Posted on 02/10/2011 12:41:55 PM PST by JesseWatters
Governor Jan Brewer just announced ....on behalf of the State of Arizona, she is suing the Federal Government. There are 5 counts....1/ failure to achieve operational control over the Mexico/Arizona border...2/ failure to protect Arizona from invasion...to enforce immigration laws...
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
Good analysis DoughtyOne. I suspect that there is more than a little “business as usual” for many governors. They can see what dire straits their respective states are in, but can’t quite make a break from “the old ways” of federal bailouts (yet). Hard choices are ahead.
Here’s to more of them joining Arizona....and Texas in standing up to Øbongo & co.
Thanks JesseWatters.
Thanks Rockrr. I’m sure your thoughts are close to the truth too. They do have their hands full these days.
“Just damn! WTG Jan Brewer. Another woman with more guts than any GOP fella.”
God Bless her for taking a stand to protect the citizens of Arizona!
Federalists and Anti-Federalists
The creation of the Constitution entailed hours of debate and compromise, and even when it was completed, some delegates were unhappy with it. The task of fixing the ailing Confederate government was not complete yet; each state had to ratify, or approve, the Constitution. Basically, people divided into two groups, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Each of their viewpoints is worth examining, as they both have sound reasoning.
The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution. Basically, they argue that:
* It gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments.
* There was no bill of rights.
* The national government could maintain an army in peacetime.
* Congress, because of the `necessary and proper clause,’ wielded too much power.
* The executive branch held too much power. Meeting Room
Of these complaints, the lack of a bill of rights was the most effective. The American people had just fought a war to defend their rights, and they did not want a intimidating national government taking those rights away again. The lack of a bill of rights was the focus of the Anti-Federalist campaign against ratification.
The Federalists, on the other hand, had answers to all of the Anti-Federalist complaints. Among them:
* The separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another.
* A listing of rights can be a dangerous thing. If the national government were to protect specific listed rights, what would stop it from violating rights other than the listed ones? Since we can’t list all the rights, the Federalists argued that it’s better to list none at all.
Overall, the Federalists were more organized in their efforts. By June of 1788, the Constitution was close to ratification. Nine states had ratified it, and only one more (New Hampshire) was needed. To achieve this, the Federalists agreed that once Congress met, it would draft a bill of rights. Finally, New York and Virginia approved, and the Constitution was a reality. Interestingly, the Bill of Rights was not originally a part of the Constitution, and yet it has proved to be highly important to protecting the rights of the people.
We do not have enough US Marshals to do the work of plugging the porous border, arresting and deporting illegals.
bump
“Will this be our Ft. Sumter?”
No....IF you mean an armed civil war. Won’t ever happen again. At least not an open clash of two waring armies. Any future “civil war” will be fought at the ballot box and courtrooms.
I like her too. She has more ballz than most GOP men.
“Brewer/Bachman 2012?”
And don’t forget Secretary of State Palin!;)
Music to my ears.
God bless Ms. Brewer.
I don’t know if a state can do this. To be honest, they might not have standing (the fedgov has sovereign immunity and all that).
This is what they should have done the first time. It would be nice if they had other states involved as well, though.
I combine the guarantee with the constitutional order that the president shall take good care that the laws be faithfully executed.
Under the right circumstances and bodies, this could spell impeachment. But we know that congress is a bunch of pussies unless their own pay or jobs are at stake.
It is criminal negligence and when one of these illegals blows a bunch of children and women up in our country because these policy makers opened the borders,I fear violence.
The Administration is pandering to the Latino vote.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress ... engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.All it takes is for one state to make the imminent danger proclamation and the Feds will be forced to take notice and act. Let a state
For far too long the Federal giubermint has shirked its paramount duty to defend this nation and protect its borders. Let it go to SCOTUS and have an opinion start "you know, they have a point ..."
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.