Interesting. I suggest posting this tomorrow morning when there’s more traffic.
ping
They will claim sovereign immunity.
This is nothing more than one more article or amendment to the US Constitution that the government ignores. All three branches ignore, violate or step all over the constituion. The article requiring protecting this country means absolutely nothing to the professional politicians in Washington.
They’re doing to to ward off inflation and keep prices low for everyday Americans.
Just wanted to mention that I heard today that this is a big defeat for the White House. My comment was maybe so...however, it is a VICTORY for the American Citizens.
Comments? Yes — what, then, is our recourse? As in, “And if they don’t....” I keep coming back to the Declaration of Independence, where it states — ‘But when a long train of abuses ... (continues) it is their right, it is their duty, to THROW OFF SUCH A GOVERNMENT and to provide new guards for their future security.’
I say we SUE.
You can’t sue a congresscritter, they are above the law.
Okay...let’s try and not delve into the “conspiracy” theory of the fed’s incompetent responses to illegal immigration, and the current utterly incomprehensible desire to bestow amnesty.
it is certainly not some clever “scheme” to avoid lawsuits filed by states for failing to follow any part of the Constitution.
There is no such thing as a law suit based upon a provision of the Constitution . . . in and of itself.
There must first be some legislative basis for the suit in federal court. There is no statute (of which I am aware) that provides the basis for a law suit by a state against the federal government for failing to protect against “invasion.” The Constitution itself provides no legal basis for suit.
Nor is there any jurisdiction under which a state could sue the federal government for not protecting against “invasion.” (Would it were . . . but it ain’t)
For example. For an individual to sue a governmental “actor” for violation of civil rights (i.e., under color of state law), one must look to statute to provide the basis for suit: 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983, et seq., the Civil Rights Act - which provides the legal basis for bringing suit for violation of civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
sr
I still think this has a lot to do with Bush’s idea of the One World Order or New World Order and the North American Union. From what I understand, we are to know something about that in Sept.
my understanding long ago was that Senators represent the governments of the States, and that the representatives of the House represent the people......and that the offices of Secretaries of State were not created to regulate drivers licenses.....
These seem like the top possibles to me:
1) The American Economy will collapse without it.
2) The money interests who need to buy our debt regularily demand it.
3) The business interest who run what’s left of America demand it.
4) It is well known that if we start doing this legally (throw them out like the law says) there will be escalating violence by them? If anything like this is it they _must_ be tossed, soon.
It’s quite simple IMO. Both Republicans and Dems are pandering for future voters. They think by appearing to be kind gringos they will tap into the one of the largest growing groups of voters (and future voters).
Bush blew this big time. He should have came out in force for Phase I - secure the border - rallied the conservative base. Then work out a separate Phase II bill to deal with illegals already here. Plan would have no guest worker and a process for illegals to become legal if they went home and applied there and got in line with everyone else but no special deal for them. Illegals would not go for it even if it passed. Dems would not have gone for the bill and claimed it was farce (which it was) so it would have died. But Bush could have claimed to have been sympathetic to the Latino’s plight and blamed defeat on dems etc. In other words Bush could have first secured the border, rallied the base and then played politics with the rest of the issue splitting the dems in the process instead of the reverse happening.
But he didn't do it because he wrongly believes pandering to this voter block is smart for Republicans, his compassionate conservative weird beliefs and family connections etc That’s my take.
This is awesome. Yes. I absolutely think that a State would be able to bring a suit against the U.S. government on this basis.
They could care less what the voters think, except at electin time when they will lie to you just to get your vote then screw you again.
My theory is that the reason that multiple Presidents have allowed Mexicans to walk across the border is that they are releasing the pressure on the Mexican government...but not just to be nice.
The reason is (IMO) that American Presidents are afraid that if they close the border, the poor, hopeless masses of Mexicans will make Mexico a Socialist country...either through an open revolt, or just by voting for a Socialist. Think of a Chavez type as Mexico’s president. I think our government wants to avoid that kind of situation...
Be gentle...these are just the musings of someone who lived through the Cold War....
I think you would have to tailor your suit similar to how the enviro’s sue the EPA, and other “interest groups” sue the government. I think you would have to sue the Border Patrol, not Congress.
Great post. ping.
The backers of a pan global, super sovereign state believe they need to diminish the United States in relation to other countries so that the idea of giving up sovereignty seems more palatable to citizens who perceive that they exist on the same level as most other countries rather than on a superior level.
Just such a divergence of beliefs exists in relation to immigration. One worlders want to reduce the level of European identification in Americans. A people who identify with Greek ideals, Roman statecraft, westernized Christianity, classical art, and European style empire building in the pursuit of trade, can hardly be expected to have any interest in sacrificing their hard won constitutional sovereignty, complete with a bill of rights, checks and balances, an independent judiciary, and the most powerful military in the world.
This generalized feeling of the superiority of Western traditions can be diminished with a massive infusion of non-Europeans into the U.S. hence the divergence by Bush from the more conservative ideas of preserving national borders and maintaining the rule of law.
In the long run the new world order will win out. The trend of history is in the direction of increasingly consolidated power. Americans need to refuse to go along with any model that subverts constitutional limitations on the power of government. On a positive note, when nations pass sovereignty on to a higher level they give up the power to make war on one another and the reduced function of borders will enhance trade and cultural interchange.