Two problems for Obama. First, this syrian refugee thing wasn't directed by congress which is who the SCOTUS explicitly stated were the ones vested with the power to set said policy. Secondly, the immigration policies in recent years are anything but consistent and hence an argument can be made that since the feds have failed to create and maintain a consistent, coherent policy the states may.
[[Two problems for Obama. First, this syrian refugee thing wasn’t directed by congress which is who the SCOTUS explicitly stated were the ones vested with the power to set said policy.]]
That’s not a problem for king tut- the rule of law doesn’t apply to him
I seem to recall a situation in the past where the federal government passed a law and states refused to comply and banded together in a coalition refusing to comply- and the government had to back away fro m the law because they couldn’t really enforce it-
First, here is your Supreme Court-issued license to apply your common sense in interpreting the Constitution pepsi_junkie.
3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition. - United States v. Sprague, 1931.
Next, although it has evidently never done the House any good, the RINO-controlled House has read the Constitution out loud at the beginnings of its last three legislative sessions, including its Article I, Section 8-limited powers. And although many people might think that the uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause, clause 4 of that section (1.8.4), gives Congress the power to regulate immigration, they are wrong imo. This is evidenced by the following excerpts from the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution.
Note that both Jefferson and Madison reflected on 10th Amendment-protected state sovereignty with respect to the issue of immigration in these excerpts.
Here is the relevant excerpt from Jeffersons writings.
4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that 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, the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the - day of July, 1798, intituled An Act concerning aliens, which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added]. Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.
Here is the related excerpt from Madison's writings from the Virginia Resolutions.
"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, ...
. . .
. . . the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.
Regarding the Supreme Court case concerning Pennsylvania where it was decided that so-called federal immigration laws override state immigration laws, I wish that I had more information.
Given that Jefferson and Madison had indicated that the states had never delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate immigration, I know that the Supreme Court had clarified that powers not expressly delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the power to regulate immigration in this example, are prohibited to the feds.
From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]. - United States v. Butler, 1936.
Finally, note that lawless Obama is not the main problem with respect to unconstitutional federal government interference in 10th Amendment-protected state immigration policy to not accept refugees. The real problem is this imo. Although lawless Obama has a laundry list of things that Congress should impeach and remove him from office for, corrupt, state sovereignty-ignoring Congress wrongly refuses to do so.
In fact, if patriots elect Trump or another conservative as president, patriots need to support the new president by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that is also willing to work within its Section 8-limited powers to support the new president.