@old europe,
Quote:I never claimed that the Constitution grants the judicial branch the power to regulate immigration policy. I just pointed out that the Constitution doesn't grant that power to either the legislative or the executive branch.
While the Constitution explictly says Naturalization, you wouldn't have a need for naturalization without immigration. Why it was ever understood that they are different things is the odd part.
Quote:You can either be a constitutional originalist and argue that the respective branches of government only have the powers explicitly given to them in the Constitution, or you can defend the Living Constitution approach and argue that the Supreme Court gets to interpret the Constitution to the point where branches of government may lose or acquire certain powers, based on Supreme Court decisions.
Which powers are you thinking would be revoked by sticking to the Constitution? Remember the purpose of the SC is to rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed and rulings from other courts. Congress passes bills, the President signs them into law or vetos them and if challenged in court, they finally make their way to the SC to make final Constitutional judgement but they don't always get it right either, after all they are only human. After something becomes law, it is the President and his Executive branch who enforce the laws that are passed.
Quote:You can't have it both ways and argue that the courts don't have the power to decide on immigration policy, because they're not explicitly granted this power in the Constitution, and, at the same time, argue that Congress has the power to regulate immigration policy based on Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution.
It's called checks and balances.
According to you and other open borders advocates, if Immigration isn't included in Naturalization, and it isn't mentioned in the Constitution, wouldn't that mean by the 10th Amendment that Immigration falls to the States?
Quote:How cute.
Instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks based on my username, why don't you take a stab at actually demonstrating your superior knowledge of the American political system? Wouldn't that be fun?
It wasn't an attack and it wasn't based on your name. It was on an observation based on your comments in other threads and your lack of understanding of how the US govt works. Am I wrong, are you a US citizen? You didn't deny or confirm my "attack".
