Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="newfie" data-source="post: 3623795" data-attributes="member: 58700">i think its my opinion of how it should be argued someday. a parallel argument may be -the bible has a lot of wisdom in it that can teach us all how to lead our lives. however when god told many different folks to be fruitful and multiply he did not mean to never stop until we over crowd the planet and starve to death.  he gave us the wisdom to determine that at some point we should not continue to do so.when the constitution was written times were different in that quickly populating claimed lands was a need and a necessity . Our perspective then obviously would not cover all things.it would not cover a time when the US government would need to know who is coming into our country and where in order to ensure that we have the necessary infrastructure , schools etc for those immigrants. Border security has become even more important for many reasons but controlled immigration to ensure the resources of one local government or another is not overloaded is probably the defining reason. at some point legal arguments realized this and we thus evolved and women gained all the rights of men as well as people of color. the courts evolved where there was need but does so slowly to ensure that the dictates of one days mob does not define the future for the rest. we clearly dont want activism from the bench and that is where conservatives arguing for following the constitution make that argument. I would be hard pressed i think to find too many conservatives that argue to blindly follow the constitution no mater what. i think all of us recognize that at some point it may be necessary to evolve or expand or further redefine .at that point i think there are two types of jurists on the court 1) those who look to legislate from the bench and then build an argument that defends their position using the constitution2) those who always look to the constitution first and only expand on that base when there is a compelling reason to do so. I think at some point a challenge will have to come to the court to question whether a child who is a citizen for no other reason then the fact that their parent actually broke the law to get them on american soil is really a citizen. without that illegal act they never gain citizenship. at that point the court will have to review the original intent behind the constitution and whether that applies here. With all that said though anchor babies are not our biggest problem. But what is a problem in this battle to control that immigration into an oderly process is the fact that liberals continue to try to leverage any and all flaws in existing immigration law to force in their future democratic voters.</blockquote>

Verification