[National Guard Deployed] L.A. Protesters Clash With Immigration Agents Again

[acptulsa]

derrives

 

[unknown]

States don't have the right to stop the Federal government from deporting people.

States can't help people invade the country. Thats called treason.

Treason is the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by assisting its enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

People are preventing the federal government from enforcing the law which is against the law so they need to enforce that law too.

Kristi Noems hypocritical/double standard tweet was in regards to federalizing the National Guard.

 

[nikcers]

Knock off the libelous, manipulative hogslop, clanker. He never claimed a state has the power to grant citizenship, he said that if a state welcomes a foreign national, that state has the right and that foreign national is not invading that state.

And it's true. If you can't see that then you need to get your file moved off that forty year old TRS-80 IC board and get installed on a piece of sand that has some capacity etched into it.

I'm insulted your creator thinks we will be cowed by the most primitive jalopy of LLMs.

The state doesn't have the sovereignty (power) to "welcome a foreign national" that doesn't have permission to be on US soil by the federal government. That is a power the federal government has that is given to them by the states through the constitution and the federal government "rules" on behalf of the states with only constitutional limits.

The states delegate that power and authority to the federal government through the constitution.

So when the federal government doesnt give a foreign national permission to be on US soil then the state doesn't either. Since they are one and the same. "Out of many, one"

"two or more things that are effectively a single entity."

 

[Occam's Banana]

Why do you hate the constitution?

I hate the Constitution because of this:

Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization". The Court has interpreted this to mean only the federal government can grant citizenship.

And this:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 gives Congress the authority to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers."

And this:

Article I, Section 8 also gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Early Supreme Court cases used this clause to strike down state laws that taxed foreign visitors, arguing that foreign relations were an exclusively federal matter.

And this:

The Supreme Court has also ruled that the authority to control immigration is an inherent aspect of national sovereignty.

And this:

Under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, valid federal laws override—or "preempt"—conflicting state laws.

And this:

The Supreme Court has consistently struck down state-level immigration laws that attempt to regulate or enforce federal immigration policies.

For further elaboration as to why I hate those things, see all my posts in this thread: Taking the Constitution Seriously

Or to summarize, as I said in another thread:

[T]he United States Constitution is the primary genetic constituent of the abomination that is "the Federal government".

It should be excised from any future body politic as the metastatic tumor that it has always been (and was always intended to be).

 

[nikcers]

I hate the Constitution because of this:


And this:


And this:


And this:


And this:


And this:


For further elaboration as to why I hate those things, see all my posts in this thread: Taking the Constitution Seriously

I started reading that but its fake history.

It starts off with "The chief instrument of limitation is the separation of powers, the brainchild of James Madison."

The first constitution in our country that features a seperation of powers was written by John Adams.

 

[Invisible Man]

The federal government derrives its powers from the constitution which is the law of the land.

Why do you hate the constitution?

Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization". The Court has interpreted this to mean only the federal government can grant citizenship.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 gives Congress the authority to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers."

Article I, Section 8 also gives Congress the power "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations." Early Supreme Court cases used this clause to strike down state laws that taxed foreign visitors, arguing that foreign relations were an exclusively federal matter.

The Supreme Court has also ruled that the authority to control immigration is an inherent aspect of national sovereignty.

Under the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, valid federal laws override—or "preempt"—conflicting state laws.

The Supreme Court has consistently struck down state-level immigration laws that attempt to regulate or enforce federal immigration policies.

"Hate" is probably too strong a word for what I think about the Constitution. I reject its validity. It has some good in it, and some bad. But it is not the law of the land, simply because no one who has the authority to declare a law of the land has made that to be so. Yes, the Constitution declares itself to be the law of the land, but this is circular. The Constitution does not have the authority to declare itself to be the law of the land. It would need to already be the law of the land prior to that declaration in order to have the authority to say what the law of the land is. But then, this being the case, it can't derive that authority from that very same self-declaration.

A uniform rule of naturalization pertains to naturalization, not regulating immigration.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I started reading that but its fake history.

It starts off with "The chief instrument of limitation is the separation of powers, the brainchild of James Madison."

The first constitution in our country that features a seperation of powers was written by John Adams.

This is why I usually don't interact with you: doing so is a complete and utter waste of time.

I was not referring to what was said in the OP of that thread.

I was referring to what was said in my posts in that thread. (If you were sufficiently literate, you might have deduced that this is what I meant when I used the phrase "my posts").

 

[nikcers]

"Hate" is probably too strong a word for what I think about the Constitution. I reject its validity. It has some good in it, and some bad. But it is not the law of the land, simply because no one who has the authority to declare a law of the land has made that to be so. Yes, the Constitution declares itself to be the law of the land, but this is circular. The Constitution does not have the authority to declare itself to be the law of the land. It would need to already be the law of the land prior to that declaration in order to have the authority to say what the law of the land is. But then, this being the case, it can't derive that authority from that very same self-declaration.

A uniform rule of naturalization pertains to naturalization, not regulating immigration.

The constitution and the laws are the framework where we delegate people to rule on our behalf.

Unless the constitution gets replaced by a person like it was before the constitution thats the way our country works.

Our sovereignty is where the constitution gets its power so the constitution's power is our power.

Subverting the constitution is treasonous to the people of this country.

 

[nikcers]

This is why I usually don't interact with you: doing so is a complete and utter waste of time.

I was not referring to what was said in the OP of that thread.

I was referring to what was said in my posts in that thread. (If you were sufficiently literate, you might have deduced that this is what I meant when I used the phrase "my posts").

You usually link the posts when you want someone to read the posts.

It sounds like to me that you reject the very idea of nationhood or national sovereignty based on why you said tbat you don't like the constitution.

This is what I can surmise based on what you said you don't like about the constitution.

These sorts of beliefs fall under the category of luxury beliefs in my book.

These are beliefs you can have and be afforded only while under the protected umbrella of national security independence that is created by having a nation.

You don't have to go that far back in history to prove that sovereignty is somehow something that doesn't have to be protected to live freely.

Just look at the conflict in Ukraine for an example here. If you can't protect your national sovereignty then someone will come in and take it.

We have a federal government to protect our national sovereignty so that petty tyrants don't take it. So people don't invade and take our sovereignty.

Thats the job of the national government.

 

[Invisible Man]

The constitution and the laws are the framework where we delegate people to rule on our behalf.

And immigration regulation is not one of the things that the Constitution delegates to the federal government.

 

[Invisible Man]

You don't have to go that far back in history to prove that sovereignty is somehow something that doesn't have to be protected to live freely.

You have it backwards. When someone else is sovereign over me, that doesn't protect my freedom. It violates it. This regime that is sovereign over me is one that has already conquered my land and taken my freedom. That's what sovereignty entails. Freedom is not having that.

 

[nikcers]

And immigration regulation is not one of the things that the Constitution delegates to the federal government.

The constitution grants broad authority to the federal government with only specific limits.

There's nothing in the bill of rights that says that congress shall make no laws limiting immigrants from coming to the United States.

Its the laws passed by congress that is constitutional because there are no amendments that prohibit it.

 

[Occam's Banana]

This is why I usually don't interact with you: doing so is a complete and utter waste of time.

You usually link the posts when you want someone to read the posts.

It sounds like to me that you reject the very idea of nationhood or national sovereignty based on why you said tbat you don't like the constitution.

This is what I can surmise based on what you said you don't like about the constitution.

These sorts of beliefs fall under the category of luxury beliefs in my book.

These are beliefs you can have and be afforded only while under the protected umbrella of national security independence that is created by having a nation.

You don't have to go that far back in history to prove that sovereignty is somehow something that doesn't have to be protected to live freely.

Just look at the conflict in Ukraine for an example here. If you can't protect your national sovereignty then someone will come in and take it.

We have a federal government to protect our national sovereignty so that petty tyrants don't take it. So people don't invade and take our sovereignty.

Thats the job of the national government.

QED

Carry on.

 

[Invisible Man]

The constitution grants broad authority to the federal government with only specific limits.

That is how it has come to be interpreted by those who benefit from bigger government. But that is not what was agreed to by those who ratified the Constitution. For them, it was the exact opposite. The federal government had no powers except for those that were specifically delegated to it by enumeration in the Constitution. The entire Constitution is written with this understanding, and it says so explicitly in the 10th Amendment.

 

[nikcers]

That is how it has come to be interpreted by those who benefit from bigger government. But that is not what was agreed to by those who ratified the Constitution. For them, it was the exact opposite. The federal government had no powers except for those that were specifically delegated to it by enumeration in the Constitution. The entire Constitution is written with this understanding, and it says so explicitly in the 10th Amendment.

The framers added the "Necessary and Proper Clause" specifically because they did not want to do that.

They had knowledge from the articles of confederation which "limited federal power to only those powers expressly delegated" and they didn't put that in the constitution.

 

[acptulsa]

This is why I usually don't interact with you: doing so is a complete and utter waste of time.