Posted on 11/25/2015 9:47:11 PM PST by Eleutheria5
The Obama administration on Wednesday reminded state officials across the country that states do not have legal authority to refuse to accept Syrian refugees, reports The Associated Press (AP).
The reminder from the White House came amid a growing controversy over the plan to accept Syrian refugees, in the wake of the discovery of a Syrian passport near the body of one assailant in the Paris attacks.
No less than 24 states announced earlier this week they would block the program to resettle Syrian migrants within their borders, though White House officials defended the current refugee program.
Later, the House of Representatives approved a resolution which aims to block administration plans to resettle 10,000 Syrian refugees in the coming year. President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the legislation.
On Wednesday, the Office of Refugee Resettlement said in a letter to state resettlement officials that states may not deny benefits and services to refugees based on a refugee's country of origin or religious affiliation.
States that do not comply with the requirement would be breaking the law and could be subject to enforcement action, including suspension or termination of the federally funded program, according to the letter, signed by the director of the federal resettlement office, Robert Carey, and quoted by AP.
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
It will be on this disbursement of refugees topic that the looming big fight will start.
it’s illegal for the fedgov NOT to enforce the borders and repeal invaders (illegals)... yet they do it
it’s illegal to give comfort to the enemy... yet this admin gave $5 billion to aid islam after releasing 5 of their top generals
it’s illegal to give weapons to the enemy ... yet this administration does it regularly
i could go on... and on... and on ...
“Time for an all-out hot shooting war.
Do you know how many MILLIONS will join you?”
I propose not nearly as many as you might think. Most people are sheep who will follow the government shepherd to the slaughter. A great number of guns will be confiscated from the rebellious people. Read some history on the beginnings of the Mexican Revolution of 1910 to see how a grassroots revolution begins. Those who initially rebel will be quickly quelled by the superior force and organization of the feds.
It takes a long time for the remaining rebellious groups to organize properly and arm themselves sufficiently. Meanwhile, the government is not standing still. No matter how many guns and thousands of rounds of ammo you may have in your basement, they will either be initially confiscated or you will soon run out of ammo. Underground or foreign suppliers will have to be attained and maintained. A revolution is not easy, even an ongoing partisan war. For those who survive the first phase, it will only get nastier.
solution:
all taxpayers send their federal tax money... care of their state government.
if the fedgov stops sending funds to support the various federally funded programs in-state, the state can then stop sending the tax money from the state's citizens
reduces the threat to zer0... and actually puts the power back with the states.
as an additional bonus, receiving tax money from the states is how the Constitution originally designed it
So? When was “law” followed by this example-setting “president?” He doesn’t follow the law, why should we...it is OUR country, not his.
Why wouldn’t he claim that power? States have been surrendering their sovereignty for years (abortion, immigration, guns, environmental laws, gay marriage). He has been granted precedence by the GOP elites and spineless governors.
“Obama: It’s illegal for states to refuse Syrian refugees”
States: It’s illegal for you to be president, so what’s your point?
Wow, using the power of the purse. What a novel idea.
So prevaricates the scofflaw clown who should have been impeached years ago.
Having also considered the same thing, I appreciate your suggestion for taming federal taxation. But Congresss power to appropriate tax has actually already been limited in another way too which Congress now wrongly ignores.
Given the remote possibility that you were not aware of this, the Supreme Court had clarified in the first half 19th century that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers. Here is the excerpt.
”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
In fact, based on the Courts statement above, here is a rough approximation of how much taxpayers should be paying Congress annually to perform its Section 8-limited power duties.
Given that the plurality of clauses in Section 8 deal with defense, and given that the Department of Defense budget for 2015 was $500+ billion, I will generously round up the $500+ billion figure to $1 trillion (but probably much less) as the annual price tag of the federal government to the taxpayers.
In other words, the corrupt media, including Obama guard dog Fx News, should not be reporting multi-trillion annual federal budgets without mentioning the Supreme Courts clarification of Congresss limited power to lay taxes in budget discussions.
The reason that we now have an unconstitutionally big, tax-hungry federal government on our backs is this imo. When the Founding States established the federal Senate, they gave control of the Senate uniquely to state lawmakers. Part of the reason for having state legislatures control the Senate was so that senators could protect their states by killing House appropriations bills which could not be justified under Congresss Section 8 powers, such bills basically stealing state revenues.
The problem is that the Progressive Movement spooked low-information citizens to pressure state lawmakers to ratify the ill-conceived 17th Amendment (17A). And state lawmakers caved in and ratified 17A, foolishly giving up the voices of the state legislatures in Congress.
So now, after voters elect their federal senators, they go home and watch football while corrupt senators rob their wallets. Senators do this by working in cahoots with the corrupt House to pass unconstitutional appropriations bills, bills which Congress cannot justify under its Section 8-limited powers.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators who hurt their states by helping the likewise corrupt House to pass unconstitutional appropriations bills along with it.
[[Given the remote possibility that you were not aware of this, the Supreme Court had clarified in the first half 19th century that Congress is prohibited from appropriating taxes in the name of state power issues, essentially any issue which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers. Here is the excerpt.
â€Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.†- Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.]]
So the health care obamination was billed as a tax, in order to get it deemed legal by the SC, correct? or was it not deemed a tax, then later declared to be a tax?
Look at it this way. We have corrupt, state sovereignty-ignoring justices imo. I do know what they were indoctrinated with by socialist professors in law school, but it they certainly were not taught about the federal governments constitutionally limited powers as the Founding States had intended for those powers to be understood.
What citizens are being misled about by all three corrupt branches of the federal government concerning Obamacare cases is this. Such Supreme Court cases are not new, previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting justices upholding the Constitution by deciding such cases in the favor of the states. This evidenced by the excerpts from case opinions below where the excerpt in previous post came from, the list not necessarily complete.
Since the Supreme Court relatively recently wrongly decided the Obamacare healthcare insurance mandate in the feds fevor, note in particular the fourth entry in the list. That entry from Paul v. Virginia shows that the Court had clarified that insurance policies are not commerce, Congress therefore having no Commerce Clause power (1.8.3) to regulate insurance, regardless if the parties involved are domiciled in different states.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” - Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” - Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
”Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” - Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
” 4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” - Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
”Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” - Linder v. United States, 1925.
In fact, former Speaker Pelosi wrongly ignored a resolution to propose a healthcare amendment to the states before she rammed the unreadable Obamacare bill through the House.
"Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality.” H. J. Res. 30.
Had Congress successfully petitioned the states for a healthcare amendment to the Constitution before establishing Obamacare then we would not be having this discussion. Instead, the feds wrongly established Obamacare without the required approval of the Constitutions Article V state majority, just as they have done with many federal social spending programs, particularly since the time of Constitution-ignoring socialist FDR.
In the meanwhile, there has never been anything stopping the individual states from establishing their own, 10th Amendment-protected healthcare programs except for one thing. Many states probably cannot afford their own healthcare programs because corrupt Congress is stealing state revenues that could be used to pay for such programs by means of unconstitutional taxes needed to pay for rip-off Obamacare.
What a mess! :^(
I agree it’s a huge mess-
My contention is this- Never before in our history, to my knowledge, had the government been able to force anyone to buy anything against their will.
Before the SC decision on the HC- a man or woman was free, IF they so chose to, to wander the US on foot- Never having to pay a diem for anything (obviously this is an extreme case- but it illustrates my point)-
They could eat off the land, wander on state and federal lands, moving about as they please for the most part- making hteir own clothing, and never paying a diem for anything IF they so chose to
They were free from government coercion forcing them to purchase anything-
But now comes this law- forcing everyone to buy something- whther they want it or not-
This is no different than the mafia forcing business owners to pay ‘protection money’ against their will-
[[corrupt Congress is stealing state revenues that could be used to pay for such programs by means of unconstitutional taxes needed to pay for rip-off Obamacare. ]]
Again- what’s the difference between what congress is doing, and what mafia does? Congress forcing people to buy their product or else be deemed what? Criminal for not purchasing HC?
==============================
He was yellow, I tell ya!
He had a yellow streak a mile wide.
He was as yellow as they come.
Yellow bellied SOB!, etc.
U are really on the right track.
I contend the seventeenth Amendment is unconstitutional and should be vacated forthwith, on the basis of the term limit of newly minted Representatives rather than Senators. When the 17th was ratified the term limit did not change with the change in duties of senators representing the States to extra super Representatives of the people. The Constitution states in Article 1 Section 2 that Representatives of the people are elected by the people for a period of two years, not six. Senators chosen by State Legislatures are elected for a term of six years per Article 1 Section 3. Since no longer elected by State Legislatures, that term and amendment should be null and void.
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.