Anti-Commandeering: The Legal Basis for Refusing to Participate

Rune said:
The Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution

YOU FUCKING MORON.
Click to expand...

And Article 6 is not? Bigger Idiot? :palm: There is nothing in Article 10 that prohibits enforcement of Constitutional Law...i.e., Laws drafted and ratified by the STATE REPRESENTATIVES concerning immigration. Those congress critters are AGENTS of the STATE....100 senators and over 430 congressmen....all representatives of the states there for the express reason of DRAFTING LAW. Its these representatives of the states/people that grant authorization to the feds as clearly expressed in the 10th amendment. Thus, by proxy....its the states/people that have legislated all those federal laws. The only exception to granting this authority of federal law by the people to the feds would be if said laws were proven to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, i.e., in direct contradiction to the previous contract among the states that calibrates all law at all levels both state and federal...THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Where has it been proven that enforcement of Immigration law is contrary to the US CONSTITUTION?

As pointed out before...some people are attempting to cut of their nose off to spite their own face.

Read Article 10 of the states bill of rights -- "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, OR PROHIBITED IT BY THE STATES.....(prohibited it? Meaning what, prohibiting authority, i.e. power.....when those congress critters draft law that does not conflict with the constitution, they are granting power to the fed from the states/people's representatives.)

That is what a great many of these morons don't comprehend.....THE MORE YOU LEGISLATE THE MORE YOU DICTATE...by granting previously non-existent authority to the federal government.

The people/states would be a great deal better off if they simply paid these turn coat senators and congressmen to simply set on their collective asses and not pass one new law.
 
Last edited:
Ralph said:
And Article 6 is not? Bigger Idiot? :palm: There is nothing in Article 10 that prohibits enforcement of Constitutional Law...i.e., Laws drafted and ratified by the STATE REPRESENTATIVES concerning immigration. Those congress critters are AGENTS of the STATE....100 senators and over 430 congressmen....all representatives of the states there for the express reason of DRAFTING LAW. Its these representatives of the states/people that grant authorization to the feds as clearly expressed in the 10th amendment. Thus, by proxy....its the states/people that have legislated all those federal laws. The only exception to granting this authority of federal law by the people to the feds would be if said laws were proven to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, i.e., in direct contradiction to the previous contract among the states that calibrates all law at all levels both state and federal...THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Where has it been proven that enforcement of Immigration law is contrary to the US CONSTITUTION?

As pointed out before...some people are attempting to cut of their nose off to spite their own face.
Click to expand...

Clearly you;
A. Didn't read the OP
B. have no clue about the text of the 10th
C. Are a moron of epic proportions
D. Are not welcome in this thread
E. Are about to be ignored by me
F. Will be banned from every thread going forward.
 
So it's illegal for the federal gov't to withhold funding from schools because of non-compliance?????
 
Rune said:
No law which violates the Bill of Rights is enforceable.
Contract law does not overide the Bill of Rights.
Click to expand...

ehh. a lot of the time you give up some 4th ammendment rights when you enter an employment contract. When you settle out of court you give up 7th ammendment rights as well.
 
Rune said:
Interestingly, this is only of importance to Cons when it works in their favor.
Click to expand...

true. I am in favor of california and other cities becoming sanctuaries. I already outlined this in the past. When you make them sanctuaries illegals will go to them instead of places that are not sanctuaries. If they leave another area in the US that frees up the job they are doing for the citizen. Once the illegals enter the sanctuaries they either have to compete with the current people for jobs and housing and if they are unable to push the residents out of jobs turn to crime instead.

Its like strategy games where you funnel your opponents where you want them to go for your benefit. Enforcing immigration laws elsewhere and channelling all illegals into sanctuary cities is the best chance we have of turning them republican.
 
tsuke said:
ehh. a lot of the time you give up some 4th ammendment rights when you enter an employment contract. When you settle out of court you give up 7th ammendment rights as well.
Click to expand...
The Contracts clause does not apply to the Federal gov.
 
Rune said:
Clearly you;
A. Didn't read the OP
B. have no clue about the text of the 10th
C. Are a moron of epic proportions
D. Are not welcome in this thread
E. Are about to be ignored by me
F. Will be banned from every thread going forward.
Click to expand...

You have been demonstrated to be full of shit...so naturally its the fault of others for not reading or understanding....you sound just like Barry Soetoro. LMAO

I understand one thing....if the firewall that is the Untied States Constitution did not exist.....fascist idiots such as you would have taken over this nation hundreds of years ago.

Its clear, its unambiguous, and drafted at an 8th grade level.

the SUPREME CLAUSE FOUND TO EXIST IN ARTICLE 6 OF THE US CONSTITUTION. As long as the STATE REPRESENTATIVES continue to go DC and turn coat on their own states......the federal government will continue to usurp power/authority that is not granted in the Constitution, every time they pass an act of legislation.
 
Bigdog said:
So it's illegal for the federal gov't to withhold funding from schools because of non-compliance?????
Click to expand...
They can only withhold funding that is directly involved with the noncompliance.

This is immaterial to the OP in that the Feds do not supply states with funds for immigration enforcement in that immigration is a Federal purview.
 
Ralph said:
You have been demonstrated to be full of shit...so naturally its the fault of others for not reading or understanding....you sound just like Barry Soetoro. LMAO

I understand one thing....if the firewall that is the Untied States Constitution did not exist.....fascist idiots such as you would have taken over this nation hundreds of years ago.

Its clear, its unambiguous, and drafted at an 8th grade level.

the SUPREME CLAUSE FOUND TO EXIST IN ARTICLE 6 OF THE US CONSTITUTION. As long as the STATE REPRESENTATIVES continue to go DC and turn coat on their own states......the federal government will continue to usurp power/authority that is not granted in the Constitution, every time they pass an act of legislation.
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights is an integral part of the Constitution.

IT IS YOU AND YOUR ILK THAT WOULD USURP IT.
 
Rune said:
They can only withhold funding that is directly involved with the noncompliance.

This is immaterial to the OP in that the Feds do not supply states with funds for immigration enforcement in that immigration is a Federal purview.
Click to expand...

Hmmm ... you mean like this?

"WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is considering whether North Carolina’s new law on gay and transgender rights makes the state ineligible for billions of dollars in federal aid for schools, highways and housing, officials said Friday."

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/02/...crimination-law-obama-federal-funds.html?_r=0
 
Rune said:
Equal treatment under the law for all.

The law in question is the state law.
Click to expand...

And whether it violates the Federal 1972 Title XI law ... which is why Obama threatened to withhold federal funding for schools, highways, etc..
 
Bigdog said:
"Oregon risks losing $140 million for enabling kids to skip Common Core tests, feds warn"

http://www.oregonlive.com/education/index.ssf/2015/06/new_oregon_testing_law_could_j.html
Click to expand...
OK, I see this is a little too complex for you.

I will try once more to explain it to you.
They can withhold money that was funded to pay for their demands, if you refuse their demands. They can only withhold monies specifically aimed at the federal interest.
General funds cannot be withheld.
Are you starting to get it?

Since the Feds do not fund the states for immigration enforcement, they cannot withhold funds when the states (rightly) choose to not enforce federal laws. This is called the anti-commandeering doctrine of the 10th amendment. It has been upheld numerous times by the SCOTUS, and the concept dates to the founding.
At issue is a too strong central government, surely something you should be concerned with.
 
Bigdog said:
And whether it violates the Federal 1972 Title XI law ... which is why Obama threatened to withhold federal funding for schools, highways, etc..
Click to expand...
One more time;

The state law is unconstitutional, as it doesn't treat all citizens equally.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top