There is a stark difference between civil disobedience and failing to execute a law as an agent of the government. Without enforcing law, there is no need for most of the government.

unamused on October 5, 2007 at 7:58 PM

No there isn’t

Unless you consider civil servants to not be citizens first

Federal Immigration and Nationality Act
Section 8 USC 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv)(b)(iii)

“Any person who . . . encourages or induces an alien to . . . reside . . . knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such . . . residence is . . . in violation of law, shall be punished as provided . . . for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs . . . fined under title 18 . . . imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both”

So… if they knowingly give aide to illegals, they could go to jail under FEDERAL law for 5 years for each License they give out.

Now, seems to me that the Govenor is in a CONSPIRICY to aid and abet those illegals. Isn’t Conspiricy to bypass a Federal law against the law itself?

Add in that the conspiricy is against the sovereignity of the US, and its control of the border, and this rises to sedition….

These Clerks would not be following a clearly illegal and seditious order from their Govenor… while continuing to follow Federal Immigration Law… you know, the Feds, who HAVE jurisdiction over Immigration…

I mean, ALL elected democrats eventually go through this phase in New York (and most other Blue states as well), it just took Spitzer a lot less time than most. It took him less time even than our Idiot Mayor Mike.

It is antithetical to Scripture for any religious body to condone or encourage the government to stop enforcing laws.

Where in the NYS Constitution does the Governor’s authority rest for changing duly legislated and enacted state law by Executive Order?

I didn’t say that it does or that he had any legal standing to do this. I just enjoy pointing out the mindless, reflexive partisanship sometimes. Damian G said it was “patently unconstitutional”, and, unfortunately, I don’t think it is. That does NOT, however, mean that it isn’t in violation of NY statues.

I think its a bit ironic that some people here, now, are using the very arguments that the gay marriage people used before, and with roughly the same legal justification.

That they’re Catholic when they do, doesn’t mean that “The Church” has those opinions, or is proclaiming those opinions, it means that individuals who are Catholics are.

It’s inaccurate to say that “The Church is supporting this” or is “advocating this” or whatnot, because from what I read, to the contrary, a group of individuals, some of whom work for the Catholic Church, have organized in support of this. But “The Church” has not.

I suppose it’d be like Hollywood Jews (or, Jews anywhere as individuals who were Jewish), so to speak, getting together and supporting some political issue. And then trying to say that “Israel advocates for this.” Something like that, generally as inaccurate as that, is my point.

The term, “The Church” references the Catholic Church, as in, official theology and other statements declared by the Church, via the Vatican.

Some Catholics saying this or that and asking for this and that is not “THE CHURCH,” it is some Catholics advocating for issues they want.

And, Bishops and Cardinals in the U.S. are notoriously more Liberal than elsewhere, and it’s a problem for The Church itself. As are those they influence, like Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and even Giuliani to some.

The term is “cafeteria Catholics” who pick and chose like a cafeteria meal what they “want” and “don’t want” and then behave like they’re “good Catholics” while refusing to acknowledge or in rejecting certain aspects of the faith.

But understand that regional groups of people who are Catholics doing and saying one thing does not represent “THE CHURCH” unless you see a proclamation issued by the Vatican declaring something thus. The Pope speaks as “The Church” and on it’s behalf, while individual Catholics in regional political issues do not.

I almost spit out my lunch today when I heard that “If they refuse to carry out the laws that are enacted, they will be arrested”.– HarryStar

That, Harry, is more evidence that the eventual behavior of Liberals always turns into fascism. They eventually demand that everyone else who doesn’t submit to whatever their demands are be: (1.) threatened; (2.) ridiculed and defamed; (3.) deprived or otherwise harmed; and eventually (4.) thrown into prison or sent before a firing squad or various other forms of loss of life.

It’s happened time and time again in human history that Liberals will when given enough time and political power eventually overtake by force everyone else in their vicinity, who they can and do control (”control” is a significant word to Liberals).

They don’t handle power or authority well so they have to resort to threats and when those don’t work, to actual harmful actions (threats grown more forceful). So they become fascists and then you never hear about or from your neighbors again, and you wonder if you’ll be next.

Has our human race never learned from past history?

He also doesn’t want any more lawsuits filed against New York public works and public employees when illegal aliens do what they do best: wreck the property of others and never pay for it when they do.

So he wants the NEW YORK TAXPAYERS to pay for the costs and the state to keep all the revenues. Nothing new about that especially because the Governor is a Liberal, a Democrat (and this methodology is theirs).

I think it’s a ridiculous, unethical decision and I agree with the people of N.Y. who are protesting the idea. I’m aghast that some Catholics are for this measure but it’s not realistic to say that “The Church” is because I haven’t heard the Vatican issue any proclamation about that/this.

Catholics have their share of Socialists among Bishops and a few Cardinals, nothing new there, and surely that’s who is motivating this method, which is nothing more than those involved reasoning/rationalizing licenses as a means to “better integrate” the “stranger” (legitimize the illegal aliens) (but I disagree with these analogies, too — just pointing out what I believe is the mentality behind certain supports of this licensing, um, misguidance).

Here’s one for you Dave:

Where in the NYS Constitution does the Governor’s authority rest for changing duly legislated and enacted state law by Executive Order?

In rereading your comment, I’ll suppose you are correct that many are singing a different tune because on the gay marriage issue our opposition said “patently unconstitutional” and now we are.

But we are also singing the same tune, in the sense that we are saying the facts and the law say these positions are incorrect.

This apparent incongruity is only caused by your desire to make the phrase the basis of your argument and nothing else, which was my point. What you overlook is that we were right that time and will be this time.

Skip over the buzz words and assess basis for using them, Dave.

But doesn’t the hiring of illegals depress wages, thus hurting unions?
Damian G. on October 5, 2007 at 8:38 PM

yes but if they are unionized they become due payers and the is the real bottom line.
You would think they would want to keep their members making good money.
But thats not what it is really about , its about rebuilding the ranks and collecting more dues .

Nancy Pelosi has a family owned hotel and winary {non union shop}

so why would any union support a scab shop owner?
Because it is not about the union members and there wages but about whats best for BA and the leadership .

Please tell me what I’m missing?

HarryStar on October 5, 2007 at 10:15 PM

The next plane to the Carolinas, like the rest of us.

OK, so let me get this straight…If the clerks refuse to hand out drivers licenses to ILLEGAL ALIENS, THEY will be thrown in jail????

Please tell me what I’m missing?

The marriage issue would fall under the Tenth Amendment, since it is not explicitly defined in the Constitution… The illegal alien issue refers to those who are being afforded rights given solely to American citizens and not to foreigners.

A few of points…

1) The Constitution has nothing to say about NY drivers licesnses.
2) The Constitution has nothing to say about illegal aliens.
3) Driving is not a right
4) Driving is not a privilege that is exclusively afforded to US citizens.

Discuss!

Dave, I’d agree with you if the “patently unconstitutional” argument was left as it stands unsupported

You don’t remember this discussion occurring for pretty much the entirety of 2004? The NY mayors, and later Gavin Newsom (sp?) in SF, defied state law, arguing that it was patently unconstitutional. They were pretty much making the same argument that you guys are now, while advocating that county clerks should defy state law, arguing that it is patently unconstitutional.

How is this confusing?

Dave, I’d agree with you if the “patently unconstitutional” argument was left as it stands unsupported. However, if there was substantial basis for making the argument and the basis was provided and it was persuasive then the tune I’d sing would be the same.

So, your statement appears to be nothing more than a drive-by with a Mexican driver’s license. Pull over, please and let’s see your SSN!

DaveS on October 5, 2007 at 9:46 PM

Wholly irrelevant.

The marriage issue would fall under the Tenth Amendment, since it is not explicitly defined in the Constitution and thus should be left to the people.

The illegal alien issue refers to those who are being afforded rights given solely to American citizens and not to foreigners.

And as for your exit question: It’s perfectly acceptable to defy a law if it is patently unconstitutional.

And echoed by others…

I have a feeling that most of you were singing a different tune back in 2004 when NY mayors started marrying gay couples, in defiance of state law, while arguing that it was “patently unconstitutional”.

Dusty on October 5, 2007 at 9:25 PM

You are correct. I forgot about Bruno.

The Assembly is Dem controlled but the Senate is Republican controlled. He couldn’t get the law changed without Bruno’s approval.

I have little doubt Spitzer is playing the Executive Order card, clearly violating the law I might add, and not caring about it for anything other than in the run up to 2008.

But dont think they would they are using Spitzer to take the heat they wont.

William Amos on October 5, 2007 at 9:18 PM

In the back of my mind, I wonder if Spitzer and Atty General Cuomo are not doing this at the behest of Hillary in order to add to the vote in NY come ‘08. No proof. Just a fear.