Strict Constructionist hypocrisy

The place to discuss politics and policy issues that are not directly related to matters of faith.

Moderator: KeithE

Strict Constructionist hypocrisy

Postby Sandy » Sat Jul 10, 2010 9:45 am

Arizona's new immigration law, now challenged in the court by a lawsuit filed by the federal government, is a violation of the constitution, which gives all authority over immigration issues to the federal government.

It's been interesting to see the flip floping of conservative politicians, and the absolute hypocrisy of the radio deejay-turned-political pundits and their followers. These people are strict constructionists when it suits them, but they're cheerleading the Arizona law which is a clear violation of the constitution. Wanna take bets on what their reaction will be if the courts "legislate from the bench" and rule in their favor?
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Strict Constructionist hypocrisy

Postby Dave Roberts » Sat Jul 10, 2010 12:49 pm

Years ago, I had a professor tell me that we are all a bit like the old mules that wore blinders. He said that the purpose of education is not to remove your blinders but to help you recognize that they are there. Both sides seem to refuse to recognize they are wearing them in this issue.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6929
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Strict Constructionist hypocrisy

Postby Howard V » Sat Jul 10, 2010 2:33 pm

Just a question. How is the AZ law controlling immigration? It seems only to seek to enforce federal immigration laws. If you are here and you have not followed the law getting here you ought to go. Does not seem too complicated to me. Just my opinion.

Howard
Howard V
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:14 am

Re: Strict Constructionist hypocrisy

Postby Chris » Sat Jul 10, 2010 7:22 pm

Howard V wrote:Just a question. How is the AZ law controlling immigration? It seems only to seek to enforce federal immigration laws. If you are here and you have not followed the law getting here you ought to go. Does not seem too complicated to me. Just my opinion.

Howard


I agree 100% with Howard. The Feds won't enforce the existing Federal law, so the Arizonans are offering to help, since Arizona is suffering from the lack of federal enforcement..
Jesus paid the price for me and everybody.
Chris
 
Posts: 4159
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: Newport News, VA

Re: Strict Constructionist hypocrisy

Postby Sandy » Sat Jul 10, 2010 9:46 pm

The issue isn't whether or not Arizona can enforce federal immigration law, which it not only can, but which it is obligated to do. The issue is whether or not passing a law to define a specific aspect of federal law is constitutional. It isn't. So if a judge rules in the case in favor of the Arizona law, conservatives who claim to be strict constructionists will be hypocrites supporting legislating from the bench.
Sandy
Sandy
 
Posts: 8130
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:10 pm
Location: Rural Western Pennsylvania

Re: Strict Constructionist hypocrisy

Postby Chris » Sat Jul 10, 2010 10:11 pm

Thanks for the explanation, Sandy. I get it now.
Jesus paid the price for me and everybody.
Chris
 
Posts: 4159
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: Newport News, VA

Re: Strict Constructionist hypocrisy

Postby Howard V » Sun Jul 11, 2010 8:14 am

So, regardless of what the judge rules, AZ can go right ahead and do what their law says because they are required to do it any how? Is that right? Then why the federal law court case? I'm not sure I get it.

Howard
Howard V
 
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:14 am

Re: Strict Constructionist hypocrisy

Postby Dave Roberts » Sun Jul 11, 2010 9:02 am

Congress is supposed to write immigration law. The problem is that immigration law reform, regardless of how it comes out, is likely to cost some congressmen their jobs. Therefore, for the good of their own positions, they just don't get around to doing it. They all understand that this is the name of the game.
"God will never be less than He is and does not need to be more" (John Koessler)

My blog: http://emporiadave.wordpress.com/
User avatar
Dave Roberts
Site Admin
 
Posts: 6929
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:01 pm
Location: Southside, VA

Re: Strict Constructionist hypocrisy

Postby Chris » Sun Jul 11, 2010 2:57 pm

Dave Roberts wrote:... regardless of how it comes out, is likely to cost some congressmen their jobs. Therefore, for the good of their own positions, they just don't get around to doing it.


All the more reason for those Reps. to lose their jobs. They are there to do what is best for the U. S. of A., not there to prolong a vocation. Such Congressman should "man up"; do the job that needs to be done. If they lose the next election, then so be it. Go get a real job.
Jesus paid the price for me and everybody.
Chris
 
Posts: 4159
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 8:29 pm
Location: Newport News, VA


Return to Politics and Public Policy Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest