"In the Kentucky Resolution of 1798, authored by Thomas Jefferson, we see an attempt by a state government to interpose and nullify several acts of the federal Congress which it believed to be unconstitutional."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
The author of the referenced article overlooked the following points concerning Jefferson’s claim that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration.
More specifically, regardless that it can be argued that the federal government bases its immigration laws of the Constitution’s “Uniform Rule of Naturalization” Clause (1.8.4), not only did both Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, complain that the states had never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration regardless of how we might be swayed to interpret the Naturalization Clause today, but both men had also indicated that immigration is uniquely a state power issue, Jefferson borrowing language from the 10th Amendment in his writings.
Here is the relevant excerpt from Jefferson’s writing.
“4. _Resolved_, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the State wherein they are: that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual States, distinct from their power over citizens. And it being true as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force [emphasis added].” —Thomas Jefferson, Draft of the Kentucky Resolutions - October 1798.
And here is the related excerpt from the writings of James Madison in Virginia Resolutions.
"That the General Assembly doth particularly protest against the palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution, in the two late cases of the "Alien and Sedition Acts" passed at the last session of Congress; the first of which exercises a power no where delegated to the federal government, ...…
… the General Assembly doth solemenly appeal to the like dispositions of the other states, in confidence that they will concur with this commonwealth in declaring, as it does hereby declare, that the acts aforesaid, are unconstitutional; and that the necessary and proper measures will be taken by each, for co-operating with this state, in maintaining the Authorities, Rights, and Liberties, referred to the States respectively, or to the people [emphasis added]. ”— James Madison, Draft of the Virginia Resolutions - December 1798.
Note that Madison maintained a daily journal of debates at the Constitutional Convention and was therefore familiar with all arguments concerning every clause in the Constitution. So even if we gag and tie Jefferson and throw him into the back of a dark closet because we don’t like his “opinion” that the feds have no constitutional authority to regulate immigration, we cannot likewise ignore that Madison also agreed that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate immigration.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has proposed a constitutional amendment that would subject Supreme Court justices to periodic judicial elections in the wake of rulings that upheld a key portion of the Affordable Care Act and affirmed gay couples' right to marriage.
For many years I've advocated impeachment of judges, common, brutal forceful impeachment for the slightest errors. But the problem with that is the Washington DC elitist party. They all belong to the same governing click and they all protect their own.
Ted's idea is better than mine I'll admit. But I think you'd get interesting voter turnout results if you called it an impeachment vote.
And while I'm at it why restrict this to the supreme court? I think all judges should be subject to voter rebuke if and whenever there exists a ground swell of discontent.
No problem. I wrote it, so I can speak to what the author intended.
Keep in mind the article was written as a "starter/writing style trial" article for the 10th Amendment Foundation, and was specifically supposed to cover the implied role of the judiciary in the KY-Res, rather than Congressional vs. State control over immigration, per se.