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.
Here's how:
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. |
I’m not suggesting that the States cannot defend themselves. I’m suggesting that the mere act of two governors declaring a certain group of people to be “Invaders” does not have the Constitutional effect of rendering those people “enemies” such that any action taken by anyone (including the President, Congress, the Supreme Court, or the governors of any of the other 48 states) to be treason. Your logic essentially gives unchecked power (since, by your logic, even a Supreme Court ruling against the governors’ action would be treason) to any two+ governors who declare something to be an invasion. That’s absurd.
Technically nullification works just as well. Failure of the Federal government to enforce federal laws surrounding immigration would be grounds for a state, any state, to invoke nullification.
However, in this example, it would only provide the means for the state to remove foreign nationals found to be there illegally to another state in the union.
It wouldn’t provide the means of deportation unless coupled with outright secession.
I believe that would be a more profitable tack. Let the federal government attempt to pass amnesty, but have the state enforce the laws within their own territory and remove those foriegn nationals found illegally to the rest of the united states. Escorted + bus ticket out would probably be sufficient.
I imagine this scenario as a rough analogy.
The US continues inflating away our debt, someday the Chinese decided to invade California to regain some of their loss, but rather than declare a war, Congress decided to look the other way,( call it by another name, call it “liberating California” or something). Say the citizens of California wanted to fight back, what would be their recourse? They ARE in a way, it’s just that Congress is totally failing in its duty to recognize it.
I think this is the same situation. At that point one of the main reasons for the existence of the federal government is pretty much gone. There really are just a few constitutional reasons for the government at the federal level. If they have shredded the constitution up and refuse to abide by it, they have BROKEN THEIR CONTRACT with “We, the PEOPLE”, and at that point the states must kick in to protect their citizens.
And I believe it's time the Supreme Court were held to task for its rulings. — I for one would love to see Kelo used as justification for stripping them of all real estate they own.
You missed the USSC ruling on SB 1070, didn't you?
They declared that the States cannot enforce Federal immigration law, nor can they mirror it in State Law.
Agreed, the Supreme Court should be held accountable for its rulings.
My question is this - in your hypothetical, how could the two state governors be held accountable for their actions? Your logic seems to dictate that as soon as the governors declared an invasion, it would become treason to take any action against their declaration.
Pointless for me. I have Jan Brewer, and she's not taking conservative phone calls now that she's been reelected. She's busy pushing a huge Medicaid expansion through a Special Session while threatening the Republicans in the state House with wholesale vetoes.
And? Are not things in law substantiated on two [or more] witnesses?
I worry far less about abuse by governors [ATM] than I do about the feral FedGov; the way to beat governors is to act like, and demand that, the State's Constitution means what it says.
I've looked at all the States's Constitutions where I would be living, only this one have I given less than a good read-through... I only skimmed it. (Though that reminds me that I should give it a better read.)
Disappointing.
I remember just a few years ago when she seemed worth having some enthusiasm about.
Is it really pointless? If we don't alert the govs they'll never know.
I can't think of anything in law that is substantiated on two [or more] witnesses with no possibility for any further review.
Here's a hypothetical on top of your hypothetical - suppose that two governors declare it as an invasion, but then two other governors explicitly declare it NOT to be an invasion? Hell, suppose the other 48 governors all declared that it is NOT an invasion. Would the other 48 governors thus be traitors, simply because they disagreed with the two who declared an invasion?
Here's another question - suppose, after the two governors declare an invasion, that a majority of citizens in each of the states disagree and seek to recall the governors. If these citizens mentioned the invasion issue in their recall campaign ("Vote to Recall Governor X because he incorrectly declared an invasion"), would that be Treason?
My point is that your suggestion would give unchecked power to a very, very small number of people (potentially two). That is not what the Founders envisioned or intended the Constitution to allow.
The framers only left it to the Governor's in extremis, because in the case of invasion there may not be time or opportunity to convene the Legislature.
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and SHALL protect each of them against Invasion; and on APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
Frankly, I think the chances of a Legislature doing this are higher than getting a Governor to stick his neck out so far.
That's not too hard to imagine/explain as reality: lay out a map of the US at your next picnic and smear honey on TX and NM — letting all the ants represent illegal aliens, tell me which states are invaded? (That is, the lack of invasion on other states does not invalidate the state of invasion on those other states.)
Here's another question - suppose, after the two governors declare an invasion, that a majority of citizens in each of the states disagree and seek to recall the governors. If these citizens mentioned the invasion issue in their recall campaign ("Vote to Recall Governor X because he incorrectly declared an invasion"), would that be Treason?
IMO that would depend on if the State's Constitution either (a) explicitly gave the Governor that authority, or (b) explicitly gave the Citizens the right to recall him. — I'm assuming, also, that they'd also have availed themselves of any possibility of demanding redress.
My point is that your suggestion would give unchecked power to a very, very small number of people (potentially two). That is not what the Founders envisioned or intended the Constitution to allow.
It's not unchecked power, obviously. (It is rightly subject to the State's own Constitution; that is what the 9th and 10th Amendment are about.)
Do you think this feral/federal government is!?
"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and SHALL protect each of them against Invasion; and on APPLICATION OF THE LEGISLATURE, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.
The 'and' indicates that such is another element of a list; therefore the guarantee of protection [in case of invasion] is separate from that of the "application of the legislature*".
Or would you say that this would prevent Amendments 9 & 10 from allowing, say, New Mexico's constitution to say the following?
Art V, Sec. 4. [Governor’s executive power; commander of militia.]
The supreme executive power of the state shall be vested in the governor, who shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed. He shall be commander in chief of the military forces of the state, except when they are called into the service of the United States. He shall have power to call out the militia to preserve the public peace, execute the laws, suppress insurrection and repel invasion.
* or executive [when...]
Hm, you think so? Why?
(Forgot to ask this when replying.)
I find it astonishing Governors could serve without knowing their enumerated powers, but what do I know? A bunch of them are Democrats and inherently stupid. Letting them know *we know* would not be pointless in many cases, just mine.
As for Brewer, I never trusted her since before she ran for Secretary of State in AZ, when I met her and her smarmy husband. I was pleased she signed a couple of pro-gun bills, but I knew she was pandering for votes and it wouldn’t last five minutes past her Primary for reelection as Governor...I was correct about the timing.
Call your statehouse pronto.
Let’s say you’re right, and the “and” separates rather than joins the two clauses.
1) The language still requires the United States to protect the States from invasion. Period. No request from the individual State is required for the general government to do so. They simply must.
2) The language still does not preclude the Legislatures from making the request for protection, with or without the Governor. If the first clause stands alone, it doesn’t then specify who makes the request on behalf of the individual State.
3) This invasion has led to a high degree of domestic violence. Our prisons and streets are full of illegals who have harmed Americans. By the way, if what illegals are doing in this regard is not regarded as “domestic violence,” that only leaves one other option: it is the hostile act of a foreign nation, and we should by all rights recognize that a state of war exists, and reply with our own Declaration of War, and then commence hostilities.
The reason I think it is more likely that a Legislature would make the application is because the Governors are a bunch of moral cowards. Sticking their necks out on the behalf of the people and the Constitution just isn’t their style. The Legislatures have lots of those sorts as well, but the responsibility would be spread out, and therefore more likely to be undertaken.
That’s simply my opinion, based on experience and observation.
Great point about the New Mexico constitution, by the way. Well done.
Thank you. :D
(I've found all sorts of interesting things reading State Constitutions; some of which would have pretty devastating impact on business as usual
[in that state] if followed.)
We’re dealing with a matter that is fundamental and indispensible. When the oath is sworn, as Article Six requires of all officers of government in this country, in every branch, at every level, the core of that oath involves the securing of the lives, the liberty, the property of every individual, and the sovereignty, security, borders, and independence of the whole people. It’s a shared duty. It’s why we have a Union, and why we have a Constitution. It is the raison d’etre of this free republic, and the reason for the existence of each and every office within it.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men...”
— The Declaration of Independence
The Constitution gives special duties in this regard to the President of the United States, and as you rightfully pointed out, the state constitutions give special responsibilities to the Governors.
But, fundamentally, the right and duty of self-protection and self-preservation is, as Samuel Adams and the Committees of Correspondence pointed out, the first law of nature.
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.