Randy,

Apparently you wouldn’t know the real world if it snuck up behind you and smacked you across the ass with a bass fiddle.

Hint: In the real world, unlimited immigration is a fact, any deranged fantasies of yours as to your power to “allow” or “not allow” it notwithstanding.

Randy. There he goes again with your mental delusions…

OT, I thought gg was banned for clogging the comment section with unreadable copy/paste bullshit. So why am I still seeing that all over the place?

“clogging comments”, “unreadable”, “bullshit”; all fair points BUT…

gg wasn’t banned for posting “copy/paste” material. AFAICT less than 5% of his posts included “copy/paste” from other sources.

AND

Whatever i posted in the comments above IS very much “readable”, is NOT “bullshit”, is on the point.

I did copy/paste Jack Okie in two of the three comments, and if that part comes out as “unreadable”, “bullshit”, well then, i might be guilty as charged, just as I’m guilty of quoting Randy Rager in this post.

The notion we would have majorities sufficient to override Obama’s vetoes is the stuff of pure fantasy. For that we would need 290 seats in the House – a gain of 112 – and 67 in the Senate, for a gain of 26! I’d love to believe it, but rationally I must give such an outcome zero probability for this election. Perhaps after 2012 . . .

We need to be realistic. Winning control of the House would stop the Obama agenda in its tracks, and only requires a gain of 40 seats. Winning the Senate would give us the Committee Chairmanships and the power to stop bad judicial nominations, and we need a gain of 10 seats for that.

When such fanciful numbers are bandied about as if they might happen, they can have the effect of diminishing what would be a great and historic victory.

As usual, Libertarians “support the Constitution” – but only those parts of which they approve, and only with the interpretation they choose to apply to each clause, phrase, and semicolon. For instance, Mr. Knapp disapproves of the Supreme Court recognizing federal authority over immigration, so he insists the feds still lack the power. Does he not recognize the Constitutional clause granting the Supreme Court the power to “settle disputes arising from this Constitution”? Which other parts does he not support? How can you “support the Constitution” so selectively?

In the Bizzaro world of Libertarianism, it seems only Libertarians are granted the insight to PROPERLY interpret the Constitution, not even the Constitution itself can override their decisions.

It is said that the Constitution which most clearly and absolutely protects individual liberty in human history was the Soviet Constitution of 1937. Of course, like our Libertarians, only Stalin could divine the true meaning of those protections, and we all know how that turned out.

People instinctively understand that the LP-ers are a fringe group, which is why only Ed Clark in 1980 managed as much as 1% of the national vote, and none of their candidates since – including the execrable Ron Paul – have managed more than half that. Heck, even the “Margin of Error” generally scores over 3% . . .

Yet we have the Libertarians now pretending the Tea Party movement is their own, although they still remain a tiny fringe group. As if conservatives weren’t fighting government growth and excess for nearly a century before the word “Libertarian” was coined.

Estragon,

You appear to have mistaken me a self-proclaimed constitutionalist. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I’m not one.

The fact remains that SCOTUS didn’t “recognize” a federal power to regulate immigration — it simply made that power up from whole cloth after 90 years of Congresses (including Congresses composed of the same people who wrote the Constitution, publicly debated whether or not the new federal government should have the power to regulate immigration, and decided that it shouldn’t) denying that they had any such power.

I’m also no longer associated with the Lobertarian Party, nor do I claim that the Tea Party is libertarian (there seemed to be a chance early on that it would be, but it didn’t happen).

And FYI, the word “libertarian” was coined before the founding of the United States.

I’ll offer a comment that I hope many readers will sympathize with. If they took a poll of 9 people and 5 of them said that the 2nd amendment only applied to government armies would that mean that those of us who support the human right to keep and bear arms should suck it up and allow for government demands for our guns permits (that is if they were required in Arizona)? Just because some arbitrary percentage of people support SB 1070 doesn’t mean that law is moral or is likely to increase my safety or security.

I live in Phoenix, Arizona. I don’t think that making it easier for the government police to deport otherwise peaceful immigrants is a useful endeavor. It has resulted in my personal mechanic moving to Maryland thereby forcing me to find another that I do not have any history with.

Thomas L. Knapp,you believe that Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s actions and Arizona’s “Know-Nothing Appeasement Act” are indefensible. You may with justification call this position “the high ground” because your belief that a lack of specific power to regulate immigration makes it unconstitutional. As this administration believes that it’s “policies” trump the constitution and federal law regarding immigration and every thing else, their “position” shall remain in the septic tank.
As Arizona is at war with the Federal Govt, and those invading across their border, I’ll forgive their inability to appreciate the finer points of this discussion. Apparently you didn’t get Dresden either.
If I’m not mistaken, you believe that even if constitutional, restricting immigration would be immoral and or violate natural human rights.
The Declaration of Independence states all men are created equal not all men are created Americans. If we don’t have the constitutional “right” to regulate immigration we should add that to the long list of thing we need to fix fia Article 5 or a convention.
If you want to argue the morality of restricting or regulating who may or may not live in this country, you may join the rest of us standing on the flat ground next to the septic tank

@Thane Eichenauer

“It has resulted in my personal mechanic moving to Maryland thereby forcing me to find another that I do not have any history with.”
“You cost me MY SERVANT!”
What is this a Harry Potter movie.

Adobe,

The Arizona law certainly isn’t unconstitutional — since the federal government isn’t empowered to regulate immigration, that power is reserved to the states or the people. The state of Arizona has exercised that power, with the apparent support of a supermajority of people living there.

Constitutional, however, is not the same as right, smart, a good idea, etc.

Not being a constitutionalist, however, I find that whole argument of only passing interest.