Replies

Which law enforcement? Two different times the issue was brought up on Hannity on the radio once with a police official, another time with the state DA and they said border enforcement was a federal issue. Why even label them illegal if you're gonna treat them as legal?

I guess I was wrong. I noted from the Senate Floor analysis of the bill that the State Sheriffs Association was opposed. I have to admit that I heard that law enforcement was "screaming" to have this bill defeated. Apparently not. There are some law enforcement entities that were in support of the bill. I guess their rationale is that if they pull someone over, they'd rather have some ID on the person rather than none at all.

Certainly there must be a way to link this with The US Constitution as a gross violation:

See Below:

Article I, Section. 10.

Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

The emphasis is mine, but since I'm no attorney I can't even make an educated guess - but it seems to me that California has essentially entered into an agreement with a foreign power. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Article IV:

Section. 2. Clause 1: The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Now does this mean that once you have a driver's license (obviously you're a citizen of California with a driver's license), then your ID is de facto US citizenship? Please tell me it doesn't.

Article IV:

Section. 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

How hard would it be to make the case that California has in fact been invaded?

Yes, I'm grasping at straws here. We're witnessing firsthand one of the greatest violations of what this nation stands for - the rule of law. If this is allowed to stand, we are witnessing the end of our Republic.