Thread: Can Someone Explain This To Me?

"SnoBumMN" wrote:

The idea of the constitution having "amendments" means that it was designed to CHANGE to fit the times.

That is what "AMEND" means. To change or fix.

This may just be a step in that direction, or not.

But the constitution is not set in stone. It is made to be a set of guidelines and liberties that our founding fathers thought every human deserves. As the times change, those charged with leading our country have a responsibility to adapt to our evolving culture and values. Just the objective information that I thought everyone learned in 9th grade civics.

This has nothing to do with the constitution. It is a FEDERAL LAW that you cannot hire illegals. Period! But this judge has overthrown that law.

"COJOMAY" wrote:

"SnoBumMN" wrote:

The idea of the constitution having "amendments" means that it was designed to CHANGE to fit the times.

That is what "AMEND" means. To change or fix.

This may just be a step in that direction, or not.

But the constitution is not set in stone. It is made to be a set of guidelines and liberties that our founding fathers thought every human deserves. As the times change, those charged with leading our country have a responsibility to adapt to our evolving culture and values. Just the objective information that I thought everyone learned in 9th grade civics.

This has nothing to do with the constitution. It is a FEDERAL LAW that you cannot hire illegals. Period! But this judge has overthrown that law.

Please note:

"COJOMAY" wrote:

HAZLETON, Pa - A U.S. judge on Thursday struck down as unconstitutional a local law designed to crack down on illegal immigration, dealing a blow to similar laws passed by dozens of towns and cities across the country. U.S. District Judge James Munley said the city of Hazleton, 100 miles north of Philadelphia, was not allowed to implement a law that would fine businesses that hire illegal immigrants and penalize landlords who rent rooms to them.

It is a national law that you CANNOT hire illegal immigrants.
How can a local law be 'unconstitutional' when a federal law dealing with the same subject is legal.
NO judge has any constitutional authority to do this.

Can someone explain this to me. Maybe Cajun, he's a federal lawyer.

I see it has something to do with the constitution 3 times in just that little blurbage.

The word "unconstitutional," as it is used in my first posts, deals with the fact that the "LAW" of the country is wrong and change be changed by a judges whim.
Still has nothing to do with the constitution.

"RK." wrote:

"COJOMAY" wrote:

HAZLETON, Pa - A U.S. judge on Thursday struck down as unconstitutional a local law designed to crack down on illegal immigration, dealing a blow to similar laws passed by dozens of towns and cities across the country. U.S. District Judge James Munley said the city of Hazleton, 100 miles north of Philadelphia, was not allowed to implement a law that would fine businesses that hire illegal immigrants and penalize landlords who rent rooms to them.

It is a national law that you CANNOT hire illegal immigrants.
How can a local law be 'unconstitutional' when a federal law dealing with the same subject is legal.
NO judge has any constitutional authority to do this.

Can someone explain this to me. Maybe Cajun, he's a federal lawyer.

Just another liberal judge legislating from the bench.
His ruling will be overturned on appeal.

Yep.

The state court will kill it before it goes any higher. It's pointless to waste their time at the National Supreme Court level... but it wouldn't surprise me if they did.

"COJOMAY" wrote:

"SnoBumMN" wrote:

The idea of the constitution having "amendments" means that it was designed to CHANGE to fit the times.

That is what "AMEND" means. To change or fix.

This may just be a step in that direction, or not.

But the constitution is not set in stone. It is made to be a set of guidelines and liberties that our founding fathers thought every human deserves. As the times change, those charged with leading our country have a responsibility to adapt to our evolving culture and values. Just the objective information that I thought everyone learned in 9th grade civics.

This has nothing to do with the constitution. It is a FEDERAL LAW that you cannot hire illegals. Period! But this judge has overthrown that law.

Snobum- the constitution is a guideline for how the government should run, how states and federal government should interact. The "liberties that our founding fathers though every human deserves" wasn't added for another 10 or 15 years.

Since the constitution deals with how the government should be run, it also deals with how to govern the people, through laws and taxes.

So yes this absolutely does have to do with the constitution Cojo.

Federal law begins with the constitution like regulating interstate commerce for example.

This still is not much of a case though.

Good reply Mr. Anderson. I suppose all laws have some constitutional basis but what I was trying to say is that this specific ruling was not trying to change the constitution.

At any rate, this is certainly grounds for debate.

And I appreciate the respectful nature of this one.