoption

barefootsworld.net

 

[NWRatCon]

ArtII.S1.C8.1.3 Faithful Execution of the Office​

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The oath’s requirement that the President swear or affirm to faithfully execute the Office of President bears close relation to the President’s constitutional duty to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.1 Other provisions of the Constitution require action of various officials, but these two clauses comprise the only requirements that an official act faithfully. Because of these textual similarities, the oath is often discussed in conjunction with the Take Care Clause.2

Loading…

constitution.congress.gov

Another complete non sequitur. You are really, really, really bad at this "thinking" process. GI/GO in the flesh. Goodbye again.

 

[Contumacious]

All the US Constitution requires is due process. That doesn't necessarily mean a hearing or trial (like many liberals think it does). And it only requires this when depriving them of life, liberty, or property. Kicking an illegal across the border doesn't necessarily do any of those.

Calculate how long it will take to grant ---an UNNECESSARY HEARING --- to over 15,000,000 illegals

 

[Somerville]

HOW does preventing President Trump from quickly deporting illegals promote

1- a more perfect Union,
2- domestic Tranquility,
3- the general Welfare,
4- or secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

HOW does preventing President Trump from quickly deporting illegals promote a better nation

1: - by promoting a more perfect union based on the rule that one must be shown to be guilty of a crime before being punished
2: - by supporting domestic tranquility and not separating families
3: - by providing workers who aid in supporting the general Welfare of the populace
4: - by preventing the abuse of the legal system, which is the result of an executive refusing to follow the laws of the land

 

[Grand Mal]

ArtII.S1.C8.1.3 Faithful Execution of the Office​

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The oath’s requirement that the President swear or affirm to faithfully execute the Office of President bears close relation to the President’s constitutional duty to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.1 Other provisions of the Constitution require action of various officials, but these two clauses comprise the only requirements that an official act faithfully. Because of these textual similarities, the oath is often discussed in conjunction with the Take Care Clause.2

Loading…

constitution.congress.gov

That doesn't say anything about the President having the power to deport people. It says the President has to see to it that the laws are 'faithfully executed', not what the law is. You need to show what law says the President, the head of the Executive branch, can deport people.

 

[Cosmo]

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT​

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE 14th AMENDMENT - Bare Foots World

The following is a treatise on the unconstitutionality of the Fourteenth Amendment, based upon the most comprehensive research and documentation of every angle in the unlawful procedures involved in its purported adoption

barefootsworld.net

How can an amendment be "unconstitutional?" An amendment is literally a part of the Constitution, same as any other part of it.

 

[Jezcoe]

Rediscovering the Preamble’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation​

This article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges, politicians, and the public in the years before the Constitution was ratified. It demonstrates that courts’ modern treatment of the Preamble is at odds with its original meaning. Eighteenth-century Americans viewed the Preamble as an important tool for understanding and interpreting the Constitution. They would have expected courts to interpret the Constitution’s terms to be consistent with the purposes expressed in the Preamble. Moreover, there is evidence from both judicial decisions and public discourse that members of the public would have expected the Preamble to be used to limit or expand the scope of specific terms of the Constitution if that was necessary to achieve the purposes set out in the Preamble. This means that the way that courts use the Preamble today is at odds with its original meaning. To give the Constitution its original meaning, we must interpret the Constitution’s provisions in light of the purposes identified in the Preamble. For those judges and scholars who are originalists, this may require a shift in how they interpret the Constitution.

Preambles Before the Preamble: Rediscovering the Preamble’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation

This article explores how the Preamble to the Constitution (Preamble) would have been viewed when it was drafted by looking at how preambles were used in America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It offers the first comprehensive look at how preambles were viewed by lawyers, judges...

brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu

The people who wrote the preamble are long dead and do not care what we do.

I don't really give a shit as to what their interpretation may be, because it is more important for the living to make our decisions as to how run a just and fair society.

Denying people basic human rights like the State having to prove a case before taking an action against individuals isn't a very Libertarian ideal.

 

[Cosmo]

Calculate how long it will take to grant ---an UNNECESSARY HEARING --- to over 15,000,000 illegals

A demonstration of why the left's position here is unreasonable.

 

[Xilnik]

ArtII.S1.C8.1.3 Faithful Execution of the Office​

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:– I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The oath’s requirement that the President swear or affirm to faithfully execute the Office of President bears close relation to the President’s constitutional duty to take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.1 Other provisions of the Constitution require action of various officials, but these two clauses comprise the only requirements that an official act faithfully. Because of these textual similarities, the oath is often discussed in conjunction with the Take Care Clause.2

Loading…

constitution.congress.gov

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 requires the President to "faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States" and uphold the Constitution. However, this clause does not grant the President unilateral authority to enforce or interpret laws beyond the limitations set by Congress.

The power to deport individuals does not stem directly from the Constitution but instead extends from congressional legislation, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Congress holds the constitutional authority to regulate immigration under Article I, Section 8, and the Executive Branch enforces those laws through agencies such as ICE and DHS.

While the President is responsible for executing laws, deportation must still comply with constitutional protections, particularly the 14th Amendment, which extends due process rights to noncitizens from the 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment, 6th Amendment and 8th Amendment. The judiciary has consistently ruled that deportation proceedings must adhere to legal protections, ensuring individuals are granted fair hearings and the ability to challenge removal.

Preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution means upholding all constitutional provisions, not just enforcing immigration laws swiftly. The Take Care Clause ensures that laws are implemented within the bounds of constitutional rights, preventing executive overreach while maintaining legal integrity.