Stop Calling Things Unconstitutional

[Master PO]

No legitimate authority, no. Originally the immigration authority rested with the states themselves, with people immigrating, obviously, into one of several states. The federal government did not even have any broad authority to write statutes applicable to the states and citizens thereof themselves; no body of federal laws asserting an authority above even the state laws legitimately exists.

well we are going to disagree here, under the articles of confederation the states had the power.

under the constitution the federal government has the power, and why, i will put forth my case.

first: it would be an impossible situation for every state to have its own immigration laws, becuase we know if California had its way it would opens it gates to anyone, and this would let illegals enter the u.s. and circumvent the other states like arizona which wishes to not have an open policy and jeopardizing another states security.

second: it is the duty of the federal government to secure this nation from all enemies foreign and domestic, this means keeping people out, who do not apply to be citizens through proper channels.

third: the u.s. made its first immigration law in 1790, with James Madison sitting in congress at that time, since he as far as i know did not raise any argument against the government making an immigration law, i would see it as legal.

forth:..in the constitution itself it states in article 1 section 8 this:"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"

naturalization is power, and anything related to it, would give congress the authority to act, one cannot be naturalized without the immigration process.


The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion… [emphasis added]

 

[sangha]

A1S8C4: To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Gee, I don't see the word "immigration" in there. Do you?

 

[sangha]

are you telling me you dont remember this conversation before?...........and i said nothing about increasing or limiting immigration.

I remember that you never quoted the constitution where it explicitly states that the federal govt. has the power to regulate immigration.

And you still can't do that

 

[sangha]

Yes, as a matter of fact, JURISDICTION establishes where the Court's authority lies, and does not lie.

Point to me to the section of the U.S. Constitution that establishes "judicial review". That authority is only implied, not explicitly stated, and establishing that authority you will undeniably come face to face with the very word you're rejecting - jurisdiction. In fact Article III, establishing the court's authority (a.k.a. "jurisdiction"), specifically references "original jurisdiction" and "appellate jurisdiction".

In fact the the very word "jurisdiction" means, literally, the law's dictate, with "juris" referencing the law, and "diction" indicating speech. To great amusement, the very jurisdiction of the Court that you're rejecting, is the very authority of its "judicial review". Where there is no jurisdiction of the court, there is no authority to pass that review.

No, I didn't reference the "only court", but rather indicated it was not the only or exclusive authority, with authorities existing outside of any court, i.e. the grand jury. Yeah, it's the highest court, but is not the exclusive authority on constitutionality, and even the doctrine of "judicial review" does not even imply such.

There's no sort of 'straw man" here, and certainly not 'irrelevant issues", There's only your own failed understanding of those issues, well beyond even being only amateurish.

And you continue to demonstrate that you have no real understanding of the subject matter by insisting that which cases SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over and which case SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction over has anything to do with the issue of whether or not SCOTUS has the power of judicial review.

 

[sangha]

well we are going to disagree here, under the articles of confederation the states had the power.

under the constitution the federal government has the power, and why, i will put forth my case.

first: it would be an impossible situation for every state to have its own immigration laws, becuase we know if California had its way it would opens it gates to anyone, and this would let illegals enter the u.s. and circumvent the other states like arizona which wishes to not have an open policy and jeopardizing another states security.

second: it is the duty of the federal government to secure this nation from all enemies foreign and domestic, this means keeping people out, who do not apply to be citizens through proper channels.

third: the u.s. made its first immigration law in 1790, with James Madison sitting in congress at that time, since he as far as i know did not raise any argument against the government making an immigration law, i would see it as legal.

forth:..in the constitution itself it states in article 1 section 8 this:"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"

naturalization is power, and anything related to it, would give congress the authority to act, one cannot be naturalized without the immigration process.


The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion… [emphasis added]

All you can do is explain why you think the Feds *should* have the power to regulate immigration

Nowhere in your spiel do you actually quote where the constitution grants the feds the power to actually regulate immigration

 

[Trip]

well we are going to disagree here, under the articles of confederation the states had the power.

under the constitution the federal government has the power, and why, i will put forth my case.

first: it would be an impossible situation for every state to have its own immigration laws, becuase we know if California had its way it would opens it gates to anyone, and this would let illegals enter the u.s. and circumvent the other states like arizona which wishes to not have an open policy and jeopardizing another states security.

Immigration into California, and resulting overrun of that state, does not imply that other states must take and allow California's own overflow into their states. States were more than able to exclude persons from their own territory, and did, as they had original sovereign authority over that specific territory, and still do.

The result would be California would be forced choke to death on its own immigration, and those government officials allowing it wold be ousted, This is far preferable to the federally imposed suicide pact we have now, where the federal government is allowing the states to literally be invaded deliberately unchecked immigration, and without legitimate authority prohibiting states from preventing immigration into their own borders, meanwhile states like California are drawing in persons with sanctuary from what little law exists, and then providing licenses and identification, and overflowing those persons into other states.

second: it is the duty of the federal government to secure this nation from all enemies foreign and domestic, this means keeping people out, who do not apply to be citizens through proper channels.

Yes, it is the duty of the federal government, along with upholding all laws, and the Constitution itself. However unchecked entry into the country is not "immigration" at all, nor is it naturalization. Yet the federal government has corrupted and usurped both of these authorities and is using them to not only subvert the country, and state powers, but also openly to subvert the elector process itself, with the long-term goal being the entire subversion of the Constitution and institution of a populist democracy where no real individual rights exist.

This is the "slippery slope" that has now become nothing but a mud slide as a result of allowing the federal government authority that it nowhere has. Nowhere in legitimate federal authority is the ability to "immigrate" people into states, when the territory of those states is the sovereign domain of each state, and not the federal government itself.

third: the u.s. made its first immigration law in 1790, with James Madison sitting in congress at that time, since he as far as i know did not raise any argument against the government making an immigration law, i would see it as legal.

Because we all know that Madison's view of federal authority, (or any one person's for that matter) is synonymous with the Constitution <ref: Virginia Plan>?

Beyond that, the 1790 Act was not at all an immigration law, but was nominally, and in application, a naturalization law, the 1790 Naturalization Act, and specifically dealt with the process of becoming a citizen, not immigration itself.

Furthermore, that 1790 Naturalization act was so poorly phrased, that it had to be rewritten nearly verbatim only 5 years later, with the 1795 Naturalization Act specifically repealing the previous act. The reason for the entire repeal of the 1790 Act, and its rewrite, even poorly understood by some "scholars" today, is the fact that the 1790 Naturalization Act indicated the following:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea,Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That ...​

Many so-called 'scholars' even now believe that reference to "natural born citizen" in this naturalization act was actually defining, or changing, the terms of natural born citizen, to actually confer that status on those born overseas, which is unreasonable given the fact that natural born citizen, is a term of art existing in natural law, and by definition entirely outside of, and beyond the reach of, man-made Positive Law. The 1790 Naturalization Act did no such thing.

In point of fact, and congruent with the language of the times, the legislators were not extending natural born status to those born overseas, were not conferring natural born on those who had never even seen this country, even before the ink was dried on the Constitution, but were using the more common practice of using SIMILE, comparing two fundamentally unlike things, to argue the right of only citizenship for those born overseas, and not awarding them actual natural born status. The phrase "considered as" is employing that simile to argue for mere citizen status, and not indicating those persons equate to natural born citizens; "considered as" does not equate to "now become".

As a result, all reference to "natural born" was removed in the 1795 Naturalization Act, and deliberately, at its onset, repealed the entirety of the 1790 Act, with very little else changed, being otherwise a verbatim repeat of the 1790 Act.

forth:..in the constitution itself it states in article 1 section 8 this:"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof"

naturalization is power, and anything related to it, would give congress the authority to act, one cannot be naturalized without the immigration process.

Naturalization is a power. Immigration is not a power, and does not relate to naturalization. People can, do, and have entered a country without the intention of being made citizens thereof, and are referred to as denizens. In fact the only power under "naturalization" is only to create a "uniform rule" of naturalization, i.e. minimal standards for citizenship, and not to dictate all terms of naturalization, nor to take over naturalization itself.

Citizenship was originally exclusive recognized by the states, and then all citizenship and other documents, were recognized across each and every state, and citizenship not being the exclusive domain of the federal government. Persons were first citizens of a state, and then by virtue of that citizenship, only then citizens of the United States <plural>.

 

[NeverTrump]

The GRAND JURY

Regarding the use of Grand Juries, I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.:

Constitution.org doesn't count either. You guys really have to try harder if you really want to make actual points and not blindly copy pasting a whole bunch of text from originalist websites...

 

[Trip]

And you continue to demonstrate that you have no real understanding of the subject matter by insisting that which cases SCOTUS has original jurisdiction over and which case SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction over has anything to do with the issue of whether or not SCOTUS has the power of judicial review.

That appellate jurisdiction and original jurisdiction cumulatively establish, not just the boundaries of that "judicial review", but the existence of judicial review itself!

Even the Supremacy Clause itself is involving the Jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution, even though it does not use the term jurisdiction itself.

The simple fact is that no one can possibly establish the authority for that "judicial review" without reference to that jurisdiction! This is simple, and even sophomoric stuff.

 

[sangha]

That appellate jurisdiction and original jurisdiction cumulatively establish, not just the boundaries of that "judicial review", but the existence of judicial review itself!

Even the Supremacy Clause itself is involving the Jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution, even though it does not use the term jurisdiction itself.

The simple fact is that no one can possibly establish the authority for that "judicial review" without reference to that jurisdiction! This is simple, and even sophomoric stuff.

Nonsense. Determining where a case originates has nothing to do with whether the courts have the power of judicial review.

 

[Trip]

Constitution.org doesn't count either. You guys really have to try harder if you really want to make actual points and not blindly copy pasting a whole bunch of text from originalist websites...

Uh, that article is not sourcing Constitution.org, a site which I particularly despise as it is pretending an official federal authority. but rather only reproducing an article from a Law Review. And Constitution.org is anything BUT an originalist website; it is a leftist drool site, particularly in some areas. The author of the site only has sat in on some Constitutional Law courses, and nothing more, thereby his own arguments are nonsense.

But this is all besides the point, as the site is only hosting the original material which was originally published elsewhere, specifically the CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, which is there in all caps, in the very material you quote, along with volume number, date, and page, and not providing its own opinion taken from Constitution.org. Open your eyes and READ.

And as evidenced by the external references to other materials, it is not any sort of "blind copying and pasting", which is an entirely false claim on your part.

You need to read more, learn more, and leap less.

 

[Trip]

Nonsense. Determining where a case originates has nothing to do with whether the courts have the power of judicial review.

Uh, "original jurisdiction" has nothing whatsoever to do with where a case originates, and everything to do with the authority over the subject matter of the case itself, i.e. the Constitution, which gets us back to jurisdiction.

Once again you're showing far less than even a sophomoric understanding. I sincerely suggest that you go read more, actively studying the issue, rather than just spouting off with your unqualified and grossly uninformed personal opinion.

 

[sangha]

Uh, "original jurisdiction" has nothing whatsoever to do with where a case originates, and everything to do with the authority over the subject matter of the case itself, i.e. the Constitution, which gets us back to jurisdiction.

Nonsense. Originally jurisdiction only pertains to which court gets to hear the case first. It has nothing to do with the authority of judicial review.

Once again you're showing far less than even a sophomoric understanding. I sincerely suggest that you go read more, actively studying the issue, rather than just spouting off with your unqualified and grossly uninformed personal opinion.

All you've done is actively deluded yourself, and have shown a complete lack of understanding of the simplest legal concepts

 

[Trip]

Nonsense. Originally jurisdiction only pertains to which court gets to hear the case first. It has nothing to do with the authority of judicial review.



All you've done is actively deluded yourself, and have shown a complete lack of understanding of the simplest legal concepts

The legal definition of "original jurisdiction":

noun

The ability and authority to decide cases based on hearing testimony and viewing evidence, rather than on appeal. The distinction separates trial courts from appellate courts. When an appellate court tries a case de novo on appeal, it is said to be exercising its original jurisdiction rather than its appellate jurisdiction. State-and-county level trial courts have original jurisdiction. The federal courts have original jurisdiction in certain matters, as Congress expressly provides. See federal question and diversity jurisdiction.
​

​

The Supreme Court of the United States actually has "original jurisdiction" over all matters directly relating to the Constitution, as the Constitution itself provides, in previously referenced Article III, establishes that the Supreme Court has original jurisidction over cases involving ambassadors, ministers and consuls, or any case in which a State is party thereto.

One cannot get to "judicial review" without reference to jurisdiction under the Constitution.... "Aintree! You can't get there from here." Credit: Deliverance.

And I am delivering you from the boundless wilderness of abject ignorance to the bounty of knowledge. As with your original delivery, it is not occurring without considerable, yet pointless objection.

 

[sangha]

The legal definition of "original jurisdiction":

noun

The ability and authority to decide cases based on hearing testimony and viewing evidence, rather than on appeal. The distinction separates trial courts from appellate courts. When an appellate court tries a case de novo on appeal, it is said to be exercising its original jurisdiction rather than its appellate jurisdiction. State-and-county level trial courts have original jurisdiction. The federal courts have original jurisdiction in certain matters, as Congress expressly provides. See federal question and diversity jurisdiction.
​

And your quote (unlinked, of course) says nothing about judicial review

​

The Supreme Court of the United States actually has "original jurisdiction" over all matters directly relating to the Constitution, as the Constitution itself provides, in previously referenced Article III, establishes that the Supreme Court has original jurisidction over cases involving ambassadors, ministers and consuls, or any case in which a State is party thereto.

One cannot get to "judicial review" without reference to jurisdiction under the Constitution.... "Aintree! You can't get there from here." Credit: Deliverance.

And I am delivering you from the boundless wilderness of abject ignorance to the bounty of knowledge. As with your original delivery, it is not occurring without considerable, yet pointless objection.

Your understanding is so twisted that you just contradicted yourself, and you didn't even realize it. You said

The Supreme Court of the United States actually has "original jurisdiction" over all matters directly relating to the Constitution

and

the Supreme Court has original jurisidction over cases involving ambassadors, ministers and consuls, or any case in which a State is party thereto.

I bet you *still* don't see the contradiction, even after I pointed it out. :lamo

 

[Imnukingfutz]

That only proves that 3 Million people believe that the Judicial Review is unconstitutional, and for Google standards that's pretty low. Try a search for Global Warming, and then get back to me. That's 350 Million results and that uses even more junk science!!! People believe crazy things. So what? Your not proving your point any. It's still above all just an opinion.

You just keep on proving my point for me that you originalists and constitutionalists are in the minority. It's not even a major talking point in most circles. Rand Paul, the constitutionalists darling, is asking for the NSA case to be taken up to the high court and to be tried as unconstitutional. Basically he wants the NSA to be held accountable under the law. Who interprets that law? The Supreme Court!

One big reason for that is people are ill-informed. The majority of people can not even name their two Senators or their Congressman. The majority of people dont even bother to vote.

The overwhelming majority couldnt tell you that John Marshall was the Secretary of State, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Head of the Federalist party....all at the same time.

As far as originalists and constitutionalists being in the minority...maybe that is so. But I would bet dollars to doughnuts that minority knows more about this country, its history and its law than any other group. And I wouldnt look at it as an opinion, I would look it as one of those overlooked and ignored Constitutional laws...ranking up there with the 10th Amendment as discarded and ignored.

But then again, thats the only way the moderates and liberals can get anything done...ignore the Constitution.

 

[Imnukingfutz]

The constitution gives SCOTUS "judicial power", and guess what kind of power judicial review is? ...Judicial duh!

The Constitution SPECIFICALLY lays out the powers of the Judicial Branch and among those enumerated powers you will not find Judicial Review.

And I've posted proof that the courts exercised judicial review numerous times before Marbury v Madison. You just can't admit it

No you havent, I have even asked for you to do such a thing in my last posting to you....the one you directly replied to...LOL

 

[Trip]

And your quote (unlinked, of course) says nothing about judicial review





Your understanding is so twisted that you just contradicted yourself, and you didn't even realize it. You said



and



I bet you *still* don't see the contradiction, even after I pointed it out. :lamo

It's not my contradiction, but rather your own ignorance.

The clue there, is that that those matters where the Court does not have original jurisdiction, are not directly relating to the Constitution, just as the reference in the definition of Original Jurisdiction to "Congress", applies more generally to the "federal courts", but not specifically to the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court itself. No other court has the authority make resolutions on Ambassadors, or counsels, any more than they do on state sovereignty, all of which inherently involve Constitutional authority.

However you're not grasping these differences, and still want to imagine that jurisdiction is something entirely unrelated to "judicial review", when there can be no argument made for judicial review, which is not referenced anywhere the Constitution at all, and cannot be derived without reference to that jurisdiction in the Constitution!

Honest to god, what the hell do you imagine court jurisdiction to be?

 

[Trip]

The GRAND JURY

Regarding the use of Grand Juries, I want to draw your attention to a law review article, CREIGHTON LAW REVIEW, Vol. 33, No. 4 1999-2000, 821, IF IT’S NOT A RUNAWAY, IT’S NOT A REAL GRAND JURY by Roger Roots, J.D.:

“In addition to its traditional role of screening criminal cases for prosecution, common law grand juries had the power to exclude prosecutors from their presence at any time and to investigate public officials without governmental influence. These fundamental powers allowed grand juries to serve a vital function of oversight upon the government. The function of a grand jury to ferret out government corruption was the primary purpose of the grand jury system in ages past.

A ‘runaway’ grand jury, loosely defined as a grand jury which resists the accusatory choices of a government prosecutor, has been virtually eliminated by modern criminal procedure. Today’s “runaway” grand jury is in fact the common law grand jury of the past. Prior to the emergence of governmental prosecution as the standard model of American criminal justice, all grand juries were in fact “runaways,” according to the definition of modern times; they operated as completely independent, self-directing bodies of inquisitors, with power to pursue unlawful conduct to its very source, including the government itself.”
​

I direct you to the 5th Amendment, of the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights:

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.”
​

It is clear that the Constitution and practice intended to provide for the grand jury power to instigate criminal charges, and this was especially true when it came to government oversight.

Checks and balances did not simply end when it came to the government validating its own actions.

However something odd, and rather corrupt happened between this nation's formation and today. If one sits on a grand jury and returns a “presentment” today, the prosecutor must sign it or it probably won’t be allowed to stand by the judge, and the criminal charges that have brought to the court’s attention will be simply swept away, and denied. And the reason for this can be found in a federal bureaucratic lie of epic proportions.

Roger Roots, J.D. further describes this in his article:

“In 1946, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were adopted, codifying what had previously been a vastly divergent set of common law procedural rules and regional customs.[86] In general, an effort was made to conform the rules to the contemporary state of federal criminal practice.[87] In the area of federal grand jury practice, however, a remarkable exception was allowed. The drafters of Rules 6 and 7, which loosely govern federal grand juries, denied future generations of what had been the well-recognized powers of common law grand juries: powers of unrestrained investigation and of independent declaration of findings. The committee that drafted the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provided no outlet for any document other than a prosecutor-signed indictment. In so doing, the drafters at least tacitly, if not affirmatively, opted to ignore explicit constitutional language."
​

In fact no mention of “presentments” can be found in Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP). But they are mentioned in Note 4 of the Advisory Committee Notes on the Rules:

“4. Presentment is not included as an additional type of formal accusation, since presentments as a method of instituting prosecutions are obsolete, at least as concerns the Federal courts.”
​

Conspicuously, the word "obsolete" means “outmoded”, or “not in use anymore”, but it does not mean “abolished” or “illegal”.


The American Juror published the following commentary with regards to Note 4:

“While the writers of the federal rules made provisions for indictments, they made none for presentments. This was no oversight. According to Professor Lester B. Orfield, a member of the Advisory Committee on Rules of Criminal Procedure, the drafters of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 6 decided the term presentment should not be used, even though it appears in the Constitution. Orfield states [22 F.R.D. 343, 346]:
​

‘There was an annotation by the Reporter on the term presentment as used in the Fifth Amendment. It was his conclusion that the term should not be used in the new rules of criminal procedure. Retention might encourage the use of the run-away grand jury as the grand jury could act from their own knowledge or observation and not only from charges made by the United States attorney. It has become the practice for the United States Attorney to attend grand jury hearings, hence the use of presentments have been abandoned.’ “
​

Of course, no statute or rule can alter the provisions of the Constitution, much less a bureaucratic committee's authoring, since it is the supreme law of the land. But that didn’t prevent the federal courts from publishing a body of case law affirming the fallacy that presentments were abolished. Merely by federal practice, the Constitution has been subverted along with the denial of our rights removed therein to challenge the government, reduced to a mere corrupt footnote, entirely removing our independent authority to seek redress for grievances.

In 1975 Justice Powell indicated the following in United States v Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 343:

“The institution of the grand jury is deeply rooted in Anglo-American history. [n3] In England, the grand jury [p343] served for centuries both as a body of accusers sworn to discover and present for trial persons suspected of criminal wrongdoing and as a protector of citizens against arbitrary and oppressive governmental action. In this country, the Founders thought the grand jury so essential to basic liberties that they provided in the Fifth Amendment that federal prosecution for serious crimes can only be instituted by “a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” Cf. Costello v. United States, 350 U.S. 359, 361-362 (1956). The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day. Its responsibilities continue to include both the determination whether there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed and the protection of citizens against unfounded criminal prosecutions. Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 686-687 (1972).”
​

The federal government's corruption in Note 4, intending to deny to the citizens the authority to hold the federal government accountable, is shattered on SCOTUS' altar, allowing citizens to even contradict SCOTUS itself - “The grand jury’s historic functions survive to this day.”

 

[sangha]

The Constitution SPECIFICALLY lays out the powers of the Judicial Branch and among those enumerated powers you will not find Judicial Review.



No you havent, I have even asked for you to do such a thing in my last posting to you....the one you directly replied to...LOL

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review_in_the_United_States

"A law violating a constitution established by the people themselves, would be considered by the Judges as null & void." - James Madison

Between the ratification of the Constitution in 1788 and the decision in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, judicial review was employed in both the federal and state courts. A detailed analysis has identified thirty-one state or federal cases during this time in which statutes were struck down as unconstitutional, and seven additional cases in which statutes were upheld but at least one judge concluded the statute was unconstitutional.[32] The author of this analysis, Professor William Treanor, concluded: "The sheer number of these decisions not only belies the notion that the institution of judicial review was created by Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury, it also reflects widespread acceptance and application of the doctrine."[33]

Several other cases involving judicial review issues reached the Supreme Court before the issue was definitively decided in Marbury in 1803.

In Hayburn's Case, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 408 (1792), federal circuit courts held an act of Congress unconstitutional for the first time. Three federal circuit courts found that Congress had violated the Constitution by passing an act requiring circuit court judges to decide pension applications, subject to the review of the Secretary of War. These circuit courts found that this was not a proper judicial function under Article III. These three decisions were appealed to the Supreme Court, but the appeals became moot when Congress repealed the statute while the appeals were pending.[34]

In an unreported Supreme Court decision in 1794, United States v. Yale Todd,[35] the Supreme Court reversed a pension that was awarded under the same pension act that had been at issue in Hayburn's Case. The Court apparently decided that the act designating judges to decide pensions was not constitutional because this was not a proper judicial function. This apparently was the first Supreme Court case to find an act of Congress unconstitutional. However, there was not an official report of the case and it was not used as a precedent.

Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 171 (1796), was the first case decided by the Supreme Court that involved a challenge to the constitutionality of an act of Congress. It was argued that a federal tax on carriages violated the constitutional provision regarding "direct" taxes. The Supreme Court upheld the tax, finding it was constitutional. Although the Supreme Court did not strike down the act in question, the Court engaged in the process of judicial review by considering the constitutionality of the tax. The case was widely publicized at the time, and observers understood that the Court was testing the constitutionality of an act of Congress.[36] Because it found the statute valid, the Court did not have to assert that it had the power to declare a statute unconstitutional.[37]

In Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199 (1796), the Supreme Court for the first time struck down a state statute. The Court reviewed a Virginia statute regarding pre-Revolutionary war debts and found that it was inconsistent with the peace treaty between the United States and Great Britain. Relying on the Supremacy Clause, the Court found the Virginia statute invalid.

In Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798), the Supreme Court found that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case because of the jurisdiction limitations of the Eleventh Amendment. This holding could be viewed as an implicit finding that the Judiciary Act of 1789, which would have allowed the Court jurisdiction, was unconstitutional in part. However, the Court did not provide any reasoning for its conclusion and did not say that it was finding the statute unconstitutional.[38]

In Cooper v. Telfair, 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 14 (1800), Justice Chase stated: "It is indeed a general opinion—it is expressly admitted by all this bar and some of the judges have, individually in the circuits decided, that the Supreme Court can declare an act of Congress to be unconstitutional, and therefore invalid, but there is no adjudication of the Supreme Court itself upon the point."[39]

 

[sangha]

It's not my contradiction, but rather your own ignorance.

The clue there, is that that those matters where the Court does not have original jurisdiction, are not directly relating to the Constitution,

It says nothing of the kind in the constitution.

Once again, your misunderstandings are on full display

 

[Master PO]

All you can do is explain why you think the Feds *should* have the power to regulate immigration

Nowhere in your spiel do you actually quote where the constitution grants the feds the power to actually regulate immigration

as i stated before...you and i have covered this ALREADY...and i am, not going over it again with you.

 

[sangha]

as i stated before...you and i have covered this ALREADY...and i am, not going over it again with you.

We haven't covered anything besides your complete failure to quote where the constitution grants the feds the power to actually regulate immigration

 

[Master PO]

we haven't covered anything besides your complete failure to quote where the constitution grants the feds the power to actually regulate immigration

are you really that bad?, we have cover this before in this very section of this forum already.

I have already stated my case, and as you stated yours, are you wanting to rehash it all over again?

 

[Trip]

It says nothing of the kind in the constitution.

Once again, your misunderstandings are on full display

It does not need to specifically say that!

The reason the court has original jurisdiction over the Constituiton, is that the Constituiton is the supreme Law of the Land, and there is no higher court. Federal courts have jurisdiction over federal laws. The and the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the Constitution, but that does not indicate the the Supreme Court has exclusive and final say on Constitutionality.

 

[Master PO]

Immigration into California, and resulting overrun of that state, does not imply that other states must take and allow California's own overflow into their states. States were more than able to exclude persons from their own territory, and did, as they had original sovereign authority over that specific territory, and still do.

The result would be California would be forced choke to death on its own immigration, and those government officials allowing it wold be ousted, This is far preferable to the federally imposed suicide pact we have now, where the federal government is allowing the states to literally be invaded deliberately unchecked immigration, and without legitimate authority prohibiting states from preventing immigration into their own borders, meanwhile states like California are drawing in persons with sanctuary from what little law exists, and then providing licenses and identification, and overflowing those persons into other states.



Yes, it is the duty of the federal government, along with upholding all laws, and the Constitution itself. However unchecked entry into the country is not "immigration" at all, nor is it naturalization. Yet the federal government has corrupted and usurped both of these authorities and is using them to not only subvert the country, and state powers, but also openly to subvert the elector process itself, with the long-term goal being the entire subversion of the Constitution and institution of a populist democracy where no real individual rights exist.

This is the "slippery slope" that has now become nothing but a mud slide as a result of allowing the federal government authority that it nowhere has. Nowhere in legitimate federal authority is the ability to "immigrate" people into states, when the territory of those states is the sovereign domain of each state, and not the federal government itself.



Because we all know that Madison's view of federal authority, (or any one person's for that matter) is synonymous with the Constitution <ref: Virginia Plan>?

Beyond that, the 1790 Act was not at all an immigration law, but was nominally, and in application, a naturalization law, the 1790 Naturalization Act, and specifically dealt with the process of becoming a citizen, not immigration itself.

Furthermore, that 1790 Naturalization act was so poorly phrased, that it had to be rewritten nearly verbatim only 5 years later, with the 1795 Naturalization Act specifically repealing the previous act. The reason for the entire repeal of the 1790 Act, and its rewrite, even poorly understood by some "scholars" today, is the fact that the 1790 Naturalization Act indicated the following:

And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea,Also, children of citizens born beyond sea, &c. or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That ...​

Many so-called 'scholars' even now believe that reference to "natural born citizen" in this naturalization act was actually defining, or changing, the terms of natural born citizen, to actually confer that status on those born overseas, which is unreasonable given the fact that natural born citizen, is a term of art existing in natural law, and by definition entirely outside of, and beyond the reach of, man-made Positive Law. The 1790 Naturalization Act did no such thing.

In point of fact, and congruent with the language of the times, the legislators were not extending natural born status to those born overseas, were not conferring natural born on those who had never even seen this country, even before the ink was dried on the Constitution, but were using the more common practice of using SIMILE, comparing two fundamentally unlike things, to argue the right of only citizenship for those born overseas, and not awarding them actual natural born status. The phrase "considered as" is employing that simile to argue for mere citizen status, and not indicating those persons equate to natural born citizens; "considered as" does not equate to "now become".

As a result, all reference to "natural born" was removed in the 1795 Naturalization Act, and deliberately, at its onset, repealed the entirety of the 1790 Act, with very little else changed, being otherwise a verbatim repeat of the 1790 Act.






Naturalization is a power. Immigration is not a power, and does not relate to naturalization. People can, do, and have entered a country without the intention of being made citizens thereof, and are referred to as denizens. In fact the only power under "naturalization" is only to create a "uniform rule" of naturalization, i.e. minimal standards for citizenship, and not to dictate all terms of naturalization, nor to take over naturalization itself.

Citizenship was originally exclusive recognized by the states, and then all citizenship and other documents, were recognized across each and every state, and citizenship not being the exclusive domain of the federal government. Persons were first citizens of a state, and then by virtue of that citizenship, only then citizens of the United States <plural>.

i have to admit i like a lot of this...can you find any info on the subject from Madison?