johnwk
12-12-2010, 07:36 PM
With our Supreme Court about to rule on Arizona’s HB 2745 law, providing sanctions for employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens, and also requires employers doing business with the state of Arizona to use the federal government’s E-Verify database to confirm the legal status of workers, I thought it would be interesting to review the following observations concerning Arizona’s related law, S.B. 1070, as both cases involve a State’s retained policing powers under our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.
In Eric Holder’s COMPLAINT (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/070610_AZlawsuit.pdf) against Arizona’s law S.B. 1070, he alleges that:
“In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress.”
OBSERVATION:
Congress cannot by legislative acts delegate enforceable powers to itself which the States have not expressly granted to Congress under the Constitution. And, nowhere in the federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear. And so, Eric Holder’s assertion that the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters is a power not defined by our Constitution, nor can be pointed to in its text.
NOTE: The most fundamental rule of constitutional law is stated as follows:
“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”( numerous citations omitted).___ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling
In addition, and with reference to the meaning of words in our Constitution see:
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally
”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)
POINT: immigration vs. naturalization
The ordinary meaning of the word immigration is the movement of people from one place to another. Our Constitution does in fact use the word Migration in the following context:
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. see: Article 1, Section 9
As to the ordinary meaning of “naturalization”, its meaning is nothing more than the act by which an alien becomes a citizen. Congress, under our Constitution, is granted exclusive power to establish an uniform rule by which an alien may become a citizen, regardless of what State the alien migrates to. But the power over “naturalization” does not, nor was it intended to, interfere with a particular state’s original power over aliens wishing to immigrate into the State. This is verified by the following documentation:
REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent 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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=574)
In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the 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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=576)
And finally, 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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578) and 1157 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=579)
CONCLUSION:
The big lie in Eric Holder’s complaint begins with the false notion the federal government has been granted exclusive power over “immigration” when the actual power granted to the federal government is that which allows Congress to create the requirements which an alien, regardless of what state that alien has immigrated to, must meet in order to become a “citizen of the United States”.
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATION: the 14th Amendment obligates Arizona to make distinctions between “citizens” and “persons” which is essentially what S.B. 1070 does!
Please note that a review of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment declares that “citizens” of the united States are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” offered by the state in which they are located. But those who are not “citizens of the united States” and referred to as “persons“ (which would include aliens and those who have entered a State or the United States illegally), are not entitled to the “privileges or immunities“ which a state has created for its “citizens“.
The 14th Amendment only requires that “persons” may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state’s codified due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all others within the state in question.
And thus, Arizona, in enforcing S.B. 1070 as well as HB 2745, is doing nothing more than exercising its legitimate policing powers and carrying out its obligation to make distinctions between “citizens” and “persons” as required under the 14th Amendment.
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)
In Eric Holder’s COMPLAINT (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/070610_AZlawsuit.pdf) against Arizona’s law S.B. 1070, he alleges that:
“In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress.”
OBSERVATION:
Congress cannot by legislative acts delegate enforceable powers to itself which the States have not expressly granted to Congress under the Constitution. And, nowhere in the federal Constitution does the word “immigration” appear. And so, Eric Holder’s assertion that the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters is a power not defined by our Constitution, nor can be pointed to in its text.
NOTE: The most fundamental rule of constitutional law is stated as follows:
“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.”( numerous citations omitted).___ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling
In addition, and with reference to the meaning of words in our Constitution see:
16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally
”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)
POINT: immigration vs. naturalization
The ordinary meaning of the word immigration is the movement of people from one place to another. Our Constitution does in fact use the word Migration in the following context:
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. see: Article 1, Section 9
As to the ordinary meaning of “naturalization”, its meaning is nothing more than the act by which an alien becomes a citizen. Congress, under our Constitution, is granted exclusive power to establish an uniform rule by which an alien may become a citizen, regardless of what State the alien migrates to. But the power over “naturalization” does not, nor was it intended to, interfere with a particular state’s original power over aliens wishing to immigrate into the State. This is verified by the following documentation:
REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent 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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=574)
In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the 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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=576)
And finally, 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 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=578) and 1157 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=579)
CONCLUSION:
The big lie in Eric Holder’s complaint begins with the false notion the federal government has been granted exclusive power over “immigration” when the actual power granted to the federal government is that which allows Congress to create the requirements which an alien, regardless of what state that alien has immigrated to, must meet in order to become a “citizen of the United States”.
ADDITIONAL OBSERVATION: the 14th Amendment obligates Arizona to make distinctions between “citizens” and “persons” which is essentially what S.B. 1070 does!
Please note that a review of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment declares that “citizens” of the united States are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” offered by the state in which they are located. But those who are not “citizens of the united States” and referred to as “persons“ (which would include aliens and those who have entered a State or the United States illegally), are not entitled to the “privileges or immunities“ which a state has created for its “citizens“.
The 14th Amendment only requires that “persons” may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state’s codified due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all others within the state in question.
And thus, Arizona, in enforcing S.B. 1070 as well as HB 2745, is doing nothing more than exercising its legitimate policing powers and carrying out its obligation to make distinctions between “citizens” and “persons” as required under the 14th Amendment.
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)