News Blog for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. Content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this "Blog" - no paid ads - no payments for articles.Fair Use Doctrine is posted & used. Blogger/Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Contact: editor@arranewsservice.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home PageFollow @arra
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
(429-347 BC)
Friday, July 27, 2007
Hazleton immigrant law voided by judge - Do you agree with Hazelton or the Court?
A federal judge on Thursday struck down Hazleton's tough anti-illegal immigration law, ruling unconstitutional a measure that has been copied around the country. The city's Illegal Immigration Relief Act sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs. Another measure would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit. Based on testimony from a nine-day trial held in March, U.S. District Judge James Munley ruled that the act was pre-empted by federal law and would violate due process rights. . . . [Read More] See also:Judge strikes down Hazleton's illegal immigrant law & Judge overturns Pa. city's illegal immigrant ordinance Your Opinion - leave your comments! A couple public comments so far: - Anna Arias, president of the Hazleton Area Latino Assoc: "It is a bittersweet victory. It is sad in the sense that we should be spreading love and unity, and not hatred and division as this has created. This has divided the community." - Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta: "Sadly, today's decision sends the wrong message to elected officials in Washington and elsewhere. We, the American people, want our cities secured, our borders protected and our citizenship respected. This battle is far from over." - Fred Thompson, potential GOP presidential candidate: "Think about what this ruling means. Congress has preempted the field, so state and local governments are powerless to act. Then, Congress and the federal authorities do next-to-nothing to prevent illegal immigration, burdening the states and local communities around the country. But those communities cannot act because Congress said they couldn’t. What sense does that make? None. Congress could not have meant to prevent state and local governments from exercising their traditional police and regulatory powers over businesses and landlords to address the problems caused by uncontrolled illegal immigration. [Full Statement] Tags:Hazleton, PA, Mayor, Lou Barletta, illegal aliens, immigration reform, Pennsylvania, District Judge, James Munley To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The ruling by this Clinton appointed activist judge is a travesty! If the issue was so cut-and dried,why did his summation run to 206 pages? Now the ACLU is seeking 2.3 MILLION dollars in fees? They defend an group like NAMBLA pro bono, yet seek over 2 million dollars from a small town simply trying to preserve their quality of life. I can't help but wonder what their motives truly are. Regardless, as mayor Lou himself said: "This fight is far from over"
I would like to point out that the President takes the following oath established by the Constitution which is different than we expect from the military officers: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The oath the President takes is NOT as comprehensive as the oath taken by the military over which President and the Secretary of Defense have authority. Their Oath is:
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the ____ (Army, Navy, Air Force) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
Note: Officers are not bound to "protect against foreign or domestic" and are not bound to obey all orders of the US President.
However, enlisted personnel take a different oath:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
The Constitution - one of my favorite items next to the Holy Scriptures. I keep the Declaration of Independence & The Constitution of the United States on my desk.
"We the People" in the Constitution is used in the preamble and reads:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The Preamble addresses what WE the people have done and not what the Government will do for us! Our fore fathers never envisioned trusting to one man - our protection!. In fact, the inward governance was left to the people within their states. However, Congress was given the power to Declare War. In addition Congress was given the power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal invasions."
In return the States gave up their rights to certain things but was granted an exception: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with any foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit or delay."
I believe the States could take action under the Constitution concerning the invasion by peoples of other countries since the Congress has not effectively empowered the Executive branch to provide such protection from such this invasion. Imminent Danger is definitely at hand!
I am hoping that people like Lou Barletta will be elected to Congress and will take actions to protect our country.
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru - @arra
#Christian Conservative; Retired USAF & Grad Professor. Constitution NRA ProLife schoolchoice fairtax - Editor ARRA NEWS SERVICE. THANKS FOR FOLLOWING!
To Exchange Links - Email: editor@arranewsservice.com!
Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting principles & beleifs beliefs of other organizations, this blog/site is soley controlled and supported by the editor. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
6 Comments:
The ruling by this Clinton appointed activist judge is a travesty!
If the issue was so cut-and dried,why did his summation run to 206 pages?
Now the ACLU is seeking 2.3
MILLION dollars in fees?
They defend an group like NAMBLA pro bono, yet seek over 2 million dollars from a small town simply trying to preserve their quality of life.
I can't help but wonder what their motives truly are.
Regardless, as mayor Lou himself said:
"This fight is far from over"
Lou just may make a good Commander in chief, you know, that person that takes an oath to protect the American people.
Roger,
I understand the intent of your comment. We hope you noted that Lou Barletta filed for Congress - read: http://arkansasgopwing.blogspot.com/2008/02/anti-illegal-immigration-hazleton-mayor.html
I would like to point out that the President takes the following oath established by the Constitution which is different than we expect from the military officers: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
The oath the President takes is NOT as comprehensive as the oath taken by the military over which President and the Secretary of Defense have authority. Their Oath is:
"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the ____ (Army, Navy, Air Force) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
Note: Officers are not bound to "protect against foreign or domestic" and are not bound to obey all orders of the US President.
However, enlisted personnel take a different oath:
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
So your trying to say the Pres. doesn't take an oath to protect the American people, "we the people", isn't that what the constitution covers?
We the People
The Constitution - one of my favorite items next to the Holy Scriptures. I keep the Declaration of Independence & The Constitution of the United States on my desk.
"We the People" in the Constitution is used in the preamble and reads:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The Preamble addresses what WE the people have done and not what the Government will do for us! Our fore fathers never envisioned trusting to one man - our protection!. In fact, the inward governance was left to the people within their states. However, Congress was given the power to Declare War. In addition Congress was given the power to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repeal invasions."
In return the States gave up their rights to certain things but was granted an exception: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with any foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit or delay."
I believe the States could take action under the Constitution concerning the invasion by peoples of other countries since the Congress has not effectively empowered the Executive branch to provide such protection from such this invasion. Imminent Danger is definitely at hand!
I am hoping that people like Lou Barletta will be elected to Congress and will take actions to protect our country.
COMMENTS ARE CLOSED FOR THIS POST.
ANYONE WISHING TO POST CONCERNING LOU BARLETTA
OR A RELATED TOPIC SHOULD GO TO THE FOLLOWING POST TO LEAVE A COMMENT: Anti-illegal immigration Hazleton mayor running for Congress
Post a Comment
<< Home