Posted on 06/19/2014 5:57:41 AM PDT by MamaTexan
You are so busy looking for enemies, I guess you haven't bothered reading through all of my posts, or you just might see I'm not on the side you've assumed I'm on.
But, by all means... if you believe my approach too 'cautious or tentative', then please do hike yourself out from behind that keyboard, run to the border and start shootin'.
Post a LEGAL SOURCE, please.
You talk about doing weak things (like the GOP-E does) to slow the tide, but overwhelming armed force is required.
My government (Texas) needs to go to the border and protect it with overwhelming armed force from the invasion of armed and unarmed foreign nationals.
I am STRONGLY encouraging my government to do exactly that.
/johnny
/johnny
Really? Here's s single, simple question then - when you know for a fact one of your children is telling you something that they have made up because it sounds good in order to appear 'right'.....you don't consider it lying?
/johnny
A rule for thee, but not for me.
I see how you work now.
Good night.
They are not making war? I beg to differ, many that pass by me are armed cartel smugglers, dressed in black and carrying significant firepower. Google cartel in U.S. and see where they are already operating within our country. Not to mention the various gang members that make the crips and bloods look like boy scouts. That is an invasion or at least should be.
This is an invasion of a giant army. No doubt about it. And they are armed. In fact they are armed by the American Justice Department.
Arrest Odumbi for Treason.
It should be, and in common nomenclature, it is.
But from my understanding of Constitutional law, it is not one in the federal sense.
That's why it is up to the States to stop this horde of multinational trespassers for exactly the reasons you mentioned.
Exactly! This administration is blatantly aiding and abetting the criminal activity of foreign nationals on our own soil, and Congress does...... nothing.
States that have tried to stop the illegals have been told it is federal jurisdiction only. Securing the borders is a federal responsibility, though they choose not to do so.
Trust me it is indeed an invasion, whether it is legally one or not. If this current mass of illegals are refugees as the media seems to want to portray them; then the feds are not following laws for that either.
At this point our government is making up the law as they go along, as well as choosing to enforce or not to enforce as they choose. Legalities don’t seem to matter any more, if they did most of the current administration would be behind bars.
Maybe they should stop listening.
I can't disagree with any of your points in the least. Many of us have watched in frustration as the problem became worse and worse for decades now.
The feds won't do anything, and if the States don't step up, who knows where it will go next.
1. They are not citizens, at least not of our country.
2. You have no idea whether they are “armed” or not. I am sure many are.
3. An “army” need not be “armed”, viz. The Salvation Army. One accepted definition of an army is “a large number of people or things, typically formed or organized for a particular purpose”.
4. We ARE under an invasion by an army of illegals, not citizens, but foreign lawbreakers. We need to come to grips with that reality, and soon.
5. And if you think tens of thousands of (possibly) unarmed cross border swarmers is not an army, or that what we are witnessing is not an invasion, then it is YOU who needs a reality check.
----
“... unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
That's a good point. The primary part of the clause, IMO-
or engage in War, unless actually invaded,
was to prevent States from fighting with each other.
§ 1398. The other prohibitions in the clause respect the power of making war, which is appropriately confided to the national government. The setting on foot of an army, or navy, by a state in times of peace, might be a cause of jealousy between neighbouring states, and provoke the hostilities of foreign bordering nations. In other cases, as the protection of the whole Union is confided to the national arm, and the national power, it is not fit, that any state should possess military means to overawe the Union, or to endanger the general safety. Still, a state may be so situated, that it may become indispensable to possess military forces, to resist an expected invasion, or insurrection. The danger may be too imminent for delay; and under such circumstances, a state will have a right to raise troops for its own safety, even without the consent of congress.
Joseph Story , Commentaries on the Constitution
Of course, it didn't mean they don't have the Right to defend themselves, either.
-----
From my understanding, the Founders wrote the Constitution for the States to have a unified mechanism with which to deal with other Nations and to maintain a reasonable peace with each other. They never intended for the federal government to have direct control over immigrants, only for the general government to make a rule for the States to follow.
I'd also like to point out they are NOT 'immigrants' as far as the Constitution is concerned until they actually start the process of immigration.
They are now, and have always been, denizens , and it's up to the States to deal with them.
From the first legal treatise written after Ratification:
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
And that's the lie that's killing us.
-----
Again, my apologies for initially missing your post.
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.