What has happened to this country , in a word or
two, is this: over the decades, the Central Government has robbed the people
of their power enshrined in a thing
called the Constitution. All Central
Government has to do is create a law that is upheld in our courts, and then refuse to fulfill or enforce that
law.
Example:
The Federal Government has a law that states that it, and it
alone, has the right and responsibility
to enforce border law. A commie such as
Obama comes along, a fellow who is bent
on open borders and a world in which the U.S. no longer is a sovereign nation,
and, decides not to enforce the Federal
law. And, the Supreme Court approves. In effect, and because of this idiot decision by Roberts
and all four of the most liberal justices on the Court, we
have a situation in which border states
cannot protect their own territory and have lost any semblance of sovereignty.
The 10th Amendment is of no legal consequence, whatsoever,
regardless of what the Supremes decide on Thursday. If
the Federal Government will not protect the borders, and, the Courts will not allow the states to do
so, what do we have if not a nation in
which the states no longer matter, their
territories are wholly the property of Central Control.
While Justice Scalia has the good sense to see
the implications of today’s Arizona versus Obama court decision, few other have the same capacity.
Here is a part of Justice Scalia’s blistering
dissent. It is to the very point of
my commentary.
Justice Scalia:
. . . . . But to say . . . . . . . . r that Arizona contradicts federal law
by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the
President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
Would the States conceivably have entered into the
Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s
holding? Today’s judgment surely fails that test. At the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates contended with
“the jealousy of the states with regard to their
sovereignty.” 1 Records of the Federal Convention 19 (M. Farrand
ed. 1911) (statement of Edmund Randolph). Through ratification of the fundamental charter that the
Convention produced, the States ceded much of their
sovereignty to the Federal Government. But much of it remained
jealously guarded—as reflected in the innumerable
proposals that never left Independence Hall. Now, imagine a
provision— perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, cl. 4,
the Naturalization Clause—which included among the
enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations
upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be
enforced only to the extent the President deems
appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have
rushed to the exits.. . .
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not
in contradiction of federal law, but in complete
compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not
extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but
merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing
its territory in this fashion is not within the power of
Arizona, we
should cease referring to it as a sovereign
State. I dissent.
You can read the majority opinion and the several dissenting opinions in the PDF found here.
No comments:
Post a Comment