PDA

View Full Version : DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks.




johnwk
01-17-2018, 09:10 AM
See: DOJ Considering Arresting Sanctuary City Politicians (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/doj-considering-arresting-sanctuary-city-politicians/ar-AAuMYp8?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp)

January, 2018

”The Department of Justice is considering subjecting state and local officials to criminal charges if they implement or enforce so-called sanctuary policies that bar jurisdictions from cooperating with immigration authorities. Immigration advocates argue such a move would be illegal.”

The irrefutable fact is, federal law, 8 U.S.C. § 1373, prohibits any person, even elected political hacks such as New York City’s communist Mayor Bill de Blasio, California’s socialist Governor Jerry Brown, and even progressive Rahm Emanuel, mayor of Chicago, from prohibiting law enforcement officers from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration law enforcement officers.

To confirm this fact see Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s WRITTEN OPINION (http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/091517_Chicago%20v%20Sessions%20memo%20opinion%20o rder.pdf)

“The constitutionality of Section 1373 has been challenged before. The Second Circuit in City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999), addressed a facial challenge to Section 1373 in similar circumstances. By executive order, New York City prohibited its employees from voluntarily providing federal immigration authorities with information concerning the immigration status of any alien. Id. at 31-32. The city sued the United States, challenging the constitutionality of Section 1373 under the Tenth Amendment.

Id. at 32.

The Second Circuit found that Section 1373 did not compel state or local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program or conscript local employees into its service, and therefore did not run afoul of the rules gleaned from the Supreme Court’s Printz and New York decisions. City of New York, 179 F.3d at 35. Rather, the court held that Section 1373 prohibits local governmental entities and officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. Ibid. The Court found that the Tenth Amendment, normally a shield from federal power, could not be turned into “a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs.”


The irrefutable fact is, harboring illegal entrants is a criminal offense, which is exactly what elected political hacks in sanctuary cities/states are doing, and the law against harboring applies to “any person”! SEE: UNITED STATES v. ZHENG, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2002:


“In considering this appeal, we first examine the language of the statute at issue. “As with any question of statutory interpretation, we begin by examining the text of the statute to determine whether its meaning is clear.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 285 F.3d 1329, 1331 (11th Cir.2002); see also Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1185 (11th Cir.1997) (“In construing a statute we must begin, and often should end as well, with the language of the statute itself.”). The Appellees assert that the language of § 1324 restricts its application to individuals who are in the business of smuggling illegal aliens into the United States for employment or those who employ illegal aliens in “sweatshops.” We disagree. Section 1324 applies to “[a]ny person” who knowingly harbors an illegal alien. Although § 1324 and § 1324a appear to cover some of the same conduct, “the fact that Congress has enacted two sections encompassing similar conduct but prescribing different penalties does not compel a conclusion that one statute was meant to limit, repeal, or affect enforcement of the other.” United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 573 (2d Cir.1999). The Supreme Court has noted that statutes may “overlap” or enjoy a “partial redundancy,” United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 118, 99 S.Ct. 2198, 2201, 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979), and yet be “fully capable of coexisting.” Id. at 122, 99 S.Ct. at 2203. We agree with the Second Circuit’s analysis of §§ 1324 and 1324a that “nothing in the language of these two sections ․ preclude[s] their coexistence.” Kim, 193 F.3d at 573. The plain language of § 1324 does not limit its reach to certain specific individuals, and thus, the Government properly charged the Appellees with violating this statute.”


The irrefutable fact is, any public servant who has taken an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, who “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” can be prosecuted under 8 U.S. § 1324 (a)

It’s about time our Federal Department of Justice goes after public servants who flaunt the law and shield from detection illegal entrants who have turned American Citizens into tax slaves to pay for the economic needs of these law breakers.

JWK


American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of **** hole countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

PierzStyx
01-17-2018, 09:20 AM
So we're praising the violation of the US Constitution here these days. All those ideas of state's rights and nullification just out the window. The ideas of small limited government tossed in favor of a huge powerful centralized state with the power to seize the assets and property of tens of millions of people and imprison or exile them. Natural rights universal to all people are stomped upon in favor of Federal supremacy and government domination.

Good to know you've won the victory over yourself and have come to love Big Brother.

You're also a sh!tholeperson turning America into a sh!thole country.

donnay
01-17-2018, 09:52 AM
So we're praising the violation of the US Constitution here these days. All those ideas of state's rights and nullification just out the window. The ideas of small limited government tossed in favor of a huge powerful centralized state with the power to seize the assets and property of tens of millions of people and imprison or exile them. Natural rights universal to all people are stomped upon in favor of Federal supremacy and government domination.

Good to know you've won the victory over yourself and have come to love Big Brother.

You're also a sh!tholeperson turning America into a sh!thole country.

I am curious, what would you do at this point? As much as I love Dr. Paul, he would have this same conundrum had he become president.

Trump is in a position that he is damned if he does, damned if he don't with regards to the problems bankrupting our country.

nikcers
01-17-2018, 10:01 AM
I am curious, what would you do at this point? As much as I love Dr. Paul, he would have this same conundrum had he become president.

Trump is in a position that he is damned if he does, damned if he don't with regards to the problems bankrupting our country.
Dr. Paul, Ron or Rand, would never pick Sessions to head up the DOJ.

donnay
01-17-2018, 10:08 AM
Dr. Paul, Ron or Rand, would never pick Sessions to head up the DOJ.

Oh okay. The president elect has between two to four thousand positions open with his transition.

I would say, walk a mile in his moccasins first...I do not think that would be an easy task to fill those positions with people you can trust.

nikcers
01-17-2018, 10:44 AM
Oh okay. The president elect has between two to four thousand positions open with his transition.

I would say, walk a mile in his moccasins first...I do not think that would be an easy task to fill those positions with people you can trust.

Lets have the fox guard the henhouse

Superfluous Man
01-17-2018, 10:48 AM
If the DOJ does grow this spine, I hope that local sheriffs, or better yet, ordinary civilian members of the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment, also grow spines and arrest anyone from the DOJ who comes trying to arrest them.

Superfluous Man
01-17-2018, 10:51 AM
I am curious, what would you do at this point? As much as I love Dr. Paul, he would have this same conundrum had he become president.


What conundrum is that?

I can't fathom RP supporting threats like this against local politicians. Can you?

johnwk
01-17-2018, 11:18 AM
So we're praising the violation of the US Constitution here these days. All those ideas of state's rights and nullification just out the window. The ideas of small limited government tossed in favor of a huge powerful centralized state with the power to seize the assets and property of tens of millions of people and imprison or exile them. Natural rights universal to all people are stomped upon in favor of Federal supremacy and government domination.

Good to know you've won the victory over yourself and have come to love Big Brother.

You're also a sh!tholeperson turning America into a sh!thole country.


You should think, and research your opinions, before exhibiting your ignorance. The powers reserved by the States under the Tenth Amendment are not violated by forbidding state political hacks from prohibiting state law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration officers.

Now, return to the OP and read!


JWK


There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from $#@! hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.

johnwk
01-17-2018, 11:20 AM
If the DOJ does grow this spine, I hope that local sheriffs, or better yet, ordinary civilian members of the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment, also grow spines and arrest anyone from the DOJ who comes trying to arrest them.

Your bold words do not increase the size of your penis, sonny boy.

johnwk
01-17-2018, 11:21 AM
Lets have the fox guard the henhouse

How about abiding by the law? Eh?


JWK

The Northbreather
01-17-2018, 12:08 PM
What conundrum is that?

I can't fathom RP supporting threats like this against local politicians. Can you?

NOPE

TheCount
01-17-2018, 12:13 PM
How about abiding by the law? Eh?

Which law?

timosman
01-17-2018, 12:18 PM
What conundrum is that?

I can't fathom RP supporting threats like this against local politicians. Can you?

He would probably use letters of marquee and reprisal instead. :cool:

johnwk
01-17-2018, 12:20 PM
Which law?

The Constitution and those laws made in pursuance thereof.


JWK





American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

TheCount
01-17-2018, 12:21 PM
The Constitution and those laws made in pursuance thereof.

Which ones?

Is there a law forcing local police to be deputized as immigration enforcement agents?

timosman
01-17-2018, 12:25 PM
Which ones?

Is there a law forcing local police to be deputized as immigration enforcement agents?

Aren't you splitting hairs? Something unusual for a commie.:cool:

TheCount
01-17-2018, 12:27 PM
Aren't you splitting hairs? Something unusual for a commie.:cool:

It's also unusual for a child rapist to want fewer immigrants, but here you are.

timosman
01-17-2018, 12:41 PM
It's also unusual for a child rapist to want fewer immigrants, but here you are.

How subtle.:cool:

donnay
01-17-2018, 12:44 PM
What conundrum is that?

The conundrum: Who to trust?


I can't fathom RP supporting threats like this against local politicians. Can you?

The minute Dr. Paul went to cut off the welfare/warfare state do you think he would not have the chaos current going on? If you think Dr. Paul could bring home troops "we walked in, we can just walk out." against the MIC you are clueless to how corrupt the country has become.

This corruption did not happen over night and it certainly cannot be taken away over night. Baby steps is the best way to go to root-out this corruption and I think Trump is doing a damn good job at this point.

timosman
01-17-2018, 12:48 PM
If the DOJ does grow this spine, I hope that local sheriffs, or better yet, ordinary civilian members of the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment, also grow spines and arrest anyone from the DOJ who comes trying to arrest them.

This is the point where your fake and coward anarchist cheerleading can get people in trouble.

johnwk
01-17-2018, 01:10 PM
Which ones?




See the OP

JWK

Valli6
01-17-2018, 01:32 PM
Now, this is how you drain a swamp!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part VIII › § 1324


8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

(A) Any person who—

(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;

(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;

(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;

(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or

(v)

(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).

(B) A person who violates subparagraph (A) shall, for each alien in respect to whom such a violation occurs—

(i) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i) or (v)(I) or in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), or (iv) in which the offense was done for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both;

(ii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(ii), (iii), (iv), or (v)(II), be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;

(iii) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) during and in relation to which the person causes serious bodily injury (as defined in section 1365 of title 18) to, or places in jeopardy the life of, any person, be fined under title 18, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both; and

(iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

Lower down:

(c) Authority to arrest
No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

Swordsmyth
01-17-2018, 02:16 PM
Article 1 Section 9 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?513274-Article-1-Section-9)

Zippyjuan
01-17-2018, 03:25 PM
Now, this is how you drain a swamp!

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324
U.S. Code › Title 8 › Chapter 12 › Subchapter II › Part VIII › § 1324


https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

Lower down:

"Certain aliens". Which ones?


at a place other than a designated port of entry


Ah- so it applies to those who did not use a "authorized point of entry" even if they had permission to enter. If they came via an airport or legal crossing point, they are fine (half of those who entered the country did so legally and stayed). It can apply to those legally in the country as well as those here illegally if they did not use an official entry point. If they used a legal entry point, it doesn't apply either way -whether they were here legally or illegally so to enforce it you have to prove where and how they entered the country.


, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter,

Law only discusses those who brought such people into the country. A city which does not use its police force to round up illegal immigrants does not seem to be covered by this law.


Authority to arrest

No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

Authority to arrest is not the same as a duty or requirement to arrest.

Swordsmyth
01-17-2018, 03:45 PM
Law only discusses those who brought such people into the country. A city which does not use its police force to round up illegal immigrants does not seem to be covered by this law.

The irrefutable fact is, harboring illegal entrants is a criminal offense, which is exactly what elected political hacks in sanctuary cities/states are doing, and the law against harboring applies to “any person”! SEE: UNITED STATES v. ZHENG, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, 2002:


“In considering this appeal, we first examine the language of the statute at issue. “As with any question of statutory interpretation, we begin by examining the text of the statute to determine whether its meaning is clear.” Lewis v. Barnhart, 285 F.3d 1329, 1331 (11th Cir.2002); see also Merritt v. Dillard Paper Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1185 (11th Cir.1997) (“In construing a statute we must begin, and often should end as well, with the language of the statute itself.”). The Appellees assert that the language of § 1324 restricts its application to individuals who are in the business of smuggling illegal aliens into the United States for employment or those who employ illegal aliens in “sweatshops.” We disagree. Section 1324 applies to “[a]ny person” who knowingly harbors an illegal alien. Although § 1324 and § 1324a appear to cover some of the same conduct, “the fact that Congress has enacted two sections encompassing similar conduct but prescribing different penalties does not compel a conclusion that one statute was meant to limit, repeal, or affect enforcement of the other.” United States v. Kim, 193 F.3d 567, 573 (2d Cir.1999). The Supreme Court has noted that statutes may “overlap” or enjoy a “partial redundancy,” United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114, 118, 99 S.Ct. 2198, 2201, 60 L.Ed.2d 755 (1979), and yet be “fully capable of coexisting.” Id. at 122, 99 S.Ct. at 2203. We agree with the Second Circuit’s analysis of §§ 1324 and 1324a that “nothing in the language of these two sections ․ preclude[s] their coexistence.” Kim, 193 F.3d at 573. The plain language of § 1324 does not limit its reach to certain specific individuals, and thus, the Government properly charged the Appellees with violating this statute.”


The irrefutable fact is, any public servant who has taken an oath to uphold the laws of the United States, who “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” can be prosecuted under 8 U.S. § 1324 (a)




Authority to arrest is not the same as a duty or requirement to arrest.

all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

Superfluous Man
01-17-2018, 05:42 PM
The conundrum: Who to trust?



The minute Dr. Paul went to cut off the welfare/warfare state do you think he would not have the chaos current going on? If you think Dr. Paul could bring home troops "we walked in, we can just walk out." against the MIC you are clueless to how corrupt the country has become.

This corruption did not happen over night and it certainly cannot be taken away over night. Baby steps is the best way to go to root-out this corruption and I think Trump is doing a damn good job at this point.

I didn't say that RP would have an easy task or be successful. But his philosophy and Sessions' are worlds apart.

Trump and Sessions, on the other hand, are not worlds apart. They are two peas in a pod.

Superfluous Man
01-17-2018, 05:45 PM
all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.

Immigration law is not criminal law.

timosman
01-17-2018, 06:13 PM
Immigration law is not criminal law.

Deportation is not incarceration.

johnwk
01-17-2018, 06:39 PM
Immigration law is not criminal law.

Any alien who enters our country illegally after they have been caught once, is in fact violating immigration law and can be sent to jail.


Stop making crap up.

JWK

oyarde
01-17-2018, 07:03 PM
If the DOJ does grow this spine, I hope that local sheriffs, or better yet, ordinary civilian members of the militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment, also grow spines and arrest anyone from the DOJ who comes trying to arrest them.

Hard to picture anyone stepping in to help save mayors or city councils in any sanctuary cities .

oyarde
01-17-2018, 07:05 PM
I consider this to be , not a threat . Believe it when I see it .

Ender
01-17-2018, 07:10 PM
Interesting how few support States Rights.

donnay
01-17-2018, 07:35 PM
Interesting how few support States Rights.

States don't have rights, states have power. ;)

As long as State Government take money from the Federal Government they lose a lot of their power.

William Tell
01-17-2018, 07:42 PM
So we're praising the violation of the US Constitution here these days. All those ideas of state's rights and nullification just out the window. The ideas of small limited government tossed in favor of a huge powerful centralized state with the power to seize the assets and property of tens of millions of people and imprison or exile them. Natural rights universal to all people are stomped upon in favor of Federal supremacy and government domination.

Good to know you've won the victory over yourself and have come to love Big Brother. Even though I am not an open borders advocate I have to say Pierz is right here on principle. If the DOJ can arrest liberal officials over immigration they can arrest Constitutional sheriffs over refusing to enforce gun laws and marijuana prohibition.

William Tell
01-17-2018, 07:47 PM
I am curious, what would you do at this point? As much as I love Dr. Paul, he would have this same conundrum had he become president.

Trump is in a position that he is damned if he does, damned if he don't with regards to the problems bankrupting our country.How is he damned if he just fires Sessions and all the other losers like we were told he likes to do?

johnwk
01-17-2018, 09:12 PM
Interesting how few support States Rights.

Interesting how you confuse powers reserved by the States with States Rights. You really ought to at least read our Constitution before making such sophomoric comments.


JWK





American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

donnay
01-17-2018, 09:20 PM
How is he damned if he just fires Sessions and all the other losers like we were told he likes to do?

I hear you, I think he should give Sessions a pink slip but who would be best and trustworthy for the job?

nikcers
01-17-2018, 09:24 PM
http://i.magaimg.net/img/2bmz.jpg

nikcers
01-17-2018, 09:28 PM
I hear you, I think he should give Sessions a pink slip but who would be best and trustworthy for the job?
Thats not the question you should ask yourself. Why would Trump pick the worst person for the job?

nikcers
01-17-2018, 09:30 PM
http://americanandproud.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/C24f60RXUAAi3_V.jpg

Zippyjuan
01-17-2018, 09:38 PM
Thats not the question you should ask yourself. Why would Trump pick the worst person for the job?

He wanted more Swamp Critters?

oyarde
01-17-2018, 09:44 PM
Interesting how few support States Rights.

I doubt most see illegal immigration as a state issue , but I dunno. I think it is all blowing smoke .

oyarde
01-17-2018, 09:44 PM
He wanted more Swamp Critters?

They have a pretty high unemployment rate in DC . Should be lots of lawyers too .

nikcers
01-17-2018, 09:47 PM
He wanted more Swamp Critters?
Swamp critters are like illegal immigrants though, if you feed them..

nikcers
01-17-2018, 10:05 PM
I think it is all blowing smoke .
For one this makes it easier to move the argument towards prosecuting states that that don't follow federal drug laws. It makes anyone arguing a dirty socialist who is "open borders" plus instead of talking about Syria's borders we are talking about our borders..4d chess.

Swordsmyth
01-17-2018, 11:37 PM
Immigration law is not criminal law.
It is.

Swordsmyth
01-17-2018, 11:38 PM
Interesting how few support States Rights.

Immigration is NOT as State right.

Swordsmyth
01-17-2018, 11:41 PM
Even though I am not an open borders advocate I have to say Pierz is right here on principle. If the DOJ can arrest liberal officials over immigration they can arrest Constitutional sheriffs over refusing to enforce gun laws and marijuana prohibition.

The principle is entirely different, immigration/invasion is not a GOD given Constitutionally protected Right.

And if you think the feds wouldn't already arrest Constitutional sheriffs over refusing to enforce gun laws and marijuana prohibition if they thought they could get away with it without either creating a hostile legal precedent on an insurrection you are naive.

Swordsmyth
01-18-2018, 02:05 AM
Though neither Nielsen nor Homan mentioned a specific plan for bringing criminal charges against officials in so-called sanctuary cities who refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (the federal law that says local government officials may not interfere with communications between their entity and ICE regarding the immigration status of detainees) they might consider charging such officials with “misprision of felony.” 18 U.S. Code § 4 defines “misprision of felony” as follows:
Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
In order for an official to be charged with “misprision of felony” for failure to turn over an illegal alien, the alien must be guilty of a felony. Not all illegal aliens are felons, but some are. In addition to being charged with non-immigration-related crimes that are felonies, an alien who has been legally removed from the United States commits a felony if he reenters the country illegally one or more times.
Since the number of aliens who have illegally reentered the United States again after being deported is considerable, pursuing “misprision of felony” charges against officials in sanctuary jurisdictions should certainly be considered an option.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/immigration/item/28060-dhs-secretary-nielsen-says-her-agency-considering-charges-against-sanctuary-city-leaders

Ender
01-18-2018, 02:39 AM
Interesting how you confuse powers reserved by the States with States Rights. You really ought to at least read our Constitution before making such sophomoric comments.


JWK





American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.



I've read it many times-

Maybe you ought to understand that the constitution was a Hamiltonian coupe and is not the great freedom source you think it is.

Ender
01-18-2018, 02:46 AM
Liberty vs. the Constitution: The Early Struggle

By Albert Jay Nock

Mises.org

January 15, 2018

[Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock’s Jefferson]

The Constitution looked fairly good on paper, but it was not a popular document; people were suspicious of it, and suspicious of the enabling legislation that was being erected upon it. There was some ground for this. The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d’état.

It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising. Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production — Vilescit origine tali.

In the second place, the old Articles of Confederation, to which the states had subscribed in good faith as a working agreement, made all due provision for their own amendment; and now these men had ignored these provisions, simply putting the Articles of Confederation in the wastebasket and bringing forth an entirely new document of their own devising.

Again, when the Constitution was promulgated, similar economic interests in the several states had laid hold of it and pushed it through to ratification in the state conventions as a minority measure, often — indeed, in the majority of cases — by methods that had obvious intent to defeat the popular will. Moreover, and most disturbing fact of all, the administration of government under the Constitution remained wholly in the hands of the men who had devised the document, or who had been leaders in the movement for ratification in the several states. The new president, Washington, had presided over the Constitutional Convention. All the members of the Supreme Court, the judges of the federal district courts, and the members of the cabinet were men who had been to the fore either in the Philadelphia Convention or in the state ratifying conventions. Eight signers of the Constitution were in the Senate, and as many more in the House. It began now to be manifest, as Madison said later, who was to govern the country; that is to say, in behalf of what economic interests the development of American constitutional government was to be directed.

Jefferson (Large Print... Albert Jay Nock Best Price: $12.71 Buy New $13.00 (as of 02:35 EST - Details)

Mr. Jefferson was slow to apprehend all this. He had hitherto regarded the Constitution as a purely political document, and having that view, he had spoken both for it and against it. He had criticized it severely because it contained no Bill of Rights and did not provide against indefinite tenure of office. With these omissions rectified by amendment, however, he seemed disposed to be satisfied with it. Its economic character and implications apparently escaped him, and now that for the first time he began, very slowly and imperfectly, to get a sense of it as an economic document of the first order, he began also to perceive that the distinction between Federalist and anti-Federalist, which he had disparaged in his letter to [Francis] Hopkinson, was likely to mean something after all.

He set out on March 1, 1790, for New York, the temporary capital, where he found himself a cat in a strange garret. Washington and his entourage greeted him cordially, and the “circle of principal citizens” welcomed him as a distinguished and agreeable man. He had grown handsomer as he approached middle age, and his elaborate French wardrobe set him off well. His charm of manner was a reminiscence of Fauquier; he was invariably affable, courteous, and interesting.

The people of New York could have quite taken him to their hearts if they had not felt, as everyone felt in his presence, that he was always graciously but firmly holding them off. Yet if they had any suspicions of his political sentiments and tendencies, they put them in abeyance; his attitude towards the French Revolution had shown that he was amenable to reason. As soon, no doubt, as this well-to-do, well-mannered, highly cultivated, and able man of the world saw which way the current of new national ideas was setting, he would easily fall in with it.

At any rate, everything should be made easy for him. “The courtesies of dinner parties given me, as a stranger newly arrived among them, placed me at once in their familiar society.”1 But every hour thus spent increased his bewilderment. Everyone talked politics, and everyone assiduously talked up a strong government for the United States, with all its costly trappings and trimmings of pomp and ceremony. This was a great letdown from France, which he had just left

in the first year of her revolution, in the fervor of natural rights, and zeal for reformation. My conscientious devotion to these rights could not be heightened, but it had been aroused and excited by daily exercise.2

No one in New York was even thinking of natural rights, let alone speaking of them. The “principal citizens” held the French Revolution in devout horror. “I can not describe the wonder and mortification with which the table conversations filled me.” Where indeed was the old high spirit, the old motives, the old familiar discourse about natural rights, independence, self-government? Where was the idealism that these had stimulated — or the pretence of idealism that these had evoked?

One heard nothing here but the need for a strong government, able to resist the depredations which the democratic spirit was likely to make upon “the men of property,” and quick to correct its excesses. Many even spoke in a hankering fashion about monarchy. All this, manifestly, was nothing to be met with the popgun of Constitutional amendments providing for a Bill of Rights and rotation in office; manifestly, the influential citizenry of New York would but lift their eyebrows at a fine theoretical conception of the United States as a nation abroad and a confederacy at home.

Mr. Jefferson’s ideas were outmoded; nothing was of less consequence to the people about him; he might have thought himself back in Paris in the days of Calonne, at a soirée of the Farmers-General. Other ideas were to the front; and when Washington’s cabinet came together, Mr. Jefferson confronted the 3coryphaeus of those ideas in the person of a very young and diminutive man with a big nose, a giddy, boyish, and aggressive manner, whom Washington had appointed secretary of the treasury.
II

Alexander Hamilton came to the colonies at the age of sixteen, from his home in the West Indies, dissatisfied with the prospect of spending his days in “the groveling condition of a clerk or the like … and would willingly risk my life, though not my character, to exalt my station. … I mean to prepare the way for futurity.”

This was in 1772. He found the country ripe for him. There was something stirring all the time, something that an enterprising young man might get into with every chance to make himself felt. At 18 he came forward in a public meeting with a harangue on the Boston Port Bill,4 and he presently wrote a couple of anonymous pamphlets on public questions, one of which was attributed by an undiscriminating public to John Jay, who, as Mr. Jefferson said, wielded “the finest pen in America,” and therefore resented the imputation of authorship with a lively chagrin. He showed his bravery conspicuously on two occasions in resisting the action of mobs: once to rescue the Tory president of King’s College, now Columbia; and once to rescue another Tory named Thurman.5

He saw that war was almost certainly coming on, bearing a great chance of preferment to the few in the colonies who had learned the trade of arms; so he studied the science of war, and the outbreak of hostilities found him established as an artillery officer. He had an unerring instinct for hitching his fortunes to the right cart-tail. Perceiving that Washington would be the man of the moment, he moved upon him straightway, gained his confidence, and remained by him, becoming his military secretary and aid-de-camp.

But the war would not last forever, and Hamilton had no notion of leading the life of a soldier in time of peace. Arms were a springboard for him, not a profession. He served until the end of the campaign of 1781, when he retired with some of the attributes of a national figure and with the same persistent instinct for alliance with power. He always gave a good and honorable quid pro quo for his demands; he had great ability and untiring energy, and he threw both most prodigally into whatever cause he took up.

Money never interested him. Although he inaugurated the financial system which enriched so many, he remained all his life quite poor, and was often a good deal straitened. Even in his career as a practicing lawyer, conducting important cases for wealthy clients, he charged absurdly small fees.

His marriage in 1780 with one of the vivacious Schuyler girls of Albany, made him a fixture in “the circle of principal citizens” of New York; it was a ceremony of valid adoption.6 He was elected to Congress in 1782, he served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and now he was in the cabinet as the recognized head of the centralizing movement.

The four great general powers conferred by the Constitution upon the federal government were the power of taxation, the power to levy war, the power to control commerce, and the power to exploit the vast expanse of land in the West. The task now before Congress was to pass legislation appropriate to putting these powers into exercise. There was no time to be lost about this. Time had been the great ally of the coup d’état.

The financial, speculative, and mercantile interests of the country were at one another’s elbow in the large towns, mostly on the seaboard; they could communicate quickly, mobilize quickly, and apply pressure promptly at any point of advantage. The producing interests, which were mostly agrarian, were, on the other hand, scattered; communication among them was slow and organization difficult. It was owing to this advantage that in five out of the thirteen states, ratification of the Constitution had been carried through before any effective opposition could develop. Now, in this next task, which was, in Madison’s phrase, to administration the government into such modes as would ensure economic supremacy to the non-producing interests, there was urgent need of the same powerful ally, and here was the opportunity for the great and peculiar talents that Alexander Hamilton possessed.

Perhaps throughout, and certainly during the greater part of his life, Hamilton’s sense of public duty was as keen as his personal ambition. He had the educated conscience of the arriviste with reference to the social order from which he himself had sprung. A foreigner, unprivileged, of obscure origin and illegitimate birth, “the bastard brat of a Scots pedlar,” as John Adams testily called him, he had climbed to the top by sheer force of ability and will.

In his rise he had taken on the self-made man’s disregard of the highly favorable circumstances in which his ability and will had been exercised; and thus he came into the self-made man’s contemptuous distrust of the ruck of humanity that he had left behind him. The people were “a great beast,” irrational, passionate, violent, and dangerous, needing a strong hand to keep them in order. Pleading for a permanent president and Senate, corresponding as closely as might be to the British model of a king and a House of Lords, he had said in the Constitutional Convention that all communities divide themselves into the few and the many, the first being

the rich and well born, the other the mass of the people. … The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give therefore to the first class a distinct permanent share of government. … Nothing but a permanent body can check the imprudence of democracy. Their turbulent and uncontrollable disposition requires checks.7

He had no faith in republican government, because, as Gouverneur Morris acutely said, “he confounded it with democratical government; and he detested the latter, because he believed it must end in despotism, and be in the meantime, destructive to public morality.”8

But republican government was here, and he could not change it. Of all among “the rich and well-born” who talked more or less seriously of setting up a monarchy, there was none doubtless unaware that the republican system could hardly be displaced, unless by another coup d’état made possible by some profound disturbance, like a war. Hamilton, at any rate, was well aware of it.

The thing, then, was to secure the substance of absolutism under republican forms; to administration republican government into such absolutist modes as the most favorable interpretation of the Constitution would permit. Here was the line of coincidence of Hamilton’s aims with the aims of those who had devised and promulgated the Constitution as an economic document. These aims were not identical, but coincident.

Hamilton was an excellent financier, but nothing of an economist. Insofar as he had any view of the economics of government, he simply took for granted that they would, as a matter of course and more or less automatically, arrange themselves to favor “the rich and well-born,” since these were naturally the political patrons and protectors of those who did the world’s work. In a properly constituted government, such consideration as should be bestowed upon the producer would be mostly by way of noblesse oblige.

The extent of his indifference to the means of securing political and economic supremacy to “the rich and well-born” cannot be determined, yet he always frankly showed that he regarded over-scrupulousness as impractical and dangerous. Strong in his belief that men could be moved only by force or interest, he fearlessly accepted the corollary that corruption is an indispensable instrument of government, and that therefore the public and private behavior of a statesman may not always be answerable to the same code.

Hamilton’s general plan for safeguarding the republic from “the imprudence of democracy” was at bottom extremely simple. Its root idea was that of consolidating the interests of certain broad classes of “the rich and well-born” with the interests of the government. He began with the government’s creditors. Many of these, probably a majority, were speculators who had bought the government’s war bonds at a low price from original investors who were too poor to keep their holdings.

Hamilton’s first move was for funding all the obligations of the government at face value, thereby putting the interests of the speculator on a par with those of the original holder, and fusing both classes into a solid bulwark of support for the government. This was inflation on a large scale, for the values represented by the government’s securities were in great part — probably 60 percent — notoriously fictitious, and were so regarded even by their holders. A feeble minority in Congress, led by Madison, tried to amend Hamilton’s measure in a small way, by proposing a fair discrimination against the speculator, but without success.

Before any effective popular opposition could be organized, Hamilton’s bill was driven through a Congress which reckoned nearly half its membership among the security-holders. Its spokesmen in the House, according to [Sen. William] Maclay, who listened to the debate, offered little argument, and contented themselves with a statesmanlike recourse to specious moralities.

Ames delivered a long string of studied sentences … He had “public faith,” “public credit,” “honour, and above all justice,” as often over as an Indian would the “Great Spirit,” and if possible, with less meaning and to as little purpose. Hamilton, at the head of the speculators, with all the courtiers, are on one side. These I call the party who are actuated by interest.9

Hamilton’s own defense of indiscriminate funding was characteristic; he declared that the impoverished original holders should have had more confidence in their government than to sell out their holdings, and that the subsidizing of speculators would broadcast this salutary lesson.

Hamilton’s bill contained a supplementary measure which reached out after the state creditors, united them with the mass of federal creditors, and applied a second fusing heat. The several states which had at their own expense supplied troops for the Revolutionary army, had borrowed money from their citizens for that purpose; and now Hamilton proposed that the federal government should assume these debts, again at face value — another huge inflation, resulting in “twenty millions of stock divided among favored States, and thrown in as pabulum to the stock-jobbing herd,” as Mr. Jefferson put it.10

Two groups of capitalist interest remained, awaiting Hamilton’s attentions: one of them actual, and the other inchoate. These were the interest of trade and commerce, and the interest of unattached capital looking for safe investment. There was no such breathless hurry about these, however, as there had been about digging into the impregnable intrenchments of funding and assumption.

The first group had already received a small douceur in the shape of a moderate tariff, mostly for revenue, though it explicitly recognized the principle of protection; it was enough to keep them cheerful until more could be done for them. Considering the second group, Hamilton devised a plan for a federal bank with a capital of $10,000,000, one-fifth of which should be subscribed by the government, and the remainder distributed to the investing public in shares of $400 each. This tied up the fortunes of individual investors with the fortunes of the government, and gave them a proprietary interest in maintaining the government’s stability; also, and much more important, it tended powerfully to indoctrinate the public with the idea that the close association of banking and government is a natural one.

There was one great speculative interest remaining, the greatest of all, for which Hamilton saw no need of taking special thought. The position of the natural-resource monopolist was as impregnable under the Constitution as his opportunities were limitless in the natural endowment of the country. Hence the association of capital and monopoly would come about automatically. Nothing could prevent it or dissolve it, and a fixed interest in the land of a country is a fixed interest in the stability of that country’s government — so in respect of these two prime desiderata, Hamilton could rest on his oars.

In sum, then, the primary development of republicanism in America, for the most part under direction of Alexander Hamilton, effectively safeguarded the monopolist, the capitalist, and the speculator. Its institutions embraced the interests of these three groups and opened the way for their harmonious progress in association. The only interest which it left open to free exploitation was that of the producer. Except insofar as the producer might incidentally and partially bear the character of monopolist, capitalist, and speculator, his interest was unconsidered.

This article is excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock’s Jefferson.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/01/albert-jay-nock/liberty-vs-the-constitution-the-early-struggle/

timosman
01-18-2018, 02:51 AM
I've read it many times-

Maybe you ought to understand that the constitution was a Hamiltonian coupe and is not the great freedom source you think it is.

Did Ron Paul lie to us?:confused:

johnwk
01-18-2018, 06:18 AM
I've read it many times-

Maybe you ought to understand that the constitution was a Hamiltonian coupe and is not the great freedom source you think it is.

At least I get paid for thinking.

:rolleyes:

timosman
01-18-2018, 06:41 AM
At least I get paid for thinking.

That's what you think. :cool:

William Tell
01-18-2018, 07:18 AM
The principle is entirely different, immigration/invasion is not a GOD given Constitutionally protected Right. Of course, but some would say the same about cannabis although I believe it is a God given thing. But Nullification is. the principle of nullification is a question of whether the feds can tell the states what to do, the feds don't have a blank check to do whatever they want, see 9th and 10th amendments. Constitutionalists debate how immigration should work according to original intent. I already said I am not for open borders, but that doesn't mean I would support arresting Pierz if he was a sheriff who refused to enforce immigration laws.



And if you think the feds wouldn't already arrest Constitutional sheriffs over refusing to enforce gun laws and marijuana prohibition if they thought they could get away with it without either creating a hostile legal precedent on an insurrection you are naive. I guess I would be. But that's not what I think. The point is if we bounce back and forth between decrying federal overreach as tyranny to demanding it to arrest our political opponents we lose the moral high ground and are creating another point of view opposed to the will of the founders.


“…where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact … to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them…” Thomas Jefferson

“… the right of nullification meant by Mr. Jefferson is the natural right, which all admit to be a remedy against insupportable oppression…” James Madison

Superfluous Man
01-18-2018, 07:19 AM
If we adopt a definition of crime as any violation of any arbitrary law that politicians make up, grounded in no higher authority than their own, which stands on a might makes right mentality, then there's no limit to what could be a crime.

But if we step back and consider justice itself, as a universal law that is above those politicians (and above the Constitution), that determines the rightness or wrongness of what they do as well as us, then a crime is something a person does that harms the person or property of another. In this true sense, illegal immigration is not a crime.

But even within the make believe law that politicians invented, a lot of people make false assumptions about illegal immigration. It's true that US law does declare illegal border crossing to be a misdemeanor. It's been awhile since I went through what the law actually says, but I believe that overstaying a Visa is probably in the same category. So that's considered a minor criminal matter. And punishments like jail time and deportation are legislated for that (unjustly so, of course, but I'm only talking about what US law is). Those are discreet actions that are performed at a point in time, and once committed, the misdemeanor in its entirety has been committed. But what I often hear people mistakenly say is something like, "They're illegal immigrants! They're committing a crime just by being here!" as if their mere presence in the USA is an ongoing commission of a crime. This view is not in accordance with US Law. They may have a status as unlawful aliens, but this does not imply that their mere presence is an ongoing violation of any law. The word "unlawful" is different than "illegal." "Illegal" would imply that their presence was a positive violation of a law. But "unlawful" only means that their presence lacks any positive legal endorsement. The only crime (as defined by US law) they're guilty of is that crime that they had already committed in the past whenever they illegally crossed a border or overstayed a Visa. Now that they are in the USA, the law does not say they have to leave lest they be continuously violating a law. As a matter of fact, there are even circumstances where US Law requires them not to leave (in which cases it would be absurd to pretend that they were continuously committing crime just by being here).

If you think about it this makes sense. Can you imagine telling someone who ran a red light, "You're committing a crime right now just by being on this side of the red light, and this will be an ongoing crime you commit until you finally go back to the side you were on before you ran it."?

William Tell
01-18-2018, 07:21 AM
I hear you, I think he should give Sessions a pink slip but who would be best and trustworthy for the job? Judge Napolitano?

Superfluous Man
01-18-2018, 07:24 AM
States don't have rights, states have power. ;)

As long as State Government take money from the Federal Government they lose a lot of their power.

A reasonable threat would be to withdraw that money, not to arrest local politicians for voting to tell their civil servants to refuse to enforce federal laws they have no obligation to enforce.

donnay
01-18-2018, 07:25 AM
Judge Napolitano?

Definitely for AG or Supreme Court.

Superfluous Man
01-18-2018, 07:25 AM
The principle is entirely different, immigration/invasion is not a GOD given Constitutionally protected Right.


As long as it doesn't entail the violation of anyone else's rights, then yes it is.

William Tell
01-18-2018, 07:29 AM
As long as it doesn't entail the violation of anyone else's rights, then yes it is.Would you say the mass movement of individuals from south of the border to California has resulted in more liberty or less? That's always my hangup. The theory that people can walk around over borders is all well and good until they start changing our government for the worse and implementing more tyranny.

donnay
01-18-2018, 07:29 AM
A reasonable threat would be to withdraw that money, not to arrest local politicians for voting to tell their civil servants to refuse to enforce federal laws they have no obligation to enforce.

That is one thing they are doing as I understand it. However, I think examples need to be set to send a clear message. You harbor ILLEGALS, by definition, you are breaking the law.

Superfluous Man
01-18-2018, 07:54 AM
Would you say the mass movement of individuals from south of the border to California has resulted in more liberty or less?

Probably less.

But that doesn't tell me anything useful about who has violated anyone else's rights and what just actions may be taken against them. In order to take action against someone for violating someone else's rights, I have to treat each person as an individual and follow due process in finding them guilty of whatever crime we're talking about, and then, on the basis of their guilt of that crime, take whatever freedom-limiting actions against them are appropriate to the circumstance.

I can't punish someone because they belong to a group or come from some geographical place, just because some other people from that group or place committed some crimes.

William Tell
01-18-2018, 07:55 AM
Probably less.

OK.

Superfluous Man
01-18-2018, 07:59 AM
That is one thing they are doing as I understand it. However, I think examples need to be set to send a clear message. You harbor ILLEGALS, by definition, you are breaking the law.

And you think that merely not actively assisting the federal government in enforcing its immigration laws is harboring ILLEGALS [emphasis yours]?

Could you please cite the actual law about harboring illegals you're talking about?

I understand that, at least according to the stories I've seen, there does exist a federal law that does prohibit local politicians from voting to require their local government employees not to actively assist the federal government in enforcing its immigration laws. But the words "harboring illegals" wouldn't fit that by any possible reasonable understanding of their meaning in English. Just because I don't actively help the federal government hunt down someone doesn't mean I'm harboring them. And the point of this discussion is to say that such a law is wrong. If you're just saying that the law must be a just law because if you break it than you're breaking the law, well that would make no sense at all.

William Tell
01-18-2018, 08:00 AM
But that doesn't tell me anything useful about who has violated anyone else's rights and what just actions may be taken against them. In order to take action against someone for violating someone else's rights, I have to treat each person as an individual and follow due process in finding them guilty of whatever crime we're talking about, and then, on the basis of their guilt of that crime, take whatever freedom-limiting actions against them are appropriate to the circumstance.

I can't punish someone because they belong to a group or come from some geographical place, just because some other people from that group or place committed some crimes. So, when a battalion of foreign troops come into your neighborhood you will view them all as peaceful individuals except for the ones you actually see cause trouble. How nice. Here's the deal, I'd have a lot more respect for the open borders position if you all didn't seem so intent on saying that every single thing about having millions of foreigners coming here is great. I'm just sick of individuals contributing to the growth of the police state here, it's not about punishing anyone. It's that no one has offered a better solution than controlling immigration.

Superfluous Man
01-18-2018, 08:02 AM
OK.

You disagree?

William Tell
01-18-2018, 08:03 AM
You disagree?
No, I misread your response because I thought I had asked if it resulted in more tyranny. Sorry about that. It is my belief that mass migration has resulted in more tyranny and less liberty.

Superfluous Man
01-18-2018, 08:06 AM
So, when a battalion of foreign troops come into your neighborhood you will view them all as peaceful individuals except for the ones you actually see cause trouble.

If they're not causing trouble, then why call them a "battalion of foreign troops"?

Are you talking about actually peaceful people who violate no one's rights, who are welcomed on every property they set foot by the owners of that property, who pay their way wherever they go and work for their pay by voluntary mutual agreement with their employers, and so on?

If so, then you are stretching the sense of "battalion of foreign troops' beyond recognition.

Obviously, I would have no right to violate the rights of those people who are doing nothing other than harmlessly exercising their own rights, as well as the rights of the other Americans who want them on their properties which are rightfully theirs and not mine and with whom they're doing business.

On the other hand, if you're talking about people concerning whom we have some evidence that they either have committed some crime, are in the process of committing some crime, or have conspired to commit some crime, then for any of these reasons we may justly take action as appropriate for whatever that circumstance is. And if we suspect that any of those are the case, and we lack the evidence, then the first step is to investigate the matter until we have the evidence we need.

William Tell
01-18-2018, 08:20 AM
If they're not causing trouble, then why call them a "battalion of foreign troops"? I didn't. I am using the analogy of an actual battalion of foreign troops to make the point that sometimes one must consider the effects of a group and not just individuals.


Are you talking about actually peaceful people who violate no one's rights, who are welcomed on every property they set foot by the owners of that property, who pay their way wherever they go and work for their pay by voluntary mutual agreement with their employers, and so on?

If so, then you are stretching the sense of "battalion of foreign troops' beyond recognition. Handouts, supporting police state politicians are part of the problem. It's not about the construction crews or their nice families. I have no problem shaking the hand of an individual from any nation or having a conversation. I don't view illegal or mass immigration as the biggest problem in the world but it's affects are going to completely gut what is left of our Republic within a lifetime at this rate. I have a problem with that.



Obviously, I would have no right to violate the rights of those people who are doing nothing other than harmlessly exercising their own rights, as well as the rights of the other Americans who want them here and with whom they're doing business. Well, they tend towards contributing to the violation of our rights.



On the other hand, if you're talking about people concerning whom we have some evidence that they either have committed some crime, are in the process of committing some crime, or have conspired to commit some crime, then for any of these reasons we may justly take action as appropriate for whatever that circumstance is. Only thing that bothers me is their population seems intent on reversing all the good trends the liberty movement has started. To my knowledge virtually every one, at least 95% of the representatives from my state in districts with majority immigrant populations opposes gun rights, vaccine choice, and all other meaningful issues that we have made progress on except perhaps certain aspects of criminal justice reform. The last item won't mean much when they pass laws to make us all criminals though.

donnay
01-18-2018, 08:21 AM
And you think that merely not actively assisting the federal government in enforcing its immigration laws is harboring ILLEGALS [emphasis yours]?

Could you please cite the actual law about harboring illegals you're talking about?

I understand that, at least according to the stories I've seen, there does exist a federal law that does prohibit local politicians from voting to require their local government employees not to actively assist the federal government in enforcing its immigration laws. But the words "harboring illegals" wouldn't fit that by any possible reasonable understanding of their meaning in English. Just because I don't actively help the federal government hunt down someone doesn't mean I'm harboring them. And the point of this discussion is to say that such a law is wrong. If you're just saying that the law must be a just law because if you break it than you're breaking the law, well that would make no sense at all.

As long as the American people have to pay for these illegals it becomes a problem in many ways. Giving sanctuary to people who are here illegally without consent of the people footing the bill, is breaking the law.

Superfluous Man
01-18-2018, 08:36 AM
..

Superfluous Man
01-18-2018, 08:38 AM
I didn't. I am using the analogy of an actual battalion of foreign troops to make the point that sometimes one must consider the effects of a group and not just individuals.

Then my question still applies. What is it that makes them "an actual battalion of troops"?

Would it not be the case that an actual battalion of troops was involved in a conspiracy to commit crimes, even if they hadn't started committing them yet? If so, then that is the basis on which their actions can be addressed.

Valli6
01-18-2018, 11:05 AM
And you think that merely not actively assisting the federal government in enforcing its immigration laws is harboring ILLEGALS [emphasis yours]?

Could you please cite the actual law about harboring illegals you're talking about?

I understand that, at least according to the stories I've seen, there does exist a federal law that does prohibit local politicians from voting to require their local government employees not to actively assist the federal government in enforcing its immigration laws. But the words "harboring illegals" wouldn't fit that by any possible reasonable understanding of their meaning in English. Just because I don't actively help the federal government hunt down someone doesn't mean I'm harboring them. And the point of this discussion is to say that such a law is wrong. If you're just saying that the law must be a just law because if you break it than you're breaking the law, well that would make no sense at all.

I saw Judge Napolitano discussing this yesterday. He said we’re not going to see this happening, and made a statement somewhat similar to yours. He focused on the word “harbor” and (as I remember it) said something like, to “harbor” them would mean they’re keeping these aliens in their homes or housing them somewhere. He was viewing the word “harbor” as a noun. But I disagree.

“Harbor” is also a verb meaning “to shelter", that is, “prevent (someone) from having to do or face something difficult or unpleasant.”


harbor

verb [with object]

1 keep (a thought or feeling, typically a negative one) in one's mind, especially secretly: she started to harbor doubts about the wisdom of their journey.

2 give a home or shelter to: woodlands that once harbored a colony of red deer.

• shelter or hide (a criminal or wanted person): he was suspected of harboring an escaped prisoner.

• carry the germs of (a disease).

3 [no object] archaic (of a ship or its crew) moor in a harbor: he might have harbored in San Francisco.


shelter

verb [with object]

protect or shield from something harmful, especially bad weather: the hut sheltered him from the cold wind.

• [no object] find refuge or take cover from bad weather or danger: people were sheltering under store canopies and trees.
• prevent (someone) from having to do or face something difficult or unpleasant.
• protect (income) from taxation: only your rental income can be sheltered.

State and local officials are certainly preventing illegal aliens from having to be deported. Worse, those who commit crimes are often ignored because officials don’t want to be forced to “know” that these persons are here illegally. They purposely choose to do this, in order to maintain an element of plausible deniability.

Furthermore, even using the word “harbor” as a noun:
Rather than keeping these persons in their own homes (where they could take care of these guests as lavishly as they choose!), these officials have simply dictated that their entire city/state is a "harbor", permitting illegal aliens to hide within them - at the expense of everyone else in that city or town.

Unlike a pot smoker, the costs of maintaining each illegal alien, affects every citizen in that city/state by reducing the amount of tax money available to maintain that city or state for the legal citizens - none of whom has consented to supporting illegal aliens. Then, there is the overcrowding, the increased impact on local infrastructure, and the lax treatment - often totally ignoring - of those who commit serious crimes. I see this as a violation of the rights of the citizens.

You can read 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens here - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

donnay
01-18-2018, 11:34 AM
I saw Judge Napolitano discussing this yesterday. He said we’re not going to see this happening, and made a statement somewhat similar to yours. He focused on the word “harbor” and (as I remember it) said something like, to “harbor” them would mean they’re keeping these aliens in their homes or housing them somewhere. He was viewing the word “harbor” as a noun. But I disagree.

“Harbor” is also a verb meaning “to shelter", that is, “prevent (someone) from having to do or face something difficult or unpleasant.”



State and local officials are certainly preventing illegal aliens from having to be deported. Worse, those who commit crimes are often ignored because officials don’t want to be forced to “know” that these persons are here illegally. They purposely choose to do this, in order to maintain an element of plausible deniability.

Furthermore, even using the word “harbor” as a noun:
Rather than keeping these persons in their own homes (where they could take care of these guests as lavishly as they choose!), these officials have simply dictated that their entire city/state is a "harbor", permitting illegal aliens to hide within them - at the expense of everyone else in that city or town.

Unlike a pot smoker, the costs of maintaining each illegal alien, affects every citizen in that city/state by reducing the amount of tax money available to maintain that city or state for the legal citizens - none of whom has consented to supporting illegal aliens. Then, there is the overcrowding, the increased impact on local infrastructure, and the lax treatment - often totally ignoring - of those who commit serious crimes. I see this as a violation of the rights of the citizens.

You can read 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens here - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

Excellent explanation.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Valli6 again."

Superfluous Man
01-18-2018, 11:35 AM
State and local officials are certainly preventing illegal aliens from having to be deported.

How?

And if they are, then prosecute them for whatever it is they're doing to prevent them from being deported. Not for merely refusing to help the feds, and demanding the same from their employees.

If they're actively impeding the feds, that's a different story.

Swordsmyth
01-18-2018, 01:37 PM
Of course, but some would say the same about cannabis although I believe it is a God given thing. But Nullification is. the principle of nullification is a question of whether the feds can tell the states what to do, the feds don't have a blank check to do whatever they want, see 9th and 10th amendments. Constitutionalists debate how immigration should work according to original intent. I already said I am not for open borders, but that doesn't mean I would support arresting Pierz if he was a sheriff who refused to enforce immigration laws.


I guess I would be. But that's not what I think. The point is if we bounce back and forth between decrying federal overreach as tyranny to demanding it to arrest our political opponents we lose the moral high ground and are creating another point of view opposed to the will of the founders.

“…where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact … to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them…” Thomas Jefferson

Nullification was never intended to allow state and local governments to ignore valid federal laws.Would you support arresting state or local officials who invited a foreign government to build a military base on our soil?There is not a fundamental difference between that and the illegal alien invasion.

Swordsmyth
01-18-2018, 01:40 PM
If we adopt a definition of crime as any violation of any arbitrary law that politicians make up, grounded in no higher authority than their own, which stands on a might makes right mentality, then there's no limit to what could be a crime.

But if we step back and consider justice itself, as a universal law that is above those politicians (and above the Constitution), that determines the rightness or wrongness of what they do as well as us, then a crime is something a person does that harms the person or property of another. In this true sense, illegal immigration is not a crime.

But even within the make believe law that politicians invented, a lot of people make false assumptions about illegal immigration. It's true that US law does declare illegal border crossing to be a misdemeanor. It's been awhile since I went through what the law actually says, but I believe that overstaying a Visa is probably in the same category. So that's considered a minor criminal matter. And punishments like jail time and deportation are legislated for that (unjustly so, of course, but I'm only talking about what US law is). Those are discreet actions that are performed at a point in time, and once committed, the misdemeanor in its entirety has been committed. But what I often hear people mistakenly say is something like, "They're illegal immigrants! They're committing a crime just by being here!" as if their mere presence in the USA is an ongoing commission of a crime. This view is not in accordance with US Law. They may have a status as unlawful aliens, but this does not imply that their mere presence is an ongoing violation of any law. The word "unlawful" is different than "illegal." "Illegal" would imply that their presence was a positive violation of a law. But "unlawful" only means that their presence lacks any positive legal endorsement. The only crime (as defined by US law) they're guilty of is that crime that they had already committed in the past whenever they illegally crossed a border or overstayed a Visa. Now that they are in the USA, the law does not say they have to leave lest they be continuously violating a law. As a matter of fact, there are even circumstances where US Law requires them not to leave (in which cases it would be absurd to pretend that they were continuously committing crime just by being here).

If you think about it this makes sense. Can you imagine telling someone who ran a red light, "You're committing a crime right now just by being on this side of the red light, and this will be an ongoing crime you commit until you finally go back to the side you were on before you ran it."?

It is not like running a red light, it is more like breaking and entering, every moment they stay here is part of the original ongoing crime.

Swordsmyth
01-18-2018, 01:42 PM
Judge Napolitano?


Definitely for AG or Supreme Court.

Judge Swamp is part of the Russiagate mob, so NO.

Swordsmyth
01-18-2018, 01:44 PM
As long as it doesn't entail the violation of anyone else's rights, then yes it is.

It does violate the right of American citizens to control their territory.

donnay
01-18-2018, 01:45 PM
Judge Swamp is part of the Russiagate mob, so NO.

Huh?

Swordsmyth
01-18-2018, 01:51 PM
Excellent explanation.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Valli6 again."

Covered.

Swordsmyth
01-18-2018, 01:53 PM
Huh?

He keeps saying that Trump did or might have done something wrong about Russiagate or firing Comey etc. when it is obviously all garbage.

I therefore have decided he is controlled opposition.

donnay
01-18-2018, 01:56 PM
He keeps saying that Trump did or might have done something wrong about Russiagate or firing Comey etc when it is obviously all garbage.

I therefore have decided he is controlled opposition.

I am not there yet. I think the Judge is a good guy and I am not quite sure he is controlled opposition since he was thrown off FOX for speaking the truth.

nikcers
01-18-2018, 01:57 PM
He keeps saying that Trump did or might have done something wrong about Russiagate or firing Comey etc. when it is obviously all garbage.

I therefore have decided he is controlled opposition.

Anyone who says something negative about Trump is controlled opposition, Ron Paul is controlled opposition then?

Swordsmyth
01-18-2018, 01:59 PM
Anyone who says something negative about Trump is controlled opposition, Ron Paul is controlled opposition then?

Anyone who jumps on the false Russiagate band wagon is bad.

Ron hasn't jumped on that bandwagon.

You have..............

nikcers
01-18-2018, 02:00 PM
Anyone who jumps on the false Russiagate band wagon is bad.

Ron hasn't jumped on that bandwagon.

You have..............

You guys called me crazy when I said the democrats worked with the Russians 6 months before anyone was talking about it.

donnay
01-18-2018, 02:00 PM
Covered.

Thank you.

timosman
01-18-2018, 02:01 PM
..

I was hoping you would reveal to us what the benefits of mass, low skilled immigration are for the population at large. Would it be too much to ask you to stop trolling for a second and provide us with the pertinent info? i am sure everybody is excited to learn something new. You can ask your superiors if you don't have it handy.

johnwk
01-18-2018, 03:17 PM
I am not there yet. I think the Judge is a good guy and I am not quite sure he is controlled opposition since he was thrown off FOX for speaking the truth.

Judge Napolitano is a libertarian who constantly ignores the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction. That rule requires the documented legislative intent of our Constitution to be adhered to which gives context to its text.


JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

johnwk
01-18-2018, 03:33 PM
In regard to Napolitano, and his disregard for constitutionally limited system of government, while on FoxNews awhile back he indicated the right of a same sex couple to marry is “settled law” and pointed to Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/case.html) as his authority that people have a right to marry who they please. However what the Supreme Court ruled in the Loving Case was:

Virginia’s statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment


What Napolitano forgot to put into context on FoxNews was the Loving Case was an interracial couple and the 14th Amendment was specifically adopted to prevent States from discriminating on the basis of race! The Loving Case had nothing to do with a same sex couple.


It should also be noted that in **Standhardt v. Superior Court, October 8, 2003 ** (http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1346614.html) Napolitano’s assertion about “settle law” is proven to be erroneous!


The Court stated in its CONCLUSION


For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the fundamental right to marry protected by our federal and state constitutions does not encompass the right to marry a same-sex partner.   Moreover, although many traditional views of homosexuality have been recast over time in our state and Nation, the choice to marry a same-sex partner has not taken sufficient root to receive constitutional protection as a fundamental right.   Because Arizona’s prohibition against same-sex marriage rationally furthers a legitimate state interest, we further decide that the prohibition does not deprive Petitioners of their constitutional rights to substantive due process, privacy, or equal protection of the laws.   Consequently, it is for the people of Arizona, through their elected representatives or by using the initiative process, rather than this court, to decide whether to permit same-sex marriages.   Having accepted jurisdiction of this special action, we deny relief.


Judge Napolitano put his libertarian views ahead of our Constitution and needs to retract his comments made on FoxNews about “settle law“ and same sex marriage, and start respecting our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment and federalism, our Constitution’s plan!


JWK

Superfluous Man
01-18-2018, 06:36 PM
It does violate the right of American citizens to control their territory.

If I welcome someone onto my territory, and then you come along and kick them off the territory that I own and welcome them onto just because you consider them "illegal immigrants" because you insist they get your permission to be in the country and they didn't do that, then it's not that guest of mine who is violating my right to control my territory, but you who are doing that.

Superfluous Man
01-18-2018, 06:37 PM
Judge Napolitano is a libertarian and not a defender of our Constitution.

Sounds like he fits in with the mission of this website pretty well then.

Are you just trolling?

Superfluous Man
01-18-2018, 06:39 PM
Judge Napolitano is a libertarian who constantly ignores the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction. That rule requires the documented legislative intent of our Constitution to be adhered to which gives context to its text.


That's not the most fundamental rule.

Another rule is even more fundamental than that one, which is this: When the Constitution contradicts natural law, the Constitution is wrong, and must not be followed. Any unjust laws that are passed pursuant to the Constitution are void on account of being unjust, regardless of their constitutionality.

Swordsmyth
01-18-2018, 06:40 PM
If I welcome someone onto my territory, and then you come along and kick them off the territory that I own and welcome them onto just because you consider them "illegal immigrants" because you insist they get your permission to be in the country and they didn't do that, then it's not that guest of mine who is violating my right to control my territory, but you who are doing that.

You don't own "territory" you own "property".

Superfluous Man
01-18-2018, 06:41 PM
You don't own "territory" you own "property".

When the property I own is land and not movable things, that's territory.

At any rate, whether you call it territory or not, what I said remains true. I have a right to decide whom I let on my land. Donald Trump does not. If he kicks someone off my land that I want there, then it's not my guest who is violating my rights, but Donald Trump who is.

CCTelander
01-18-2018, 06:44 PM
You don't own "territory" you own "property".


And you're merely parsing words and splitting hairs rather than actually answering the substance of the objection.

Swordsmyth
01-18-2018, 06:57 PM
When the property I own is land and not movable things, that's territory.

At any rate, whether you call it territory or not, what I said remains true. I have a right to decide whom I let on my land. Donald Trump does not. If he kicks someone off my land that I want there, then it's not my guest who is violating my rights, but Donald Trump who is.


And you're merely parsing words and splitting hairs rather than actually answering the substance of the objection.

Territory is held by nations and it includes all property within it, it confers few powers over the property within it but the eviction of invaders is one of them.

loveshiscountry
01-18-2018, 07:02 PM
Judge Napolitano is a libertarian who constantly ignores the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction. That rule requires the documented legislative intent of our Constitution to be adhered to which gives context to its text.


JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)


Isn't the most fundamental rule the rights of the individual?

johnwk
01-18-2018, 09:57 PM
That's not the most fundamental rule.

Another rule is even more fundamental than that one, which is this: When the Constitution contradicts natural law, the Constitution is wrong, and must not be followed. Any unjust laws that are passed pursuant to the Constitution are void on account of being unjust, regardless of their constitutionality.

Rub your natural law on your chest. We are living under the Constitution of the United States of America. And the fact is, the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction requires the documented legislative intent of our Constitution to be adhered to which gives context to its text.

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.


JWK






The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS'N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

johnwk
01-18-2018, 10:01 PM
I have a right to decide whom I let on my land.

And the people of the United States have the collective right to regulate who may enter the borders of the geographical area call the United States of America. If you don't like it, TOUGH !


JWK



American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

johnwk
01-18-2018, 10:04 PM
Isn't the most fundamental rule the rights of the individual?

Your question has nothing to do with the rules which govern constitutional construction.


JWK

johnwk
01-18-2018, 10:06 PM
See ‘We will prosecute’ employers who help immigration sweeps, California AG says (http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article195434409.html)

1/18/2018

”The state’s top cop issued a warning to California employers Thursday that businesses face legal repercussions, including fines up to $10,000, if they assist federal immigration authorities with a potential widespread immigration crackdown.

“It’s important, given these rumors that are out there, to let people know – more specifically today, employers – that if they voluntarily start giving up information about their employees or access to their employees in ways that contradict our new California laws, they subject themselves to actions by my office,” state Attorney General Xavier Becerra said at a news conference. “We will prosecute those who violate the law.”


What this nitwit AG fails to understand is our court has already indicated state officials cannot require interested parties to not cooperate with federal law enforcement officers.

To confirm this fact see Judge Harry D. Leinenweber’s WRITTEN OPINION (http://dig.abclocal.go.com/wls/documents/091517_Chicago%20v%20Sessions%20memo%20opinion%20o rder.pdf)


“The constitutionality of Section 1373 has been challenged before. The Second Circuit in City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999), addressed a facial challenge to Section 1373 in similar circumstances. By executive order, New York City prohibited its employees from voluntarily providing federal immigration authorities with information concerning the immigration status of any alien. Id. at 31-32. The city sued the United States, challenging the constitutionality of Section 1373 under the Tenth Amendment.

Id. at 32.

The Second Circuit found that Section 1373 did not compel state or local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program or conscript local employees into its service, and therefore did not run afoul of the rules gleaned from the Supreme Court’s Printz and New York decisions. City of New York, 179 F.3d at 35. Rather, the court held that Section 1373 prohibits local governmental entities and officials only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information with the INS. Ibid. The Court found that the Tenth Amendment, normally a shield from federal power, could not be turned into “a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs.”


The fact is, local government officials cannot forbid voluntary cooperation with federal law enforcement officers.


Attorney General Xavier Becerra can rub his unenforceable law on his chest and that’s about all its good for.


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

timosman
01-18-2018, 10:11 PM
It looks like the mobsters are going to go to the mattresses to protect their business. :cool:

fcreature
01-19-2018, 12:09 AM
Rub your natural law on your chest. We are living under the Constitution of the United States of America.

By that same logic, you could just as easily disregard the Constitution because it's no longer even pretended to be adhered to in original intent.

johnwk
01-19-2018, 06:46 AM
By that same logic, you could just as easily disregard the Constitution because it's no longer even pretended to be adhered to in original intent.

What you quoted had nothing to do with logic. It was a factual statement and suggestion.

Simply because anarchists disregard the Constitution, does not mean it's not the rule book we are supposed to be living under. If anarchists spent more time defending the Constitution rather than attacking it and those who support it, we would not be suffering as we are today.


JWK




The unavoidable truth is, the social democrats’ plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing the paychecks of millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

johnwk
01-19-2018, 06:48 AM
It looks like the mobsters are going to go to the mattresses to protect their business. :cool:

Huh? Would you elaborate on that for me? I think we agree but I'm not sure what you mean by protecting their business.


JWK

TheCount
01-19-2018, 08:09 AM
I didn't. I am using the analogy of an actual battalion of foreign troops to make the point that sometimes one must consider the effects of a group and not just individuals.

It's helpful that you are so explicit about needing to redirect the conversation to talk about groups rather than individuals. Normally I have to point that out to people; they don't just say it themselves.



I have no problem shaking the hand of an individual from any nation or having a conversation.


Good thing there's none of those pesky individuals around, then. There's only:



construction crews



families


their population



To my knowledge virtually every one, at least 95% of the representatives from my state in districts with majority immigrant populations opposes gun rights, vaccine choice, and all other meaningful issues that we have made progress on except perhaps certain aspects of criminal justice reform.

First, I highly doubt that you have any districts in your state which are majority immigrant.

Second, would you like to discuss all of the negative things that the representatives in majority non-immigrant districts support? Are all of those the fault of each and every non-immigrant? Is it, perhaps, the fault of their construction crews, families, and population?

fcreature
01-19-2018, 08:44 AM
What you quoted had nothing to do with logic. It was a factual statement and suggestion.

Perhaps the second sentence was a factual statement, however it was preceded by opinion.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your general point, but you can't say that natural law doesn't matter because we live under the Constitution. Natural law supersedes the Constitution... the idea is largely the basis of the document. That is a fact as well. And if you want to talk about the reality we all actually live in, the Constitution (as you understand it) has almost as little real world relevance as natural law.

So whats to stop someone from saying...

Rub your Constitution on your chest. We are living in a post-constitutional United States of America.

William Tell
01-19-2018, 08:58 AM
It's helpful that you are so explicit about needing to redirect the conversation to talk about groups rather than individuals. Normally I have to point that out to people; they don't just say it themselves.





Good thing there's none of those pesky individuals around, then. There's only: Of course they are individuals and I said I have good conversations with them. :rolleyes: Doesn't change the fact that mass immigration is turning red states blue. The point was that the effects of mass immigration go beyond the work that individuals do and into the type of government we have. This should be obvious to anyone.













Second, would you like to discuss all of the negative things that the representatives in majority non-immigrant districts support? Yes, I would. in red districts it just depends. Some have establishment Republicans. A growing number of red districts though are electing Constitutionalists who I agree with 90% of the time. It is an uphill fight but it is a lost cause in blue districts.


Are all of those the fault of each and every non-immigrant? Absolutely it is the fault of everyone who votes for them! Electing Constitutionalists is the fault of the people who elect them! Electing Ron Paul was the fault of the people in his district who supported him! Same thing with RINOs and Democrats. The problem is that the districts that you say don't exist only elect socialists. I have a problem with the people they elect, if they elected liberty politicians I would be all for that. Yes, there are a handful of immigrants who oppose socialism and that's great. But the massive influx of immigrants is without a doubt turning regions of the southwest blue. Just a fact.

Ender
01-19-2018, 08:58 AM
Perhaps the second sentence was a factual statement, however it was preceded by opinion.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your general point, but you can't say that natural law doesn't matter because we live under the Constitution. Natural law supersedes the Constitution... the idea is largely the basis of the document. That is a fact as well. And if you want to talk about the reality we all actually live in, the Constitution (as you understand it) has almost as little real world relevance as natural law.

So whats to stop someone from saying...

Rub your Constitution on your chest. We are living in a post-constitutional United States of America.

Exactly.

Superfluous Man
01-19-2018, 09:34 AM
Rub your natural law on your chest. We are living under the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is true that we are living under the regime that was created by the Constitution of the US. And if might makes right, then there's nothing more that I could say.

But might does not make right. And we're not discussing simply what is, but also what ought to be.


And the fact is, the most fundamental rule of constitutional construction requires the documented legislative intent of our Constitution to be adhered to which gives context to its text.

And to what authority do you appeal where you find this fundamental rule?

The Constitution itself? Or something higher?

Or are you just re-asserting an assertion that someone else made before you on no authority other than the fact that someone said it? Yes, I know that you can produce quotes from people saying the same thing you said. The question is, what makes them right.

CCTelander
01-19-2018, 09:36 AM
And the people of the United States have the collective right to regulate who may enter the borders of the geographical area call the United States of America. If you don't like it, TOUGH !


JWK



American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.




There are no "collective rights." Only individuals have rights.

TheCount
01-19-2018, 11:50 AM
Of course they are individuals and I said I have good conversations with them. :rolleyes:

You said that you can do that but for the purposes of immigration conversations, you must consider them as groups rather than individuals. Am I misunderstanding your point?

To me, this is especially nonsensical because groups do not immigrate, individuals do.



But the massive influx of immigrants is without a doubt turning regions of the southwest blue. Just a fact.

What's the difference between blue and red? Populism has thrown the last of the conservatism out of the conservative movement. All that's left is culture wars and race-based welfare.

William Tell
01-19-2018, 12:12 PM
You said that you can do that but for the purposes of immigration conversations, you must consider them as groups rather than individuals. Am I misunderstanding your point? Of course you are, I already made my point. Which is that you can't dismiss the established fact of a group's overall political leaning and impact by saying they are all individuals. Take California, it is a liberal hellhole. Does that mean every Californian is a liberal? Of course not, but if every citizen in California movies to Kansas you and I both know what the change in state government in Kansas will look like.



To me, this is especially nonsensical because groups do not immigrate, individuals do. And if you live in a precinct that only has 10 citizens and they are libertarians, and then 100 Democrats move in how do you think that will effect city council elections? Individuals bring their ideologies with them and we have seen time and time again what that is with the vast majority of immigrants.





What's the difference between blue and red?
Are you serious? I watch the actual votes. Do you want links to actual votes? Here blue always votes against gun rights, parental rights etc. On the state level red is mixed bag, some on team red are consistently good. But team blue is consistently wrong with the exception of certain criminal justice reform.



Populism has thrown the last of the conservatism out of the conservative movement. All that's left is culture wars and race-based welfare.So you are saying that gun control, fiscal responsibility, parental rights, medical freedom etc are no longer issues? That's insane. Politics isn't defined by MSNBC headlines it's decided by the record votes taken in legislative bodies across the country.

johnwk
01-19-2018, 12:46 PM
Originally Posted by johnwk

And the people of the United States have the collective right to regulate who may enter the borders of the geographical area call the United States of America. If you don't like it, TOUGH !


JWK



American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.




There are no "collective rights." Only individuals have rights.


It is nice of you to post your opinion. Now, what does our Constitution declare? Does it not articulate a collective right that our federal government "repel Invasions"? Does it not also establish a collective right ". . . of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances?

I suggest you actually read the Constitution before making comments which are not in harmony with the true intent and meaning of our Constitution.


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)

johnwk
01-19-2018, 01:14 PM
Perhaps the second sentence was a factual statement, however it was preceded by opinion.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your general point, but you can't say that natural law doesn't matter because we live under the Constitution. Natural law supersedes the Constitution... the idea is largely the basis of the document. That is a fact as well. And if you want to talk about the reality we all actually live in, the Constitution (as you understand it) has almost as little real world relevance as natural law.

So whats to stop someone from saying...

Rub your Constitution on your chest. We are living in a post-constitutional United States of America.

The problem with your logic is, if the people, including anarchists and those promoting "natural law" would spend more time defending our written Constitution and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, our constitutionally limited system of government may very well be saved. Mark Levin, who you seem to follow by writing "we are living in a post-constitutional United States of America" [wording which he often uses] seems to be part of the problem in that he is promoting an Article V constitutional convention, during which time America's most dangerous enemies would have the opportunity to make constitutional, that which is now un-constitutional.


Are you a fan of Mark Levin? BTW, he is very much on target with many things he says. But when it comes to calling a convention, I view him as either ignorant to the dangers such a convention would surely bring, or, perhaps he has been a sleeper for many, many years, [since the Reagan Administration] giving the impression he is a lover of our Constitution to gain the confidence of unwitting conservatives who are now buying into his call for a convention, which would open the doors to a total re-write of our Constitution and perhaps establishing the Constitution for the Newstates of America (www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm) as our supreme law of the land.


JWK

johnwk
01-19-2018, 01:26 PM
.

Is there no interest in California’s AG threatening local citizens who may cooperate with ICE Agents (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?518534-DOJ-may-grow-a-spine-and-arrest-sanctuary-city-elected-political-hacks&p=6576456&viewfull=1#post6576456)?

JWK

Swordsmyth
01-19-2018, 02:42 PM
There are no "collective rights." Only individuals have rights.

Tell that to members of clubs or partnerships etc.

Swordsmyth
01-19-2018, 02:45 PM
.

Is there no interest in California’s AG threatening local citizens who may cooperate with ICE Agents (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?518534-DOJ-may-grow-a-spine-and-arrest-sanctuary-city-elected-political-hacks&p=6576456&viewfull=1#post6576456)?

JWK

The trolls haven't been issued their talking points for that yet, check back in a day or two.

johnwk
01-19-2018, 03:52 PM
The trolls haven't been issued their talking points for that yet, check back in a day or two.

I would like to take the liberty to suggest they are "Fifth Column" movement trolls, just as is the majority of our media personalities "Fifth Column" activists. I know the phrase is somewhat dated, but I still remember the phrase being used when I was growing up as was "yellow journalism". I think it's time to reintroduce these phrases as they fit today's circumstances to a tee!


JWK

Swordsmyth
01-19-2018, 03:55 PM
I would like to take the liberty to suggest they are "Fifth Column" movement trolls, just as is the majority of our media personalities "Fifth Column" activists. I know the phrase is somewhat dated, but I still remember the phrase being used when I was growing up as was "yellow journalism". I think it's time to reintroduce these phrases as they fit today's circumstances to a tee!


JWK

Yup and in addition we have a few "fellow travelers" as well.

CCTelander
01-19-2018, 04:14 PM
This goes here:


Right Wing Socialism
by L. Neil Smith

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

In the final analysis, there are only two political "philosophies" in the world, comprised, as Robert Heinlein suggested, of "those who think that people should be controlled, and those who do not". The latter sort are called "individualists" and the former are called "collectivists".

Naturally, the reason for controlling people is so that whatever they create or earn can be taken from them easily, using a variety of excuses, by those who are capable of creating or earning nothing themselves.

To the individualist, individual rights are the supreme value. Only individuals have rights, and they are not additive in character. Two people, or two thousand people, or two million people have no more rights than a single individual, and to the extent that a society is permitted to exist at all, it is to protect and advance the interests of its basic, indispensable building block, the individual. Every single relationship within such a society must be explicit and totally voluntary.

To collectivists, however, there are no individual rights, and the individual's interests and opinions count for nothing in the broader, grander, collective scheme of things. Individuals are born with what amounts to an unpayable obligation to society. They are nothing more than worker-ants, whose talents and labor are there to be exploited by the collective. Anybody who objects is anti-social, as both Josef Stalin and Barack Obama would tell us, and most likely insane and in need of confinement.

Like a gang of bandits squabbling over the loot, however, the collectivists over time, have divided themselves into three factions who detest each other almost as much as they detest the Productive Class they prey on.

In my novel The American Zone (Tor Books, 2001), I tried a little fancy footwork. Employing a slightly modified Nolan-Fritz diagram (see "The World's Smallest Political Quiz"*), I created an ideological villain from each of the three lower, collectivist corners of the chart.

The maternalistic left, dedicated to taking care of everybody— to death—was represented in the fictional flesh by a character based on then-Senator Howard Metzenbaum (I called him "Slaughterbush", a loose translation), who at that time was the leading voice for victim disarmament in government, and was also the legal mouthpiece for self-admittedly communist front "workers'" groups in Ohio and Washington, D.C. So where was J. Edgar Hoover when we really needed him?

The paternalistic right, dedicated to watching—and spanking— everybody, was represented by tedious author, amateur moralist, semi-pro wet blanket, and former "Drug Czar" William Bennett, who I felt at the time was the most dangerous political figure in America, and whose name I turned around to Bennett Williams, so that he could be the younger brother to Buckley F. Williams, a memorable, and not entirely villainous character from my first novel, The Probability Broach.

The character at the bottom of the diamond—Dave and Marshall had identified it as populism, but I recognized at once that it was fascism—I somewhat playfully based on PBS television's Fred Rogers, a man, a character, and a kids' TV show that never failed to creep me out.

The remaining uppermost, non-collectivist corner, is, of course, Libertarianism.

Fascism is regarded by most observers as the farthest any person or ideology can go to the right. "Most observers" are wrong. It began, in the early 20th century, as an attempt to create a form of communism that would work. Even as early as then, it was manifest that, if the naturally and unavoidably incompetent state owned and controlled "the means of production"—all factories and businesses—people would starve by thousands or by millions, depending on the size of the country.

Then—since the underlying political theory couldn't possibly be wrong—somebody would have to take the blame for communism's obvious failures, and thousands or millions more (condemned for ineptitude, laziness, greed, or hatred of the state) would go to the wall. Those countries that had tried to practice the kindly, altruistic philosophy of "From each according to his abilities; to each according to his needs" became death factories on a scale never seen before in human history.

Believe it or not, the creators of fascism wanted to stop all that. Naming their bright, shiny, new idea for the ancient symbol of the Roman state, an axe with rods bound alongside its handle for unfailing strength, we can determine that they were nothing more than parlor theorists. Otherwise they'd have realized that such an axe is useless. As it is, they'd accidentally chosen the perfect logo for collectivism.

Mind you, fascism does work, after a fashion. Certain poor suckers are allowed to believe that they own the means of production, and they do all the hard work, bear all the costs, associated with business ownership.

Meanwhile, it's government that actually established policies and controls businesses through various regulations governing land use and zoning, business hours, what products will be legal to manufacture, and the relationship of the labor force to the business. With every year that passed, politicians think up new regulations that are piled on top of old ones, making it harder and harder to operate. And in the end, government takes the profits in the form of taxes.

It works, sort of, maybe not with jackboots and swastikas, but with Suits and ties and button-down collars. Most of the starvation and mass executions eventually ended. But what was left was a flat, repellent, stagnant culture like today's Europe, without much fun of much of a future, that produces poorer goods and services at higher prices every year. It also produces slick operators (you know who they are, the media always tries to represent them as "capitalists") who learn to work the system to their benefit, and, with a bribe here and a favor there, a friend in the legislature, congress, or the White House, grows rich and powerful, as part of what Ayn Rand called the "Aristocracy of Pull".

The originators of fascism had saved left wing collectivism by grafting it onto right wing collectivism. That's what you'll find at the bottom corner of the Nolan-Fritz diamond. It's also what we're living with today, But unlike the wiser, more temperate parasitism of the 1950s or 1960s, government has imposed too many rules, gotten too greedy, and skimmed off trillions of dollars. It's now a serious question whether Western Civilization can survive these self-inflicted wounds.

A word about the right, since that's what this essay is supposed to be about. Following the reasoning of Robert LeFevre, I have thought for many years about the excuses that people give for doing what they do.

Collectivist people.

In every case, on both sides of the "aisle", the basic assumption is that the rights of the group are more important than the rights (if any) of the individual. We are all sick unto death of the endless litany of justifications—the children, the community, the animals, lovely Mother Gaia—that the left wing collectivists shove at us for depriving us of our lives, our liberty, and our property. I think we may have reached a point, elected a President, who possesses no individuality, no real being of his own, but is made up totally of the collective.

Something like the Borg Queen.

Right wing collectivists vary in the excuses they offer: God and moral rectitude, tradition, honor, the Corps, national security, and the dire looming threats of communism, "Islamofascism", and all those damned immigrants (legal or otherwise, voluntary or otherwise), be they Black, German, Irish, Italian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Mexican, or South American.

The left will gladly have you killed if you resist being taxed to fund national healthcare. The right will gladly have you killed if you resist being taxed to fund a fleet of submersible nuclear aircraft carriers. The operative word, in each case, is "killed". In each case the individual counts for nothing against some "greater" collective good.

And yet society is composed of nothing but individuals. It depends abjectly on the individual's good will in order to continue to exist. If there's nothing in the relationship for the individual, and if the individual is there simply to be looted and sacrificed, at the very least he will stop doing whatever he does that makes him valuable to society. That, of course, is the concept behind Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged.

At the other extreme, he may lash out at his expropriators, and a single individual, especially in a high-tech civilization can do a lot of damage. All anyone has to do is take a look at today's headlines. See libertarian Eric Frank Russell's wonderful novel Wasp for further enlightenment.

That, in the end, is why the Soviet Union collapsed.

That is also why authorities everywhere, left and right, are so afraid of the idea of the individual, and equally, of individualism, and why they're trying so hard to redefine all individual action as "terrorism".

And that is why the so-called "War on Terror"—only the most recent excuse for attempting to turn the United States, and the whole world with it, into a prison with seven billion disarmed, defenseless inmates—will never end. It will never be allowed to end, unless we, the individuals, the individualists, do something to end it, ourselves.


_____________________
* See it at http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz


L. Neil Smith is the Publisher and Senior Columnist of L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE, as well as the author of 33 freedom-oriented books, the most recent of which is DOWN WITH POWER: Libertarian Policy in a Time of Crisis:
[Amazon.com dead tree]
[Amazon.com Kindle]
[BarnesAndNoble.com dead tree and Nook]
DOWN WITH POWER was selected as the Freedom Book Club Book-of-the-Month for August 2012
He is Senior Editorial Consultant with Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2013/tle721-20130519-02.html

Swordsmyth
01-19-2018, 04:17 PM
This goes here:



http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2013/tle721-20130519-02.html

Simpletonism, as in all things balance is required.

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-if-men-were-angels-no-government-would-be-necessary-if-angels-were-to-govern-men-neither-james-madison-284623.jpg

johnwk
01-19-2018, 08:06 PM
Yup and in addition we have a few "fellow travelers" as well.

I thought the phrase was familiar but couldn't put my finger on it. After looking it up, I agree!


JWK

johnwk
01-19-2018, 08:08 PM
This goes here:






:rolleyes:

fcreature
01-20-2018, 12:22 AM
Are you a fan of Mark Levin? BTW, he is very much on target with many things he says.

Nope. From time to time I enjoy his anti-leftist rants but I despise the man. I have a very clear memory of how he treated Ron Paul and his supporters in 2007/2008. I was not aware of his usage of the phrase, "post-constitutional".

TheCount
01-20-2018, 02:48 AM
I would like to take the liberty to suggest they are "Fifth Column" movement trolls, just as is the majority of our media personalities "Fifth Column" activists. I know the phrase is somewhat dated, but I still remember the phrase being used when I was growing up as was "yellow journalism". I think it's time to reintroduce these phrases as they fit today's circumstances to a tee!


JWK

"Everybody who doesn't agree with me is a shill!"

timosman
01-20-2018, 09:03 AM
"Everybody who doesn't agree with me is a shill!"

The shills display an incredible amount of energy and the dedication levels are unheard of outside mental institutions. :cool:

johnwk
01-20-2018, 09:21 AM
I would like to take the liberty to suggest they are "Fifth Column" movement trolls, just as is the majority of our media personalities "Fifth Column" activists. I know the phrase is somewhat dated, but I still remember the phrase being used when I was growing up as was "yellow journalism". I think it's time to reintroduce these phrases as they fit today's circumstances to a tee!


JWK




"Everybody who doesn't agree with me is a shill!"


Seems you are having a problem distinguishing truth and facts from Fifth Column media propaganda. Poor you.


JWK


There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from $#@! hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.

Ender
01-20-2018, 11:19 AM
Seems you are having a problem distinguishing truth and facts from Fifth Column media propaganda. Poor you.


JWK


There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from $#@! hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.


So, address the REAL problem. The problem is NOT immigrants, the problem is government.

And the Constitution is doing exactly what it was meant to do- install a bunch of elites to a strong central government, who can then rule and reign over everyone else. It was a Hamiltonian coupe to take over the Articles of Confederation that gave the average joe way too much freedom.

So instead of screaming at everyone who doesn't worship your version of public education history, maybe you should grow a spine, try researching some real history and start helping with the REAL problems at hand.

johnwk
01-20-2018, 11:51 AM
So, address the REAL problem. The problem is NOT immigrants, the problem is government.

And the Constitution is doing exactly what it was meant to do- install a bunch of elites to a strong central government,


Only in your foolish anarchist mind.


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

nikcers
01-20-2018, 12:01 PM
Only in your foolish anarchist mind.


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.



Right, this is why no one takes you seriously you go right into straw man arguments any time someone takes you seriously.

johnwk
01-20-2018, 12:21 PM
Right, this is why no one takes you seriously you go right into straw man arguments any time someone takes you seriously.

So, your version of being serious embraces the absurd assertion that "the Constitution is doing exactly what it was meant to do- install a bunch of elites to a strong central government"?

If that is true, then why did our founders explicitly adopt the Tenth Amendment?


JWK

nikcers
01-20-2018, 12:28 PM
So, your version of being serious embraces the absurd assertion that "the Constitution is doing exactly what it was meant to do- install a bunch of elites to a strong central government"?

If that is true, then why did our founders explicitly adopt the Tenth Amendment?


JWK
How about you respond to Ender? I don't want to be presumptuous but I assume this was his argument?


“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case it is unfit to exist.” Lysander Spooner

Ender
01-20-2018, 12:31 PM
Only in your foolish anarchist mind.


JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.



Riiiight- the WoD and the WoT, which profits the elites and is the current reason Americans are tax-slaves, has NOTHING to do with those poverty-stricken countries. :rolleyes:

And still screaming I see.

Ender
01-20-2018, 12:38 PM
So, your version of being serious embraces the absurd assertion that "the Constitution is doing exactly what it was meant to do- install a bunch of elites to a strong central government"?

If that is true, then why did our founders explicitly adopt the Tenth Amendment?


JWK
It was to appease the Anti-Federalists, who were right. Unfortunately it did not work. States rights were totally lost in the War Between the States and the Fed gov was exactly where the coup had intended it to be.

The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of 1787 largely because of the intellectual influence and personal persistence of the Anti-Federalists and their allies. It's quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government.




“The Tenth Amendment was intended to confirm the understanding of the people at the time the Constitution was adopted, that powers not granted to the United States were reserved to the States or to the people. It added nothing to the instrument as originally ratified.” – United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716, 733 (1931).

The founding fathers had good reason to pen the Tenth Amendment.

The issue of power – and especially the great potential for a power struggle between the federal and the state governments – was extremely important to the America’s founders. They deeply distrusted government power, and their goal was to prevent the growth of the type of government that the British has exercised over the colonies.

Adoption of the Constitution of 1787 was opposed by a number of well-known patriots including Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and others. They passionately argued that the Constitution would eventually lead to a strong, centralized state power which would destroy the individual liberty of the People. Many in this movement were given the poorly-named tag “Anti-Federalists.”

The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution of 1787 largely because of the intellectual influence and personal persistence of the Anti-Federalists and their allies.

It’s quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.

When states and local communities take the lead on policy, the people are that much closer to the policymakers, and policymakers are that much more accountable to the people. Few Americans have spoken with their president; many have spoken with their mayor.

Adherence to the Tenth Amendment is the first step towards ensuring liberty in the United States. Liberty through decentralization.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/about/about-the-tenth-amendment/

timosman
01-20-2018, 12:44 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5yJMY4yEXc

johnwk
01-20-2018, 01:05 PM
How about you respond to Ender? I don't want to be presumptuous but I assume this was his argument?

And you butted in with an absurd and adolescent comment. And, I already responded to Ender's anarchist comment.

JWK

Ender
01-20-2018, 01:13 PM
And you butted in with an absurd and adolescent comment. And, I already responded to Ender's anarchist comment.

JWK

No, you did not.

Having reasonable dialog on opposing POVs is something you never do. Just scream & accuse.

johnwk
01-20-2018, 01:14 PM
Riiiight- the WoD and the WoT, which profits the elites and is the current reason Americans are tax-slaves, has NOTHING to do with those poverty-stricken countries. :rolleyes:

And still screaming I see.

Give it a freaken break. Your anarchist responses have nothing to do with the subject of the thread. It's getting old and tired to constantly see you show up in a thread only to blather on and on how you despise our constitutionally limited system of government. Take a chill pill. or get a medical marijuana prescription, which may help you chill out.


JWK

Ender
01-20-2018, 01:16 PM
Give it a freaken break. Your anarchist responses have nothing to do with the subject of the thread. It's getting old and tired to constantly see you show up in a thread only to blather on and on how you despise our constitutionally limited system of government. Take a chill pill. or get a medical marijuana prescription, which may help you chill out.


JWK

As I said before:


Having reasonable dialog on opposing POVs is something you never do. Just scream & accuse.

Always the same from you.

johnwk
01-20-2018, 01:26 PM
As I said before:



Always the same from you.

And always the same from you ___ a never ending desire to ignore the subject of a thread and switch it's subject to your pet project promoting anarchy.


JWK

nikcers
01-20-2018, 01:33 PM
And always the same from you ___ a never ending desire to ignore the subject of a thread and switch it's subject to your pet project promoting anarchy.


JWK
Your just as bad as the democrats imagining that Obamacare was constitutional. This government has slowly erroded the constitution and now your going to defend and trust the Trump administration to obey the constitution? Sorry for not drinking the orange cool-aid but we won't be fooled again.

johnwk
01-20-2018, 01:41 PM
Your just as bad as the democrats imagining that Obamacare was constitutional. This government has slowly erroded the constitution and now your going to defend and trust the Trump administration to obey the constitution? Sorry for not drinking the orange cool-aid but we won't be fooled again.

So, your fallback is to post an insulting remark. What does your post have to do with the subject of the thread? Are you still waiting for your talking points on this subject to be supplied to you by our nation's Fifth Column leaders?


JWK

nikcers
01-20-2018, 01:46 PM
So, your fallback is to post an insulting remark. What does your post have to do with the subject of the thread? Are you still waiting for your talking points on this subject to be supplied to you by our nation's Fifth Column leaders?


JWK

Are you going to address the argument? You started with the name calling, I just said you are being an ideologue like the democrats. Even Ender made examples, the war on terror and the war on drugs were constitutional, hell prohibition was constitutional but that didn't make it right. You fundamentally don't understand that philosophy is a tool and there is an important debate should we presume constitutionality or should we presume liberty?

Ender
01-20-2018, 02:34 PM
And always the same from you ___ a never ending desire to ignore the subject of a thread and switch it's subject to your pet project promoting anarchy.


JWK

I absolutely addressed the subject of the thread- which is STATES RIGHTS.

And I am not an anarchist and have hardly ever responded to your threads.

Ender
01-20-2018, 02:35 PM
Are you going to address the argument? You started with the name calling, I just said you are being an ideologue like the democrats. Even Ender made examples, the war on terror and the war on drugs were constitutional, hell prohibition was constitutional but that didn't make it right. You fundamentally don't understand that philosophy is a tool and there is an important debate should we presume constitutionality or should we presume liberty?

Liberty.

And I'd +rep you if I could.

oyarde
01-20-2018, 02:42 PM
I do not think we can afford to consider anarchy as foolish any longer .

Swordsmyth
01-20-2018, 03:15 PM
I do not think we can afford to consider anarchy as foolish any longer .

I always will, but in our current state there is much more room for error in that direction than in the direction of government.

johnwk
01-20-2018, 05:22 PM
I absolutely addressed the subject of the thread- which is STATES RIGHTS.



Your BS gets deeper as we go.


STATES RIGHTS? I believe you may be referring to "powers reserved to the States" by the command of the Tenth Amendment. Aside from that you offered no intelligently presented Tenth Amendment argument justifying the actions of California's AG which is, threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

You seem to be a very confused person, and can't even remember what you posted only a few hours ago.


JWK

Ender
01-20-2018, 05:39 PM
Your BS gets deeper as we go.


STATES RIGHTS? I believe you may be referring to "powers reserved to the States" by the command of the Tenth Amendment. Aside from that you offered no intelligently presented Tenth Amendment argument justifying the actions of California's AG which is, threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

You seem to be a very confused person, and can't even remember what you posted only a few hours ago.


JWK

Lookin' in the mirror Mr Name-Caller?

I posted exactly from the 10th Amendment Center:


It’s quite clear that the Tenth Amendment was written to emphasize the limited nature of the powers delegated to the federal government. In delegating just specific powers to the federal government, the states and the people, with some small exceptions, were free to continue exercising their sovereign powers.

Got it now?

johnwk
01-20-2018, 07:06 PM
Lookin' in the mirror Mr Name-Caller?

I posted exactly from the 10th Amendment Center:



Got it now?

Name-caller? What name?

You posted an opinion piece from the 10th Amendment Center, a piece which offers no argument justifying the actions of California's AG who is threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

Got it? The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".

JWK

Ender
01-20-2018, 08:25 PM
Name-caller? What name?

You posted an opinion piece from the 10th Amendment Center, a piece which offers no argument justifying the actions of California's AG who is threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

Got it? The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".

JWK

YOU brought up the 10 Amendment.

The 10th Amendment is to INSURE STATES RIGHTS.

Under the 10th, the feds have no right to invade a state and tell them what they can or cannot do- especially when common law prevails. The "Civil" War took away the remaining rights of States and made the US into a corporate entity with elites who are only there for themselves. This is completely AGAINST the 10th Amendment that you brought up.

johnwk
01-20-2018, 08:56 PM
YOU brought up the 10 Amendment.

The 10th Amendment is to INSURE STATES RIGHTS.

Under the 10th, the feds have no right to invade a state and tell them what they can or cannot do- especially when common law prevails. The "Civil" War took away the remaining rights of States and made the US into a corporate entity with elites who are only there for themselves. This is completely AGAINST the 10th Amendment that you brought up.

:rolleyes:

The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".


JWK

Ender
01-20-2018, 09:05 PM
:rolleyes:

The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".


JWK

So, you want more fed gov to take care of states rights that you don't approve of? Just what we need more gov control over everything.

What we need is .gov out of everything- including entitlements, education, medicine, property, et al.

Then, guess what?

FREEDOM.

timosman
01-20-2018, 09:32 PM
So, you want more fed gov to take care of states rights that you don't approve of? Just what we need more gov control over everything.

What we need is .gov out of everything- including entitlements, education, medicine, property, et al.

Then, guess what?

FREEDOM.

So you are saying FREEDOM has almost won already?:cool:

johnwk
01-20-2018, 09:48 PM
So, you want more fed gov to take care of states rights that you don't approve of? Just what we need more gov control over everything.

What we need is .gov out of everything- including entitlements, education, medicine, property, et al.

Then, guess what?

FREEDOM.


There you go again switching the subject and posting an unsubstantiated assertion. The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".

Are you suggesting California's AG is not engaging in harboring, which is a criminal offense?


JWK

Weston White
01-20-2018, 10:40 PM
Is there a law forcing local police to be deputized as immigration enforcement agents?

Didn't you get the memorandum, you have been promoted from sock-puppet extraordinaire to exportation rehabilitation and reintegration specialist third-class.

Ender
01-21-2018, 12:32 AM
There you go again switching the subject and posting an unsubstantiated assertion. The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".

Are you suggesting California's AG is not engaging in harboring, which is a criminal offense?


JWK
I didn't switch the subject- YOU did.

You want more fed gov to solve your hate problems- I don't.

States rights are buried and you want a complete funeral- I don't.

Welcome to The Matrix- you should be nice & comfy in your permanent embryo state.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8eKxVCFoUk

johnwk
01-21-2018, 05:26 AM
I didn't switch the subject-



The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".

Are you suggesting California's AG is not engaging in harboring, which is a criminal offense?


JWK

There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from $#@! hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.

nobody's_hero
01-21-2018, 07:19 AM
I actually don't have a problem with sanc. cities. Only the talk about letting any old joe vote in national elections crosses the line.

In general, though, I think it is nice to have examples to point to and compare with so you can tell people, "see, I told you all this shiit wouldn't work."

Ender
01-21-2018, 09:31 AM
The subject of the thread is, ''DOJ may grow a spine and arrest sanctuary city elected political hacks".

Are you suggesting California's AG is not engaging in harboring, which is a criminal offense?


JWK

There was a time not too long ago in New York when the able-bodied were ashamed to accept home relief, a program created by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1931 when he was Governor. Now, New York City and many other major cities are infested with countless government cheese factions from $#@! hole countries, who not only demand welfare, but use it to buy beer, wine, drugs, sex, and Lotto tickets.


LOL

You have no real rebuttal, so you repeat your self- still screaming.

My answer to this thread:

STATES RIGHTS!

Got it? ;)

nikcers
01-21-2018, 11:40 AM
I actually don't have a problem with sanc. cities. Only the talk about letting any old joe vote in national elections crosses the line.

In general, though, I think it is nice to have examples to point to and compare with so you can tell people, "see, I told you all this shiit wouldn't work."

California is a really good example for that.

johnwk
01-21-2018, 12:05 PM
LOL

You have no real rebuttal, so you repeat your self- still screaming.

My answer to this thread:

STATES RIGHTS!

Got it? ;)


You surely don't.


STATES RIGHTS? I believe you may be referring to "powers reserved to the States" by the command of the Tenth Amendment. Aside from that you offered no intelligently presented Tenth Amendment argument justifying the actions of California's AG which is, threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

You seem to be a very confused person, and can't even remember what you posted only a few hours ago.

:rolleyes:

JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.

timosman
01-21-2018, 12:13 PM
You surely don't.


STATES RIGHTS? I believe you may be referring to "powers reserved to the States" by the command of the Tenth Amendment. Aside from that you offered no intelligently presented Tenth Amendment argument justifying the actions of California's AG which is, threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

You seem to be a very confused person, and can't even remember what you posted only a few hours ago.

:rolleyes:

JWK


Ender is an open borders advocate.

Ender
01-21-2018, 01:26 PM
You surely don't.


STATES RIGHTS? I believe you may be referring to "powers reserved to the States" by the command of the Tenth Amendment. Aside from that you offered no intelligently presented Tenth Amendment argument justifying the actions of California's AG which is, threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

You seem to be a very confused person, and can't even remember what you posted only a few hours ago.

:rolleyes:

JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.



I'm not confused- I'm for Liberty for All. And I remember exactly what I posted.

YOU are for Big Gov taking care of you and what you are advocating is totally against State's Rights. If you are "sick and tired of being made into a tax-slave to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth", then start doing something to help get rid of Big Gov- and especially in entitlements, medicine, corporate capitalism, etc. THAT is the problem.

The freedom of the states, and of all humans, does NOT come from the Constitution. Common Law is what the constitution is supposed to be based on.

The Amendments were added because most of the colonists, including famous forefathers such as Patrick Henry, did not trust Hamilton OR the new law they wanted to put into place for a ruling central government.

Ender
01-21-2018, 01:27 PM
Ender is an open borders advocate.

Only with no entitlements.

TheCount
01-21-2018, 02:15 PM
Didn't you get the memorandum, you have been promoted from sock-puppet extraordinaire to exportation rehabilitation and reintegration specialist third-class.
Whose sock puppet am I?

Zippyjuan
01-21-2018, 02:20 PM
I'm not confused- I'm for Liberty for All. And I remember exactly what I posted.

YOU are for Big Gov taking care of you and what you are advocating is totally against State's Rights. If you are "sick and tired of being made into a tax-slave to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth", then start doing something to help get rid of Big Gov- and especially in entitlements, medicine, corporate capitalism, etc. THAT is the problem.

The freedom of the states, and of all humans, does NOT come from the Constitution. Common Law is what the constitution is supposed to be based on.

The Amendments were added because most of the colonists, including famous forefathers such as Patrick Henry, did not trust Hamilton OR the new law they wanted to put into place for a ruling central government.

It is easier to blame the immigrants.

timosman
01-21-2018, 02:47 PM
It is easier to blame the immigrants.

Do you get paid overtime for weekend work?

Zippyjuan
01-21-2018, 02:49 PM
Do you get paid overtime for weekend work?

Thank you for your informative contribution to the thread.

timosman
01-21-2018, 02:54 PM
Thank you for your informative contribution to the thread.

No words can express gratitude I have for your creative contributions.

johnwk
01-21-2018, 06:47 PM
Ender is an open borders advocate.

And an anarchist, in my opinion.


JWK

johnwk
01-21-2018, 06:51 PM
You surely don't.


STATES RIGHTS? I believe you may be referring to "powers reserved to the States" by the command of the Tenth Amendment. Aside from that you offered no intelligently presented Tenth Amendment argument justifying the actions of California's AG which is, threatening American citizens in California who may cooperate with federal law enforcement officers who may make an attempt to round up illegal entrants.

You seem to be a very confused person, and can't even remember what you posted only a few hours ago.

:rolleyes:

JWK




American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.






I'm not confused- I'm for Liberty for All. And I remember exactly what I posted.

YOU are for Big Gov taking care of you and what you are advocating is totally against State's Rights.

You are not only confused, but very confused, at least when it comes to our Constitution.


JWK

johnwk
01-21-2018, 07:05 PM
Common Law is what the constitution is supposed to be based on.




Absolutely wrong! What the Constitution recognizes is to apply the “rules of the common law”, as distinguished from common law. For example, one of the most fundamental rules of the common law is to adhere to “legislative intent”.


In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."

It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."

And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:

But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


The rules of the common law applies to procedure.


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.

Ender
01-21-2018, 08:48 PM
Absolutely wrong! What the Constitution recognizes is to apply the “rules of the common law”, as distinguished from common law. For example, one of the most fundamental rules of the common law is to adhere to “legislative intent”.


In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."

It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."

And let us not forget that our very own Supreme Court, in Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U.S. 197 (1903), confirms the historical validity of enforcing legislative intent as a priority of the Court:

But there is another question underlying this and all other rules for the interpretation of statutes, and that is what was the intention of the legislative body? Without going back to the famous case of the drawing of blood in the streets of Bologna, the books are full of authorities to the effect that the intention of the lawmaking power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; or, as tersely expressed by Mr. Justice Swayne in 90 U.S. 380 :

"A thing may be within the letter of a statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. The intention of the lawmaker is the law."


The rules of the common law applies to procedure.


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.


Legislative intent lets judges redefine original intent.


The issue of illegal immigration is a political minefield. There are many causes and therefore no one solution can resolve them. As Dr. Paul has said on multiple occasions, the first problem that has to be addressed is birthright citizenship. You can’t do that without replacing or amending the 14th amendment with something that repudiates Supreme Court decisions holding that rights are conferred by birthright citizenship.

The 14th amendment is an abomination as was the legal opinion of the Supreme Court that incented its creation. It isn’t terrible because it presumes to tell states that their citizens have rights. It doesn’t do that at all. It is terrible because it legitimizes the milestone Supreme Court decision, Scott v. Sanford. Justice Taney in that decision "discovered" a legal loophole. You see, in spite of the plain words of the constitution, Taney argued that "people" and "persons" really meant "citizen." Since there was no legal decree making people citizens by birth, Dred Scott, who was born in the U.S., had no rights. What Taney meant to say, was that Dred Scot, a black man, was not human.

In a better world, Congress would have impeached all of the Justices who supported that decision. Instead, they proposed an amendment legitimizing the decision though intending to remedy the injustice wrought by the decision. The Dred Scot decision has never been overturned. If you don’t believe me, read US v Verrdugo-Urquidez decided in 1990. The court claimed that "people" is a "term of art" meant to describe citizens. In other words, rights are conferred by citizenship.

To work and to travel internationally, you must prove to authorities that you are a citizen. This renders you guilty until you can prove your innocence. Due to other abominable laws and decisions, you are also forced to pay to educate, feed and care for citizens who are such by consequence rather than allegiance.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/07/michael-s-rozeff/go-back-to-the-original-constitution/



Judge Nap on the Constitution:


Daily Bell: Some say the Constitution was a step backward from a less structured federation of states. Agree or disagree – and why?

Judge Napolitano: I agree. I do agree. I think that we would be far happier today under the Articles of Confederation than under the current Constitution, but we would also be happier today under the Constitution were it interpreted as it was intended to be. Unfortunately, almost from the beginning, and certainly with Chief Justice John Marshall, we bear witness to the march away from state sovereignty, the march away from individual liberty and the march toward federal dominance. This march has accelerated and decelerated at various times in our history. Usually at wartime it becomes more accelerated. But from the end of the Civil War and certainly from and after the FDR era, the march has consistently been away from state sovereignty away, from individual liberty and toward federal dominance.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/06/andrew-p-napolitano/justice-vs-government-lies/


Marshall was one of the worst Judges of all time.

Weston White
01-21-2018, 09:59 PM
Common Law is what the constitution is supposed to be based on.

Actually, our Constitution is based upon natural law, and common law (i.e., case law) is based upon our Constitution.

Ender
01-21-2018, 10:41 PM
Actually, our Constitution is based upon natural law, and common law (i.e., case law) is based upon our Constitution.

I was actually going by Aristotle. ;)


Natural Law – The History
The Greeks -- Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between "nature" (physis, φъσις) and "law," "custom," or "convention" (nomos, νуμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was "by nature" should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8).

Sonny Tufts
01-22-2018, 07:48 AM
common law (i.e., case law) is based upon our Constitution.

Common law predates the Constitution by several centuries.

johnwk
01-22-2018, 08:03 AM
Legislative intent lets judges redefine original intent.




Judge Nap on the Constitution:



Marshall was one of the worst Judges of all time.


Legislative intent and original intent are the same thing, and when a question arises over the meaning of our Constitution, the question is to be resolved by a careful research of the historical record during which time our constitution was framed and ratified to DOCUMENT its meaning during the time period our Constitution was framed and ratifed. For example, what is the meaning of "general welfare" as it appears in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1?


In Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution, a reference is made to a “specification of particulars” which Hamilton goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.


Madison, in No. 41 Federalist, explaining the meaning of the general welfare clause to gain the approval of the proposed constitution, states the following:


"It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes...to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and the general welfare of the United States amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor [the anti federalists] for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction...But what color can this objection have, when a specification of the object alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not ever separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?...For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power...But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning...is an absurdity."


Likewise, in the Virginia ratification Convention Madison explains the general welfare phrase in the following manner so as to gain ratification of the constitution: "the powers of the federal government are enumerated; it can only operate in certain cases; it has legislative powers on defined and limited objects, beyond which it cannot extend its jurisdiction."[3 Elliots 95]

Also see Nicholas, 3 Elliot 443 regarding the general welfare clause, which he pointed out "was united, not to the general power of legislation, but to the particular power of laying and collecting taxes...."


Similarly , George Mason, in the Virginia ratification Convention informs the convention

"The Congress should have power to provide for the general welfare of the Union, I grant. But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.". [3 Elliots 442]

For this very reason the Tenth Amendment was quickly ratified to intentionally put to rest any question whatsoever regarding the general welfare clause and thereby cut off the pretext to allow Congress to extended its powers via the wording provide for the “general welfare“.


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.

I hope this lesson has been helpful to you.


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)

AuH20
01-22-2018, 08:28 AM
Federalism is a bitch? Isn't it? I hope they arrest every last one.

Weston White
01-22-2018, 08:56 AM
Common law predates the Constitution by several centuries.

Geez, now where did I misplace that herpa depra meme at...

timosman
03-07-2018, 01:00 AM
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/federal-judge-allows-trump-to-withhold-grants-to-california-as-part-of-sanctuary-city-crackdown/article/2650841


by Melissa Quinn | Mar 6, 2018

http://cdn.washingtonexaminer.biz/cache/1060x600-330f3ff7ba47b45cd1ef542a87f8be8b.jpg
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra asked for a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's decision to withhold a law enforcement grant to the state, but a federal judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled against taking that step. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez)

A federal judge in Northern California has declined a request from California Attorney General Xavier Becerra to block the Trump administration’s decision to withhold a law enforcement grant to the state as part of its crackdown on states and jurisdictions that protect illegal immigrants.

Becerra asked for a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's decision, but Judge William Orrick of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled against taking that step.

“The injury threatened is not irreparable,” Orrick wrote. “The amount of money at stake is small compared to the state’s budget. Payment is delayed, for the moment. The DOJ appears to be using its regular administrative process to decide whether it will follow its initial inclinations.”

The judge said at some point in the future, the case “may help define the contours of the state’s broad constitutional police powers under the Tenth Amendment and the federal government’s ‘broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens.’”

The Trump administration has been cracking down on cities and jurisdictions that offer protections for people in the U.S. illegally.

In July, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that cities and states would only be eligible to receive specific grants from the Justice Department if they follow specific requirements, including certifying compliance with federal immigration law.

To be eligible for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, or JAG grants, cities have to adhere to three criteria. They include giving 48-hour notice to the federal government before releasing anyone ICE wants the state to keep detained, and giving Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents access to detention facilities.

State and local officials must also provide personal information and release dates of illegal immigrants detained across the state.

California blocked officials from providing that information to the federal government.

Aspects of the Justice Department’s tougher sanctuary city policy rolled out last year have since been challenged in federal courts. Last year, a federal judge in Chicago issued a preliminary nationwide injunction blocking the Justice Department from requiring city officials give federal agents access to detention facilities.

The judge also barred the Department of Justice from requiring local officials to provide advance notice before releasing illegal immigrants from custody.