An interesting article over at Family Security Matters digs deep into the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States - specifically showcasing how Arizona's stance could very well pit the Federal government versus a state's rights.
From the article:
As other states join hands with Arizona to assert their 10th Amendment rights and to support the repeal of the 17th Amendment, Obama will find that, contrary to what the editorial writers at the New York Times might think, the Constitution does NOT trump Arizona. To the contrary, when his lawsuit fails in the federal courts because of previous decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, Obama will be taught a long-overdue lesson that, in the American republic, it is the 50 sovereign states that rule.
Some of us have been waiting and waiting for the showdown when the Federal government will, in its brazen act of superiority, actually decide to take on the Constitution in regards to ultimate power in this Country. There is no grey area here - the Constitution specifically lists the powers of the Federal government and ALL OTHER POWERS outside of that are reserved for the states.
It is my opinion that in this historic battle of states rights vs. the Fed, all states must join together to back each individual state's juggernaut against Washington, D.C. The resources needed to battle the behemoth that we have allowed to spawn in the nation's capitol are going to strain any state by itself, so there is strength in numbers. I firmly believe that when it comes to the final stare down, the Feds will blink. Let's hope so.
The States Trump The Administration
Memo to the New York Times Editorial Board:
The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitutions reads as follows: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In a recent editorial, titled “The Constitution Trumps Arizona,” the Times proclaimed that,
“The Obama administration has not always been completely clear about its immigration agenda, but it was forthright… when it challenged the pernicious Arizona law that allows the police to question the immigration status of people they detain for local violations. Only the federal government can set or enforce immigration policy… and ‘Arizona has crossed this constitutional line.’ ”
The Times goes on to say,
“There is nothing terribly complicated about this principle, which is based on several aspects of the Constitution, acts of Congress, and Supreme Court decisions over the years. A patchwork of state and local immigration policies would cause havoc.”
The phrase “would cause havoc” leaves one with the impression that, at least in the minds of the Times editorial writers, immigration “havoc” is prospective… yet to come. Perhaps if Governor Brewer can lure the Community Organizer to the Mexican border, he might be accompanied by a New York Times reporter or two and together they could see what “havoc” looks like firsthand.
The Times editorial writers seem not to understand that, in our constitutional republic, the role of the federal government is limited and specific. Its role is precisely what the states… and that includes Arizona… say it is, and nothing more. The states are supreme; they are the foundation stones of our constitutional republic, the federal government is the handmaiden of the states.
Can there be any doubt what the Founders had in mind when they wrote in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America?”
In the interest of efficiency, the states have ceded to the federal government the responsibility for the military defense of our borders, whether it be the border with Canada, the Atlantic Coast, the Pacific Coast, the Gulf Coast, or the border with Mexico. But when the federal government purposely and irrationally abandons that responsibility, as it has, what are our alternatives?
It should not be necessary to remind Obama or the editorial writers of the Times that the Declaration of Independence contains this ominous and thought-provoking phrase: “… That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their Just powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
By failing to protect our borders against foreign invasion, Barack Obama and his predecessor, George W. Bush, have been destructive of our form of government and have failed to “insure domestic tranquility” and to “provide for the common defence.” Therefore, it is the right of the people to “alter or abolish” our government as it is now constituted and they can be expected to do just that in November 2010.
Just before midnight on Saturday, January 27, 2010, 58-year-old Robert Krentz was murdered on his ranch some 35 miles northeast of Douglas, Arizona. Krentz’s body was found the next day, the apparent victim of illegal immigrants, human traffickers, or drug smugglers crossing from Mexico into the United States.
Illegal immigration apologists insist that the Krentz murder was an aberration because most “undocumented aliens” sneak across our border only to escape the crushing poverty of life in Mexico and elsewhere in Central America. And while ranchers on our side of the border have seen far too much human trafficking and drug smuggling to buy into that argument, they are forced to recognize that they can expect little or no help from Barack Obama and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. The only friends they have are state officials in Austin, Phoenix, and Santa Fe, and the county sheriffs and local police of their cities and towns.
In the wake of the Krentz shooting Republican leaders in the state legislature decided they’d had enough. If the federal government refused to shoulder its responsibility, the people of Arizona would have to take matters into their own hands.
On April 23, 2010 Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed into law Senate Bill 1070, the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” giving state and local law enforcement officers in Arizona the authority to check the immigration status of individuals suspected of violating other laws, including traffic violations, public intoxication, disturbing the peace, marijuana possession, etc. The law provides that, when such individuals are unable to provide appropriate documentation, local police officers can detain them and transfer them to ICE custody.
Although the law specifically prohibits document checks based solely on race or ethnicity, those who oppose the bill are concerned that implementation of the law will lead to racial profiling. That concern has led to the filing of six major lawsuits, including lawsuits by both the Mexican and U.S. governments.
As the Times reports, the U.S. Justice Department alleges that “the Arizona law will divert resources from the pursuit of dangerous aliens, including terrorists, spies, and violent criminals. It will harass authorized immigrants, visitors, and citizens who might not be carrying their papers when stopped by the police. It will ignore the country’s cherished protections of asylum and will interfere with national security interests.”
If these are the things the Community Organizer and his attorney general are concerned about, they need not worry. If the Philadelphia New Black Panther Party prosecutions or the failure to interrogate twelve Russian spies before trading them back to Moscow are examples of Obama’s pursuit of spies and violent criminals, we have nothing to lose. It simply is not possible to deduct something from nothing.
Nor should we worry about documented aliens, visitors, and Latino citizens who may not be carrying their identity papers when stopped by police. Anyone who has ever visited a foreign country knows that it is always best to carry a passport and/or visa. To not do so is simply asking for trouble. Should we expect any less of visitors to our country?
And finally, when did the American people decide to “cherish” our role as an “asylum” state for every hell hole on the face of the Earth? The United States has in the past given asylum to those whose lives would be endangered if they were to be returned to their home countries… not to those who were simply looking for a free ride on the backs of the American taxpayer.
When Robert Krentz was gunned down on his own ranch on January 27, 2010, precipitating a decision by the Arizona legislature and the state’s tough-minded governor to assume responsibility for the state’s own security, it signaled the beginning of a movement that will eventually inundate Barack Obama and his attorney general.
As other states join hands with Arizona to assert their 10th Amendment rights and to support the repeal of the 17th Amendment, Obama will find that, contrary to what the editorial writers at the New York Times might think, the Constitution does NOT trump Arizona. To the contrary, when his lawsuit fails in the federal courts because of previous decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, Obama will be taught a long-overdue lesson that, in the American republic, it is the 50 sovereign states that rule.
On April 19, 1775, 700 British soldiers were met at Lexington, Massachusetts by an armed force of 77 Minutemen. In that confrontation one musket was fired and within minutes eight colonists lay dead. That single musket volley came to be known as the “shot heard round the world.”
On the morning of April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., Confederate batteries opened fire on Fort Sumpter, South Carolina, launching the bloody American Civil War. It was the second shot heard round the world.
Because of overreaching by liberals and Democrats during the Obama era, the American people are now rediscovering that it is their right… yes, even their obligation… to “alter or abolish” government when that government no longer serves their best interests. The shot that killed Robert Krentz may one day come to be known as the “third shot heard round the world.”
No comments:
Post a Comment