If the States don’t have standing, who does? Is SCOTUS saying the feds are omnipotent?
I would have to say, YES.
Funny, when Pres Trump was in office, Dem states did whatever they wanted.
Never the other way around.
“If the States don’t have standing, who does? Is SCOTUS saying the feds are omnipotent?”
Read Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion for an explanation.
They would have the “standing” they need if they got wise and seceded from this fascist conglomerate.
Is SCOTUS saying the feds are omnipotent?
*************
I think we already know the answer to that broader question. The entrenched power structure is all powerful.
Federalism is but a quaint philosophical concept.
Pick them up and dump them in a "sanctuary" state.
The SCOTUS just declared that we no longer have a Federal Government, but rather a Central Government.
Congress.
The constitution grants limited rights to the fed.
One of those rights is immigration and naturalization.
The states have no say, therefore they have no standing.
Right, wrong or indifferent, there it is.
"If the States don’t have standing, who does? Is SCOTUS saying the feds are omnipotent?"
The states have constitutional Article V amendment power to fix corrupt federal government, but are evidently too shy to use it.
On the other hand, patriots need to support Trump 47 to finish draining swamp before we mess with Constitution imo.
But once swamp is drained, a great new amendment would be one that does nothing more than repeal 16th (direct taxes) and 17th (popular voting for federal senators) Amendments, relatively little, or ideally no discussion required.
Regarding 2024 elections, it's up to us patriots to initiate the final stage of Trump 47's second term mission to finish draining the swamp by primarying as many of our beloved state and federal lawmakers and executives as we can.
After all, lawmakers and executives continue to show that they do not have the patriotism and leadership skills necessary to find legislative support for effective remedies for unconstitutional government policies.
In fact, given that one of the very few powers that the states have expressly constitutionally given to the unconstitutionally big federal government to dictate domestic policy is to run the Mail Service (most federal domestic policy actually based on stolen state powers), the worst problem that the peacetime country would otherwise be looking at with a new Congress of freshman lawmakers is a delay with mail delivery.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;"
Trump can endorse candidates that Constitution-savvy patriots recommend as long as candidates are not incumbents, candidates also promising to repeal the 16th (direct taxes) and 17th (popular voting for federal senators) Amendments after they win office.
The definition of insanity is reelecting your beloved career state and federal lawmakers and executives over and over again, expecting those same politicians to find remedies for unconstitutional government policies every time.
This ruling would actually make sense if we didn't have a Chinese puppet running our executive branch.
This is absurd. The federal government is a creation of the states, via the Constitution. Standing should be nothing more than a minimal bar to clear to bring a claim, in order to screen out frivolous cases, and that’s all. Instead, it has become a powerful judicial weapon the courts can use to avoid having to weigh in on “controversial” topics, or even as an impenetrable shield to block the advance of political arguments certain judges personally disagree with.