Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Supreme Court, in 1837, confirms why Texas law, SB 4, is constitutional.

  1. #1

    Supreme Court, in 1837, confirms why Texas law, SB 4, is constitutional.

    .
    .
    Our United States Supreme Court in 1837 confirmed the object of the Texas 2023 law, SB 4, which is designed to protect the general welfare of the State by prohibiting an influx of unwanted foreign nationals who would financially or otherwise burden its citizens, falls within an original power exercised by the states prior to the adoption of our current Constitution, and is constitutional.

    In support of my assertion, I will here take the liberty of quoting from United States Supreme Court Justice Barbour’s written opinion in New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837), which involves a challenge to a New York Law “… intended to prevent the state being burthened with an influx of foreigners, and to prevent their becoming paupers, and who would be chargeable as such.”

    Supreme Court Justice Barbour begins by pointing out “… the state of New York possessed power to pass this law before the adoption of the constitution of the United States, might probably be taken as a truism, without the necessity of proof.” And, he goes on to quote a legal scholar of the time, Emer de Vattel, showing the origin and character of the power in question:

    “The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory, either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state.”

    Justice Barbour continues:

    “It is apparent, from the whole scope of the law, that the object of the legislature was, to prevent New York from being burdened by an influx of persons brought thither in ships, either from foreign countries, or from any other of the states; and . . . to prevent them from becoming chargeable as paupers.” And this is essentially the same object of the Texas law SB 4.

    Justice Barbour then points out:

    ”New York, from her particular situation, is, perhaps more than any other city in the Union, exposed to the evil of thousands of foreign emigrants arriving there, and the consequent danger of her citizens being subjected to a heavy charge in the maintenance of those who are poor. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens from this evil; they have endeavoured to do so, by passing, amongst other things, the section of the law in question. We should, upon principle, say that it had a right to do so.”

    The bottom line is, New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837), and the Texas 2023 law, SB 4, both seek to protect the citizens of these States from being financially, or otherwise, burdened with unwanted foreign nationals. And in the end, our Supreme Court confirmed:

    “ . . . it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a state, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation, which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a state is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.

    Congress has been granted an exclusive power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Naturalization involves the process and steps by which a foreign national, who is already in our country, is granted citizenship. Immigration, on the other hand involves a foreign national traveling to and entering the United States . . . which is a distinct activity far different from naturalization.

    And according to our very own Supreme Court, with respect to this power (Naturalization), “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others, and upon the general government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” PASSENGER CASES, 48 U. S. 283 (1849).

    The bottom line is, the Texas law, SB 4 is a reserved power of the States protected and guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment.

    JWK

    Is it not New York City’s Democrat Party Leadership which has filled NY’s inner-city schools, public housing and emergency care rooms with illegal entrant foreign nationals, and has given the finger to our nation’s needy CITIZENS?
    Last edited by johnwk; 04-05-2024 at 09:27 AM.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Judge David Ezra lied when suggesting immigration is an exclusive federal matter.

    .


    .
    Judge David Ezra wrote in his ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION:

    “Several factors warrant an injunction. First, the Supremacy Clause and Supreme Court precedent affirm that states may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government.”

    In response to the concern about the “Supremacy Clause” [Article 6], let us always keep in mind what it states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof. . .” Self-evidently, federal laws not made in pursuance of our Constitution – and that would include, e.g., the Tenth Amendment, Section 4 of Article 4, and the qualifying condition of Section 10 of Article 1 – would not be Supreme, but a subversion, and in violation of our Constitution!

    And with regard to the fabricated and lying assertion that “… states may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government…”, that lie is quickly put to rest in New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837) – involving a New York law adopted to prevent the entry of an unwanted influx of foreign nationals into the state and to protect itself from an onslaught of unwanted “foreign paupers” and avoid “. . . the consequent danger of her citizens being subjected to a heavy charge in the maintenance of those who are poor” as stated in Miln, which upheld the law.

    The ugly truth is, the Biden Administration is orchestrating and supervising a planned invasion of the United States, and is filling our states with millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and unvetted terrorist foreign nationals, who are then, as planned, taking over State inner city emergency care rooms, public schools and public housing, and draining scarce state resources meant for American Citizens.

    And we can predict these illegal entrant foreign nationals will most certainly begin to riot and cause mayhem if their economic, social, and political wants are not met and attended to, even though doing so leaves our own citizens destitute and turned into taxpaying citizen slaves . . . there to finance the invasion orchestrated by the Biden Administration.


    This invasion at our southern border is being perpetuated and orchestrated, not only by the Biden Administration, but by a number of traitorous judges who are intentionally ignoring and subverting the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

    In ending and with reference to immigration and its regulation, immigration is a subject matter which may lawfully, and constitutionally, be acted upon by our federal and individual state governments, each acting within their own sphere of constitutionally assigned powers as enumerated in our federal Constitution.

    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 ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)
    Last edited by johnwk; 04-07-2024 at 10:42 AM.

  4. #3

    Does Edwards v. California contradict Justice Barbour's comments in New York v. Miln?

    .
    .

    In a previous post regarding Texas’ SB 4 law, I pointed to New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837) to confirm the reserved power of Texas to prohibit the entry of unwanted foreign nationals.

    Since then, I was informed that Mayor of New York v. Miln was reversed in Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941). So, I carefully reviewed the case.

    As I expected, I found there is absolutely nothing stated by the Court in Edwards, even remotely, suggesting a State does not maintain the power to refuse entry to an unwanted "influx" of foreign nationals, and moreover, a duty for a State to protect itself and her citizens from an onslaught of unwanted “foreign paupers” thereby avoiding “. . . the consequent danger of her citizens being subjected to a heavy charge in the maintenance of those who are poor”, as stated in Miln by United States Supreme Court Justice Barbour

    But getting back to Edwards:

    It involved interstate commerce [commerce among the States], not migration of “foreign paupers,” illegally crossing into a particular State from foreign soil.

    The party’s involved in the Edwards case were citizens of the United States as noted in the case:

    Appellant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of California. In December, 1939, he left his home in Marysville, California, for Spur, Texas, with the intention of bringing back to Marysville his wife's brother, Frank Duncan, a citizen of the United States and a resident of Texas.”

    The law in question was § 2615 of the Welfare and Institutions Code of California, which provided:

    "Every person, firm or corporation or officer or agent thereof that brings or assists in bringing into the State any indigent person who is not a resident of the State, knowing him to be an indigent person, is guilty of a misdemeanor."

    The Court concluded:

    “We are of the opinion that § 2615 is not a valid exercise of the police power of California, that it imposes an unconstitutional burden upon interstate commerce, and that the conviction under it cannot be sustained. In the view we have taken, it is unnecessary to decide whether the Section is repugnant to other provisions of the Constitution.”

    As everyone can see, Edwards v. California, not even remotely, conflicts with Justice Barbour’s comments in Miln, concerning a state having the authority, and duty, to forbid entry to unwanted foreign national paupers.

    In any event, I thought those interested in the case, would find the above factual, informative, and important in the fight to have Texas’ SB 4 upheld, and Biden’s orchestrated invasion of our border brought to an end.

    JWK

    When terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership _ voted into office by your neighbors - who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and unvetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country.



Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 44
    Last Post: 10-12-2018, 02:16 PM
  2. Texas Court Confirms You Can’t Patent Math
    By sailingaway in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-29-2013, 01:10 PM
  3. Texas Supreme Court stops Texas from taking private beach property
    By Nate-ForLiberty in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-05-2010, 06:52 PM
  4. Supreme Court Gun Ban Ruling: Good/Bad? Constitutional or not?
    By malkusm in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 06-29-2010, 08:39 PM
  5. Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-17-2008, 12:36 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •