Constitutional Law 1 Moot Court
Some cool Constitutional Law images:
Constitutional Law 1 Moot Court
Image by Bikoy
September 3-4, 2008. For Constitutional Law 1 class, our professor made us replay (in our own way) the Supreme Court proceedings in Lambino vs. COMELEC. My blockmates and I took on different roles as Supreme Court Justices, petitioners and respondents. I was on the side of the Sigaw ng Bayan / People’s Initiative petitioners as Erico Aumentado. Some of us even took on the role of the Solicitor General and amicus curiae Joaquin Bernas.
Constitutional Law 1 Moot Court
Image by Bikoy
September 3-4, 2008. For Constitutional Law 1 class, our professor made us replay (in our own way) the Supreme Court proceedings in Lambino vs. COMELEC. My blockmates and I took on different roles as Supreme Court Justices, petitioners and respondents. I was on the side of the Sigaw ng Bayan / People’s Initiative petitioners as Erico Aumentado. Some of us even took on the role of the Solicitor General and amicus curiae Joaquin Bernas.
How can illegal immigrants to qualify for the rule of law, and then propose a master violate 14th Change …?
Question Evelyn j : How can anti-illegal immigrant law are entitled to become a master and then propose violating the 14th Change …?
by denying children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. citizenship? The law is clear, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States in accordance with the jurisdiction, are citizens of the United States and the State in which they reside.” When proposing to deny them citizenship, they intend to break the law! Illegal is illegal is not it? Primogeniture citizenship and 14 . Changing the “plain meaning of the language is clear. Foreigner living in the United States is” subject to their jurisdiction “because it is legally obliged to comply with U.S. law. (Conversely, a foreign diplomat who travels here on behalf of a foreign sovereign has diplomatic immunity and therefore not subject to jurisdiction and U.S. law .)”… During congressional debate, both proponents and opponents of the citizenship clause agreed with this interpretation of the 14th Change. For example, Pennsylvania Senator Edgar Cowan provisions against just because they are the birthright citizenship to the U.S. born children of Chinese laborers and others who are noncitizens “owes [the U.S.] no allegiance [and] who pretend that it owes žádný.Výmluvné is Cowan was a racially charged opposition met with the following response from Senator John Conness of California … “The issue before us relates only to the extent that it is the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and proposes to declare that it must be citizens …. I am for doing so …. we are totally prepared to accept the measures proposed in this Constitution. “Supreme Court precedent further reinforces this view of the 14th Amendment. In 1898 the court ruled that the U.S. born children of Chinese immigrants were entitled to citizenship. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark held that” 14 Change confirms the old rule and basic citizenship birth in the … Include all children here born of resident aliens. “The Court confirmed this view in Plyler V. Doe (1982). The majority held and dissent agreed that the 14th Amendment applies to everyone “, which is subject to the laws of the state”, including the U.S. born children of illegal aliens. Similarly, in INS v. Rios, Pineda (1985), the Court again unanimously agreed that a child born to illegal immigrants, in fact, American ob?an.http: / / online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203731004576045380685742092.html Best answer:
reply Los Mojados
birth right to citizenship of foreigners is based on a misreading of the 14th Change. It will be corrected. How can the Americans continue to justify the invasion of illegal aliens in this country and criminals?
Add your own answer in the comments!
who was the first president to make an “executive order”?
Question by sadcryingclowninironlung: who was the first president to make an “executive order”?
fish to live- and what was that executive order?
Best answer:
Answer by Fineous Reese
the first president was the first president. George Washington established a Mint and regulated the coin of the union.
Add your own answer in the comments!
Q&A: If Arizona’s proposed immigration bill becomes law, will it survive a constitutional challenge?
Question by †?Goddess JR†?Native †?Pride†?: If Arizona’s proposed immigration bill becomes law, will it survive a constitutional challenge?
Arizona Illegal-Immigrant Law Draws Strong Opposition
By KEVIN O’LEARY Kevin O’leary – Fri Apr 16, 7:40 pm ET
Can the law stand up to scrutiny? “There are some things that states can do and some that states can’t do, but this law threads the needle perfectly,” says Kris Kobach, a University of Missouri–Kansas City School of Law professor who helped write the legislation. He believes it will withstand constitutional challenge. “In the bill, Arizona only penalizes what is already a crime under federal law,” says Kobach, a Yale Law School graduate and onetime counsel to former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft. “That constitutes concurrent enforcement in legal terms, which the courts have said is permissible.” Says Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a conservative think tank in Washington: “The rhetoric that this bill will create a police state is ridiculous. What this does is give police officers an extra tool in their tool kit.”
“Enough is enough,” says state senator Pearce, speaking about the increased violence along the Arizona border with Mexico. “One family has been burglarized 18 times and a number of officers have been killed and maimed in the line of duty dealing with illegal immigrants who are criminals. Our message is very clear,” says Pearce. “Illegal aliens should find another state besides Arizona to visit.”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100416/us_time/08599198226800
Best answer:
Answer by GOZ2FAST
WE have the right in our state, when illegals cause huge deficits in our budget, break the laws and use our resources to send them back home with or without the feds help. If someone breaks our laws we should have the RIGHT to enforce them.
Add your own answer in the comments!
Is it constitutional for a law to have a clause that prohibits Congress from ever amending or repealing it?
Question by gws35: Is it constitutional for a law to have a clause that prohibits Congress from ever amending or repealing it?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/22/health-care-face-string-legal-challenges/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528FOXNews.com+-+Politics%2529
Health Care Bill Could Face String of Legal Challenges
“Still another challenge is coming from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who on the Senate floor raised concerns about a section in the health care bill that appears to say that the Senate cannot make changes to it in the future.
“It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection,” the section says.
DeMint said he found that “particularly troubling.”
“We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law,” DeMint said. “I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional.”
”
Best answer:
Answer by Brian
No, any future Congress may change a law passed by a previous one..
Give your answer to this question below!
Constitutional Law 1 Moot Court
Check out these Constitutional Law images:
Constitutional Law 1 Moot Court
Image by Bikoy
September 3-4, 2008. For Constitutional Law 1 class, our professor made us replay (in our own way) the Supreme Court proceedings in Lambino vs. COMELEC. My blockmates and I took on different roles as Supreme Court Justices, petitioners and respondents. I was on the side of the Sigaw ng Bayan / People’s Initiative petitioners as Erico Aumentado. Some of us even took on the role of the Solicitor General and amicus curiae Joaquin Bernas.
Constitutional Law 1 Moot Court
Image by Bikoy
September 3-4, 2008. For Constitutional Law 1 class, our professor made us replay (in our own way) the Supreme Court proceedings in Lambino vs. COMELEC. My blockmates and I took on different roles as Supreme Court Justices, petitioners and respondents. I was on the side of the Sigaw ng Bayan / People’s Initiative petitioners as Erico Aumentado. Some of us even took on the role of the Solicitor General and amicus curiae Joaquin Bernas.