Skip to comments.How to Stop the ‘Immigration’ Bill via States
Posted on 06/13/2013 1:51:09 PM PDT by OneWingedShark
Now is our chance to change the political field of battle; the recent revelations regarding the IRS's political targeting and the NSA's domestic spying have engendered a healthy distrust of the now feral Federal Government. - We have the opportunity not only to stop this thing dead in its tracks, but make support for it legally actionable at the federal and State level.
This is important because the Constitution clearly defines Treason as follows: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort — and Treason is one of the things that the privilege from arrest given congressmen in Art I, Sec 6 does not cover.
Indeed, after declaring such a state of invasion the Constitution requires the federal government to provide help to the states in Art 4, Sec 4, and to withhold help would be treason. Furthermore, a Supreme Court ruling stating the actions of the Governors actions as legitimate would be, again, treason.
Now is the time to make the Federal Government choke on its own actions. Let us force them into a political no-win scenario while they think they have us between a wall and a sword.
Would this be worth Front-paging?
If only. Texas and Z are the only two with a R governor and state houses and I don’t think either has the gumption.
Not in my state
our TN senators Corker and Alexander have yet to meet an AMNESTY Bill they havent gone gaga about and wanted to marry...
and my 4th District Congressman Scott Desjarlais is apparantly just as bad
I doubt if Scott is amongst the 50/70
For at least half of us, if we approach our Governor with this idea he’ll have us declared mentally unstable and then come and take our guns.
B I G
B U M P
Arizona tried this with a legal and Constitutional bill called SB 1070.
The feds declared it illegal, and that’s that.
Thanks for articulating that better than I did and posting the idea.
If our federal government is turning on us as citizens, our only recourse left is turning to the States, which is as it should be, yet many think that option is not open to us any more.
We, the conservative remnant of Western civilization, are about to become minorities in our own countries.
Somehow, I don’t think the “minority/victim” card is going to work for us... (that’s not our way, anyway.)
I hope this idea catches on. Seems cynicism is the only response so far on the thread. Our side certainly has become demoralized.
Maybe we’ll get more traffic on the thread and some will give some constructive ideas.
If anyone at FR knows Texas Attorney General Gregg Abbott, I’d love for them to see what he thinks of the idea.
I feel like we are at the point of 410AD in Rome....I don’t think people realize we are not just talking about an invasion of Mexicans, this is the opening of floodgates to all of central and South America and pretty much any other country that wants in, bringing their attitudes and worldviews, for good or ill, with them. (Venezuela, etc.)
We are legalizing and rewarding a foreign invasion.
Also, Scalia wrote a good dissent, here, which I remember him mentioning something like the only sovereignty left after this decision was that of military/militia usage. [Sorry, I couldn't find the exact quote.]
Correct. Not quite, but close enough. Not to rain on your parade or anything, but with the current Regime we have in DC; I don’t foresee any State passing legislation as you suggest.
I think you’re being too technical in your reading of the treason clause. When the Constitution refers to the “United States” and “their enemies,” that does not mean that two states agreeing that a group of people are invaders means that those people are “their enemies,” and that any support for those people is treason. The “United States” does not mean two or more states that disagree, it means the Union.
Think about the logical extension of your argument. Your argument essentially gives two people (the governors of two states) the power to declare war. That is contrary to Article I’s provision granting Congress the power to declare war, raise armies, repel invasions, etc.
No legislation needed — it's an act of the governor.
Sorry yeah I realized that later after I posed
My eyes have a semi glazed over situation these days...
AMNESTY Bill summers make me sick
No, the power to declare War is reserved to the Congress; however, when States are being invade a state of war already exists (invasion being an act of war, obviously). Just because Congress refuses to declare war does not mean that the country cannot be in a state of war... to assert that would be to assert that other countries cannot declare war on the US.
The power to repel invasions is not exclusive to the Congress. That is, it is absurd to insist that the States cannot defend themselves.