Trump and Jeff Sessions Are Going After More Sanctuary Cities

[Zippyjuan]

Article 1 section 9 gives the federal government power over immigration after 1808, it does so by prohibiting it UNTIL 1808 thereby granting it after 1808.

Yes, power to restrict or not restrict slave trade, it is not about general immigration.

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, power to restrict or not restrict slave trade, it is not about general immigration.

Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

But some of the States were not only anxious for a Constitutional provision against the introduction of slaves. They had scruples against admitting the term "slaves" into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase, "migration or importation of persons;" the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as malefactors.

James Madison Letter to Robert Walsh, November 27, 1819 (emphasis added)



They could not give the government power over slave imports without admitting slaves to be property and not people unless they also gave it power over all immigration, and some wanted to give it power over all immigration anyway.

[The Rebel Poet]

Article 1 section 9 gives the federal government power over immigration after 1808, it does so by prohibiting it UNTIL 1808 thereby granting it after 1808.

That's not how logic works. If I say I didn't use an umbrella in the morning, that doesn't mean I did use one in the afternoon. We have enumerated powers in our constitution; that means that anything not explicitly allowed to the federal government is forbidden to them. The idea that anything not explicitly forbidden is constitutional is a defense I've heard of why Obamacare is constitutional. Nonsense.

"The necessity of a concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases results from the division of the sovereign power; and the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor, is not a theoretical consequence of that division, but is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument which contains the articles of the proposed Constitution. We there find that, notwithstanding the affirmative grants of general authorities, there has been the most pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should reside in the States, to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States. The tenth section of the first article consists altogether of such provisions. This circumstance is a clear indication of the sense of the convention, and furnishes a rule of interpretation out of the body of the act, which justifies the position I have advanced and refutes every hypothesis to the contrary." James Madison

[Swordsmyth]

That's not how logic works. If I say I didn't use an umbrella in the morning, that doesn't mean I did use one in the afternoon. We have enumerated powers in our constitution; that means that anything not explicitly allowed to the federal government is forbidden to them. The idea that anything not explicitly forbidden is constitutional is a defense I've heard of why Obamacare is constitutional. Nonsense.

"The necessity of a concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases results from the division of the sovereign power; and the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor, is not a theoretical consequence of that division, but is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument which contains the articles of the proposed Constitution. We there find that, notwithstanding the affirmative grants of general authorities, there has been the most pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should reside in the States, to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States. The tenth section of the first article consists altogether of such provisions. This circumstance is a clear indication of the sense of the convention, and furnishes a rule of interpretation out of the body of the act, which justifies the position I have advanced and refutes every hypothesis to the contrary." James Madison

If I say to an employee "you can't quit before 3pm" I am giving him permission to quit at 3pm, by your reading Congress can't prohibit the slave trade and the whole section is meaningless.

[The Rebel Poet]

Yes, power to restrict or not restrict slave trade, it is not about general immigration.

Migration ≠ slavery. Besides it doesn't grant the federal government any rights at all.

[Swordsmyth]

Migration ≠ slavery.

Yup.

Besides it doesn't grant the federal government any rights at all.

Then where in the Constitution does Congress get the power that is restricted in A1S9? Or are you claiming that A1S9 restricts something that doesn't exist?

If I say to an employee "you can't quit before 3pm" I am giving him permission to quit at 3pm, by your reading Congress can't prohibit the slave trade and the whole section is meaningless.

[The Rebel Poet]

If I say to an employee "you can't quit before 3pm" I am giving him permission to quit at 3pm,

No. This is a fallacy called denying the antecedent.

by your reading Congress can't prohibit the slave trade and the whole section is meaningless.

Congress couldn't prohibit the slave trade unless the Constitution was amended. Do you disagree that the Constitution only grants explicitly enumerated powers?

[Swordsmyth]

No. This is a fallacy called denying the antecedent.

LOL, learn conversational English and leave your ivory tower once in a while.

Congress couldn't prohibit the slave trade unless the Constitution was amended. Do you disagree that the Constitution only grants explicitly enumerated powers?

Article 1 Section 9 grants the enumerated power to control immigration and the salve trade.

Everybody including the founders interpreted A1S9 to give congress the power to prohibit the slave trade, they would not have included it if it didn't mean anything and they would not have ratified the Constitution without the compromise on the slave trade.

Some have disputed the immigration power but you have agreed that "Migration" is not the slave trade.

[The Rebel Poet]

LOL, learn conversational English and leave your ivory tower once in a while.



Article 1 Section 9 grants the enumerated power to control immigration and the salve trade.

Everybody including the founders interpreted A1S9 to give congress the power to prohibit the slave trade, they would not have included it if it didn't mean anything and they would not have ratified the Constitution without the compromise on the slave trade.

Some have disputed the immigration power but you have agreed that "Migration" is not the slave trade.

So, you don't believe in logic? That explains your misunderstanding of enumerated powers.

[fedupinmo]

Unless that farmer dares to sell raw milk to people who want it.

Or if you believe the crap that comes out of SCOTUS...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

"Well see, if the farmer sells raw milk to someone, they won't buy from out of state so that affects interstate commerce... therefore it IS interstate commerce."
Right up there with "people are property" if you ask me...

[TheCount]

Then where in the Constitution does Congress get the power that is restricted in A1S9?

A1S8

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

[nikcers]

That's not how logic works. If I say I didn't use an umbrella in the morning, that doesn't mean I did use one in the afternoon.

Muh empire doesn't mean the government has a right to my property and my life?

[The Rebel Poet]

A1S8

I stand corrected. The federal government could prohibit the slave trade, but as previously established, slavery ≠ migration.

[Swordsmyth]

A1S8

Immigration is NOT commerce, the northern states were intent on denying that slaves were property that is why they covered all bases with "Migration or importation".

[Swordsmyth]

I stand corrected. The federal government could prohibit the slave trade, but as previously established, slavery ≠ migration.

Immigration is NOT commerce, the northern states were intent on denying that slaves were property that is why they covered all bases with "Migration or importation".

[Ender]

Article 1 section 9 gives the federal government power over immigration after 1808, it does so by prohibiting it UNTIL 1808 thereby granting it after 1808.

It was never about immigration- it was about slavery and the different ways that slaves were brought in.

So much for States Rights, amirite?

[Ender]

Or if you believe the crap that comes out of SCOTUS...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

"Well see, if the farmer sells raw milk to someone, they won't buy from out of state so that affects interstate commerce... therefore it IS interstate commerce."
Right up there with "people are property" if you ask me...

Yep.

FREEDOM!!!

[Swordsmyth]

It was never about immigration- it was about slavery and the different ways that slaves were brought in.

So much for States Rights, amirite?

In order to give the government power to ban the slave trade without admitting slave to be property and not people they had to give it power over immigration and some of them wanted to give it that power either way.

[Ender]

In order to give the government power to ban the slave trade without admitting slave to be property and not people they had to give it power over immigration and some of them wanted to give it that power either way.

Although the first debate over slavery at the Constitutional Convention concerned representation (see Article I, Section 2, Clause 3), the second debate arose when Southern delegates objected that an unrestricted congressional power to regulate commerce could be used against Southern commercial interests to restrict or outlaw the slave trade. That the resulting provision was an important compromise is underscored by the fact that the clause stands as the first independent restraint on congressional powers, prior even to the restriction on the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

Taking Southern concerns into consideration, the draft proposed by the Committee of Detail (chaired by John Rutledge of South Carolina) dealt with trade issues as well as those relating to slavery. The draft permanently forbade Congress to tax exports, to outlaw or tax the slave trade, or to pass navigation laws without two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress. Several delegates strongly objected to the proposal, including Gouverneur Morris, who delivered one of the Convention's most spirited denunciations of slavery, calling it a "nefarious institution" and "the curse of heaven."

When the issue came up for a vote, the Southern delegates themselves were sharply divided. George Mason of Virginia condemned the "infernal traffic," and Luther Martin of Maryland saw the restriction of Congress's power over the slave trade as "inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution and dishonorable to the American character." But delegates from Georgia and South Carolina announced that they would not support the Constitution without the restriction, with Charles Pinckney arguing that failing to include the clause would trigger "an exclusion of South Carolina from the Union."

Unresolved, the issue was referred to the Committee of Eleven (chaired by William Livingston of New Jersey), which took the opposite position and recognized a congressional power over the slave trade, but recommended that it be restricted for twelve years, and allowed a tax on slave importation. Although that was a significant change from the Committee of Detail's original proposal, Southern delegates accepted the new arrangement with the extension of the time period to twenty years, from 1800 to 1808.

Agitation against the slave trade was the leading cause espoused by the antislavery movement at the time of the Constitutional Convention, so it is not surprising that this clause was the most immediately controversial of the so-called slave clauses of the proposed Constitution (see Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3; and Article V). Although some denounced the Slave Trade Clause as a major concession to slavery interests, most begrudged it to be a necessary and prudent compromise. James Madison, for example, argued at the Convention that the twenty-year exemption was "dishonorable," but in The Federalist No. 42, he declared that it was "a great point gained in favor of humanity, that a period of twenty years may terminate for ever within these States" what he called an "unnatural traffic" that was "the barbarism of modern policy."

Some claimed that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to regulate both the interstate and the foreign slave trade once the twenty-year period had lapsed. James Wilson of Pennsylvania argued, "yet the lapse of a few years, and Congress will have power to exterminate slavery from within our borders." Though the question was not clearly resolved at the time, Madison denied this interpretation during the First Congress. Not even Abraham Lincoln claimed that congressional power to regulate commerce could be used to restrict interstate commerce in slaves.

In Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), Chief Justice Roger B. Taney pointed to this clause, along with the so-called Fugitive Slave Clause (Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3), as evidence that slaves were not citizens but were to be considered property according to the Constitution. Observers are virtually unanimous that those clauses did not address the question of citizenship at all. Although protection of the slave trade was a major concession demanded by proslavery delegates, the final clause was not a permanent element of the constitutional structure, but a temporary restriction of a delegated federal power. Moreover the restriction applied only to states existing at the time, not to new states or territories, and it did not prevent states from restricting or outlawing the slave trade for themselves. As the dissent in Dred Scott points out, there were freed blacks who were citizens in a number of Northern states and who had voted to ratify the new constitution.

It is significant that the words slave and slavery are not used in the Constitution of 1787, and that the Framers used the word person rather than property. This would assure, as Madison explained in The Federalist No. 54, that a slave would be regarded "as a moral person, not as a mere article of property." It was in the context of the slave trade debate at the Constitutional Convention that Madison argued that it was "wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men."

Although Southern delegates hoped opposition would weaken with time, the practical effect of the clause was to create a growing expectation of federal legislation against the practice. Congress passed, and President Thomas Jefferson signed into law, a federal prohibition of the slave trade, effective January 1, 1808, the first day that Article I, Section 9, Clause 1, allowed such a law to go into effect.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution...60/slave-trade

[Swordsmyth]

http://www.heritage.org/constitution...60/slave-trade

Migration is NOT commerce.

Article 1

Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight

It is after 1808.

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

But some of the States were not only anxious for a Constitutional provision against the introduction of slaves. They had scruples against admitting the term "slaves" into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase, "migration or importation of persons;" the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as malefactors.

James Madison Letter to Robert Walsh, November 27, 1819 (emphasis added)



They could not give the government power over slave imports without admitting slaves to be property and not people unless they also gave it power over all immigration, and some wanted to give it power over all immigration anyway.

[TheCount]

Migration is NOT commerce

This is why your interpretation does not make any sense. You seem to agree that the Constitution gives the government specifically enumerated powers, yet the power that you want it to have isn't enumerated, and so you're twisting things to find what you want to find.

A1S8 is for powers.

A1S9 is for restrictions on those powers.

This isn't the first thread where you've had this exact same conversation, either.

[Swordsmyth]

This is why your interpretation does not make any sense. You seem to agree that the Constitution gives the government specifically enumerated powers and yet the power that you want it to have isn't enumerated, and so you're twisting things to find what you want to find.

A1S8 is for powers.

A1S9 is for restrictions on those powers.

Because you say so?

Other powers are therein granted that have nothing to do with commerce:

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
(this grants the power to suspend Habeas Corpus when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.)


No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
(this grants the power to consent to allow accepting presents, Emoluments, Offices, or Titles, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State while holding any Office of Profit or Trust)

Other segments deal with other non-commerce topics:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

[TheCount]

Other powers are therein granted that have nothing to do with commerce:

The fact that twice in your post you suggest that A1S8 is about commerce shows that you have not even bothered to read the Constitution and yet are arguing about it, an argument which you appear to be supporting purely based upon a copy/paste of someone else's argument without bothering to validate yourself before accepting it as your own. You need to actually read the Constitution. My quote is only one of many enumerated powers in section 8.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
(this grants the power to suspend Habeas Corpus when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.)

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

That's not how specified powers work. These sections are limiting these powers:

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.
(this grants the power to consent to allow accepting presents, Emoluments, Offices, or Titles, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State while holding any Office of Profit or Trust)

This limits the last part of A1S8:
[Quote]To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.[/quote]

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

That limits all of the different powers that Congress has to spend money by specifying how.

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

[TheCount]

"Every society has a right to fix the fundamental principles of its association, and to say to all individuals, that if they contemplate pursuits beyond the limits of these principles and involving dangers which the society chooses to avoid, they must go somewhere else for their exercise; that we want no citizens, and still less ephemeral and pseudo-citizens, on such terms. We may exclude them from our territory, as we do persons infected with disease." --Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:28

But some of the States were not only anxious for a Constitutional provision against the introduction of slaves. They had scruples against admitting the term "slaves" into the Instrument. Hence the descriptive phrase, "migration or importation of persons;" the term migration allowing those who were scrupulous of acknowledging expressly a property in human beings, to view imported persons as a species of emigrants, while others might apply the term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country. It is possible tho' not recollected, that some might have had an eye to the case of freed blacks, as well as malefactors.

James Madison Letter to Robert Walsh, November 27, 1819 (emphasis added)

Anyone looking for more context on these cherry picked quotes can just look at the last thread where Swordsmyth posted them:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6502411

[Zippyjuan]

This is why your interpretation does not make any sense. You seem to agree that the Constitution gives the government specifically enumerated powers, yet the power that you want it to have isn't enumerated, and so you're twisting things to find what you want to find.

A1S8 is for powers.

A1S9 is for restrictions on those powers.

This isn't the first thread where you've had this exact same conversation, either.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

What they can do.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html

What they can't do.

[TheCount]

https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

What they can do.



https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec9.html

What they can't do.

Those section titles aren't actually in the document.

[Zippyjuan]

Those section titles aren't actually in the document.

Section eight does begin:

The Congress shall have Power To

Section #9 has "no" or "not" in every line.

shall not be prohibited by the Congress

shall not be suspended

The rest all begin "NO".

[Swordsmyth]

The fact that twice in your post you suggest that A1S8 is about commerce shows that you have not even bothered to read the Constitution and yet are arguing about it, an argument which you appear to be supporting purely based upon a copy/paste of someone else's argument without bothering to validate yourself before accepting it as your own. You need to actually read the Constitution. My quote is only one of many enumerated powers in section 8.

I was not saying that A1S8 was only about commerce.

That's not how specified powers work. These sections are limiting these powers:
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

Neither of those gives the power to suspend Habeas Corpus, only S9 does that.

This limits the last part of A1S8:
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

No, that has nothing to do with giving permission for someone to accept any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State, the prohibition doesn't come until S9 so you can't give power to grant an exception until S9.


Let's take a closer look at S8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

What's this? S8 has a limit already inside it, it doesn't need S9 for it's limits.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Oops, it looks like we have another source of power over immigration there.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Another limit within S8

[Zippyjuan]

I was not saying that A1S8 was only about commerce.

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Oops, it looks like we have another source of power over immigration there.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

Another limit within S8

"To establish rules of naturlalization". That is a way for people not born citizens to become one. It says nothing about the power to restrict who may or may not enter the country. Though one would have to be allowed to enter the country to be naturalized.

[Swordsmyth]

"To establish rules of naturlalization". That is a way for people not born citizens to become one. It says nothing about the power to restrict who may or may not enter the country. Though one would have to be allowed to enter the country to be naturalized.

And S9 says that congress can control who migrates or is imported into the states after 1808.