Trump and Jeff Sessions Are Going After More Sanctuary Cities

[Zippyjuan]

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

Slaves were being imported. Immigration is moving freely.

[Swordsmyth]

Slaves were being imported. Immigration is moving freely.

Yup, that is why they said "Migration or importation", they even put migration first.

[TheCount]

I was not saying that A1S8 was only about commerce.

Sure thing. These quotes are completely nonsensical unless you believed that section 8 was only about commerce:

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

Other segments deal with other non-commerce topics:

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

That's not how enumerated powers work.

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.

Might want to read it again. Laws regulating the "powers vested in officers" would include those officers' power to accept gifts. A thing that they can't do is make a law giving that power.

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.

And yet it does, because there are limits on that exact power in section 9.

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.

Naturalization and immigration are not the same.

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

Cool story bro?

[Zippyjuan]

Yup, that is why they said "Migration or importation", they even put migration first.

"Migrating" referred to slaves moving from one state to another. Some states wanted rights to reclaim their property.

[Ender]

Yup, that is why they said "Migration or importation", they even put migration first.

The Migration or Importation Clause states that “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” In and of itself, the Clause does not grant Congress any additional authority. To the contrary, it is a limitation on power. However, it could be argued that the limitation on congressional power to prohibit “migration or importation” of persons until 1808 implies that Congress had such a power to begin with. The word “migration” suggests that that power extended to the prohibition of voluntary immigration, as well as the importation of slaves, which the Migration or Importation Clause was intended to protect.

But the inclusion of the term “migration” was not meant to imply a general federal power to restrict migration, but was a euphemism intended to bolster the pretense that the Constitution did not endorse slavery. As John Jay – the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and coauthor of the Federalist Papers – pointed out in an 1819 letter discussing the Clause:

It will, I presume, be admitted that slaves were the persons intended. The word slaves was avoided, probably on account of the existing toleration of slavery and of its discordance with the principles of the Revolution, and from a consciousness of its being repugnant to the following positions in the Declaration of Independence, viz.: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’”

James Madison similarly argued that the Clause was intended to protect the slave trade against limitation prior to 1808, and that its phrasing was due to “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 same term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country.” This suggests it is likely that the term “migration” was included only in order to avoid direct reference to slavery, and did not imply any general congressional power to restrict migration. In Federalist 42, Madison decried “[a]ttempts [that] have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it…as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America.”

[Swordsmyth]

"Migrating" referred to slaves moving from one state to another. Some states wanted rights to reclaim their property.

In your dreams, fugitive slaves were dealt with elsewhere and free movement between the states was never intended to be limited.

[Swordsmyth]

The Migration or Importation Clause states that “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.” In and of itself, the Clause does not grant Congress any additional authority. To the contrary, it is a limitation on power. However, it could be argued that the limitation on congressional power to prohibit “migration or importation” of persons until 1808 implies that Congress had such a power to begin with. The word “migration” suggests that that power extended to the prohibition of voluntary immigration, as well as the importation of slaves, which the Migration or Importation Clause was intended to protect.

But the inclusion of the term “migration” was not meant to imply a general federal power to restrict migration, but was a euphemism intended to bolster the pretense that the Constitution did not endorse slavery. As John Jay – the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and coauthor of the Federalist Papers – pointed out in an 1819 letter discussing the Clause:

It will, I presume, be admitted that slaves were the persons intended. The word slaves was avoided, probably on account of the existing toleration of slavery and of its discordance with the principles of the Revolution, and from a consciousness of its being repugnant to the following positions in the Declaration of Independence, viz.: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.’”

James Madison similarly argued that the Clause was intended to protect the slave trade against limitation prior to 1808, and that its phrasing was due to “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 same term to foreign malefactors sent or coming into the country.” This suggests it is likely that the term “migration” was included only in order to avoid direct reference to slavery, and did not imply any general congressional power to restrict migration. In Federalist 42, Madison decried “[a]ttempts [that] have been made to pervert this clause into an objection against the Constitution, by representing it…as calculated to prevent voluntary and beneficial emigrations from Europe to America.”

"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)

[Zippyjuan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ral-judge.html

Trump order on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge

A federal judge in California has blocked President Trump’s executive order to cut funding from sanctuary cities that don’t cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued the ruling Monday in lawsuits brought by San Francisco and Santa Clara counties. According to the judge, Trump can’t set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.

The judge had previously put a temporary hold on the executive order.


The Trump administration has appealed that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

[Swordsmyth]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...ral-judge.html

The usual liberal judicial shenanigans, it will be overruled.

[Swordsmyth]

Justice Department Vows to Overturn California Judge's Ruling on Sanctuary Cities and States

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/justice-department-vows-overturn-california-judges-ruling-sanctuary-cities-states/