Awfully nice of him to ask them, though. 
Looks from here more like a Minuteman.
That’s debatable, and Obama even once claimed he did. But if we assume he doesn’t, then why invoke the constitution as the reason for him doing so? Makes no sense.
Missed the edit window:
ETA: Which is kind of strange, considering that his email address has a domain in Tonga.
OTOH, his location field gives coordinates in Sacramento, CA.
This is why I would say that position is closer to “treason” than the current situation. It would harm society, increase crime rates, increase prison populations, increase taxes, and produce a societal divide (as if we haven’t one already!) along ethnic lines. A true enemy of our country could hardly devise a more damaging policy.
But, then, the current incarnation of the American right wing is opposed to education in general. It leads to evilution and global warming and some dancing.
The Constitution strictly defines “treason”, and your use of the word comes nowhere close to that definition.
Whether such policies are harmful to the nation or not is entirely irrelevant to the definition of treason. Treason is specifically about assisting foreign enemies of this nation, and has nothing to do with internal policies that may or may not be detrimental to this nation.
And the fact remains, unalterably, that what you advocate does give aid and comfort—at the expense of the American people—to foreign enemies who are in this nation illegally, thus meeting the Constitutional definition of treason.Even if you can successfully and correctly argue that it is to our nation’s benefit rather than detriment to give such benefits to foreign enemies, it is still treason.The definition of treason has nothing to do with whether the act is necessarily harmful or beneficial to the nation itself and its people, but whether it aids this nation’s enemies.
And if Cameron did try to invoke the Royal prerogative and go to war after Parliament voted against it it’s open to debate whether or not the Queen would be obliged to follow his advice on a matter that he just demonstrated he does not have the confidence of Parliament.
It’s a nice idea in theory Plato, but nobody’s ever managed to get the hang of absolute rule by enlightened philosopher kings.
But this is a circular argument. You haven’t yet proven that such individuals fall under the definition of “enemy” under the treason clause.
I think “continuous” was implied. Obama knows all about ancient Greece, I’m sure.
Bullshit. That only made England a crowned aristocratic republic. You did not begin to become a democratic republic until the 20th Century. The U.S. was well on its way by the early 19th – the slavery-and-racism-and-sexism things took longer to deal with, but at least most white males could vote here well before the Civil War. More importantly, outside the South this was a country where aristocracy had never been.
I think you have it backward. The word constitution used to have a more general meaning, and the apparition and generalization of US-style written constitutions resulted in a more restrictive use of the word to refer to the written document.
By, the way, thanks for the responses to my query about the use of “republic” and “democracy” in the USA.
Well, either way Obama’s statement is correct. Today, in the US, “constitution” carries a strong implication of being an actual written document with certain key qualities. That the UK has a constitution by some other definition is irrelevant.
I think it should be rather obvious that any foreign national, who enters our nation in open violation of our own laws regarding access to our country by foreigners, is not our friend. It is a rather strained claim to make that such a person is not an enemy, as referenced by Article III, Section 3 of our Constitution, or that assisting any such person in illegally entering or remaining in our country, or in consuming the resources of this country, does not constitute treason as defined by that section.
People correct others who claim the US is a democracy because it is not merely a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. More precisely, it is a federal presidential constitutional republic, with a strong democratic history. There are a few things in our constitution that rely on democratic elections (house of representatives, and since the 17th amendment, the senate as well). Other than those two bodies politic, each state is free to set up whatever government it wants as long as it does not violate the constitution, including how it chooses its electors for president. But guess what? Every single one of the 50 states has chosen a democratically elected state legislature, as well as democratically elected electoral college voters who then vote for the president. So, saying, “The United States is not a democracy” is obviously wrong, because it has so much democracy enshrined in both the federal and state constitutions. But that does not change the fact that it is not just a democracy, but a federal presidential constitutional republic. Call it pedantry if you will, but as much of a fan of democracy as I am (and I am a big fan), calling the US a democracy is not accurate. Obama’s speech was imprecise for this reason alone, disregarding the whole constitutional aspect.
No, it’s not obvious, and you’ll find that this MB and particularly this forum is not amenable to that particular fallacious argument. What is obvious is that they are trying to make a better life for themselves and their family. Most want to become citizens.
Then you can perhaps provide some jurisprudence on the subject? Some legal ruling that such people are “enemies” in the sense of those referenced in the treason clause of the constitution. “Enemy” is generally considered someone who takes up arms against the US during war. What is rather strained is to call some dirt-poor Mexican, sneaking across the boarder to make money as someone who is at war with the US.
No, it’s not obvious to anyone with a functioning brain and an adequate knowledge of US history.
Anyway, why are you upset by their presence?
They are the future and move us ever closer to the point where non-hispanic whites will be a minority in the US.
Won’t that be a glorious time in world history?
In the UK, the courts have historically kept away from primary legislation, as Parliament has always guarded its primacy there. However secondary legislation (decrees and orders, and so on) are subject to judicial review.
But this isn’t unique to Britain or a constitution. France is a constitutional republic, but its courts run on a similar principle and cannot overturn parliamentary legislation even if they know it violates the constitution. In fact, it goes even further, and cannot involve itself in secondary legislation.
What France does have is the Constitutional Council, which can rule on the constitutionality of parliamentary enactments, but it is not a judicial body and isn’t made up of judges.
Furthermore, the simple fact that Parliament can change the constitution does not invalidate the fact that Britain is a constitutional state. It still has strict requirements and procedures to uphold before the constitution can be changed, just like the requirements that must be met for the US constitution to be changed.
While in America these requirements are 2/3 of both Houses and 3/4 of the States, in the UK the requirement is, in essence, the fact of having an ancient, unwritten constitution. A lot of the rules are conventions and exist because they are mutually beneficial. It’s a house of cards in that respect, and if one element of that house is removed or altered without due care and attention to the rest, the whole edifice could collapse.
The ‘entrenchment clauses’ of the British constitution, then, is ensuring that the changes to one part of the constitution do not rupture the stability or purposes of the whole.
For example, the attempt to ‘reform’ the House of Lords in 2012 failed specifically because the changes that would have been made would have fundamentally altered the functions and expectations of the Upper House as they had developed and been agreed in the last century. It would have challenged the Commons for power and made the whole constitution generally more chaotic, at least in the medium term.
That is pretty much why, even though Parliament can change the constitution at whim, it really doesn’t - doing so while ensuring Parliament continues to function as intended is a Gordian Knot.
Nice “no true Scotsman” argument
You seem willing to embrace the racism in the US constitution, yet ignore the fact that the House of Commons was elected by a franchise limited by wealth. I wonder which is more objectionable. Similarly, the House of Lords was an undemocratic and biased upper house, as the Senate was until the seventeenth amendment, and still is with its imbalance between state populations.
I’m fairly sure a lot of the Founding Families in a lot of the States fit the bill of being aristocratic…