While Napolitano is not one of the 21 names on Trump's SCOTUS list, anything is possible. [More]I hope not.
"The well-known libertarian-leaning Fox News analyst and former judge of the New Jersey Superior Court" will destroy the Republic with his insane immigration views, dismissing what is manifestly a compelling interest as "nativism or fear or hatred or favoritism."
3 comments:
Judge Andrew Napolitano is a strict constitutionalist. I like that about him, and he has a well reasoned explanation for his belief, namely reading the Constitution in the plain manner in which it was written. We cannot pick and choose, ala carte, which portions we should follow. It follows then that because immigration is not a federal power, it is a power reserved to the states. States being overrun with immigrants could use the power of the purse strings to limit benefits only to naturalized citizens. Few would flourish here, and go back where they came from, without the bennies. Even the right to self defense does not stop at the border.
Welcome back from your hiatus David.
HinMO
"The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States [and] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers..."
The cultural terraforming and padding of the electorate with foreigners ignorant of and inimical to a Bill of Rights culture is a very real and compelling interest to guard against.
Besides, you're reading something into this he never says-- he doesn't say it's a state power -- he says "the right to travel is a natural right." He also says there is no compelling interest driving this, just fear and "nativism," the "progressive" buzzword for anyone who believes in borders is a xenophobe and hater.
What you and he are proposing is national suicide. And this business of ending the welfare magnet is simply kicking the can down the road-- do that first and then come back and argue. Besides, we've gone around on this before-- until you provide credible refutation -- not opinion or anecdotes -- that the "immigration" being foisted by those with political and economic special interests will not result in an overwhelming Democrat/anti-gun electoral majority, continuing this discussion is merely an exercise in wheel-spinning. I've repeatedly given links to credible surveys and cited real-world statistics to make my case. If you expect to convince me that --and the California experience -- does not indicate realistic expectations, you're going to need evidence, not conjecture.
And thanks.
David, I'm with you. I also think Napolitano doesn't want the job, and I think Trump is asking his advice. I think Napolitano will give some good advice. I have read a few of his books, and he is not a fan of the Progressive agenda
What we really need to hope for is a rock solid SCOTUS Justice, and an Attorney General willing to use Fed Power to enforce the rulings of the Supreme Court. EZELL II in Chicago should be proof positive that the powers that be there are not getting it
A Federal Enforcement action of course carriers with it its own concerns. Such as when they start using that power to enforce things we don't like. The alternative is someday, some governmental attempt to ban and confiscate arms and a hostile response from owners of said arms
Post a Comment