- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,894
Feds warn Texas not to enforce state-level immigration bill
- Thread starter Occam's Banana
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,894
Weston White
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2007
- Messages
- 4,956
For additional consideration is the Calling Forth Clause; noting however that Congress has delegated its power to the President through its enactment of the Militia Acts and SCOTUS has mostly upheld them in various cases:
Ergo, the President may only use the militia to enforce its enumerated powers during emergencies and state militias may only be used defensively as they are civilian forces under law--Therefore, the President may not legally call upon any state's militia to aid in the furtherance of abetting a system or process that he has deemed to be "broken" or failed.
It's withstanding that the militia may only be used to: 1) execute the Laws of the Union, 2) suppress Insurrections, or 3) repel Invasions; especially that Congress (and the President) are duty-bound to uniformly enforce the "Rule of Naturalization" so established under law. Thus it is clear that a state taking just and reasonable measures to counter statutory illegalities does not meet any of the stipulations required with our U.S. Constitution.
...So, as so many wise people have stated before, Joe Biden can go eat a dick!
Ergo, the President may only use the militia to enforce its enumerated powers during emergencies and state militias may only be used defensively as they are civilian forces under law--Therefore, the President may not legally call upon any state's militia to aid in the furtherance of abetting a system or process that he has deemed to be "broken" or failed.
It's withstanding that the militia may only be used to: 1) execute the Laws of the Union, 2) suppress Insurrections, or 3) repel Invasions; especially that Congress (and the President) are duty-bound to uniformly enforce the "Rule of Naturalization" so established under law. Thus it is clear that a state taking just and reasonable measures to counter statutory illegalities does not meet any of the stipulations required with our U.S. Constitution.
...So, as so many wise people have stated before, Joe Biden can go eat a dick!
A Son of Liberty
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2010
- Messages
- 6,514
It's things like this that is going to make this civil war the best one ever.
Invisible Man
Member
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2019
- Messages
- 4,613
They signed a letter. And it doesn't end with the words, "[FONT="] we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." [/FONT]There's nothing there for them to "Hold!"
This letter has one purpose and one purpose only. For Republicans brag about when asking for money from gullible dittoheads.
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 118,677
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,894
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 118,677
Don't you live in NH? I was under the (mistaken?) impression it had gone shitlib. Not so?
I grieve not seeing my own state of Michigan on that list. We have a female Satanic trifecta in power here and Detroit.
Yes I do...but there is some strange stuff going on here that I have not been able to put my finger on.
Stay tuned...
ClaytonB
Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 10,795
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,894
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 40,894
https://twitter.com/ThomasEWoods/status/1750971956218716436
to: https://twitter.com/ThomasEWoods/status/1750971993682509856
{Tom Woods @ThomasEWoods | 26 January 2024}
Texas is in the right constitutionally (in case that still matters to anybody).
I've heard some people say this: since immigration per se is not mentioned in the Constitution (although naturalization is), then the relevant power rests with the states. Such people proceed to deploy this argument in defense of so-called "sanctuary cities."
But if that argument can defend sanctuary cities, it can also and to the same extent defend the Texas move to try to staunch the flow of illegals coming through the southern border. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.
Now you may say: Woods, I don't care about the Constitution. I care only about liberty!
You are free to say and think such a thing, and other people are free to be curious as to what American history and its constitutional tradition might have to say about the present situation.
And the facts are these:
The United States is not now, never was, and was never intended to be, a single, undifferentiated blob whose central government exercised plenary power.
The states preceded the Union, the same way the bride and groom precede the marriage. The Declaration of Independence speaks of "free and independent states" (and by "states" it means places like Spain and France) that "have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do."
The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of a group of states, which they proceeded to list one by one.
The states performed activities that we associate with sovereignty. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and South Carolina outfitted ships to cruise against the British. It was the troops of Connecticut that took Ticonderoga.
In New Hampshire, the executive was authorized to issue letters of marque and reprisal. In 1776 it was declared that the crime of treason would be thought of as being perpetrated not against the states united into an indivisible blob, but against the states individually.
Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states "retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence"; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to "retain" it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted.
The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.
And according to the great international lawyer Emmerich de Vattel in his 1758 book The Law of Nations, sovereignty is not forfeited by joining a confederation.
In the American system the peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.
Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power.
No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether that agent has or should have such-and-such power.
In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created.
James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800:
"The resolution [of 1798] of the General Assembly [of Virginia] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential right of the parties to it.
"The resolution supposes that dangerous powers not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT MAY ALSO EXERCISE OR SANCTION DANGEROUS POWERS BEYOND THE GRANT OF THE CONSTITUTION; and consequently that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution [in other words, the states -- TW], to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another, by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature." [Emphasis added.]
In other words, the courts have their role, but in "great and extraordinary cases" it would be absurd for the states, the fundamental building blocks of the United States, not to be able to defend themselves against the exercise of usurped power, even when the usurpation occurs at the hands of the courts. The logic of sovereignty and the American Union demand it.
These arguments were advanced by leading jurists in early American history and were taken for granted in political discourse in both North and South alike -- and in fact the states asserted themselves in this manner more often in the North than in the South.
To be sure, one can find plenty of bad arguments against this position -- e.g., (a) "the Civil War settled that," (b) the Supremacy Clause means "federal law trumps state law," (c) James Madison opposed the idea of nullification, and (d) nullification is unconstitutional because it isn't expressly mentioned in the Constitution -- and I've answered them all in my 2010 book Nullification (here's the audiobook link for those of you who enjoy listening: https://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Thomas-E-Woods-Jr-audiobook/dp/B003VXK7BU/).
Here's the larger point: this is the kind of material nobody learns in school, and especially in law school.
Years ago I lectured to a packed room at Columbia Law School (and later at other law schools, like Rutgers, the University of Missouri, and Florida International University, to name a few) and advanced these (unjustly) controversial propositions. Not a single person dared contradict me. Nobody in the room knew anything.
There is scarcely a classroom in America in which you'll learn a word of what I've written here.
Hence Liberty Classroom, my dashboard university for normal people.
Discounted entry for the next 24 hours with coupon code TEXAS: https://LibertyClassroom.com
to: https://twitter.com/ThomasEWoods/status/1750971993682509856
{Tom Woods @ThomasEWoods | 26 January 2024}
Texas is in the right constitutionally (in case that still matters to anybody).
I've heard some people say this: since immigration per se is not mentioned in the Constitution (although naturalization is), then the relevant power rests with the states. Such people proceed to deploy this argument in defense of so-called "sanctuary cities."
But if that argument can defend sanctuary cities, it can also and to the same extent defend the Texas move to try to staunch the flow of illegals coming through the southern border. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, after all.
Now you may say: Woods, I don't care about the Constitution. I care only about liberty!
You are free to say and think such a thing, and other people are free to be curious as to what American history and its constitutional tradition might have to say about the present situation.
And the facts are these:
The United States is not now, never was, and was never intended to be, a single, undifferentiated blob whose central government exercised plenary power.
The states preceded the Union, the same way the bride and groom precede the marriage. The Declaration of Independence speaks of "free and independent states" (and by "states" it means places like Spain and France) that "have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do."
The British acknowledged the independence not of a single blob, but of a group of states, which they proceeded to list one by one.
The states performed activities that we associate with sovereignty. Massachusetts, Connecticut, and South Carolina outfitted ships to cruise against the British. It was the troops of Connecticut that took Ticonderoga.
In New Hampshire, the executive was authorized to issue letters of marque and reprisal. In 1776 it was declared that the crime of treason would be thought of as being perpetrated not against the states united into an indivisible blob, but against the states individually.
Article II of the Articles of Confederation says the states "retain their sovereignty, freedom, and independence"; they must have enjoyed that sovereignty in the past in order for them to "retain" it in 1781 when the Articles were officially adopted.
The ratification of the Constitution was accomplished not by a single, national vote, but by the individual ratifications of the various states, each assembled in convention.
And according to the great international lawyer Emmerich de Vattel in his 1758 book The Law of Nations, sovereignty is not forfeited by joining a confederation.
In the American system the peoples of the states are the sovereigns. It is they who apportion powers between themselves, their state governments, and the federal government. In doing so they are not impairing their sovereignty in any way. To the contrary, they are exercising it.
Since the peoples of the states are the sovereigns, then when the federal government exercises a power of dubious constitutionality on a matter of great importance, it is they themselves who are the proper disputants, as they review whether their agent was intended to hold such a power.
No other arrangement makes sense. No one asks his agent whether that agent has or should have such-and-such power.
In other words, the very nature of sovereignty, and of the American system itself, is such that the sovereigns must retain the power to restrain the agent they themselves created.
James Madison explains this clearly in the famous Virginia Report of 1800:
"The resolution [of 1798] of the General Assembly [of Virginia] relates to those great and extraordinary cases, in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the essential right of the parties to it.
"The resolution supposes that dangerous powers not delegated, may not only be usurped and executed by the other departments, but that THE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT MAY ALSO EXERCISE OR SANCTION DANGEROUS POWERS BEYOND THE GRANT OF THE CONSTITUTION; and consequently that the ultimate right of the parties to the Constitution [in other words, the states -- TW], to judge whether the compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to violations by one delegated authority, as well as by another, by the judiciary, as well as by the executive, or the legislature." [Emphasis added.]
In other words, the courts have their role, but in "great and extraordinary cases" it would be absurd for the states, the fundamental building blocks of the United States, not to be able to defend themselves against the exercise of usurped power, even when the usurpation occurs at the hands of the courts. The logic of sovereignty and the American Union demand it.
These arguments were advanced by leading jurists in early American history and were taken for granted in political discourse in both North and South alike -- and in fact the states asserted themselves in this manner more often in the North than in the South.
To be sure, one can find plenty of bad arguments against this position -- e.g., (a) "the Civil War settled that," (b) the Supremacy Clause means "federal law trumps state law," (c) James Madison opposed the idea of nullification, and (d) nullification is unconstitutional because it isn't expressly mentioned in the Constitution -- and I've answered them all in my 2010 book Nullification (here's the audiobook link for those of you who enjoy listening: https://www.amazon.com/Nullification-Thomas-E-Woods-Jr-audiobook/dp/B003VXK7BU/).
Here's the larger point: this is the kind of material nobody learns in school, and especially in law school.
Years ago I lectured to a packed room at Columbia Law School (and later at other law schools, like Rutgers, the University of Missouri, and Florida International University, to name a few) and advanced these (unjustly) controversial propositions. Not a single person dared contradict me. Nobody in the room knew anything.
There is scarcely a classroom in America in which you'll learn a word of what I've written here.
Hence Liberty Classroom, my dashboard university for normal people.
Discounted entry for the next 24 hours with coupon code TEXAS: https://LibertyClassroom.com
Last edited:
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 118,677
Breaking: Chris Sununu Joins 24 Governors to Stand With Texas
https://granitegrok.com/blog/2024/01/breaking-chris-sununu-joins-24-governors-to-stand-with-texas
BY STEVE MACDONALD / 25 JANUARY 2024
With the Biden Administration attacking Texas for trying to protect Americans from the illegal Alien invasion and the Supreme Court not finding a reason to let Texas do it, the Lone Star State “declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself.”
And the Lone Star state won’t have to go it alone.
Interestingly enough, and unexpectedly, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed on to the statement, which says,
“President Biden and his Administration have left Americans and our country completely vulnerable to unprecedented illegal immigration pouring across the Southern border. Instead of upholding the rule of law and securing the border, the Biden Administration has attacked and sued Texas for stepping up to protect American citizens from historic levels of illegal immigrants, deadly drugs like fentanyl, and terrorists entering our country.
“We stand in solidarity with our fellow Governor, Greg Abbott, and the State of Texas in utilizing every tool and strategy, including razor wire fences, to secure the border. We do it in part because the Biden Administration is refusing to enforce immigration laws already on the books and is illegally allowing mass parole across America of migrants who entered our country illegally.
“The authors of the U.S. Constitution made clear that in times like this, states have a right of self-defense, under Article 4, Section 4 and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Because the Biden Administration has abdicated its constitutional compact duties to the states, Texas has every legal justification to protect the sovereignty of our states and our nation.”
Signatories include: Governor Kay Ivey (AL), Governor Mike Dunleavy (AK), Governor Sarah Sanders (AR), Governor Ron DeSantis (FL), Governor Brian Kemp (GA), Governor Brad Little (ID), Governor Eric Holcomb (IN), Governor Kim Reynolds (IA), Governor Jeff Landry (LA), Governor Tate Reeves (MS), Governor Mike Parson (MO), Governor Greg Gianforte (MT), Governor Jim Pillen (NE), Governor Joe Lombardo (NV), Governor Chris Sununu (NH), Governor Doug Burgum (ND), Governor Mike DeWine (OH), Governor Kevin Stitt (OK), Governor Henry McMaster (SC), Governor Kristi Noem (SD), Governor Bill Lee (TN), Governor Spencer Cox (UT), Governor Glenn Youngkin (VA), Governor Jim Justice (WV), and Governor Mark Gordon (WY).
A letter is nice, and 25 states are half of the whole, so it has some meaning, but I’m curious about what else is involved. Is this simply an act of solidarity? Will these states provide material support in court or at the border?
New Hampshire has a border, and it needs protecting, too, as the chaos in the south distracts from the rise in drug and human trafficking coming down from Canada – which has no problem jailing truckers but can’t seem to keep Mexicans out of Quebec.
I’m not saying we need help, but we need something, and Texas needs more than a letter. But I’ll admit to being impressed and thankful for the show of support. We give the governor a lot of crap which – admittedly – he brings on himself, but we’ve always been balanced about it. When we see good, we say as much, and this, Governor Sununu, is good.
https://granitegrok.com/blog/2024/01/breaking-chris-sununu-joins-24-governors-to-stand-with-texas
BY STEVE MACDONALD / 25 JANUARY 2024
With the Biden Administration attacking Texas for trying to protect Americans from the illegal Alien invasion and the Supreme Court not finding a reason to let Texas do it, the Lone Star State “declared an invasion under Article I, § 10, Clause 3 to invoke Texas’s constitutional authority to defend and protect itself.”
And the Lone Star state won’t have to go it alone.
Interestingly enough, and unexpectedly, New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu signed on to the statement, which says,
“President Biden and his Administration have left Americans and our country completely vulnerable to unprecedented illegal immigration pouring across the Southern border. Instead of upholding the rule of law and securing the border, the Biden Administration has attacked and sued Texas for stepping up to protect American citizens from historic levels of illegal immigrants, deadly drugs like fentanyl, and terrorists entering our country.
“We stand in solidarity with our fellow Governor, Greg Abbott, and the State of Texas in utilizing every tool and strategy, including razor wire fences, to secure the border. We do it in part because the Biden Administration is refusing to enforce immigration laws already on the books and is illegally allowing mass parole across America of migrants who entered our country illegally.
“The authors of the U.S. Constitution made clear that in times like this, states have a right of self-defense, under Article 4, Section 4 and Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. Because the Biden Administration has abdicated its constitutional compact duties to the states, Texas has every legal justification to protect the sovereignty of our states and our nation.”
Signatories include: Governor Kay Ivey (AL), Governor Mike Dunleavy (AK), Governor Sarah Sanders (AR), Governor Ron DeSantis (FL), Governor Brian Kemp (GA), Governor Brad Little (ID), Governor Eric Holcomb (IN), Governor Kim Reynolds (IA), Governor Jeff Landry (LA), Governor Tate Reeves (MS), Governor Mike Parson (MO), Governor Greg Gianforte (MT), Governor Jim Pillen (NE), Governor Joe Lombardo (NV), Governor Chris Sununu (NH), Governor Doug Burgum (ND), Governor Mike DeWine (OH), Governor Kevin Stitt (OK), Governor Henry McMaster (SC), Governor Kristi Noem (SD), Governor Bill Lee (TN), Governor Spencer Cox (UT), Governor Glenn Youngkin (VA), Governor Jim Justice (WV), and Governor Mark Gordon (WY).
A letter is nice, and 25 states are half of the whole, so it has some meaning, but I’m curious about what else is involved. Is this simply an act of solidarity? Will these states provide material support in court or at the border?
New Hampshire has a border, and it needs protecting, too, as the chaos in the south distracts from the rise in drug and human trafficking coming down from Canada – which has no problem jailing truckers but can’t seem to keep Mexicans out of Quebec.
I’m not saying we need help, but we need something, and Texas needs more than a letter. But I’ll admit to being impressed and thankful for the show of support. We give the governor a lot of crap which – admittedly – he brings on himself, but we’ve always been balanced about it. When we see good, we say as much, and this, Governor Sununu, is good.
Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 118,677
Now that is hilarious...
That made him look like Lemmy Kilmister.
susano
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,359
That question of who has the ultimate control over the National Guard is confusing. I've seen various answers (never researched it, myself) that indicate there are states National Guard, controlled by governors and National Guard that can be federalized. What is the truth about this?
I was glad to hear Abbott's brief mention of addressing more of that border, beyond Eagle Pass. The whole damn thing needs to be secured. I think their own border is over 1000 miles.
When I imagine securing a border, which I think could be easily done, I think of something like putting in a road, from one end to the other, with mini stations for personnel every five miles or so, with electronic surveillance, visual from guard towers, drones and patrol cars. That would also boost the local economies. Does that sound like DMZ between the Koreas? It doesn't sound very "libertarian", I know, but wtf else can be done? Rome collapsed from corruption and being overrun by outsiders. It's probably a lost cause, by now, but if it's not then that fucking border needs to be under control or a billion will come and most will go on some form welfare. That type of border would also animals to pass freely and I always think about them. No borders for them and they need protection. That environment, too. Ugh. Every square foot needs to be cleaned up of all of that trash! The dangerous razor wire could go in a plan such as I've suggested. I hate the shit because I think of some poor animal getting in it.
PAF
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2012
- Messages
- 13,965
Sure, with wall segments costing American taxpayers up to $46 Million per mile, why not?
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/brie...omeland-security-plans-for-border-wall-funds/
Though, that is a hefty price tag to hate ourselves for our freedoms.
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2007
- Messages
- 64,262
susano
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 5,359
First off, would they? Second, could they, really? Biden and his administration seems to find plenty of money and weapons for Ukraine, some of which I don't think was specifically appropriated. It seems lots of funds flow on orders from the State Dept and I don't know they get away with that. Then the student loan forgiveness. Where does that money come from if not appropriated?
Madison320
Member
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2012
- Messages
- 6,130
I've been checking google news and this story isn't even making it there. I wonder why?
Similar threads
