In response to:

The Roberts Opinion: It's Not All Bad

kenar Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 9:27 PM
USSC-Judge Kennedy, Is a Liar and an Enemy of the USA ! It should also be noted that our Federal Government has never been granted power to regulat “Immigration” ! The word "Immigration" is nowhere to be found in our US Constitution ! The actual power granted to the Fed-Govt is that which allows Congress to create the requirements by which an alien becomes a “citizen of the United States”. And this grant of power is stated as follows: USC - "Congress shall have power To establish an uniform Rule of "Naturalization" The meaning of “Naturalization” is nothing more than the act by which an "alien becomes a citizen." Congress, under our USC, is granted exclusive power to establish a uniform rule by which an alien may become a ciitizen,
kenar Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 9:27 PM
regardless of what State the alien migrates to.

But the power over “Naturalization” does not, nor was it intended to, interfere with a particular State’s original policing powers, even over aliens wishing to immigrate into the State.

And this is verified by the following documentation which our founding fathers debated, our nation’s "Rule of Naturalization" in 1790.

Rep Sherman, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our USC points to the intentions for which a power over "Naturalization" was granted to Congress.

He says: “that Congress should have the power of "Naturalization", in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner.
kenar Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 9:28 PM
It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of "Naturalization",

rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.”

see Congressional Debates,

In addition, Rep White while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization”, the power granted to Congress, means:

”The power vested by the USC in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of "Naturalization"

Rule of Naturalization, Feb 3rd, 1790, pgs-1148-1152-1156-1157 - 576 - 578 - 579

John Roberts is not a “traitor to his philosophy.” He is not a liberal. He is, above all else, a very strict originalist, and the Chief Justice of a Court that is acutely aware – and wary – of its role in politics. Understand that his opinion, though certainly not ideal for the Right, contains more good news for conservatives in its pages than it does on its face.

So let’s take a look at his surprising opinion – the controlling opinion, as it’s called, which sets precedent and “say[s] what the law is,” as Marshall said so long...