Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arizona v. United States--- Scalia's Dissenting Bench Statement
Justice Antonin Scalia ^ | June 25, 2012 | Justice Antonin Scalia

Posted on 06/25/2012 11:01:20 AM PDT by thouworm

June 25, 2012 Justice Antonin Scalia Bench Statement

Rich food for thought in Justice Scalia's dissenting Bench Statement. I have taken liberty to change paragraphing for easier reading (but note Scalia's use of italics).

Scalia's last two paragraphs below. Full Bench Statement follows.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.

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. For these reasons, I dissent.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: aliens; arizonavus; illegals; ruling; sb1070; scalia; scotus; scotusarizonalaw; scotusimmigration
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last
June 25, 2012 Justice Antonin Scalia Bench Statement

No.11-182 - Arizona v. United States

For almost a century after the Constitution was ratified, there were no federal immigration laws except one of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts that was discredited and allowed to expire. In that first century all regulation of immigration was by the States, which excluded various categories of would-be immigrants, including convicted criminals and indigents. Indeed, many questioned whether the federal government had any power to control immigration—that was Jefferson’s and Madison’s objection to the Alien Act.

The States’ power to control immigration, however, has always been accepted, and is indeed reflected in some provisions of the Constitution. The provision that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” was a revision of the provision in the Articles of Confederation which gave those privileges and immunities to “inhabitants” of each State. It was revised because giving that protection to mere “inhabitants” would allow the immigration policies of one State to be imposed on the others. Even that revision was not thought to be enough, because the States were not willing to have their immigration policies determined by the citizenship requirements of other States. Hence the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution, which enables the federal government to control who can be a citizen.

Of course the federal power to control immigration was ultimately accepted, and rightly so. But where does that power come from? Jefferson and Madison were correct that it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution’s enumeration of federal powers. The federal power over immigration cannot plausibly derive from the Naturalization Clause. Not only does the power to confer citizenship have nothing to do with the power to exclude immigrants, but, as I have described, the Naturalization Clause was a vindication of state rather than federal power over immigration.

Federal power over immigration comes from the same source as state power over immigration: it is an inherent attribute—perhaps the fundamental attribute— of sovereignty. The States, of course, are sovereign, the United States being a Union of sovereign States. To be sovereign is necessarily to possess the power to exclude unwanted persons and things from the territory. That is why the Constitution’s prohibition of a State’s imposing duties on imports made an exception for “what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws.”

Thus, this Court’s cases have held that the States retain an inherent power to exclude. That power can be limited only by the Constitution or by laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution. The Constitution, as we have seen, does not limit the States’ power over immigration but to the contrary vindicates it. So the question in this case is whether the laws of the United States forbid what Arizona has done.

Our cases have held, with regard to claimed federal abridgment by law of another inherent sovereign power of the States—their sovereign immunity from suit—that the abridgement must be “unequivocally expressed.” The same requirement must apply here; and there is no unequivocal congressional prohibition of what Arizona has done. It is not enough to say that the federal immigration laws implicitly “occupy the field.” No federal law says that the States cannot have their own immigration law.

Of course the Supremacy Clause establishes that federal immigration law is supreme, so that the States’ immigration laws cannot conflict with it—cannot admit those whom federal law would exclude or exclude those whom federal law would admit But that has not occurred here. Arizona has attached consequences under state law to acts that are unlawful under federal law—illegal aliens’ presence in Arizona and their failure to maintain federal alien registration. It is not at all unusual for state law to impose additional penalties or attach additional consequences to acts that are unlawful under federal law—state drug laws are a good example. That does not conflict with federal law.

In sum, Arizona is entitled to impose additional penalties and consequences for violations of the federal immigration laws, because it is entitled to have its own immigration laws.

As my opinion describes in more detail, however, most of the provisions challenged here do not even impose additional penalties or consequences for violation of federal immigration laws; they merely apply stricter enforcement. The federal government would have us believe (and the Court today agrees) that even that is forbidden.

The government’s brief asserted that “the Executive Branch’s ability to exercise discretion and set priorities is particularly important because of the need to allocate scarce enforcement resources wisely.” But there is no reason why the federal Executive’s need to allocate its scarce enforcement resources should disable Arizona from devoting its resources to illegal immigration in Arizona that in its view the Federal Executive has given short shrift.

Arizona asserts without contradiction and with supporting citations the following: “[I]n the last decade federal enforcement efforts have focused primarily on areas in California and Texas, leaving Arizona’s border to suffer from comparative neglect. The result has been the funneling of an increasing tide of illegal border crossings into Arizona.

Indeed, over the past decade, over a third of the Nation’s illegal border crossings occurred in Arizona,” Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the Executive’s unwise targeting of that funding?

But leave that aside. It has become clear that federal enforcement priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate so-called scarce enforcement resources—is not the problem here. After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1 .4 million illegal immigrants. The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since those resources will be eaten up by the considerable administrative cost of conducting the nonenforcement program, which will require as many as 1.4 million background checks and biennial rulings on requests for dispensation.

The President has said that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.

The Court’s opinion paints what it considers a looming specter of inutterable horror: “If §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations,” That seems to me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A federal government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws exclude.

So the issue is a stark one: Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?

A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, ci. 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 from Independence Hall.

As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit.

Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.

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. For these reasons, I dissent.

1 posted on 06/25/2012 11:01:25 AM PDT by thouworm
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: thouworm

Just another reason to love Scalia


2 posted on 06/25/2012 11:04:20 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

PFL


3 posted on 06/25/2012 11:04:52 AM PDT by Batman11 (Obama's poll numbers are so low the Kenyans are claiming he was born in the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

We do not have to worry about him in Florida V HHS, as some here on FR suggested.


4 posted on 06/25/2012 11:06:00 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

SMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAACKKKKKK!


5 posted on 06/25/2012 11:06:32 AM PDT by PhilosopherStone1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

I stand with Scalia, to Hell with the rest of them.


6 posted on 06/25/2012 11:07:22 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

Bravo! He sure “gets” it.


7 posted on 06/25/2012 11:08:58 AM PDT by jersey117
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thouworm
The key term here is sovereignty. Over-rides everything else.
8 posted on 06/25/2012 11:09:40 AM PDT by fwdude ( You cannot compromise with that which you must defeat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins; LucyT; Brown Deer; PghBaldy; In Maryland; pabianice; txrangerette; stephenjohnbanker; ...

I have been waiting for a link to Scalia’s Bench Statement on Arizona v. United States-—and it doesn’t disappoint. It deserved its own thread.


9 posted on 06/25/2012 11:11:39 AM PDT by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

Wow. Some sound reasoning from our pal Scalia here.


10 posted on 06/25/2012 11:15:16 AM PDT by Hemingway's Ghost (Spirit of '75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I would believe that hell had frozen over if he abandoned his originalist position to support that piece of government overreach


11 posted on 06/25/2012 11:18:05 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan

I thought you may not see this, and wanted to give you a heads up. Thanks for all of the important work you do.


12 posted on 06/25/2012 11:18:15 AM PDT by JDW11235 (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/ AND "The fat, spoiled, complacent kid is going on a diet." -Unkus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

” As my opinion describes in more detail, however, most of the provisions challenged here do not even impose additional penalties or consequences for violation of federal immigration laws; they merely apply stricter enforcement. The federal government would have us believe (and the Court today agrees) that even that is forbidden. “

Scalia nails it.


13 posted on 06/25/2012 11:19:44 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
“Conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts voted against Scalia and tipped the decision for the Left.

Anyone know if Roberts has written out his legal thinking on this case?

14 posted on 06/25/2012 11:20:01 AM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sickoflibs; DoughtyOne; NFHale

” As my opinion describes in more detail, however, most of the provisions challenged here do not even impose additional penalties or consequences for violation of federal immigration laws; they merely apply stricter enforcement. The federal government would have us believe (and the Court today agrees) that even that is forbidden. “

Scalia nails it.


15 posted on 06/25/2012 11:21:24 AM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

I don’t believe the SCOTUS realizes the far reaching implications of their ruling in this case.

If a state cannot enforce a law or statute on their books that is an exact mirror of a federal law because of sole federal jurisdiction, in this case immigration, then they cannot enforce ANY laws that are overlapping of federal authority.

Bank robbery, kidnapping, financial investments and regulations, INCOME TAXES could ALL be subject to this haywire ruling.

I can foresee a time when a person is stopped for some minor traffic infraction, and during an ID check this person is found to have several outstanding FEDERAL warrants, and the policeman simply gives the driver a ticket for the infraction and says, “Have a nice day.”.............


16 posted on 06/25/2012 11:23:55 AM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

I love this guy.


17 posted on 06/25/2012 11:24:06 AM PDT by kjo (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

I think Arizona should now embrace this verdict and recuse itself from enforcing other Federal laws starting with those concerning the collection of Federal income taxes and the seizures of properties and assets by the IRS. That should be followed by the refusal to enforce Federal gun regulations in Arizona.


18 posted on 06/25/2012 11:29:49 AM PDT by MeganC (No way in Hell am I voting for Mitt Romney. Not now, not ever. Deal with it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

I agree with you, but there are some Naybobs of negativity who claimed the Scalia might be in favor of 0bamacare.


19 posted on 06/25/2012 11:30:22 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MeganC

I agree...this cherry picking of what is enforced and what is not needs to be addressed.


20 posted on 06/25/2012 11:31:55 AM PDT by halo66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen
Anyone know if Roberts has written out his legal thinking on this case?

Not that I have seen. Nothing else issued except the full court opinion --- written by Kennedy and the added Scalia and Thomas opinions.:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

21 posted on 06/25/2012 11:37:50 AM PDT by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
I think Arizona should now embrace this verdict and recuse itself from enforcing other Federal laws starting with those concerning the collection of Federal income taxes and the seizures of properties and assets by the IRS. That should be followed by the refusal to enforce Federal gun regulations in Arizona.

Yes...and while they're at it why not recuse themselves from the Dept. of Agriculture's Food & Nutritional Services (SNAP/IBT) regulations? This is what's putting a huge drain this state's (and MOST states) funds.

22 posted on 06/25/2012 11:42:25 AM PDT by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
I think Arizona should now embrace this verdict and recuse itself from enforcing other Federal laws starting with those concerning the collection of Federal income taxes and the seizures of properties and assets by the IRS.

Why not?

Selective enforcement of federal law (the "Obama Precedent") is apparently the New Normal.

23 posted on 06/25/2012 11:42:43 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

Did anyone stand with Scalia? Thomas or Alito?


24 posted on 06/25/2012 11:47:46 AM PDT by Defiant (If there are infinite parallel universes, why Lord, am I living in the one with Obama as President?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thouworm; TheOldLady; WildHighlander57; netmilsmom; tomdavidd; Freeper; Gvl_M3; Flotsam_Jetsome; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Arizona v. United States--- Scalia's Dissenting Bench Statement

Article, and # 1.

Thank you, thouworm.

25 posted on 06/25/2012 11:49:44 AM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

>>>“Conservative” Chief Justice John Roberts voted against Scalia and tipped the decision for the Left.

No. The vote was 5-3. If Roberts had voted with the other three conservatives, the 4-4 vote would have upheld the 9th Circuit’s decision. His vote on this made no difference.


26 posted on 06/25/2012 11:50:03 AM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Indeed. If the states are soveriegn over immigration, then Arizona has no more right to tell California what to do than California has to do the same for Arizona.

Does Arizona really want to see all the illegal immigrant problems they are dealing with, turn into a legal immigrant problem as the ‘soveriegn state’ of California - right on the border, lets them in and gives them cards and the rest of it?

States are sovereign doesn’t just stop with Arizona. It would be an unmitigated disaster.


27 posted on 06/25/2012 11:51:27 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

“that is an exact mirror of a federal law”

Scalia himself admits that the AZ law was not an ‘exact mirror’ of the federal law. This is why the provisions that were not an ‘exact mirror’ were struck down.

Had AZ passed an exact mirror, it would have been upheld in full instead of upheld in part and dismissed in part.


28 posted on 06/25/2012 11:54:27 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
I think Arizona should now embrace this verdict and recuse itself from enforcing other Federal laws starting with those concerning the collection of Federal income taxes and the seizures of properties and assets by the IRS. That should be followed by the refusal to enforce Federal gun regulations in Arizona.

I like that!
`Course they could do a bit more damage too.

29 posted on 06/25/2012 11:55:18 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: stephenjohnbanker

“The federal government would have us believe (and the Court today agrees) that even that is forbidden.”

If the federal government were to remove habeaus corpus because it enabled ‘stricter enforcement’, would that be considered ok? Just because it’s stricter doesn’t make it any less unconstitutional. AZ can enforce the federal law - no more or no less. They do not have the authority to alter the federal law however they see fit.


30 posted on 06/25/2012 11:56:30 AM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

Justice Scalia dissented and said that he would have upheld the entire law. Justice Thomas likewise would uphold the entire law as not preempted by federal law. Justice Alito agreed with Justices Scalia and Thomas regarding Sections 5(C) and 6, but joined with the majority in finding Section 3 preempted.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_v._United_States

And, see post 21 for link (Scalia and Thomas wrote dissenting opinions)


31 posted on 06/25/2012 11:58:04 AM PDT by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Nifster
Just another reason to love Scalia

Yes indeed, and this is a good reason as well.

32 posted on 06/25/2012 11:58:18 AM PDT by GregNH (If you are unable to fight, please find a good place to hide.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

Lots of handwringing, folks seeing the decision as an Obama victory.

Not so.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303910/actually-key-part-arizona-law-upheld-john-fonte

The core of the law was upheld, the most important part.


33 posted on 06/25/2012 11:59:07 AM PDT by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
States are sovereign doesn’t just stop with Arizona. It would be an unmitigated disaster.

That's funny. Really funny because as I seem to recall, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a friend in a 'territory'[?] who was concerned about what would happen if it was rejected for statehood and Jefferson's reply was basically: "Nothing bad; you just are your own country in that case."

34 posted on 06/25/2012 11:59:57 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
If the federal government were to remove habeaus corpus because it enabled ‘stricter enforcement’, would that be considered ok?

They did: NDAA.

35 posted on 06/25/2012 12:02:41 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

I read it as soon as posted...thanks anyway for the ping in #9.


36 posted on 06/25/2012 12:03:34 PM PDT by txrangerette ("HOLD TO THE TRUTH...SPEAK WITHOUT FEAR." - Glenn Beck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

JR: Lone-voice-in-the-wilderness Ping

Arizona v. United States-— Scalia’s Dissenting Bench Statement

“Justice Scalia began his dissent by saying that he would uphold all parts of the Arizona law.”


37 posted on 06/25/2012 12:06:34 PM PDT by thouworm (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

If Arizona wants to go at it alone - more power to them.

Staying in the US after a law was passed granting the states total control over immigration while at the same time bound to recognise all citizens - would be an unmitigated disaster.

If the SCOTUS rules on thursday to uphold the individual mandate, I suspect there will be calls to secede outright.

Which isn’t a bad thing given our ‘choice’ between Obama and Romney.


38 posted on 06/25/2012 12:12:10 PM PDT by JCBreckenridge (Texas, Texas, Whisky)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
"I can foresee a time when a person is stopped for some minor traffic infraction, and during an ID check this person is found to have several outstanding FEDERAL warrants, and the policeman simply gives the driver a ticket for the infraction and says, “Have a nice day.”.............

I think this should be Arizona's next move - they should ANNOUNCE they will no longer detain persons with outstanding federal warrants for fear of interferring with federal law enforcement.

39 posted on 06/25/2012 12:17:10 PM PDT by In Maryland ( "... the [Feds] must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: In Maryland

They should announce that they will no longer enforce the FEDERAL LAWS against bank robbery................


40 posted on 06/25/2012 12:20:48 PM PDT by Red Badger (Think logically. Act normally.................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

“The Obama administration argued vigorously against the law, and particularly against the provision of the right of police to check the legal status of people that they come into contact with on routine stops, who they have reason to believe are not in the country legally. The court struck down 5–3 (Scalia, Thomas, Alito dissenting, Kagan recused) other provisions in the law that make it against Arizona state law for illegal immigrants to apply for a job or fail to carry identification that says whether they are in the U.S. legally. “

So. If a business asks an applicant if they are here legally, or checks and finds out on their own, he or she is not, can’t they call the local police and report that individual for arrest and detention?


41 posted on 06/25/2012 12:23:16 PM PDT by ZULU (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
They should announce that they will no longer enforce the FEDERAL LAWS against bank robbery................

That will hurt Arizona depositors whose banks are robbed much more than it will hurt the Feds.

42 posted on 06/25/2012 12:24:37 PM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge
Which isn’t a bad thing given our ‘choice’ between Obama and Romney.

I've been saying it for a while but that would be an unmitigated disaster; it's a Morton's Fork.

If the SCOTUS rules on thursday to uphold the individual mandate, I suspect there will be calls to secede outright.

That won't fly; there's too many "inseparable part of the union"-type clauses in a lot of State Constitutions.
There is, however, something nearly as fun that can be done [by border-states]:

  1. Declare a "state of invasion" calling up the State's National Guard, and the state militias, while issuing shoot-to-kill authorization.
  2. Demand from D.C. aid; they are required to do so via Art 4, Sec 4 of the US Constitution.
    "We need help NOW! If we didn't we wouldn't have had to call up our unorganized militia."
This in turn leads to only three options the Fe[d]ral government can reply with:
  1. Send help; highly unlikely given the political entrenchment of the "open borders" folks.
  2. Drag-feet/delay/dissemble; this is more likely, but given the above would be politically disastrous, as well as proving that in addition to immigration-law the federal government can also choose whether or not to obey the Constitution.
  3. Attack the state; perhaps the most likely option... and the most interesting given the Definition of Treason contained within the US Constitution.
    1. Executive -- Actual military attack.
    2. Judicial -- Declaring that the states do not have the power to defend themselves... and thereby invalidating EVERY State Constitution wherein the duty for a defense against invasion is mentioned.
    3. Legislative -- Likely some sort of targeted laws or funding cutting.
It becomes even better if two or three states do it: imagine AZ, NM, and TX all declaring invasion and militantly securing the borders.
43 posted on 06/25/2012 12:27:33 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

Isn’t that what E Verify is all about?


44 posted on 06/25/2012 12:30:42 PM PDT by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Thanks.

I didn’t understand that a tie confirms the original decision.

Still, I’d like to read his personal thoughts on the three issues where he voted against Conservatives.


45 posted on 06/25/2012 12:38:19 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

John Robert’s votes with the liberals on Arizona’s SB1040?

I guess we have to expect Bush league opinions from Bush judicial nominees.


46 posted on 06/25/2012 12:38:42 PM PDT by RJL (There's no greed like the greed of a liberal politician buying votes with your money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah

I think so.


47 posted on 06/25/2012 12:39:49 PM PDT by ZULU (See: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=D9vQt6IXXaM&hd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: BlatherNaut

See Scalia’s dissent above at article and post #1.


48 posted on 06/25/2012 12:44:54 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Those who truly support our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JCBreckenridge; Eaker

>>If the SCOTUS rules on thursday to uphold the individual mandate, I suspect there will be calls to secede outright.<<

I’m hoping the FReepers that are holding a place for us in the beautiful state of Texas will be ready for the camper, The former Marine hubby and my two handgun and Krav Maga girls to arrive ready to fight!

Oh, and the cookies. My famous chocolate chip cookies!


49 posted on 06/25/2012 12:56:06 PM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: thouworm

“So the issue is a stark one: Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?”

And the answer has become all too obvious. Time for choosing comes quickly, does it not?


50 posted on 06/25/2012 12:57:30 PM PDT by MestaMachine (obama kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson