PDA

View Full Version : Immigration ruling = defacto incorporation into the 14th amendment?


drclark
07-28-2007, 9:57 PM
Hello,

I was pondering the recent federal court ruling striking down Hazelton, PA's local ordinance concerning illegal immigration.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QKE6800&show_article=1&catnum=1

Now, the following quotes from the judge's ruling seems very interesting:

"Whatever frustrations ... the city of Hazleton may feel about the current state of federal immigration enforcement, the nature of the political system in the United States prohibits the city from enacting ordinances that disrupt a carefully drawn federal statutory scheme," Munley wrote.

"Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton's measures, the city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not," he added.


Ignoring the immigration aspect, if this ruling were to be upheld in the supreme court, could it be used to strike down a whole bunch of local and state level gun-ordinaces across the country? Especially if Parker confirms that the 2nd is an individual right? Does this ruling essentially incorporate ALL constitutionally protected rights into the 14th??

The wording in the first part would seem to have lots of very far reaching un-intended consequences; essentially saying that no state or local entity can enact any laws where the federal gov't has already acted???? I can see lots of state level laws all over the map that can be struck down (gun laws, environmental laws, drug laws, etc) since they feds already have "carefully drawn up statutory schemes". On one hand it could be benefical for us fighting gun laws in states that are more restrictive than the feds. On the other hand, it does represent a scary expansion of federal power?

Has any of our legal-eagles had a chance to read the entire ruling and come to a similar conclusion?

drc

crunchy2k
07-29-2007, 6:19 AM
d'judge is democratically appointed judge. Here's his web page http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/bios/munley.htm His education: B.S., 1958, University of Scranton
LL.B., 1963, Temple School of Law


In other words, he is likely to be over ruled. He was probably feeling old and wanted his fifteen minutes of fame. Plus he didn't want to see his maid/mistress sent back to Mexico.

Piper
07-29-2007, 8:30 AM
AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So what that tells me is that if you're here illegally, we'll give you a fair trial before we kick you out. What it also tells me is that the government and its agents, from the feds to the cities have been unconstitutionally restricting our 2nd amendment rights for over 100 years if you take into consideration the laws that made it illegal for former slaves to possess firearms. But they've gotten away with it for so long because someone came up with this insane conclusion that the second amendment is a collective right and not an individual right.

I think Parker Vs. D.C. is going to have some very positive far reaching implications that are going to set hoplophobic liberal socialist elitists back 100 years. That's a very good thing. It would be nice if everything was retroactive and the governments had to reimburse people for the illegally seized firearms that they took. But that's probably wishful thinking.

SemiAutoSam
07-29-2007, 9:11 AM
Local laws maybe as he did state (SEE RED text within his quote) City not State. But the idea is headed in the right direction.

Has anyone else noticed they play that trump card when it suits them but not when it is advantageous for the rights of the people.



Ignoring the immigration aspect, if this ruling were to be upheld in the supreme court, could it be used to strike down a whole bunch of local and state level gun-ordinances across the country? Especially if Parker confirms that the 2nd is an individual right? Does this ruling essentially incorporate ALL constitutionally protected rights into the 14th??

The wording in the first part would seem to have lots of very far reaching unintended consequences; essentially saying that no state or local entity can enact any laws where the federal gov't has already acted???? I can see lots of state level laws all over the map that can be struck down (gun laws, environmental laws, drug laws, etc) since they feds already have "carefully drawn up statutory schemes". On one hand it could be beneficial for us fighting gun laws in states that are more restrictive than the feds. On the other hand, it does represent a scary expansion of federal power?


]"Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton's measures, the city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not," he added.

Is this term "United States" defined within AMENDMENT XIV ? It has many meanings beyond the standard Websters dictionary meaning.

IN Blacks 6th for instance the term "United States" has at least 3 if not 4 meanings.

AMENDMENT XIV

SECTION 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So what that tells me is that if you're here illegally, we'll give you a fair trial before we kick you out. What it also tells me is that the government and its agents, from the feds to the cities have been unconstitutionally restricting our 2nd amendment rights for over 100 years if you take into consideration the laws that made it illegal for former slaves to possess firearms. But they've gotten away with it for so long because someone came up with this insane conclusion that the second amendment is a collective right and not an individual right.

I think Parker Vs. D.C. is going to have some very positive far reaching implications that are going to set hoplophobic liberal socialist elitists back 100 years. That's a very good thing. It would be nice if everything was retroactive and the governments had to reimburse people for the illegally seized firearms that they took. But that's probably wishful thinking.

MedSpec65
07-29-2007, 9:26 AM
This judge has ignored federalism with this decision and ruled that states and municipalities have no power to enact laws or ordinances that would improve their lives simply because the issue is addressed by federal law. He's also ignored provisions of the 1986 immigration reform act that allow local authorities to assist and enforce federal immigration law. I'm sure the actions of the City of Del Rio, Texas will be used as precedent when devising an appeal to this decision.

cartman
07-29-2007, 10:53 AM
I'm no scholar, but don't the states have rights to make their own laws?

hoffmang
07-29-2007, 3:20 PM
Even people who would argue that federalism is lost would admit that in this case Federal law is supreme. The constitution delegates immigration to the Federal Government and the Federal Government has pre-empted immigration by fully occupying the field. If you do some more study on pre-emption, you'll see why the judge used those specific words.

-Gene