SCOTUS-Split Decision on Arizona Immigration law

[David]

SCOTUS upholds key provision of Arizona immigration law. This won't make anyone happy. Does this picking and choosing lead us to believe healthcare decision will also be split decision.

SOURCE

[johnwk]

Make no mistake, our founding fathers have never granted a power to Congress to regulate aliens within the various State borders. What they did grant to Congress is the power to set the requirements by which an alien may become a citizen of the united States. And if there is any dispute concerning the limited power granted to Congress regarding the rule of naturalization, let our founding fathers speak for themselves.


REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [a power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152


And REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157

In addition, REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution expreses the very intentions for which the power [Naturalization] was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1148

The irrefutable fact is, the various states never delegated to Congress their original policing powers within their borders as may apply to aliens who have entered their borders illegally, and exercising this power does not interfere with Congress’ existing power to establish the requirements by which an alien may become a citizen of the united States.

By contrast, our founding fathers intentionally sought to preserve the various States power to regulate their own internal affaires as summarized in FEDERALIST 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

And keep in mind our founding fathers gave force and effect to the above words to preserve federalism, our Constitution’s plan, when adopting the Tenth Amendment:


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.___ Tenth Amendment


Bottom line is, specific members of our Supreme Court have once again decided to engage in judicial tyranny and work to undermine the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. And the only way I see to encourage our Supreme Court Justices to start abiding by their oath to support “this Constitution” is to apply a severe punishment which they will not soon forget.


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

[Bemused]

Originally Posted by David

SCOTUS upholds key provision of Arizona immigration law. This won't make anyone happy. Does this picking and choosing lead us to believe healthcare decision will also be split decision.

SOURCE

What was left of the Arizona law, according to the folks I've been listening to on the radio today, is that the cops can check immigration status, but so what? The can call the feds, but Obama's minions have already said they wont follow up. One source even said that the Administration has rescinded the fed-state cooperative regs upon which a part of the Arizona law was based.

So what are we left with? Reagan was the last president who did anything substantive regarding immigration. We know Obama will never do anything but pander and further give away our sovereignty.

Will Romney deal with this issue in any real manner during the upcoming campaign? Or will he slide along, later to to join all the other recent presidents who did nothing about immigration?

[Bemused]

Originally Posted by johnwk

Make no mistake, our founding fathers have never granted a power to Congress to regulate aliens within the various State borders. What they did grant to Congress is the power to set the requirements by which an alien may become a citizen of the united States. And if there is any dispute concerning the limited power granted to Congress regarding the rule of naturalization, let our founding fathers speak for themselves.


REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [a power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152


And REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157

In addition, REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution expreses the very intentions for which the power [Naturalization] was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1148

The irrefutable fact is, the various states never delegated to Congress their original policing powers within their borders as may apply to aliens who have entered their borders illegally, and exercising this power does not interfere with Congress’ existing power to establish the requirements by which an alien may become a citizen of the united States.

By contrast, our founding fathers intentionally sought to preserve the various States power to regulate their own internal affaires as summarized in FEDERALIST 45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

And keep in mind our founding fathers gave force and effect to the above words to preserve federalism, our Constitution’s plan, when adopting the Tenth Amendment:


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.___ Tenth Amendment


Bottom line is, specific members of our Supreme Court have once again decided to engage in judicial tyranny and work to undermine the documented intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. And the only way I see to encourage our Supreme Court Justices to start abiding by their oath to support “this Constitution” is to apply a severe punishment which they will not soon forget.


JWK


Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

Very interesting points, johnwk. Sincerely.

Of course, the Federalist papers, while of merit, do not have the force of law - that comes only from the constitution itself plus legislation plus case law - so I would have to read more of those items to get a feel.

But let's say that what you say is precisely true. What would be your assessment as to a path back to the way things should be? Amendment? Legislation? What provisions do you think would some new law need to contain?

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by Bemused

Of course, the Federalist papers, while of merit, do not have the force of law - that comes only from the constitution itself plus legislation plus case law - so I would have to read more of those items to get a feel.

If you are looking for intent consider that Congress can fire the President. But the Constitution gives the President no such power over any Congressperson or Senator. The President is supposed to "execute" the laws, not make them.

Originally Posted by Bemused

But let's say that what you say is precisely true. What would be your assessment as to a path back to the way things should be? Amendment? Legislation?

How about obeying the Constitution and the laws already on the books?

Unfortunately, political parties moved into power. We have a President who only represents the Liberals. He has repeatedly defined the conservatives as the opposition. The two bodies of Congress are also controlled by parties. When the Constitution was written, it specified representative of "the people", not political parties, which came later. They are the cancer that is destroying this country. But how can we extricate them when they, like the military in Egypt, are in control?

Originally Posted by Bemused

What provisions do you think would some new law need to contain?

Always a new law. Never enforcing what we already have.

[FastEddy]

The demofascists did not expect that the Court would unanimously allow Arizona (and any other state) to ask for proofs of citizenship. The Demofascists were all betting that some part of the AZ law would be stopped and that maybe some part would be allowed ... BUT not unanimously on this point.

This bodes well for the killing of BummerCare on Thursday.

The markets started reacting to this news last week as rumors of in-the-know retired Court clerks began to tell the tales re: all decisions. (The AP / NBC is calling the Court "super conservative".)

So, the demofascists are promptly re-adjusting their own portfolios for these results, anticipating investments in banks/insurance to dip ...

Tomorrow will be another big day for market adjustments, probably another big down market day. Thursday, all will be forgiven and the markets should rebound ...

(Disclosure: I'm buying Big Oil and Big Transport. COP, KSU, VLCCF.)

[schaabdl]

If it wasn't a win for AZ then why did he administration immediately shut down the partnership provision of the current law?
SOURCE
Has there really ever been another president so egotistical that only his way is the correct and only way?

[FastEddy]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

If it wasn't a win for AZ then why did he administration immediately shut down the partnership provision of the current law? ...

EXACTLY! ...

[luknikfan]

Originally Posted by Bemused

What was left of the Arizona law, according to the folks I've been listening to on the radio today, is that the cops can check immigration status, but so what? The can call the feds, but Obama's minions have already said they wont follow up. One source even said that the Administration has rescinded the fed-state cooperative regs upon which a part of the Arizona law was based.

So what are we left with? Reagan was the last president who did anything substantive regarding immigration. We know Obama will never do anything but pander and further give away our sovereignty.

Will Romney deal with this issue in any real manner during the upcoming campaign? Or will he slide along, later to to join all the other recent presidents who did nothing about immigration?

Romney will go along as did Bush cause big business wants open borders.

Rubio? Check his record - he blocked tightening of state immigration laws when he was in Florida.

Both Romney and Rubio disagree with Obama's Presidentially mandated amnesty a week ago. But on procedural grounds only.

Rubio is a dream act supporter and strongly opposed the overturned Arizona laws.

This battle is over and has been for a long time. No matter who wins in the fall.

Cheap labor is a very alluring siren song for big business. It actually saves a bit of money over off-shoring which corporations have been doing since at least 2000 and before.

[jtdc]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Has there really ever been another president so egotistical that only his way is the correct and only way?

Nixon???

[luknikfan]

Bottom line, the states are losing their little remaining autonomy to Federal control.

The decision in the Montana case, which ironically is being cheered by conservatives today, is another bow to Federal intrusion/control over the states.

As was the Illinois gun control case.

Both sides are all for Federal domination/final say-so when it goes along with their views. Not otherwise.

In either case, original intent is dead and gone as today's two decisions exemplify.

[Bemused]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

If it wasn't a win for AZ then why did he administration immediately shut down the partnership provision of the current law?
SOURCE
Has there really ever been another president so egotistical that only his way is the correct and only way?

Win? What win? You can check for immigration status, but the feds will do nothing about it. Oh? You're illegal? Have a nice day!

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Bemused

Very interesting points, johnwk. Sincerely.

Of course, the Federalist papers, while of merit, do not have the force of law -

There are fundamental rules of constitutional law which are recognized under English common law. Keep in mind our Constitution recognizes [see Amendment VII] the enforcement of common law! One of the rules of constitutional law which is grounded in English common law is Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…”__ (my emphasis) See, 16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law, Meaning of Language

And with regard to Madison’s notes, the Federalist Papers and Anti Federalist Papers, and the State Ratification debates [Elliot’s Debates] the rule is as follows regarding these important primary sources which document the “legislative intent” of our Constitution and meaning of words:

16 Am Jur, Constitutional Law, “Rules of Construction, Generally”

par. 89-- The Federalist and other contemporary writings

“ Under the rule that contemporaneous construction may be referred to it is an accepted principle that in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States recourse may be had to the Federalist since the papers included in that work were the handiwork of three eminent statesmen, two of whom had been members of the convention which framed the Constitution. Accordingly, frequent references have been made to these papers in opinions considering constitutional questions and they have sometimes been accorded considerable weight.” (numerous citations omitted )

The irrefutable truth is, regulating aliens within a state’s borders is an original power of the various states which was never delegated to the federal government and is retained by the States under the Tenth Amendment! The only exception being is found in Article 1, Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

There is a vast difference between the meaning of “naturalization” and “immigration” !

For documentation establishing the meaning of “naturalization” and what is within the federal government’s power over “naturalization” see my previous post..

JWK



They are not “liberals”. They are conniving Marxist parasites who use the cloak of government force to steal the property which labor, business and investors have worked to create

[Fox]

This is a very disappointing opinion from the court. While the federal government has the sole responsibility of setting uniform requirements for naturalization, they do not have the sole responsibility of enforcing immigration laws. States have every right and certainly have a vital interest in punishing and even deporting illegal immigrants.

The administration says that they are going to exempt certain illegal aliens as a matter of directing resources in a prudent manner but here is Arizona offering to use their resources to assist and yet it is opposed. Rather they prefer to force Arizona to feed, provide health services, and educate the illegal aliens at their own expense.

Even the provision that was left in place was only left in place until there is an actual complaint. In a couple more years this entire law will be stricken and states will be completely at the mercy of the federal government and their priorities for dealing with this issue.

[schaabdl]

Until yesterday, the states and the federal government had a partnership relative to immigration laws. The childish temper tantrum, I can think of no better description, to basically say, I'm not playing with you anymore, took the feds out of the picture.
AZ currently shown as a toss-up state but I believe this action gave AZ to Romney and potentially impacts NV and CO as well. The arrogance is undoubtedly a turn off. So far, Romney is doing the response at about the right level from him personally - let the super PACs do the dirty work and I can't help but believe they will. Electorally, Obama is not doing well on a state-by-state basis.

[Bemused]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

Until yesterday, the states and the federal government had a partnership relative to immigration laws. The childish temper tantrum, I can think of no better description, to basically say, I'm not playing with you anymore, took the feds out of the picture.
AZ currently shown as a toss-up state but I believe this action gave AZ to Romney and potentially impacts NV and CO as well. The arrogance is undoubtedly a turn off. So far, Romney is doing the response at about the right level from him personally - let the super PACs do the dirty work and I can't help but believe they will. Electorally, Obama is not doing well on a state-by-state basis.

I sincerely hope you are right on this one. But with gas prices plummeting, and an economy that sputters alone on the positive side and unemployment doing about the same as the period leading up to the 1984 election, well, there are parallels to be seen.

[Bemused]

Originally Posted by Fox

This is a very disappointing opinion from the court. While the federal government has the sole responsibility of setting uniform requirements for naturalization, they do not have the sole responsibility of enforcing immigration laws. States have every right and certainly have a vital interest in punishing and even deporting illegal immigrants.

The administration says that they are going to exempt certain illegal aliens as a matter of directing resources in a prudent manner but here is Arizona offering to use their resources to assist and yet it is opposed. Rather they prefer to force Arizona to feed, provide health services, and educate the illegal aliens at their own expense.

Even the provision that was left in place was only left in place until there is an actual complaint. In a couple more years this entire law will be stricken and states will be completely at the mercy of the federal government and their priorities for dealing with this issue.

One radio host whose opinion I respect called this decision the end of the 10th amendment and the end of the sovereignty of the states.

Scalia said "it boggles the mind"

[schaabdl]

The states may have to tell the feds to stick it where the sun doesn't shine - stop and detain and to heck with the SCOTUS decision. The states are only "forced" to do something that the states are "willing" to do. Enough is enough - call this the Galt Manifesto for States' Rights.

[Outrider]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

The states may have to tell the feds to stick it where the sun doesn't shine . . .

The last and best route. Let go of the gov't teat. Stand up and do it.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by schaabdl

The states may have to tell the feds to stick it where the sun doesn't shine - stop and detain and to heck with the SCOTUS decision. The states are only "forced" to do something that the states are "willing" to do. Enough is enough - call this the Galt Manifesto for States' Rights.

You have focused on the agenda behind the Court’s majority opinion! It is designed, as many pervious court decisions, to overthrow our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and end federalism, our Constitution’s plan! Does the Court’s opinion not attack Arizona for adopting law obviously designed to promote the State’s general welfare?

In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion Justice Kennedy asserts:

The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and on its inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations.

Please note that Justice Kennedy seems to have intentionally avoided citing that part of the Constitution which deals with the federal government’s “inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations”. And without pointing to the wording in our Constitution, his assertion is not only meaningless in the discussion but appears to be a clever attempt to create the origin of a grant of power which may not exist.

In regard to Congress’ power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” (Art. I, §8, cl. 4), that power, as confirmed by the words of our founding fathers which I provided in POST NO. 2, involves nothing more than Congress being charged with setting the requirements an alien must meet to become a naturalized citizen of the united States. The grant of power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” was never intended to, nor does it grant a power over “immigration”, a word which does not even appear in our Constitution!

And so, Kennedy’s contention concerning a power over “immigration” is not only unsubstantiated when pointing to Art. I, §8, cl. 4, but is in conflict with the documented intentions for which the limited power over naturalization was granted. In fact, and with regard to “Migration” Congress’ power as stated in our Constitution is as follows:

“The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.”

The irrefutable truth is, regulating aliens within a state’s borders is an original policing power exercised by the various states prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution and was never delegated or ceded to the federal government, and is a power specifically preserved and protected under the Tenth Amendment! And thus, the Court’s ruling is an act of judicial tyranny which attempts to circumvent a reserved power of a State to regulate its own internal affairs in contradistinction to Congress’ defined and limited regulatory powers ___ the former and latter powers being summarized as follows:


“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State. The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.” ___ FEDERALIST NO.45


It is quite alarming that the Court suggests the power over “immigration” was ceded by the States to Congress when there is nothing to be pointed to in the historical record to confirm that notion, nor anything in the Constitution confirming the States surrendered their original law making authority to set rules regarding aliens to promote their individual State's general welfare.


JWK



Absolute governments, (tho' the disgrace of human nature) have this advantage with them, they are simple; if the people suffer, they know the head from which their suffering springs; know likewise the remedy…..
___ Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.