Posted on 12/01/2018 6:53:32 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
A federal judge in New York has ruled the Trump sanctuary city crackdown illegal Friday — but even went further and also ruled the law Congress passed requiring information-sharing is unconstitutional.
Judge Edgardo Ramos‘ decision frees sanctuary jurisdictions in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, Massachusetts and Virginia to continue their policies without fear of losing federal money.
The judge said the Trump administration attempted to write new conditions of cooperation, including notifying the feds of illegal immigrants ready for pickup, beyond what Congress had authorized. He said it is up to Congress to decide those conditions.
“The separation of powers acts as a check on tyranny and the concentration of power,” the judge wrote
But beyond that, the judge ruled Section 1373 of immigration law, which requires at least some level of information-sharing, to be a violation of the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, which prohibits federal interference with state powers.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
USSC will birch slap this decision
I for one would like to know where in the Constitution sanctuary cities are mentioned for those illegally in the US? Maybe extend it to bank robbers and other types.
Another case of overriding the Constitution and the president’s authority over immigration! The activists continue to undermine the Constitution AS IT WAS WRITTEN!
When if ever is Trump going to tell the Supremes to get control of these judges or he will? Time to use Andrew Jackson’s approach: Tell the courts to enforce their decisions since they have no enforcement authority and the executive branch is co equal with the judicial branch.
The house can pass a bill but you need the senate and trump to make it a law.
“Another activist judge.”
Appointed by obama wouldn’t you know.
Nothing to do but ignore. The marxist federal judiciary is in open rebellion against the constitution and the Republic. As are sanctuary cities/states, the communist party, the democrat party, and the education system. It is way past time to start addressing the rebellion.
This type of decision only goes one way, in favor of the people destroying the country. It is a check valve that only benefits the marxists.
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
The post-2020 election Congress will hopefully make a law that requires judges to publicly reference specific constitutional clauses simultaneously with announcing their case decisions, clauses that reasonably justify their decisions, or be automatically removed from the bench and their decisions overturned.
Regarding the so-called threat of losing federal money in this example, if the fed’s cannot justify federal funding under one of the clauses in Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limted powers, then the money can be regarded as state revenues that the corrupt feds stole from the states by means of unconstitutional federal taxes.
"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.
Also, Dan Borgino’s excellent 37 min video (associated book) helps to flesh out the alleged Mueller conspiracy against Pres. Trump.
Dan Bongino - Obama, Mueller and the Biggest Scam in American History
Since this judge is referencing the 10th amendment, doesn't he know that the 10th amendment "prohibits federal interference with state powers" not enumerated in the Constitution as delegated to the federal government. Making the rules of immigration and naturalization is one those powers explicitly enumerated in Article I Section 8 as being delegated to Congress.
This judge is wrong.
-PJ
+++++++
There are some real women haters around here, aren’t there? I can almost guarantee that many of the ones who hate women because of a “bad experience”, don’t have a clue, that it was probably mostly their own selfish behavior that contributed to that experience. (Naturally, there are exceptions to every rule).
Does the word ‘discretionary’ even show up in the judge’s ruling? This was about discretionary funds available from the DOJ. But then, I’m aware of a CA court case where the trial judge was joined by 3 appellate justices dismissing a dictionary definition of ‘wrongful’ in ruling that an illegal act is not wrongful. When courts start ignoring dictionary meanings ascribed to our language, there is no longer a basis for justice.
https://www.fjc.gov/history/judges/ramos-edgardo
A Judge , born in Puerto Rico in 1960, appointed by Obammy and confirmed by the Senate, says..
No No NO..
This ‘Black Robe Democracy’ thingy is getting a little bit more than tired..
The issue addressed by this thread is a tangle of conflicting, politically correct interpretations of the Constitution imo, both federal and state governments violating the Constitution in one way or another on immigration and tangent issues. So I intended for my uncharacteristically brief post to give just one example of unconstitutional federal interference in state sovereignty in the name of supporting Pres. Trump in draining the federal swamp.
And speaking of various interpretations of the Constitution, let's consider yours on this issue.
"Making the rules of immigration and naturalization is one those powers explicitly enumerated [??? emphases added] in Article I Section 8 as being delegated to Congress."
If I understand you correctly, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 (1.8.4) does not include the word immigration.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
Is the absence of the word "immigration" in the actual clause significant? Previous generations of state sovereignty-respecting Supreme Court justices have generalized such questions with a yes.
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphases added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
But more importantly, let's consider the intentions of the drafters of the Constitution, James Madison having been one of them. Please consider the following from 1.8.4-related threads.
Note that regardless that the Constitution’s “Uniform Rule of Naturalization” Clause is sometimes used to justify federal immigration laws, consider that Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Madison generally regarded as the father of the Constitution, had clarified, in terms of the 10th Amendment (10A) nonetheless, that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate immigration. This is evidenced by the excerpts below.
Here is the relevant excerpt from Jeffersons writings.
” 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.
Here is the related excerpt from Madison's writings from the 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.
Congress needs to impeach and remove this judge.
This Hispanic judge suddenly found the 10th amendment to support his predetermined conclusion.
What a joke.
On balance, womens suffrage has not been good for the country. (Naturally, there are exceptions to every rule).
and he did it wrong! Federal control of i.migratiob is an enumerated power,
Naturalization has no meaning outside of immigration.
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.