Texas governor says he will ban sanctuary cities

PostmodernProphet said:
so we've established that the law prevents states from doing what the federal government tells them not to do.......do you have something that says the states can avoid doing what the federal government TELLS them to do?.....
Click to expand...

The federal government has no police power over the several and sovereign States.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
let me see if I have your position correctly......your opinion is that if the federal government is the sole authority over a certain 'policy', then the states not only have no power to enforce it, but can choose to deny federal enforcement as well?
Click to expand...

i am not claiming they can deny US Marshals from doing their job. I am claiming, immigration is a federal problem and not a State problem, since 1808.

We have a Commerce Clause; why not be legal to it.
 
Rune said:
Already did dufus. You disagreed with the SCOTUS so now that we know how worthless your knowledge is you can fuck back off again.
Click to expand...
as shown, those cases indicate nothing about whether the state must do what the federal government tells them......they held they could not do what the government told them NOT to......now again, if you have any cases that say the state can refuse to do what the federal government tells them to I would love to see it.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
as shown, those cases indicate nothing about whether the state must do what the federal government tells them......they held they could not do what the government told them NOT to......now again, if you have any cases that say the state can refuse to do what the federal government tells them to I would love to see it.....
Click to expand...

There is no such law...why? Its simple....the states have sent representatives from each sovereign state to DC for the specific reason of "representing" each and every state via their acts of common legislation, each act of law must be drafted, and ratified through state representation by at least a 50 + 1 majority....but "tradition" maintains that in all acts of legislation that may have great impact on all the states that act "should" require a 60% majority...while all amendments to the ratified state contract known as the Constitution must have at least a SUPER MAJORITY of 75% or 3/4 majority representative ratification.

Where the rule of law gets foggy...lies with the federalist LAWS that have never come close to seeing representation by THE PEOPLE/STATES. Take for instance the many independent branches of non-elected, none represented layers of Central Government bureaucracy...like the EPA, they make up the laws as they see fit void of any state representation. Laws that have effect on every state in the UNION....laws that drastically effect jobs and state economies.

These laws have not seen a 60+1 vetting process of representation....hell these laws have not seen a 50+1 vetting process among the state representatives.....these laws are manufactured with no limits, no oversight, and no representation whatsoever....and as witnessed recently new laws for the EPA can be generated by the White House.....

These are the cases that need to be litigated with extreme prejudice....by the peoples representatives and the peoples court system all the way to the supreme court.

That's exactly why represented acts of FEDERAL LAW must be complied with by all the sovereign states....those laws have been legislated via the will of the STATES/PEOPLE already...there is in most circumstances nothing for the courts to litigate with common law. Traditionally.....the compliance with laws where both state and federal governments address the same circumstance...THE LAW WITH THE GREATEST PUNITIVE ACTION SHALL BE ENFORCED.

The 10th article in the State Bill of Rights (also voted on and ratified by a 75% super majority representation) simply states that if no REPRESENTATIVE LAW exists....or there are no words prohibiting such a law in direct, "verbatim" conflict with the Constitution...i.e., where the Constitution is silent...that silence belongs to the STATES/PEOPLE to litigate how each state's representation legislates a common law.

Its not rocket science....the entire Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 amendments to the contract/constitution among the states was drafted to avoid "AMBIGUITY"...and to make clear that the constitution was drafted as a negative document to limit the power and scope of the Federalist Power professed by the Central Government....nothing else.

In other words the 10th states very clearly with no ambiguity whatsoever that the silence of the constitution (words not written or legislated at the congressional level or contracted via the Constitution) belong to .....who? The Federal courts..themselves part of the federalist power base which the constitution was drafted to restrain....part of the Central government itself? Or to the states that actually drafted, voted on, and ratified by super majorty....that contract? Of course the 10th says clearly that all words not found to exist or GRANTED TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (i.e., act of representative legislation)....belong to THE PEOPLE/STATES.

Once again...to be clear as the precedent of the courts have already established....if there exists a represented act of law at the federal level, that law must come into compliance or be enforced at the state level...as its the LAW OF THE LAND....the established rule of law for THE UNITED "STATES" OF AMERICA.

In reality.....any state could tell the EPA to "PISS OFF"....and litigate that stance all the way to the supreme court, and be validated under article 10 of the states bill of rights...if there existed true constitutional judges on the supreme court.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
There is no such law...why? Its simple....the states have sent representatives from each sovereign state to DC for the specific reason of "representing" each and every state via their acts of common legislation, each act of law must be drafted, and ratified through state representation by at least a 50 + 1 majority....but "tradition" maintains that in all acts of legislation that may have great impact on all the states that act "should" require a 60% majority...while all amendments to the ratified state contract known as the Constitution must have at least a SUPER MAJORITY of 75% or 3/4 majority representative ratification.

Where the rule of law gets foggy...lies with the federalist LAWS that have never come close to seeing representation by THE PEOPLE/STATES. Take for instance the many independent branches of non-elected, none represented layers of Central Government bureaucracy...like the EPA, they make up the laws as they see fit void of any state representation. Laws that have effect on every state in the UNION....laws that drastically effect jobs and state economies.

These laws have not seen a 60+1 vetting process of representation....hell these laws have not seen a 50+1 vetting process among the state representatives.....these laws are manufactured with no limits, no oversight, and no representation whatsoever....and as witnessed recently new laws for the EPA can be generated by the White House.....

These are the cases that need to be litigated with extreme prejudice....by the peoples representatives and the peoples court system all the way to the supreme court.

That's exactly why represented acts of FEDERAL LAW must be complied with by all the sovereign states....those laws have been legislated via the will of the STATES/PEOPLE already...there is in most circumstances nothing for the courts to litigate with common law. Traditionally.....the compliance with laws where both state and federal governments address the same circumstance...THE LAW WITH THE GREATEST PUNITIVE ACTION SHALL BE ENFORCED.

The 10th article in the State Bill of Rights (also voted on and ratified by a 75% super majority representation) simply states that if no REPRESENTATIVE LAW exists....or there are no words prohibiting such a law in direct, "verbatim" conflict with the Constitution...i.e., where the Constitution is silent...that silence belongs to the STATES/PEOPLE to litigate how each state's representation legislates a common law.

Its not rocket science....the entire Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 amendments to the contract/constitution among the states was drafted to avoid "AMBIGUITY"...and to make clear that the constitution was drafted as a negative document to limit the power and scope of the Federalist Power professed by the Central Government....nothing else.

In other words the 10th states very clearly with no ambiguity whatsoever that the silence of the constitution (words not written or legislated at the congressional level or contracted via the Constitution) belong to .....who? The Federal courts..themselves part of the federalist power base which the constitution was drafted to restrain....part of the Central government itself? Or to the states that actually drafted, voted on, and ratified by super majorty....that contract? Of course the 10th says clearly that all words not found to exist or GRANTED TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (i.e., act of representative legislation)....belong to THE PEOPLE/STATES.

Once again...to be clear as the precedent of the courts have already established....if there exists a represented act of law at the federal level, that law must come into compliance or be enforced at the state level...as its the LAW OF THE LAND....the established rule of law for THE UNITED "STATES" OF AMERICA.

In reality.....any state could tell the EPA to "PISS OFF"....and litigate that stance all the way to the supreme court, and be validated under article 10 of the states bill of rights...if there existed true constitutional judges on the supreme court.
Click to expand...

Good rant Ralph. Right on.
 
Rune said:
Good rant Ralph. Right on.
Click to expand...

Of course...there is no retort of the TRUTH. That historical truth can easily be tested...all you need do is read and comprehend the standard for the rule of law in this nation. The United States Constitution. That's why I'm here....I don't start threads in order to gossip like women, I simply defend the truth.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so if I allow someone who's wanted for murder in another state to live in my home, without hiding, I won't be charged with aiding and abetting, harboring a fugitive, or anything like that?????
Click to expand...

You're trying to compete with Text Driver as the forum stupid person?
 
Ralph said:
There is no such law...why? Its simple....the states have sent representatives from each sovereign state to DC for the specific reason of "representing" each and every state via their acts of common legislation, each act of law must be drafted, and ratified through state representation by at least a 50 + 1 majority....but "tradition" maintains that in all acts of legislation that may have great impact on all the states that act "should" require a 60% majority...while all amendments to the ratified state contract known as the Constitution must have at least a SUPER MAJORITY of 75% or 3/4 majority representative ratification.

Where the rule of law gets foggy...lies with the federalist LAWS that have never come close to seeing representation by THE PEOPLE/STATES. Take for instance the many independent branches of non-elected, none represented layers of Central Government bureaucracy...like the EPA, they make up the laws as they see fit void of any state representation. Laws that have effect on every state in the UNION....laws that drastically effect jobs and state economies.

These laws have not seen a 60+1 vetting process of representation....hell these laws have not seen a 50+1 vetting process among the state representatives.....these laws are manufactured with no limits, no oversight, and no representation whatsoever....and as witnessed recently new laws for the EPA can be generated by the White House.....

These are the cases that need to be litigated with extreme prejudice....by the peoples representatives and the peoples court system all the way to the supreme court.

That's exactly why represented acts of FEDERAL LAW must be complied with by all the sovereign states....those laws have been legislated via the will of the STATES/PEOPLE already...there is in most circumstances nothing for the courts to litigate with common law. Traditionally.....the compliance with laws where both state and federal governments address the same circumstance...THE LAW WITH THE GREATEST PUNITIVE ACTION SHALL BE ENFORCED.

The 10th article in the State Bill of Rights (also voted on and ratified by a 75% super majority representation) simply states that if no REPRESENTATIVE LAW exists....or there are no words prohibiting such a law in direct, "verbatim" conflict with the Constitution...i.e., where the Constitution is silent...that silence belongs to the STATES/PEOPLE to litigate how each state's representation legislates a common law.

Its not rocket science....the entire Bill of Rights (the 1st 10 amendments to the contract/constitution among the states was drafted to avoid "AMBIGUITY"...and to make clear that the constitution was drafted as a negative document to limit the power and scope of the Federalist Power professed by the Central Government....nothing else.

In other words the 10th states very clearly with no ambiguity whatsoever that the silence of the constitution (words not written or legislated at the congressional level or contracted via the Constitution) belong to .....who? The Federal courts..themselves part of the federalist power base which the constitution was drafted to restrain....part of the Central government itself? Or to the states that actually drafted, voted on, and ratified by super majorty....that contract? Of course the 10th says clearly that all words not found to exist or GRANTED TO THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT (i.e., act of representative legislation)....belong to THE PEOPLE/STATES.

Once again...to be clear as the precedent of the courts have already established....if there exists a represented act of law at the federal level, that law must come into compliance or be enforced at the state level...as its the LAW OF THE LAND....the established rule of law for THE UNITED "STATES" OF AMERICA.

In reality.....any state could tell the EPA to "PISS OFF"....and litigate that stance all the way to the supreme court, and be validated under article 10 of the states bill of rights...if there existed true constitutional judges on the supreme court.
Click to expand...

and when its all said and done, the states do what the federal government orders them to do......
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so if a state decides that federal gun laws are unconstitutional, they can allow their people to make and own machine guns?
Click to expand...

That's about the size of it. The constitution does not directly say who decides if a law is constitutional or not which means, by the tenth amendment, that the states have the power to decide that. So how did the courts get the power? In 1803 they GRANTED it to themselves!!!
 
Norah said:
I'm actually ok with providing amnesty for all illegals currently in the country and in sanctuary cities and then after that increasing border security and increasing the enforcement of immigration law. I think that's the most reasonable, caring, and practical way of handling it.
Click to expand...

Well then you're stupid. All 40 million illegals will go on welfare and vote for the welfare party and america will be bankrupted in 5 years.

Trump should say. "Catching illegals is job number 1 and every one i catch i will deport. No exceptions".
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Well then you're stupid. All 40 million illegals will go on welfare and vote for the welfare party and america will be bankrupted in 5 years.

Trump should say. "Catching illegals is job number 1 and every one i catch i will deport. No exceptions".
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you feel that way but logistically it's not possible to find and deport 40 million people. That is unless we are operating as a police state and under the suspension of the 4th amendment complete with governmental raiding parties of homes and neighborhoods. The most practical and ethical way of handling this is accepting the fact that there are millions of people here that are undocumented and instead of focusing on them it's more about focusing on preventing the continuation of illegal entry. If you offer citizenship for current illegals and make them pay a fine for breaking border law in order to get that citizenship then that's a start, but it's radical and tyrannical fantasy to think you can deport 40 million people and to do it without major consequences for the country.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
But article 1 section 9 doesn't say what happens after 1808. The constitutional clause you refer to does not say anything about whether states or the feds control immigration TODAY.
Click to expand...
dimwit.....the feds control immigration.....that is why when the feds tell the state what to do regarding immigration, the states are required to do it.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top