Posted on 06/25/2012 11:24:11 AM PDT by JOHN W K
.
Make no mistake, our founding fathers have never granted a power to Congress to regulate aliens within the various State borders. What they did grant to Congress is the power to set the requirements by which an alien may become a citizen of the united States. And if there is any dispute concerning the limited power granted to Congress regarding the rule of naturalization, let our founding fathers speak for themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what ``Naturalization`` [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ``doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States . . . all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.`` see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, PAGE 1152
And, REPRESENTATIVE STONE ``concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages PAGE 1156 and PAGE 1157
In addition REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution 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. 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, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148
The irrefutable fact is, the various states never delegated to Congress their original policing powers within their borders as may apply to aliens who have entered their borders illegally, and exercising this power does not interfere with Congress’ existing power to establish the requirements by which an alien may become a citizen of the united States.
By contrast, our founding fathers intentionally sought to preserve the various States power to regulate their own internal affaires as summarized in FEDERALIST 45:
“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.
The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”
And keep in mind our founding fathers gave force and effect to the above words to preserve federalism, our Constitution’s plan, when adopting the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment
Bottom line is, specific members of our Supreme Court have once again decided to engage in judicial tyranny and work to undermine the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. And the only way I see to encourage our Supreme Court Justices to start abiding by their oath to support “this Constitution” is to apply a severe punishment which they will not soon forget.
JWK
Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, [u]as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records,[/u] wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.
How do you think we’re all going to feel when the healthcare ruling goes against us on Thursday? All the wise pundits, including Rush, have been prediciting a ruling against the mandate, at the very least, due to oral arguments and the questioning of the justices. Seems like the questioning of the justices in this case were hostile to the government’s position, yet look how they ruled. My gut is that the ruling is going to be convoluted, and they will cherry pick certain elements to throw out, and keep others in place. I don’t see the whole law being thrown out. And the parts that will be thrown out won’t be anything that will matter a hill of beans to us. I wish I could sleep through these next few days and wake up at 11 AM Thursday.
There is no way in ratifying the Constitution the states did not reserve the power of sovereignty over their own borders (that is, outside the enumerated powers they sacrificed to the federal government). Anyone who thinks otherwise is a liar or an idiot. There would never have been a U.S. had the states understood themselves to be turning over any and all border issues to the fedgov.
By the way, it’s already established SCOTUS precident that the states do have border sovereignty. See, for instance, their highway checkpoints.
So far, I'm sick and tired of nine people in black robes turning back every state constitutional law and man other federal laws!
Thursday isn’t going to be pretty. We’re getting communist “health care” whether WE like it or not.
Yep, I've got that squeegy feeling too.
Wouldn't surprise me a bit if they kept the whole thing.
Bingo, well done. Yer right.
This is a big one. I have been suffering with stomach pains for the last week and now through this week waitiing for this decision. I’m trying to brace myself for the worst, especially since so many people predicted that the Supremes would uphold Arizona, and they didn’t. Everything I’ve been hearing is based solely on the tone of the justices in oral arguments, and as we learned today, you can’t count on that.
Not so, at least not so so long as we rely on those gods and goddesses in black robes determining which people in America have rights as citizens and which people do not. It would seem that citizens have no rights but illegal aliens have plenty - and we are to pay for them unto eternity.
You are missing the point. Anthony Kennedy is a globalist. He cited ONLY case law, and not the Constitution, with the sole exception of the naturalization clause. Note that he did NOT cite the clause requiring Federal defense of the borders. He and Roberts showed that they are mere stooges of businesses that are addicted to illegal slave labor and will not let it be interrupted in the critical gateway of Arizona. Now the only one standing in their way is Sheriff Joe, who patrols the 4th largest county in America in the heart of it. Look for the entire elite structure, left and right, to go after Joe with everything they’ve got.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.