Posted on 11/17/2015 1:51:12 PM PST by conservativejoy
Something amazing seems to be in the process of happening,a majority of the governors of our states appear to be finding the courage to stand up to the federal government and Obama's plan to resettle terrorists disguised as "refugees" all across the country. For decades, state governments have been so cowed by the federal government that time and time again, they acquiesce to any and all unconstitutional actions forced upon them by the federal government, no matter how excessive or ridiculous. However, the remarkably stupid decision by the Obama administration to proceed with its Syrian "refugee" resettlement plans, even in light of last weekend's terrorist attack in Paris, has finally forced the hand of conscientious governors who have been tasked with the duty to protect and do what is best for the citizens of their respective states. As of this writing, the governors of 27 states have stood up and said, "No more" to this Trojan horse assault on American safety.
Make no mistake,these "refugees" are not victims, seeking safety and freedom from oppression. They have been termed "refugees" by sympathetic media so as to cast them in a favorable light, but the actual facts say otherwise. Just look to the European experience so far. The vast majority of these "refugees" are military aged males, rather than women and children (who are typically the majority that are displaced in warzones). They have come into their host countries, defaced churches, destroyed property, committed a tremendous number of rapes and assaults, and publicly declared themselves to be "replacing" the native European populations and taking over Europe as a new "caliphate." These people are not refugees, they are invaders, plain and simple. ISIS has bragged about infiltrating personnel into Europe,how do you think they did this? We see the answer in the fact that two of the Paris attackers (claimed by ISIS) had passports given to them when they were processed through Greece as "Syrian refugees." There is no reason,none whatsoever,to think that the same things wouldn't happen here once we have large numbers of these "refugees" settled in our cities.
So, by rejecting the settlement of these "refugees" in their states, these governors are performing a tremendous public service in protecting the lives and property of the citizens and residents of their various states.
Of course, the left wing is absolutely livid at this rejection of President Obama's seditious plans for America. Not unexpectedly, they're falling back on arguments about how it is "illegal" for these governors to refuse to allow "refugees†into their states, claiming it's "unconstitutional" for them to do so. It's funny how they Left only discovers the Constitution when it thinks it can use it to advance their agenda, isn't it?
Special:
Nevertheless, they are absolutely wrong. In fact, these state governors are completely within their rights to reject any "refugee" settlement in their states, and they have the Constitution on their side in doing so.
First of all, if we wish to talk about the Constitution, then we should ask,constitutionally who is it that is granted the power to deal with the entry of foreigners into our country? The answer to that is the Congress, not the President or any executive department. The relevant clause that details this congressional power is found in Congress’ enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, among which we find,
"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."
"Naturalization" does not just apply to those who are becoming citizens, but to any foreign residents who are legally allowed to reside in the United States
Keep in mind that the term "naturalization" does not just apply to those who are becoming citizens, but to any foreign residents who are legally allowed to reside in the United States. This is the way the term appears to be used by Madison in Federalist No. 42 in his discussion of this clause, and English common law (of which much of our Constitution is a distillation) considered "denizenry," describing lawful residency in a nation by a foreign subject, to be part of the concept of naturalization, even when the alien in question was not granted actual citizenship. It is upon this basis that the United States grants to legally resident foreigners many of the same rights under our Constitution as citizens enjoy. Yet, Congress' ability to do this does not imply that these foreigners are automatically, or even eventually, naturalized as US citizens.
Special:
Hence, the sole power to determine our laws (and therefore policy) on naturalization resides with Congress—BOTH to determine who is allowed citizenship AND to determine who is simply allowed to be here. The President and the State Department do not have any constitutional authority over these areas, other than to simply execute laws passed by Congress and signed into law.
Notably in this case, Congress has NEVER approved the resettlement of Syrian "refugees" into America. Indeed, Congress doesn't even seem to have been aware that "refugees" were being brought into Louisiana until it was happening. Members of Congress are even now taking steps to prepare bills that will defund these resettlement efforts and ban them from happening. Obviously, Congress' will is not to resettle them. Which makes the President's actions completely, utterly, inalterably unconstitutional and illegal.
Now the left wingers might argue that the states don't have the power to determine rules of naturalization, either. True, they do not. But what the states DO have is the positive constitutional right from Article VI to nullify actions of the federal government which are not pursuant to the text of the Constitution,
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land."
Special:
The Supremacy Clause is often thought of solely in terms of "the federal government always overrules the states." But, if you actually read what it says, it is not saying that. Federal laws (and its questionable that executive orders even qualify for that level of dignity anywise) must be made "in pursuance thereof" to the Constitution. If they are not, then the states are free to adjudge them as unconstitutional and of no force or authority. The Supremacy Clause actually cuts both ways.
What this means is that the states can certainly act to interdict unconstitutional resettlement of hostile foreign troublemakers into their states by executive actions that have no constitutional or legal standing whatsoever.
The left wingers might then argue that the President can call up the National Guard to simply force the states to accede to federal action. This is actually unconstitutional as well, if done without congressional authority.
Among Congress’ other enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8, we find,
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
As defined in 32 US Code § 101, both the Army and Air National Guards are,
"that part of the organized militia of the several States and Territories, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, active and inactive."
The National Guard is "part of the organized militia" of the several states (though, we should note, not the ONLY part). As such, to call out the National Guard requires congressional approval. The President, constitutionally speaking, doesn’t simply get to call up the National Guard on a whim to use however he sees fit. Indeed, per Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, the President is only considered to be the Commander in Chief of the Militia after it is called into the "actual service of the United States." Considering that Congress is in the process of trying to stop precisely what Obama is now doing, it’s unlikely he'll get congressional authority to call up the states’ own militias to use against them to force them to acquiesce to the introduction of a hostile invasion force of foreign savages into their own territories. If nothing else, the states in question can simply refuse to allow the President to call up the Guard without congressional approval. In this situation, there is no justification for calling out the militia anywise—no actual law is being broken by the governors (as none was passed, and the President's actions constitute an illegal overstep of his constitutional authority) and the governors’ actions are actually working toward the end of repelling an invasion.
What needs to happen,and hopefully what will happen,is that these governors need to stand firm and not give in to the manufactured "public opinion" pressure that will be invented by the news media. The majority of Americans, and especially those living in the states led by these governors, do not want America to be overrun by hostile foreign savages as Europe foolishly allowed itself to be. We don't want our country turned into a wretched hive of Islamofascist fanatics, rapists, and murderers. And it is WE to whom these governors are accountable—not to the seditious and anti American foreign lobby represented by President Obama and his cadre of insurrectionists in Washington, DC. Hold fast, governors, and do the job of protecting the American people that our federal government refuses to do!
Long winded. Except that Congress passed a law some years back allowing unlimited immigration at the President’s discretion, and any vetting to be what the President says it is. This then became a matter of foreign policy in which the President has the power to make it whatever he chooses. Over foreign policy the governors have no legal say. So on to SCOTUS where the governors stand only a slim chance of winning, depending on the particulars, the case, and any existing case law.
A 5-4 decision for the governors at best, but if Obama really wants this to happen he can always stuff the Court.
Oh jeez...1980 was when the despicable Jimmah Carter let in hordes of Marielitos from Cuba as a gleeful Fidel Castro emptied his prisons of all his hardened criminals.
That Refugee Act would have been passed by a DemoRat Congress.
Could get interesting. Lock & load, all you “infidels”.
This one here is ‘locked and loaded’ and ready also with bacon grease!!!
Yes, Jimmah signed it. Since then over three million refugees have arrived, mostly from the Soviet Union and Vietnam. And, of course, the Marielitos. I’m not an expert on this; this is just what I have been reading the last hour.
Since USA citizens, evidently including state lawmakers and governors, tend to be clueless about their countrys history, its not surprising that state versus federal government constitutional authority to regulate immigration, a major issue during the presidencies of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, has been completely forgotten.
More specifically, regardless of PC interpretations of the Constitutions ”uniform Rule of Naturalization” Clause (1.8.4) used to justify federal immigration laws, while state sovereignty-ignoring Adams signed a constitutionally indefensible federal immigration bill into law, both Jefferson and Madison, Madison generallly regarded as the father of the Constitution, wrote that such a law is unconstitutional in the context of state sovereignty. This is evidenced by the excerpts below.
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.
Thanks for the relevant history on this issue.
Saving this very good article. Thanks for posting it!
Your welcome! Post 25 gives some very good history on the subject.
With regard to calling up the National Guard - NOW WE KNOW WHY Home Land Security has so many weapons — remember BHO said (paraphrasing) we need a domestic army as powerful as the regular army.
ARE YOU SCARED YET?????
The states are rediscovering the 10th Amendment. Bout time.
It also explains why he says gun control will be the main focus of the rest of his administration. He is desperate to disarm Americans.
He spelled "impeachable" wrong. And on this issue, it could stick.
Okay .. I totally understand.
You’re lucky you have people you can call .. I’m dealing with Governor Moonbeam .. and he’s not stopping the influx of refugees .. just like he doesn’t stop Hispanics from across our Southern border. And .. Hispanics also bring their set of undesirables .. namely MS-13 gang members.
Sorry your living in a State like that...
This isn’t over foreign policy but, rather, national security.
“Over foreign policy the governors have no legal say.” Governors DO have legal requirements to defend their citizens from all enemies, both foreign and domestic.
These ‘refugees’ aren’t even coming as families.
Correct, the Congress has delegated all sorts of immigration related powers to the President.
We can argue theory on whether doing so is Constitutional or not, but functionally there’s mountains of case law precedent supporting Congresses ability to delegate powers to the President. IOW it’s a fait accompli. Again from a practical not theoretical perspective.
Make of it what you will but the law is clear - since this is a matter of Presidential digression (and as such a foreign policy plank), he and he alone decides, unless Congress rewrites the law and he signs it - unlikely. National security also falls under the President’s authority. The States long ago ceded their authority to override a Presidential decision - see US Civil War.
Nah, this act by Obama is totally open to nullification by the states.
If nothing else, each state currently challenging this can simply act on the principle of anti-commandeering. There is nothing - at all - illegal about a state refusing to allow ANY state personnel, facilities, property, etc. be used for the purpose of enforcing a federal law.
Now, the Refugee Act of 1980, and the associated paragraphs in the Immigration and Naturalization Act, are unconstitutional on their face, and as the article says, they are quite liable to being nullified by the states.
Further, this law is not actually just a matter of foreign policy, thus granting the President unlimited purview. It involves Congress’ power to make rules for naturalization. IIRC, the courts have taken a pretty dim view of laws in which Congress has granted the executive branch broad discretion in the *application* of a law (as opposed to *enforcement,* which the courts have generally been more willing to accept a broad definition). In other words, while Congress can often grant the executive broad powers for the purpose of enforcing a *specific* provision of a law, it does not have the power to grant the executive branch broad powers to *interpret* or to *decide the applicability of* a law. If I’m remembering correctly, there have been several cases where such broad applicative powers have been struck down as violations of separation of powers. It is likely that a legal challenge here would do the same.
But, as noted above, these states can nullify. They can declare it null and void BECAUSE the law is unconstitutional, and there is little aside from cutting off their highway funds or trying to invade these states that the FedGov can really do about it. That includes up to direct interdiction. If they just settled for the anti-commandeering route, FedGov would still have a devil of a time trying to enforce this outside of the states that are voluntarily going along with this.
Do it. Send them all to DC.
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.