Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: bravedog
Now, we have the case where makes laws, granting themselves power and control that is not in the Constitution (things like EPA, health care, gun control, and even Immigration.)

Air Force, NASA, Food and Drug Administration, air traffic control system, etc., etc.

The Constitution grants Naturalization powers to the feds, but not immigration. Immigration is clearly a power of the states... this power was illegally wrested from the states with the passage of the Immigration Act.

Nonsense. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to "...make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution..." If the Constitution gives Congress, and not the states, the power to establish rules of naturalization then the ability to control immigration is necessary to carry out that power. Likewise, Article I gives Congress, and not the states, the power to regulate foreign commerce and enter into agreements with foreign powers. Who would be allowed to immigrate would fall under those.

Secession is never illegal.

Secession as practiced by the Southern states is. Or so the Supreme Court found in 1869.

The U.S. seceded from England, Texas seceded from Mexico... these things happen because it is the will of the people.

And both were followed by periods of unplesantness known as the American revolution and the Texas revolution. As was the Southern attempt. The difference was, of course, that the South lost their rebellion while Texas and the colonies did not.

Secession is never illegal.

Secession as practiced by the Southern states is. Or so the Supreme Court found in 1869.

The Constitution gives certain powers to the federal government.

And one of those is the power to admit states to the Union and approve any change in their borders or their status once they are allowed in. Implicit in that is the approval to leave.

642 posted on 08/18/2010 8:02:49 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 641 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur; bravedog; Colonel Kangaroo; mac_truck

How about Arkansas? Why would that state get to secede? The land was purchased from France by the federal government and its borders were established by the federal government, yet according to neo-Confederate doctrine the Arkansas state government had the power to.remove the area from the USA. Ridiculous!


643 posted on 08/18/2010 8:15:22 AM PDT by Michael Zak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
Air Force, NASA, Food and Drug Administration, air traffic control system, etc., etc.

Air Force - Of course, the founding fathers could never have anticipated a flying device, but it clearly is covered as part of the military protecting the United States. The Air Force used to even be part of the Army. My grandfather used to be part of the Army Air Corps. You have to consider the intent here.

The FDA, for sure is unconstitutional, as are most federal agencies.

Nonsense. Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to "...make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution..." If the Constitution gives Congress, and not the states, the power to establish rules of naturalization then the ability to control immigration is necessary to carry out that power. Likewise, Article I gives Congress, and not the states, the power to regulate foreign commerce and enter into agreements with foreign powers. Who would be allowed to immigrate would fall under those.

You are totally wrong about this one. The states regulated immigration. Even Art. 1 Sec. 9 mentions that states get to pick who they admit. In 1824, in The Mayor of New York v. Miln,the Supreme Court said that immigration was a police matter and belonged with the states:
"We think it as competent for a State to provide precautionary measures against the moral pestilence of paupers, vagabonds, and possibly convicts, as it is to guard against the physical pestilence which may arise from unsound or infectious articles imported. (Hmmm... sounds like Arizona wanting to protect themselves...)

In 1875, in Henderson v. Mayor of City of New York, the Supreme Court reversed their decision, saying that since the shippers charge a fee for importation of immigrants, this comes under... wait for it.. the Commerce Clause. (It was the precursor of Wickard v. Filburn which says that EVERYTHING falls under the Federal Government because of the Commerce Clause.)
States were still "allowed" to control immigration up until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. After that, the federal government took over immigration piece by piece.

...kind of getting off topic though... unless we are talking about the feds illegally taking power from the states thereby promoting secession...

724 posted on 08/18/2010 8:05:46 PM PDT by bravedog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 642 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson