The study of Constitutional Law is what the constitution itself mandates, and the Supreme Court’s interpretation thereof.
There’s nothing in the Constitution itself that says we can’t have an open border policy. Therefore, immigration laws are normal pieces of legislation, and not constitutional laws.
Constitutional Laws are only applicable to the government, or agents of the government.
If I were a police officer, acting in an official capacity as a law enforcement agent of the state, and broke into your house without a warrant, I would be violating the constitution itself.
However, if John Q. Public breaks into your house without a warrant, he may be guilty of Breaking and Entering, but he’s not violating the Fourth Amendment.
God, and people call me pedantic.
Look, Blalron. Do us all a favor and read the freaking constitution. When you come back and state you’ve actually recently read the thing, then I’ll be happy to continue this discussìon.
Now that I’ve gotten that posted, Blalron, let’s try it this way:
The Constitution also provides for bills of revenue to originate in the House of Representatives. Provided that said bill is passed by both houses and signed by the president (or passed over his veto), then the ensuing law is constitutional. This use of the adjective describes the law, which the constitution provided for, being legit. I’m fully aware of what the constitution does and doesn’t say.
For example: I’m fully aware that it neither advocates an open nor a closed border. Your homework assignment, then, is to tell me where the constitution permits (i.e., provides for) legislation relating to immigration.
This statement is false. If a law is enacted (and especially if the Supreme Court has, for whatever reason) ruled that the law is constitutional, then that law applies to all within its purview. For example, the law mandating you pay income tax applies to you & said law is constitutional.
Okay, put it this way . . . in order to enter and remain in the United States if you are not a citizen, you are required to comply with the laws and regulations pertaining to legal immigration. If you don’t, you can be prosecuted for not living up to your “acquired responsibility,” which you acquired when you decided to cross the border. I agree with you that no one who stays home safe and sound in Mexico has any obligation to the INS (any more than someone who never has kids has a duty of child support), but of course we’re not and never were talking about anyone except those who do decide to come to the U.S. but don’t decide to abide by the rules that are then incumbent on them as a result of that decision.
On a separate note, I’ve never heard the term “constitutional law” as a term of art or a separate category of law (as for instance distinguishing such laws from “statutory laws” or “common law”). “Constitutional provision,” maybe. But anyone I know would read “constitutional” as an adjective modifying “law” and take the phrase to mean “a law that is not forbidden by the Constitution.”
Two things for the record. Although I tend towards the libertarian in political thinking, I am not a Libertarian and have said so many times on this board. Secondly, I specicifically said in an earlier post in this thread that I disagree with the open borders philosophy.
Please be more careful in the future when you ascribe specific political positions to specific people in this forum.
Meriam-Websters defines Constitutional Law as: law that relates to the constitution, as a permanent system of political and juridical government, as distinguished from statutory and common law, which relate to matters subordinate to such constitution.
Then you’re obstinately refusing to recognize the actual difference between two phrases:
[ul][li]A constitutional law (a law which passes constitutional muster), and[/li][li]Constitutional Law (the field of the study of the Constitution in a legal sense)[/ul][/li]
Thanks for clearing that up.