Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justices Decline To Re-enter Immigration Debate
AP ^ | 03/03/2014 | Staff

Posted on 03/03/2014 2:55:49 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan

PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- A former Pennsylvania coal town and a Dallas suburb lost a lengthy battle to enact anti-immigrant laws Monday when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear their appeals.

The high court has held since 2012 that immigration issues are largely a matter for federal agencies, not local governments, to regulate.

(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-22 last
To: BuckeyeTexan

I believe that Fremont, NE did the same thing.


21 posted on 03/03/2014 5:02:58 PM PST by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ray76; RIghtwardHo; Blood of Tyrants
Blood of Tyrants:
They didn’t answer a fundamental question: What option do the states have when the federal government refuses to enforce the laws enacted.

RIghtwardHo:
Of course they answered that question. The answer was ... “none”.

Ray76:
We can’t wait. If the Federal government won’t act, we will.

We actually can do something at the state-level... completely legal and while it would throw a monkey-wrench into the national politics it's not itself a political move… it goes something like this:

  1. Governor declares a state of invasion (because of illegal immigrants).
    This, in itself, would make a vote for amnesty [very arguably] an act of treason.
  2. Governor calls the national guard (and possibly the unorganized militia) to defend the state.
  3. Governor demands that the Federal government assist under Art 4, Sec 4.
    This leaves the federal government with three options:
    1. Render Aid
      Highly unlikely, it would result in a good many politically people who have been pushing for open borders to have egg on their face.
    2. Do Nothing
      This is the most likely; the federal government would hem and haw, but do nothing; this would rightly enrage a lot of people.
    3. Attack
      This is unlikely, but possible: the federal government could aid the invaders by force (executive), lawfare (legislative), and/or holding the states as non-sovereign (Judicial).
      ALL of these are Treason, by Constitutional definition.
  4. Regardless of the FedGov's response, a lot of people will be impressed with that state's governor.
  5. It would likely show that the FedGov has no intent to holding to its Constitutional obligations, even in martial matters.
  6. It would flush out a lot of the domestic enemies we have in the federal government.

22 posted on 03/04/2014 8:03:35 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-22 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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