Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
john w k

Edwin Kneedler makes crap up, re-writes history for judge in Arizona SB-1070 case!

Rate this topic

2 posts in this topic

SEE: Judge doubts constitutionality of a portion of Arizona's immigration law


"The ultimate authority for enforcing (immigration laws) vests in the United States," said Edwin Kneedler, the deputy solicitor general. "The framers were very concerned that one member of the union could embroil the nation in a controversy."


Mr. Kneedler is correct that the founding fathers were concerned that one member of the union could embroil the nation in a controversy. But he made crap up when implying, that because a potential controversy may erupt over immigration “The ultimate authority for enforcing (immigration laws) vests in the United States," This is flat wrong and re-writing historical fact.


Now let us look at the irrefutable facts. The truth is, the word “immigration” does not appear in our Constitution and the power to regulate immigration at the time our Constitution was adopted, was a power exercised by each of the states and it was never relinquished or delegated to the Congress of the united States!


What was delegated to Congress was the power to set the requirements which aliens ___ regardless of what State they immigrated to ___ would have to meet to become a “citizen of the united states”, and this is the power vested in Congress to avoid the potential controversies between the States which Edwin Kneedler alluded to. And why was this specific power necessary to avoid the “controversy” Kneedler alluded to? Representative Sherman, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution gives us the answer to this very question, and does so in crystal clear language! He says:


“that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” See CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1148


The truth is, our founders were very "concerned" about the quality, loyalty and virtue of immigrants who became a citizen in one of the states, because once an immigrant became a citizen of one state, they would be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States SEE: Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution.


The very intentions for placing the power over “Naturalization” (granting citizenship) in the hands of Congress was to prevent some states from granting citizenship on easy terms or to unworthy aliens. The idea was to have Congress set a number of specific requirements an alien must meet before being granted citizenship, and the requirements were to insure a high quality immigrant population. But all this is documented in the debates over our nation’s first “Rule of Naturalization”.


Bottom line is, Edwin Kneedler is a freaken liar. The States have never relinquished their original power over immigration to the federal government, but the dimwit lawyer representing Arizona has never read our nation’s founding documents so he is at a loss to document the very intentions under which our Constitution was adopted and challenge the federal government‘s alleged authority within Arizona‘s borders over an original policing power retained by the various states.


Arizona’s lawyer needs to immediately invoke judicial notice with the court and provide the historical documentation that the intended power granted over “naturalization” is limited to the power of setting the qualifications an alien must meet to become a “citizen of the united States”.




On the federal trial court level, judicial notice is recognized in rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence for U.S. District Courts and Magistrates. Rule 201 provides, in part, that "[a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Under rule 201 a trial court must take judicial notice of a well-known fact at the request of one of the parties, if the court is provided with information supporting the fact. A court also has the option to take judicial notice at its discretion, without a request from a party.





"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

are get what you pay for. Well, not really...all you get is another bleeding heart, constitution ignoring, United States destroying Federal judge with a whole lifetime to screw things up. wink.gif

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.