Trenacker wrote:
It seems manifestly obvious to me that the very existence of the practice called legislative amendment renders illegitimate the idea that, merely by offering a set of opinions on law after it has gone to vote, an elected lawmaker can clarify its meaning.
Why would a legislator advise an amendment that changes a law to mean what he believes it already does? If later generations find the original wording unclear but some voting legislator did not, that voting legislator's understanding of the law, if recorded for posterity, may clarify things. That is true even if the legislator is not an author or co-sponsor, but only part of the debate. This is not true of new opinions of that legislator arrived at outside of legislative debate (such as afterward), as they may not be the same as his opinions during the debate and vote (ie, the actual legislative process).
Trenacker wrote:
lawmakers other than the sponsor lack standing to be considered authorities on what was meant by the use of particular words or passages.
If a lawmaker influences the bill's ratification into law, he has demonstrated his standing by that influence. Influencing other lawmaker's understanding of the bill by legislative debate qualifies, since that is precisely the understanding future seekers of legislative intent are looking for.
Trenacker wrote:
[Judicial rulings that consider the understanding of legislators who have not read the bill are] judicial activism -- literally affixing a probably unintended meaning through the act of rendering an opinion that, at least as you have described it, is intended to "blunt" rather than merely to interpret, the law.
That depends on whether you consider the unread, unclear language to more accurately express lawmakers' intents than their understanding as expressed in the debate. Apparently you do, while I do not.
Trenacker wrote:
Are you arguing that it seems incongruous to extend rights or privileges to persons who break U.S. law in order to make themselves subject to it?
Yes. By metaphor, one cannot amend the procedure by which laws are enacted via the new process to be created; you must use the procedure you wish to amend away. Similarly, we have a legal procedure for entering our legal jurisdiction. Evading that procedure should not gain you that same entry; otherwise, why have any legal procedure?
Trenacker wrote:
Are you arguing that, from a philosophical perspective, illegal immigrants are merely non-resident foreigners -- that is, citizens of other countries -- and that their attempts to settle permanently in the United States do not actually change that fact, existing judicial decisions notwithstanding?
Their national citizenship is not at stake; illegal immigrants to the USA are, by definition, not citizens of the USA. But if you replace the phrase "citizens of other countries" with "to be treated by law as if attempting to pass through customs," that is basically correct.
Trenacker wrote:
Semantics.
If it is, so is your claim that it's judicial activism. Whatever you may call it, clarifying unclear language in a law by referring to the process that created the law is a proper power for the courts to hold. Doing the same by referring to other sources -- newspaper articles, books of political commentary, foreign precedents, etc -- is improper, and I would save the label "judicial activism" for them.
Trenacker wrote:
My argument is that your list of the means by which a court can effectively interpret meaning includes measures that could result in legal travesty.
How is "travesty" not semantics? My expressed view of the role of legislative intent strictly limits it's scope to the ratification process that created the law -- it's authorship, legislative comment and debate that shapes it's understanding, the congressional votes resulting from that understanding, and Presidential comment and signature. The scope of legislative intent is limited to clarifying the meaning of the text when the text itself lacks some element of context that legislative intent can provide. On the whole, it is narrow, clear, and controlled. I see no way in which a criticism like "legal travesty" applies.
Trenacker wrote:
Quote:
I think a simultaneous loosening of the immigration cap and enforcement crackdown on illegal immigration would make the legal process more appealing and evasion of it less so. It won't fix everything, but it would reduce the illegal immigration rate to such an extent that perhaps no long-term illegal underclass would remain; certainly it would be reduced.
[1] But how to overcome business owners' reluctant to inquire into the background of new workers? [2] How to address the enormous incentives that some politicians have to excuse illegal immigration in order to curry favor with particular constituencies?
[1] Part of the "enforcement crackdown on illegal immigration" could increase fines for hiring day workers or for failing to check or report legal status to work; or mandate random checks of employees' work status by law enforcement; or whatever means seem effective to legislators. But more importantly, the law enforcement necessity for such employer procedures would reduce if the incentive to immigrate could be met through legal entry more easily than now, and less easily than now through evading legal procedure. Even if people have no respect for immigration law, they will more often do what it is easier.
[2] I think this plan would appeal to your "particular constituencies" because it seeks as it's final goals an open border and the legal work status of immigrants. I haven't addressed how to handle existing illegals because, comparatively, it doesn't matter. Once you fix the leaking pipe, what to do with the water no longer needs to be a rushed decision. I'd prefer they pay some fine for their evasion and have a road to citizenship available to them, but once the leak is fixed I'm up for anything. If your "particular constituencies" and their representatives want amnesty after that, it's fine by me.
CKA Elite 
