And neither do you by claiming immigration is part of naturalization when it clearly is not included. What is the evidence for your uninformed claim?
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
You are proving understanding the Constitution requires interpretation. You are interpreting naturalization to include immigration (but without evidence) and giving Congress a power not specifically delegated.
But not in our Constitution. You've read the constitution of every country? Wow.
You still give us no source for your interpretation.
That must mean the right to privacy is part of the other rights in the 9th Amendment, and that the 14th due process clause applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states.
Those are not in the Constitution, either, but if we can claim one is part of the other, you are doing the same thing the Supreme Court has been doing for years--interpreting the Constitution.
That proves the words of the Constitution are not enough to interpret the meaning you are adding words and powers to the Constitution's specific language. Naturalization laws are separate from immigration laws.
What you really mean is that you think the court's interpretation of the Constitution is wrong on almost all legal decisions and you do not accept current constitution law. You do not believe in the rule of law.
Immigration of part of naturalization in any country, dumbass.
The two go hand in hand, dumbass. Go learn English.
What right to privacy?
Nope. The 14th amendment changed nothing concerning that.
No, YOU are putting things in there that aren't there...again. YOU are still attempting to change the Constitution.
Not possible. Go learn English.
The Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution. Only the States do.
Inversion fallacy. That is YOU. It is YOU that wants to create an oligarchy that is above the law.
The one that goes hand in hand with the "other rights" of the 9th, freedom of assembly, search and seizure, quartering of troops, and self-incrimination.
You know, like immigration and naturalization go hand in hand.
Both are an interpretation of the Constitution from Into the Night and the Supreme Court; but, only one has the authority to make such interpretations.
What right to privacy? Rights do not come from a piece of paper.
They do.
No. They are English. Learn English. You only seem to know Liberal.
The Supreme Court does not have authority to interpret or change the Constitution.
Only the States have that authority.
Liberal is giving the government power not contained in the Constitution but claiming it is there. Try looking up the terms naturalization and immigration. You will see they are two different concepts. Also, check into English common law on which many of our legal principles are based.
Into the Night (11-20-2020)
Polls are fake.
Hence the "blue wave" never happening...just like Hillary's 92% chance of winning in 2016.
Frank Luntz urges pollsters to seek new profession after Trump outperforms polls: 'Sell real estate'
Into the Night (11-20-2020)
"The atmosphere is among the factors that determines the Earth's atmosphere." --ZenMode
"Donald has failed in almost every endeavor he has attempted. " --floridafan
"Abortion is not a moral issue. " --BidenPresident
"Propaganda can also be factual." --Flash
"Even after being vaccinated, you shed virus particles." --Jerome
"no slavery is forcing another into labor" -archives
"Evs are much safer from fires" -- Nordberg
"Abortion has killed no one." -- LurchAddams
Bookmarks