Meet Con Artist Andrew Yang

Jul 2014
15,659
9,761
massachusetts
Andrew Yang on illegal entrants


Yang, who also supports a pathway to citizenship for illegal entrants, uses the bait and switch con artist’s game when it comes to dealing with illegal entrants who are here. He States:


"Outside of increasing our guest worker program and making sure that those who receive temporary permission to come to the US to work leave when their time is up, we also need to find ways to address this massive community of undocumented immigrants who entered the country illegally.


Rounding up and deporting that many people is a nonstarter—it would be prohibitively expensive, disruptive, and inhumane to many communities, so a pathway to citizenship must be provided (after securing our southern border, so that we don’t end up right back where we started)."


No one I know has suggested “rounding up and deporting” illegal entrants. What is proposed by concerned Americans are various measures which would encourage illegal entrants to self deport:


Step up the prosecution of business owners who hire illegal entrants and pay themnts off the books, and below the going wage, in order to increase profits.


Encourage employers to use e-verify when hiring


Deny illegal entrants any tax payer financed medical/dental care (excepting life death situations.


Deny the children of illegal entrants access to a State’s public school system and all public assistance programs, i.e., deny them any privileges created by a state for its citizens;


Forbid state issued drivers licenses or other forms of identification to illegal entrants;


Direct the appropriate federal government agencies to identify aliens who have overstayed their visa and prioritized their expulsion from our country whenever their name comes up when applying for a driver’s license, stopped for a traffic infraction or other crime, etc.;


Enforce public housing laws which make it a crime for illegal entrants to live in any public housing unit or section eight housing, and evict American citizens from their public housing for harboring an illegal entrant.


Cut off all federal funds to sanctuary cities, especially New York and California.


And making it a point of law to never allow a person who has entered our country illegally, or is here illegally and caught, to re-enter our country legally in the future __ giving existing illegal entrants a two month period to leave our country on their own before implementing this rule.


Instead of proposing remedies to rid our country of illegal entrants, especially the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low skilled and disease carrying illegal entrants, Andrew Yang has confirmed he welcomes them with a path to citizenship.


JWK

There is no surer way to weaken, subdue, demoralize and then conquer a prosperous and freedom loving people than by allowing and encouraging the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, criminal and diseased populations of other countries to invade that country, and make the country’s existing citizens tax-slaves to support the economic needs of such invaders.
The guy sounds like Reagan huh? Amnesty and citizenship for everyone.
 
Jul 2015
2,737
1,160
USA
You know what is in the constitution, the power to regulate commerce. Imagine that, they didn't free markets anywhere in the document, but they made sure to put in regulation.
And what was the limited purpose granting power to Congress to regulate commerce among the States? Eh, smarty pants?

It was intended to protect a free market, free enterprise system!

Regulate commerce among the States, our Founder’s meaning!

The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

So, let us document the meaning of “commerce” as used by our founding fathers during the time our Constitution was being framed and ratified for it is their intended meaning of “commerce” which is required to be observed by the court when construing the Constitution.

The historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution meant the transportation and exchange of goods between the States. In effect Congress was given the power in question to insure “free trade“, an uninhibited transportation of goods among the states and prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. The Supreme Court documents the meaning of commerce as it appears in our Constitution as follows:

In fact, when Federalists and Anti-Federalists discussed the Commerce Clause during the ratification period, they often used trade (in its selling/bartering sense) and commerce interchangeably. See The Federalist No. 4, p. 22 (J. Jay) (asserting that countries will cultivate our friendship when our trade is prudently regulated by Federal Government); id., No. 7, at 39-40 (A. Hamilton) (discussing competitions of commerce between States resulting from state regulations of trade); id., No. 40, at 262 (J. Madison) (asserting that it was an acknowledged object of the Convention . . . that the regulation of trade should be submitted to the general government); Lee, Letters of a Federal Farmer No. 5, in Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States 319 (P. Ford ed. 1888); Smith, An Address to the People of the State of New-York, in id., at 107.

As one would expect, the term commerce was used in contradistinction to productive activities such as manufacturing and agriculture. Alexander Hamilton, for example, repeatedly treated commerce, agriculture, and manufacturing as three separate endeavors. See, e.g., The Federalist No. 36, at 224 (referring to agriculture, commerce, manufactures); id., No. 21, at 133 (distinguishing commerce, arts, and industry); id., No. 12, at 74 (asserting that commerce and agriculture have shared interests). The same distinctions were made in the state ratification conventions. See e.g., 2 Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 57 (J. Elliot ed. 1836) (hereinafter Debates) (T. Dawes at Massachusetts convention); id., at 336 (M. Smith at New York convention).

Moreover, interjecting a modern sense of commerce into the Constitution generates significant textual and structural problems. For example, one cannot replace commerce with a different type of enterprise, such as manufacturing. When a manufacturer produces a car, assembly cannot take place with a foreign nation or with the Indian Tribes. Parts may come from different States or other nations and hence may have been in the flow of commerce at one time, but manufacturing takes place at a discrete site. Agriculture and manufacturing involve the production of goods; commerce encompasses traffic in such articles. ___ See U.S. vs. Lopez
Now, let us document the intentions for which the power to regulate “commerce” was granted. A clue to those intentions is quickly pointed out in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

Indeed, we now begin to learn the intention for which the power to “regulate commerce” was granted . . . one reason being, to prohibit preferences being made by Regulations of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another, and to prevent Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

As pointed out in Federalist Paper No. 42 concerning the intention of the power to regulate commerce, Madison states the following:


“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”


In fact the power to regulate commerce among the states was intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:



“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”


It is sheer insanity to suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution intended by the power in question, to be authorizing a power to the federal government to enter the States and interfere with or dictate the peoples health care needs and choices. And the Tenth Amendment was specifically adopted to prohibit the federal governments intrusion into the States.



Finally, with reference to the power over commerce, Jefferson says:


“ To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. “ (my emphasis) see Jefferson`s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank- 1791

JWK
 
Jul 2014
15,659
9,761
massachusetts
And what was the limited purpose granting power to Congress to regulate commerce among the States? Eh, smarty pants?

It was intended to protect a free market, free enterprise system!

Regulate commerce among the States, our Founder’s meaning!

The Congress shall have Power … To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

So, let us document the meaning of “commerce” as used by our founding fathers during the time our Constitution was being framed and ratified for it is their intended meaning of “commerce” which is required to be observed by the court when construing the Constitution.

The historical record establishes that the word “commerce”, as our founding fathers used the word during the framing and ratification process of our Constitution meant the transportation and exchange of goods between the States. In effect Congress was given the power in question to insure “free trade“, an uninhibited transportation of goods among the states and prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. The Supreme Court documents the meaning of commerce as it appears in our Constitution as follows:



Now, let us document the intentions for which the power to regulate “commerce” was granted. A clue to those intentions is quickly pointed out in Art. 1, Sec. 9 of our Constitution.

“No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

Indeed, we now begin to learn the intention for which the power to “regulate commerce” was granted . . . one reason being, to prohibit preferences being made by Regulations of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another, and to prevent Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.”

As pointed out in Federalist Paper No. 42 concerning the intention of the power to regulate commerce, Madison states the following:


“A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquility.”


In fact the power to regulate commerce among the states was intended to prevent one state from taxing another state’s goods as they passed through its borders. Additionally, the power to regulate commerce granted to Congress was to also allow Congress to have oversight in a specific and clearly identified area__ a state‘s inspection laws:



“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”


It is sheer insanity to suggest the State Delegates to the Convention of 1787 which framed our Constitution, or the State Legislatures when ratifying the Constitution intended by the power in question, to be authorizing a power to the federal government to enter the States and interfere with or dictate the peoples health care needs and choices. And the Tenth Amendment was specifically adopted to prohibit the federal governments intrusion into the States.



Finally, with reference to the power over commerce, Jefferson says:


“ To make a thing which may be bought and sold, is not to prescribe regulations for buying and selling. Besides, if this was an exercise of the power of regulating commerce, it would be void, as extending as much to the internal commerce of every State, as to its external. For the power given to Congress by the Constitution does not extend to the internal regulation of the commerce of a State, (that is to say of the commerce between citizen and citizen,) which remain exclusively with its own legislature; but to its external commerce only, that is to say, its commerce with another State, or with foreign nations, or with the Indian tribes. “ (my emphasis) see Jefferson`s Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank- 1791

JWK
And yet they passed a law requiring shipowners to collect taxes from their employees to pay for health insurance.
 
Jul 2015
2,737
1,160
USA
And yet they passed a law requiring shipowners to collect taxes from their employees to pay for health insurance.
Stop making crap up. The Act had nothing to with health insurance. The Act was to collect money to build marine hospitals at our ports of entry for sick and disabled seamen employed on American flag ships, so local citizens living near ports of entry were not burdened with these costs . . . a subject matter within Congress powers.

JWK
 
Last edited: