I’ll be most interested to hear any counter-arguments or rebuttals to the main point of this article.
I absolutely agree that importing 10,000 Syrians is an attack on the American people, and should not happen under any circumstances.
But I am also interested in the Constitutional requirements relating to the resolution of this issue.
Do the states have any Constitutional authority to defy Obama?
There is a Constitutional guarantee to the States to protect them from Invasion.
The Trojan Horse Syrian terrorists represent an invasion of a proven hostile enemy.
Therefore, the States not only have a right, but an obligation to their Citizens to protect them when the Federal Government fails to do so.
I wonder, do any state constitutions have such language as “clear and present danger” in them?
Quote: “But I am also interested in the Constitutional requirements relating to the resolution of this issue.”
We are in uncharted territory here. Where does one find constitutional authority to the resist the unconstitutional actions of a man who governs by the pen and the phone.
Bottom line, he called the play of lawlessness and that is where we are going.
See my post immediately above yours.
The Obama administration has told states to disregard Federal law on deporting illegals.
By not only failing to enforce the entire law but forbidding its enforcement they have voided the entire law.
The Obama administration rules by fiat with no respect for the Constitutional process, culture and systems that created the law.
Therefore there is no law to obey because Obama has destroyed the law. Any order coming from the Obama administration is meaningless.
I’m wondering where Obama gets the constitutional authority to unilaterally declare that the United States will admit 1 single person beyond the legally agreed limits? Oh, that’s right... he doesn’t give a sh- about the constitution either.
absolutely agree that importing 10,000 Syrians is an attack on the American people, and should not happen under any circumstances.
But I am also interested in the Constitutional requirements relating to the resolution of this issue.
Do the states have any Constitutional authority to defy Obama?
___________
He took an oath to uphold the constitution and provide protection...he has now committed treason.
What part of “protect them from invasion” and “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic” don’t you know how to read?
The states are not the ones whose actions must past Constitutional muster.
The case in question had to do with a Pennsylvania law requiring aliens to register annually. The Federal law did not require this. The court did indeed rule that the federal government was supreme in matters of immigration as they are inherently national in scope. I just read the majority opinion. However they do say in several instances that this is the case where a "complete scheme of regulation" has been enacted by the congress at the federal level, then the states have no role.
The crux of the question to me is "is there a complete scheme of regulation in place for these so-called refugees? It seems not. Also, this is not being initiated or authorized by congress, as the SCOTUS indicated the power resides, but rather by the executive branch who has no such authority."
Not a lawyer but the opinion does say the power is within the hands of the congress, not the executive. And it says that when the congress has instituted a comprehensice scheme of regulation for the "protection of the citizens", the state has no role but it's nowhere near clear that (1) congress has authorized this at all and (2) there is such a well thought out and comprehensive scheme in place. The implication is that if congress does not exercise its authority then the states may in order to protect their citizens. Again, not a lawyer, just a guy.
Probably not but WE DO.
In my home town people that were not welcome got the message and left.
We need to do the same now and demand that our “elected representatives” stop this.
Yeah, only an insane despot would allow in an invading force. End of case.
Authority is granted in the Declaration, one could argue:
“When in the course...”
A problem for the feds iswhere will these so called refugees live. Private property and state property cannot be easily commandeered to house them. Local school boards cannot be compelled toaccept students without local addresses. All welfare is administered by local and state govts. Governors can officialy order their state workers to refuse to accept applications or pay benefits. Let Barky and his stooge AG take the governors of 30 states to court. . In the end Barky will dump these people where he should. In blue state Dem strongholds. The govs can’t prevent the so called refugees, but they have the authority to make their stay impossible.
Last I read it was 70,000 “refugees.”
I guess we're about to find out. Does anyone have a map of the states which have already announced non-compliance?
Why do I ask?
The White House is currently occupied by a RICO unconstitutional criminal cabal. And the conspiracy as we discuss this is certainly choosing the most vulnerable, the most likely State to fold under pressure. Or joining the treachery by accepting Federal bribes.
It would behoove the brave states resisting the Manchurian Candidate and his flying monkeys to also plan for National Guard mutual aid among adjacent states. Arizona is the only isolated State. Most others have more than a group of three.
Barack Hussein is entirely capable of overreaching again. Let's see where this goes. Are California volunteers accepted?
perhaps the 10th amendment maybe?