Judge Napolitano: Obama's Failure To Uphold Immigration Law Violates His Oath

[HOLLYWOOD]

Judge Nap... calls Obama out per the laws of this country. Unfortunately, Washington DC has become lawless.

 

[qh4dotcom]

If the Judge thinks Obama should enforce the draconian immigration laws, then he is not a true libertarian at all and has forgotten what the Declaration of Independence says.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
---------------
Seems pretty clear to me....ALL MEN have the right to pursue happiness...that means every immigrant who came to this country including the "illegal" ones...they are all exercising their God-given right to pursue happiness by immigrating to this country. Let the Churches, charity, family members, employers, etc. deal with them...maybe they will find their happiness there.

Ah, and let's not forget the old libertarian saying...............NO VICTIM, NO CRIME........when an immigrant comes across the border, where's the victim being harmed by the immigrant crossing the border?

 

[fisharmor]

Oh FFS, seriously?
Judge Nap seriously misquoted the US Constitution?

Judge Nap: "He has blatantly ignored his oath, his obligation faithfully to uphold the laws. The reason the word 'faithfully' is in there is because the framers who wrote the oath - it's in the Constitution, the presidental oath - where afraid the presidents would only enforce the laws they agreed with and not enforce the laws they disagreed with, and that's what Preident Obama has done."

Let's take a look at that oath.

"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."

1) It does not require the president that he will swear to faithfully uphold laws. It requires him to swear to faithfully execute the office of the President.
2) It does require him to swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
3) At no point does Judge Nap explain how the immigration laws are constitutional.
4) Unless and until someone can make a coherent argument as to the constitutionality of the immigration laws despite the clear meaning of the 10th Amendment, Obama is actually faithfully executing his office by ignoring them.

I still don't get it!!!!! I know Judge Nap is an intelligent human being and he obviously knows the Constitution.

What the ever living fuck is it about anti-immigration people that makes them completely and hopelessly unable to read, parse, process, and understand simple English sentences?

 

[LibertyEagle]

If the Judge thinks Obama should enforce the draconian immigration laws, then he is not a true libertarian at all and has forgotten what the Declaration of Independence says.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
---------------
Seems pretty clear to me....ALL MEN have the right to pursue happiness...that means every immigrant who came to this country including the "illegal" ones...they are all exercising their God-given right to pursue happiness by immigrating to this country. Let the Churches, charity, family members, employers, etc. deal with them...maybe they will find their happiness there.

Ah, and let's not forget the old libertarian saying...............NO VICTIM, NO CRIME........when an immigrant comes across the border, where's the victim being harmed by the immigrant crossing the border?

There you go again. lol

Nope. You are wrong. In fact our Founding Fathers were very wary of immigration from nations that did not share their culture and values.

In one of the most neglected sections of his Notes on Virginia, Thomas Jefferson posed the question, “Are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected by a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners?”

What was likely to happen, according to Jefferson, was that immigrants would come to America from countries that would have given them no experience living in a free society. They would bring with them the ideas and principles of the governments they left behind –ideas and principles that were often at odds with American liberty.

“Suppose 20 millions of republican Americans thrown all of a sudden into France, what would be the condition of that kingdom?” Jefferson asked. “If it would be more turbulent, less happy, less strong, we may believe that the addition of half a million of foreigners to our present numbers would produce a similar effect here.”

Alexander Hamilton was even more blunt. He invited his fellow Americans to consider the example of another people who had been more generous with their immigration policy than prudence dictated: the American Indians. Hamilton wrote, “Prudence requires us to trace the history further and ask what has become of the nations of savages who exercised this policy, and who now occupies the territory which they then inhabited? Perhaps a lesson is here taught which ought not to be despised.”

Hamilton was likewise unconvinced that diversity was a strength. The safety of a republic, according to him, depended “essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.” He then drew out the implications of this point: “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

George Washington contended in a 1794 letter to John Adams that there was no particular need for the U.S. to encourage immigration, “except of useful mechanics and some particular descriptions of men or professions.” He continued: “The policy or advantage of its taking place in a body (I mean the settling of them in a body) may be much questioned; for by so doing, they retain the language, habits, and principles (good or bad) which they bring with them.”

http://humanevents.com/2007/07/20/founding-fathers-were-immigration-skeptics/

ILLEGAL ALIENS are equal, yes. They are "equal" in their own nations.

 

[AuH20]

Maria is on Fox Business now?

 

[fisharmor]

ILLEGAL ALIENS are equal, yes. They are "equal" in their own nations.

If this is the case, then rights come from the state, and are therefore not rights.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Oh FFS, seriously?
Judge Nap seriously misquoted the US Constitution?

Judge Nap: "He has blatantly ignored his oath, his obligation faithfully to uphold the laws. The reason the word 'faithfully' is in there is because the framers who wrote the oath - it's in the Constitution, the presidental oath - where afraid the presidents would only enforce the laws they agreed with and not enforce the laws they disagreed with, and that's what Preident Obama has done."

Let's take a look at that oath.

"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."

1) It does not require the president that he will swear to faithfully uphold laws. It requires him to swear to faithfully execute the office of the President.
2) It does require him to swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
3) At no point does Judge Nap explain how the immigration laws are constitutional.
4) Unless and until someone can make a coherent argument as to the constitutionality of the immigration laws despite the clear meaning of the 10th Amendment, Obama is actually faithfully executing his office by ignoring them.

I still don't get it!!!!! I know Judge Nap is an intelligent human being and he obviously knows the Constitution.

What the ever living fuck is it about anti-immigration people that makes them completely and hopelessly unable to read, parse, process, and understand simple English sentences?

In Article 2, Section 1 is definition and method of selection, Section 2 is powers, and Section 3 is duties. Under the duties of the President in Article 2 Section 3, the second to last clause, "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," confers this duty upon the President. If he is President, and he is upholding his oath, then he has a duty to enforce those laws that he believes are Constitutional, whether he likes them or not.

A law that he personally feels is unconstitutional is another matter entirely. He would be bound by duty to not enforce that one. But that is not what is being covered here. Obama is not arguing the law's unconstitutionality, therefore per the Constitution he has a duty as President to enforce it.

 

[LibertyEagle]

If this is the case, then rights come from the state, and are therefore not rights.

I didn't say that at all. Nice try though.

 

[qh4dotcom]

In Article 2, Section 1 is definition and method of selection, Section 2 is powers, and Section 3 is duties. Under the duties of the President in Article 2 Section 3, the second to last clause, "he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," confers this duty upon the President. If he is President, and he is upholding his oath, then he has a duty to enforce those laws that he believes are Constitutional, whether he likes them or not.

A law that he personally feels is unconstitutional is another matter entirely. He would be bound by duty to not enforce that one. But that is not what is being covered here. Obama is not arguing the law's unconstitutionality, therefore per the Constitution he has a duty as President to enforce it.

and how do you know he doesn't personally feel the immigration laws are unconstitutional? If a law is unconstitutional and he is bound by duty to not enforce it as you say....why would he have to publicly argue it is unconstitutional? Why can't he keep his mouth shut about it and not enforce it?

 

[qh4dotcom]

I didn't say that at all. Nice try though.

That is what you implied...immigrants are equal in other nations but not in the United States....so their unalienable rights do not apply in the US, only in their home countries. Nice try though. By the way, the Declaration of Independence says All men are created equal...it doesn't say all men are created equal in their home countries.

 

[Carlybee]

If the Judge thinks Obama should enforce the draconian immigration laws, then he is not a true libertarian at all and has forgotten what the Declaration of Independence says.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
---------------
Seems pretty clear to me....ALL MEN have the right to pursue happiness...that means every immigrant who came to this country including the "illegal" ones...they are all exercising their God-given right to pursue happiness by immigrating to this country. Let the Churches, charity, family members, employers, etc. deal with them...maybe they will find their happiness there.

Ah, and let's not forget the old libertarian saying...............NO VICTIM, NO CRIME........when an immigrant comes across the border, where's the victim being harmed by the immigrant crossing the border?

ALL meaning within the context of THIS country. The Declaration of Independence was framed in, of, and for THIS country. Your argument is semantics. Oh but if anyone disagrees they're wrong or not libertarian. Ron Paul..wrong, Judge Nap..wrong. I'll take the word of people who are actually Constitutional scholars...not people on this forum.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

and how do you know he doesn't personally feel the immigration laws are unconstitutional? If a law is unconstitutional and he is bound by duty to not enforce it as you say....why would he have to publicly argue it is unconstitutional? Why can't he keep his mouth shut about it and not enforce it?

You don't seriously believe that Obama has some kind of secret hidden agenda to obey the Constitution and then not tell anybody about it do you?

 

[LibertyEagle]

That is what you implied...immigrants are equal in other nations but not in the United States....so their unalienable rights do not apply in the US, only in their home countries. Nice try though. By the way, the Declaration of Independence says All men are created equal...it doesn't say all men are created equal in their home countries.

They were talking about people in this country and you damn well know that. Not everyone in the world wants to live under what our founders set as ideals.

Sounds to me that you are wanting to impose your will on everyone around the world. Curious.

 

[fisharmor]

ALL meaning within the context of THIS country. The Declaration of Independence was framed in, of, and for THIS country. Your argument is semantics. Oh but if anyone disagrees they're wrong or not libertarian. Ron Paul..wrong, Judge Nap..wrong. I'll take the word of people who are actually Constitutional scholars...not people on this forum.

I don't understand how you two can argue this with a straight face.
You're repeating exactly what LE said: that whether or not a person is equal is contingent on what side of an imaginary line in the sand he stands on.
Whereas the state is the arbiter of where that imaginary line in the sand is,
therefore the state decides who is equal and who is not,
and therefore the state decides who has rights and who does not,
and therefore rights do not exist.

I am not saying this. You and LE are. You cannot support equal rights for all of humanity and then say that this is contingent on them staying in a particular area.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

For someone who fancies himself as a borderline anarchist, I'm disappointed in Napolitano for taking this position.

 

[Carlybee]

I don't understand how you two can argue this with a straight face.
You're repeating exactly what LE said: that whether or not a person is equal is contingent on what side of an imaginary line in the sand he stands on.
Whereas the state is the arbiter of where that imaginary line in the sand is,
therefore the state decides who is equal and who is not,
and therefore the state decides who has rights and who does not,
and therefore rights do not exist.

I am not saying this. You and LE are. You cannot support equal rights for all of humanity and then say that this is contingent on them staying in a particular area.

Our Constitution applies to this country and it's citizens. Either you believe it is the rule of law or you don't. If you don't them obviously nothing contained therein is going to mean anything to you.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

They were talking about people in this country and you damn well know that. Not everyone in the world wants to live under what our founders set as ideals.

Sounds to me that you are wanting to impose your will on everyone around the world. Curious.

Guys like Jefferson were well-versed in the political theories of the Enlightenment and did not think of rights as being confined one side of an arbitrary line, but as being held by ALL human beings because rights are NATURAL.

 

[NIU Students for Liberty]

Our Constitution applies to this country and it's citizens. Either you believe it is the rule of law or you don't. If you don't them obviously nothing contained therein is going to mean anything to you.

And where in the Constitution does it explicitly state that the federal government has the power to dictate immigration policy?

 

[RonPaulMall]

For someone who fancies himself as a borderline anarchist, I'm disappointed in Napolitano for taking this position.

Many anarcho-capitalists, including myself (and Ron Paul too for that matter), agree with Hans-Hermann Hoppe's position that current immigration law amounts to nothing more than forced integration meant to destroy the middle class and empower the corporate and government elites. The Open Borders crowd is more associated with the Cosmotratians over at Reason and the Koch Brothers strand of libertarianism.

 

[qh4dotcom]

I don't understand how you two can argue this with a straight face.
You're repeating exactly what LE said: that whether or not a person is equal is contingent on what side of an imaginary line in the sand he stands on.
Whereas the state is the arbiter of where that imaginary line in the sand is,
therefore the state decides who is equal and who is not,
and therefore the state decides who has rights and who does not,
and therefore rights do not exist.

I am not saying this. You and LE are. You cannot support equal rights for all of humanity and then say that this is contingent on them staying in a particular area.

Absolutely....LE and Carlybee are statists, not libertarians.

Let's say a pregnant woman is standing on the US-Mexico border and is about to give birth....if she takes a step to the north and the baby is born on US soil.........LE and Carlybee would say the baby is born with the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence endowed by their Creator including the right to pursue happiness.

If the pregnant woman takes a step to the south and the baby is born in Mexico......LE and Carlybee would say the baby is NOT born with the unalienable rights endowed by their Creator including the right to pursue happiness....instead they are born with whatever rights the Mexican state/govt/Constitution grants them. Like fisharmor said...the state gets to decide who has rights and who doesn't.

That is how ridiculous their geographical argument is about where people have rights apply and where they don't.