Verry interesting.
Posted on 06/25/2012 12:13:28 PM PDT by Bob Ireland
Dear Arizona;
As Justice Antonin Scalia has just written, the SCOTUS opinion against the state of Arizona concerning immigration problems has made the phrase 'sovereign state' of no further effect.
The primary function of government is to serve the people it represents. One primary function under that obligation is to protect the population it serves. The SCOTUS opinion states that - if the United States Federal Government has statutory mandate to fulfill that obligation - then the state has no right to supersede the Federal Government when the Federal Government refuses to extend that protection.
The effect of the SCOTUS opinion today is to eliminate states' rights' in a major area of the states' statutory mandate. Put another way, the Federal Government can establish rules that eliminate states' rights under historical common law.
This author therefore suggests that the state of Arizona call a Constitutional Convention of interested states - to potentially include Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Alaska and perhaps the Carolinas [and any other state wishing to bind itself under such restrictions as herein mentioned] - pursuant to forming a new sovereign nation established under the auspices of the original Constitution of the United States.
Such Declaration of Independence should include a rejection of an imperial presidency which reserves unto itself the right to establish and enforce laws as it best sees fit without legislative oversight. The Declaration should reject all laws and regulations that establish a socialist, communist or dictatorial interpretation of states' rights or citizen's rights.
Such a federation or commonwealth should recognize in perpetuity the right of any member state to withdraw from the union when the said union jeopardizes the rights, liberties or the pursuit of happiness of said member state and its citizens. It should recognize the responsibility of the Executive Office as lawfully established to enforce laws properly passed by the legislature of representatives of the people, and to be interdicted against reinterpreting the meaning of such legally passed laws or refusing to enforce said laws.
The convention of agreeable states should establish such legal standards as were envisioned by the Founding Fathers of the United States, and should carefully protect states' rights and individual citizen's rights.
It is impossible to see any other alternative for states and citizens wishing to protect their Constitutional rights in the face of a runaway Federal Government of the United States, and its various organs, that has all but suspended the founding intent of the original Constitutional Convention.
LET FREEDOM RING!!!
SCOTUS is a bunch of chicken**** cowards. Barry made them wet their robes. Let the invasion of the southwest by latin America roll on!
I won’t go to the re-education camp because I’d rather stand on my feet and die fighting.
Secession is not a legal option.
The only way to constitutionally get out of the Union is to have Congress pass a law excluding a state or states. And that may not even be constitutional.
Madison declared once in the Union always in the Union.
Maybe a constitutional convention or amendment might make it possible. But possible or not it is a very bad idea and would lead to far more troubles than it would solve.
Besides Sheriff Joe is not too upset by the ruling.
I think we should just stop paying federal taxes. We can bring this regime to its knees by starving it.
But I don’t see a coordinated effort happening. Too many people don’t have the spine to break the law even though this administration has done so repeatedly and Congress won’t stop it.
A law passed back under Jimmy Carter made it a violation of federal law to kill or harm a federal employee, appointee or elected member of Congress, etc.
It should be the most trivial of exercises to EXCLUDE those folks from state and local protection in case of accidents, killings, robberies, etc.
Just wait on the FBI to find the bodies, or the injured parties, and tend to them.
Won’t happen. The most probable outcome will be that Arizona writes a new law that creatively plugs whatever holes caused it to not receive SCOTUS blessing that attempts to plug the leak.
I can see a situation where they create a law that requires specific identification for actions that fall under State authority and once that is in place, they can arrest anyone who doesn’t have that identification, irregardless of suspicion of citizenship status. Then, once they are in custody, a background check will be done, immigration status one of the factors.
Of course, the civil libertarians will throw a fit.
“Secession is not a legal option”
BS. The way the Constitution works is unless a power was explicitly sacrificed by the states it is reserved for the states or the people. Cf. the tenth amendment. There need not be a secession process drawn out for it to be legal. Since the Constitution does not say that the union is perpetual, and does not say that the states cannot secede, they can secede.
This is elementary. If the states had known in 1789 that the union was perpetual they never would have ratified it. Everyone knows that.
By the way, if it’s not legal, so what? Then it’s a revolution. Declaring independce wasn’t legal, nor was replacing the Articles of Confederation with the Constitution.
“Madison declared once in the Union always in the Union.”
He should have declared it in the Constitution.
“possible or not it is a very bad idea and would lead to far more troubles than it would solve”
Maybe, maybe not. I’m thinking more and more things might’ve been better had we just let the South go.
Secession is not a legal option...
LOL - Of course it is not!
Rebellions, revolutions, and successions never are legal.
They are done in point of fact by locales, districts, areas or states, not by Federal law, and they are done because the controlling head of state has broken down into actions considered unlawful or repugnant to those so declaring - at gunpoint if needed.
Tea Party GET OUT THERE AND START THE SOUND AND FURY OF WE THE PEOPLE!
I am advocating sovereign [not individual] rebellion against tyranny!
The constitution merely changed the form of government of the union declared “perpetual” by the Articles.
Conditional ratification (the ability to rescind a ratification) was widely discussed at the state ratification conventions for the Constitution. The most direct comment came from the letter Madison wrote to Hamilton on the occasion of the NY state convention where the antis had Hamilton momentarily stymied. The constitution had already been written.
The Revolution was against the Royal government within which there was no representation and which our people had never given its consent and were not treated as “Englishmen”. You are advocating a revolution against a government which is of our own making and within which we have representation. It is silly to believe that anyone today could come up with something better without a massive restriction of the number of people who could vote.
Had the Union been split by the RAT Rebellion of 1861 you would probably be speaking German and saluting Hitler’s successor. There was nothing good or principled about the South’s stupidity, it was an IGnoble Cause from start to finish. That was what Washington warned about in his Farewell Address.
Verry interesting.
Amen
LOL!!!
Let me know when the Committees of Correspondence form.
You know, of course, that the Colonials exhausted all forms of legal protest and attempted to have their concerns addressed for decades before Lexington.
So, you have a contract with someone, and they refuse to live up to that contract, but you are still obligated to remain in that contract and fulfill your part?
I realize “the other side” has a gun pointed at you, but that isn’t “legal”.
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.