Tancredo to Offer Amendment That Would Free Ramos, Compean

Would have posted this on the hearings thread, but thought it should be announced as Breaking News.  Hopefully Tom's amendment will have an effect on this case.  7/18 - Will try to find copy of amendment later

Lawmaker Announces Plan to Block Use of Funds for Continued Incarceration of Border Agents

Kaksdesign said:

Lawmaker Announces Plan to Block Use of Funds for Continued Incarceration of Border Agents

"We've heard a lot of tough talk from Members of Congress about how we need to make things right for Mr. Ramos and Mr. Compean," concluded Tancredo, "My amendment is going to give them all a chance to put their money where their mouth is."

"Americans have been waiting months for the President to right this wrong and I am not going to wait any longer," said Tancredo, "It's time that the Congress took matters into its own hands."

"This Kangaroo court in Texas has made a decision, but Congress is under no obligation to provide the administration with the funds they need to enforce it," Tancredo continued.

Question: This man is to be considered a serious Republican Party candidate for its nominee to run for the Presidency of the United States of America? This man who can publicly (and I presume with a straight face) say it's time for the Congress to take matters into its own hands, circumventing the nation's judicial system and all of its procedures. This man who wants to be the Chief Executive of this nation's Constitutional Republic and calls a federal courtroom, a duly appointed judge, two licensed adversarial sets of trial attorneys, twelve duly selected and empaneled jurors, and the court's lawful trial proceedings a Kangaroo court in Texas?

Please scratch and scrap my heretofore support of Mr. Tancredo! His words are those of a loose cannon and a demagouge playing to the emotions of a clamourous mob. God forbid! God bless and keep this Republic intact and safe from such a hack politico and grandstander.

Congress has the authority to overturn even Supreme Court decisions, and even has the authority to say that the Supreme Court isn't allowed to touch a case. When you look at how the Constitution defines the Federal government, the Legislative Branch is the most powerful (as it's the one that most directly represents the people) and Judicial the least. Unfortunately, within the past century that somehow flip-flopped.

Pat Buchanan perfectly illustrates how this is possible in Chapter Nine of his book Where the Right went Wrong.

KaksDesign, Dyne,
Not to worry, the troll that blabbers against your posts is a self confessed drug trafficker's lawyer, with some time on his hands between typical drunken spells.  Years of Liberal ideas and boozing has left him with just enough brain to troll threads, looking for a spot to sling those names he calls most everyone!

Carry on with your thread and ignore the whatever! 

Dyne said:

Congress has the authority to overturn even Supreme Court decisions, and even has the authority to say that the Supreme Court isn't allowed to touch a case. When you look at how the Constitution defines the Federal government, the Legislative Branch is the most powerful (as it's the one that most directly represents the people) and Judicial the least. Unfortunately, within the past century that somehow flip-flopped.

Pat Buchanan perfectly illustrates how this is possible in Chapter Nine of his book Where the Right went Wrong.

Congress can amend a law it had created to meet with a Supreme Court review so it passes Constitutional muster.  It cannot Constitutionally "overthrow" the Supreme Court or say that the Supreme Court isn't allowed to touch a case.  I don't know what you think your reading and although I like Pat Buchanan he knows and you need to know that you are very much misinformed.  You may want to spend more time reading the Constitution which you refer to.  To post such utter nonsense is to do so for consumption purposes only and those who buy it should consider a remedial course in Constitutional law, friend.  That seems to be true of you as well.

bugsygirl said: Esquire, what do you think of the congress' decision to give DC a separate vote? Was that constitutional they way it was handled you think?

The 23rd amendment to the Constitution settled part of what you seem to be asking me.  The remainder has not been settled/decided and continues to be heatedly debated with respect to electing state representation for itself.  The main problem continues to be the fact that the District of Columbia is not a state.  Therefore, I can't comment further on what may happen since my guess is no better than yours.  I suppose we'll wait and see.

rogerf said:

KaksDesign, Dyne,
Not to worry, the troll that blabbers against your posts is a self confessed drug trafficker's lawyer, with some time on his hands between typical drunken spells.  Years of Liberal ideas and boozing has left him with just enough brain to troll threads, looking for a spot to sling those names he calls most everyone!

Carry on with your thread and ignore the whatever! 

rogerf:

You are so fast to point out someone who is trolling, would you please read what you have written. Your post might also be considered slander.

bugsygirl: Congress' decision to grant DC voting rights is unconstutional (my point of view) becasue the District of Columbia has no such 'right' because it is not a state and Congress is prohibited under the U.S. Constitution from conferring such authority upon them because they are not a state (Article I, Section 2).

Article. I. - The Legislative Branch

Section 2 - The House

"The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen........"

The District's real goal is to become a state because that would give them two U.S. senators and about two U.S. representatives which is a lot of political clout for about 582,000 people, many of whom are poor because they have no incentive to work. Statehood for the District, however, is highly unlikely because it would require a constitutional amendment. A constitutional amendment requires that two-thirds of the House and the Senate approve the amendment, and then two thirds of all the state legislatures would have to approve it as well.

The U.S. Senate is correct in saying they would not approve an unconstitutional bill conferring a vote to the DC delegate coming from the House of Representatives and the President is correct in saying that he would veto such a bill because it is unconstitutional. No doubt the U.S. Supreme Court would rule any such law unconstitutional. Clearly, there is no such authority for bestowing a congressional vote to DC's delegate in congress who sits but cannot vote. Perhaps it is time that members of the U.S. House of Representatives read the U.S. Constitution; you know - that founding legal document that they swore or affirmed to uphold.

Historically, the District of Columbia was carved out of Maryland and Virginia to form a federal district administered by the federal government to protect the nation's capitol. The shape of the newly created district was originally a square. A number of years later in 1847 Virginia woke up and asked for return of its portion of its contribution to the District.

Virginia's request was approved by the federal government and then retroceded to Virginia. That original contribution is now part of Arlington County, VA and the city of Alexandria, VA where historical markers mark those original boundaries. The District of Columbia and the City of Washington cover the same geographical area. It is the only jurisdiction where the President of the United States directly controls the (DC) National Guard.

Today the federal district of Washington, DC covers 61 square miles of land and in 2005 had a population of 582,042. However, this population number includes the District's extensive homeless population drawn to the city by the generous benefits provided to them at taxpayer expense. These benefits include free housing, free food, free transportation and free medical care. If only people who worked for a living, support a family and pay taxes had such coverage, then everyone could be happy.

The district also supports a very large and multi-generationally entrenched welfare class paid for by taxpayers as well. Zero progress is being made toward getting rid of these welfare freeloaders that other people must work to pay for.

That DC has one of the very highest tax burdens in the United States to support this albatross of a system should not be a surprise to anyone. This is perhaps one of the most inefficient government operations known to man. Perhaps there are other cities with equal distinction?

Ranking 22 in city size in the United States, it is like many other urban cities in the US, unfortunately. High crime, low academic achievement and DC has the highest AIDS rate in the country. No longer considered the "murder capitol of the United States" as it was during the 1990s, violent crime is still high, fueled by drug wars and drive-by shootings.

Blaze_of_Fire said:

bugsygirl: Congress' decision to grant DC voting rights is unconstutional (my point of view) becasue the District of Columbia has no such 'right' because it is not a state and Congress is prohibited under the U.S. Constitution from conferring such authority upon them because they are not a state (Article I, Section 2).

Consider the Foraker and Jones Acts as they apply to Puerto Rico and/or Puerto Rican citizens. Consider how they also apply to other territories that are not states.

Consider the 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Consider the fact that the proposed Constitutional Amemdment to grant to D.C. citizens state-styled representation in Congress' House of Representatives failed by expiration, having only 18 states voting to ratify it prior to the deadline for the needed number of states acceptance of the proposed Amendment.

Run it by your PhD of Political Science (?) and have her tell you what to get back to me with regarding the foregoing and that issue of foreign investment/foreign investors (the one she claims is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution). I'm still waiting on that little gem to arrive.

Johnny Sutton is a long time Bush friend.  Bush made a deal with the Mexican government for "open borders".  If you don't believe it read what he did in 2004:

An activist group advocating legal immigration paths into the United States wants an investigation into the nation's failure to enforce what immigration laws it already has.

"We need Congress and the press to do their jobs, by launching investigations to find out why our existing laws are not being enforced," said William Gheen, a spokesman for http://www.alipac.us"> color="#0000ff">Americans for Legal Immigration PAC.

"Presidents do not get to decide which laws they will or will not enforce on behalf of their big business friends. That's what kings do, not presidents. If our existing laws go un-enforced, then we no longer live in a functioning Republican for which our flag stands," he said.

Gheen, in an earlier analysis of the issue of illegal aliens, said the issue isn't all that complicated.

"Simply put, America needs to enforce existing laws," he said. "Political and media pundits are constantly expounding upon our need to send the right messages to terrorists. Why is it then that many of those same pundits send the wrong message to illegal aliens?"

Gheen, who is president of ALIPAC and also serves as a legislative assistant in North Carolina, said that there are laws imposing fines on employers who hire illegal aliens.

However, "all fines against employers for hiring illegal aliens had ceased by 2004, under directives from the Bush administration," Gheen said. "Recent high profile raids have excluded charges against employers."

Gheen also said there are laws regarding the apprehension of illegal aliens, and their detention. But, he said, "Border Patrol agents are operating under instructions to only Catch and Release and do not pursue."

"Under these directives, it would not matter if we had half a million U.S. Border Patrol agents deployed," he said. "Bush has opened our borders through regulatory means. The Border Patrol has their hands tied and are not really stopping anyone from crossing illegally into the U.S."

Further, businesses that might make money from the illegal alien population are being tacitly encouraged to do so, with an absence of crackdowns on credit card offers, home loan proposals and other promotions specifically targeting illegals, ALIPAC said.

And after Congress demanded that 700 new miles of fencing be added to the border, the "Bush administration stripped the funding from the plan and built only a few miles of fencing!" ALIPAC said.

"Under these conditions, the deliberations of Congress, the votes of Congress, the elections, and the votes of all Americans have been nullified by executive orders," Gheen said. "These actions by the White House, combined with recent revelations about the [Security and Prosperity Partnership] and North American Community are alarming. Until Congress can restore the Republic and assure that laws that are passed will be enforced, there is no need for future legislation."

Gheen's schedule this week includes meetings with members of Congress in Washington to discuss the organization's request for investigations.

"ALIPAC believes that enforcement of our existing laws would eventually and significantly reduce the number of illegal aliens residing in America," ALIPAC said. "The current illegal immigration crisis in America is being created by the non-enforcement of existing laws.

"Correcting the situation would begin to reverse the flow of illegal aliens with more leaving than entering," the group said.

In Gheen's earlier explanation of his solution, he said while illegal immigration probably never will be stopped completely, it could be reversed easily.

He said the message the U.S. needs to send is that it "is not open, accommodating, or receptive to those [who] disrespect our laws and citizenry by entering as illegal aliens."

"The four things we must do are: (1). Secure our borders. (2.) Crack down on employers that intentionally hire illegal labor. (3.) Remove all benefits such as licenses, in-state tuition, and welfare for illegal aliens. (4.) Empower local police to enforce immigration law," Gheen said.

"Broad consensus exists for these measures, as multiple national and local polls show over 80 plus percent support for each one," he said.

"Mexican nationals caught entering the U.S. should not be dropped off just across the border so they can try again the next night. They should be detained, identified, told that a second crossing attempt is a felony. They should then handed over to the Mexican government to be returned to their homes," he said.

"A congressional inquiry is needed to ascertain why these insane and useless directives are in place and why most of the border sensor technology the taxpayers have paid for is not in place or operational," he said.

As WND has reported, a comprehensive immigration plan proposed in the U.S. Senate recently failed by a significant margin as tens of thousands of U.S. citizens called expressing opposition.

The plan would have set up a legal status for the estimated 12-20 million illegal aliens in the United States and included what the White House described as a large commitment of billions of dollars to secure the border and enforce the nation's existing laws against illegal entry.

Opponents, however, dubbed it an amnesty plan for illegals, and it never was able to shake that moniker.

Then in March 2005 - Suprise!  SPP was formerly launched at a March 23, 2005 meeting in Waco, Texas attended by George Bush, Mexico's President Vincente Fox and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin.

Direct Quote from Bush: 

I know the prosecutor very well, Johnny Sutton. He's a dear friend of mine from Texas. He's a fair guy. He is an even-handed guy. And I can't imagine -- you've got a nice smile, but you can't entice me into making a public statement -- (laughter) -- on something that requires a very -- I know this is an emotional issue, but people need to look at the facts. These men were convicted by a jury of their peers after listening to the facts as my friend, Johnny Sutton, presented them. But anyway, no, I won't make you that promise.

Well how many men have been released on DNA results that were convicted by a jury of their peers?

blaze77535 said: Laura Ingram had Johnny sutton on today for a long period of time and his tactics never changed dodge the questions give answers that cannot be applied to any thing. The longer he talked the more I am convinced the case should be reopened. I really do not think they would be conviceted in a retrial there is way to many lies and things that were hidden from the jury. (Emphasis Added)

And if we can get all the loud-mouthed nuts out of the way or to shut up long enough for the judicial system to do its job in considering a rational appeal (as opposed to hot-air, dysfunctional emotionalism being spewed) I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised at the results. Dang, this is getting old.

Well, looks like we should be able to find some truth soon!