Skip to comments.Dear Arizona; Has SCOTUS made secession your only option
Posted on 06/25/2012 12:13:28 PM PDT by Bob Ireland
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!!!
It’s actually not the SCOTUS that is the problem here,
but the 0bama administration’s refusal to cooperate with the part of the law they upheld.
Your position appears indefensible on both counts... but 'perilous times' for sure.
The part of the law that actually mattered to me, making TPD actually give a crap about illegals, stood. The rest was window dressing.
Only the original 13 would have any claim of preexistence outside the Union. And not even all of them had Constitutions in place prior to the Revolution.
FR has at least one decade! E.g. impeachment: 1998...
SCOTUS rulings become much more invasive over all law than you seem to realize. Do not look at this ruling as only applying to Arizona immigration problems. Antonin Sclaia has properly noted that this ruling eliminates 'State Sovereignty'.
Who do you think made this government? Aliens? It has grown into what it is because that is what the majority wanted. Our problem is not so much who is in it but that it reflects what the People have wanted. Without a massive change in how people think (mainly women actually) there will be no significant change.
Just because you do not like the representation or agree with it does not change the fact that we have it.
As bad as things seem we are no where near that point. The Statists of both parties will try to play us for as long as possible -- stealing our wealth and our Liberties.
The second reason it will not happen soon is that there a no elected leaders on the national scene that have the true love of Liberty to spearhead such a movement.
Sadly, I think we have many years, if not a decade or more of this growing tyranny before real change happens.
Executive fiat is not representation. The Caesars succeeded in eliminating the Roman Republic Senate in the same manner you prescribe... all by popular fiats.
It was the rest of the law I was describing as window dressing not the ruling. As for Scalia he’s about 35 years behind the curve. 55 MPH speed limit was the end of state sovereignty.
Didn’t a bunch of Southern States attempt the succession thing back in the 1860s? I think they called it The War Between the States or The Great Civil War.
This decision today is why it is imperative that the next SCOTUS appointee be a Conservative.
I can see you need to hyperventilate more to be at home on this thread.
LOL. Yeah I get that problem a lot.
The primary purpose of our current media-gov’t-academia complex is to elect a new people, i.e. eradicate White Christians from the U.S. body politic. They would respond to serious secession efforts with genocidal fury.
Aren’t we speaking of a Judicial finding here? Executive fiat in this Republic only applies to controls over the executive branch responsibilities.
Caesar eliminated the Republic by refusing to lay down the control over his ARMY which he brought back into Italy from Gaul. He and his successors ruled THROUGH the Senate no by executive fiat in any case. They never eliminated the Senate just its power.
Where did I “prescribe” anything? I only described.
Well, that is an opinion based on the result of a war.
As Ben Franklin said "Force sh*tes upon Reason's back."
Whatever eloquent argument one might make for the legality, constitutionality, etc., of a particular act, it really boils down to who has the ability to use force to enforce their desire.
Heck of a way to run things, but there you go.
“This decision today is why it is imperative that the next SCOTUS appointee be a Conservative.”
My belief is based upon the thoughts of the Founders and the meaning of a “constitution” not the result of that little dust-up of 1861-5.
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.