Posted on 07/27/2007 7:56:19 AM PDT by Congressman Billybob
This is a simple question. Everyone should know the answer. It goes to the heart of the American experiment in self-government. In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “just” government rests on “the consent of the governed.” The Constitution put that in writing, in law. But recently, two federal judges have decided that they should run America, not the people.
Federal judges are, of course, not elected and serve for life. The idea that they should decide public issues rather than officials elected for that purpose is an attack on the basis of American government. And yet it happens. Cases in point: Hazleton, Pennsylvania, and Framers Branch, Texas.
In both cities, with the overwhelming support of their citizens, the Mayor and City Councils passed ordinances to discourage local landlords from renting to illegal aliens, and local businesses from hiring illegal aliens. Neither city took on the role of determining who was illegal. Instead, both cities (in different ways) accepted federal definitions of who was an illegal alien.
The federal judge who ruled against Hazleton wrote that local ordinances like this are "preempted by federal law." This is a false conclusion, since the ordinances merely accepted and used the existing federal definitions of who is an illegal alien.
The judge sought to salvage himself from reversal by adding dicta, saying that even if the City's ordinances were not preempted, they violated "the constitutional rights" that the plaintiffs' have "whether they were legal residents or not." This is flatly contrary to prior decisions of the Supreme Court.
The driving force behind the appeal of this case, and an appeal of a similar decision by another federal judge against ordinances of Farmers Branch, Texas, will be future harm to American citizens who live in those towns. There will be more rapes, robberies, assaults and murders of citizens by illegal aliens. There will be more injuries, damage and deaths from illegal aliens driving without licenses, without insurance, and sometimes while drunk.
The citizens of those, and other towns, which are being overwhelmed by illegal aliens, will rightfully blame this death and destruction on the federal judges who have, so far, stripped the local governments of the power to protect their own citizens. And, protecting the citizens is the first duty of all elected officials, everywhere.
In the meantime, the same dynamic will play out in New Haven, Conn. That City started this week issuing special City IDs to illegal aliens, there. These and all other "sanctuary cities" will attract even more illegal aliens. The deaths, injuries and damage, and health, welfare and education costs, inflicted by illegal aliens in these cities should and will be blamed on those local officials.
The death rate of Americans from all illegal activities of illegal aliens has consistently been higher than the death rate of Americans in Iraq and all other places around the globe where American servicemen and women "go in harm's way." Local media, who report on local matters, are beginning to catch up with this deadly reality. All Americans are in harms’ way, not just the military.
This is not a civics test in the 11th grade asking “Who’s in charge of America?” These are real decisions, by real judges, which will lead to real deaths of real citizens. These two decisions by arrogant federal judges should be reversed on appeal. Furthermore, people who are concerned about the cost and damages from illegal aliens should push the candidates for President to answer two questions:
“Who’s in charge of America?” And – “Would you appoint federal judges who would steal the right of self-government from cities, states, and the Congress of the United States?”
For more than two decades I have preached the doctrine, like a voice crying in the wilderness, that the judicial appointments of a President may be more important than anything else that he or she does. That’s because judges last for life, whereas Presidents are gone in eight years, maximum. Now, citizens of the US are beginning to see the point. Ever since the Kelo case (where the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that government can take your house to give your property to another private owner), citizens have been outraged about Court arrogance, and Court disregard of the Constitution.
The Hazleton and Framers Branch court decisions are two more examples of such anti-constitutional thinking. All candidates for President should be asked whether they approve of these decisions. That’s a quick way to assess whether they think citizens and elected officials, or unelected judges, should be in charge in America.
- 30 -
About the Author: John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu He lives in the 11th District of North Carolina.
- 30 -
Thanks for catching that error. It’s corrected.
John
bttt
Well stated.
You hit the nail right on the head. Excellent read!!!
Thank you for writing and posting this.
Congressman Billybob,
What are the principles of federalism, and are they compatible with Campaign Finance Reform? How so?
I would love to see this answer in the form of an essay here at FR.
Thanks!
I think it is the DC planet.
Here’s one tool we can use, and we can use it right here from FR.
RICO —Citizen Recourse
Private persons and entities may initiate civil suits to obtain injunctions and treble damages against enterprises that conspire to or actually violate federal alien smuggling, harboring, or document fraud statutes, under the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO). The pattern of racketeering activity is defined as commission of two or more of the listed crimes. A RICO enterprise can be any individual legal entity, or a group of individuals who are not a legal entity but are associated in fact, and can include nonprofit associations.
lol
Why do illegal aliens have standing in an American court?
They don't. The judge in this case feels sorry for them because he thinks the immigration laws are mean.
So he decided that criminals who might be affected by a law designed to punish them should be able to sue the people who made the law to throw it out. But no criminal wants his name known, so the judge happily complied with that desire and let the case go forward with a few "Does" who could be entirely fictional for all we know.
In other words the judge made up a right. Out of thin air. Like his plaintiffs probably were, too.
agreed.
What about an appeal?
John / Billybob
My wife.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are in charge
Excellent, thank you.
“Who’s In Charge of America?”
Looks like La Raza.
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.