Recently
the much discussed and controversial Arizona
law SB 1070, finally came before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court surprisingly upheld a
majority of the law but they did vote against Arizona
in 3 parts that took most of the bite out of the law. Specifically they voted against the warrant
less arrests of individuals that were in the country illegally and suspected of
committing a crime and the section that made it separate State crime for
illegal immigrants to work in the State.
The Supreme Court argued that these sections violated the Constitutional
power of the Congress to establish a uniform of Naturalization (Article II, Section
VIII, Number 4). This is only one of the
problems associated with the Supreme Courts ruling, as I have stated before
there is a big difference between Naturalization and Immigration, they are two
different things, just look up the definitions of each, I would think Judges
that are smart enough to be appointed to the Supreme Court would already know
this without having to reference Webster’s Dictionary or some High School
Graduates blog.
Immigration
to put it simply is the act of moving from one place to another. When said immigration is done with the
permission of the final location we call it illegal immigration. If someone immigrated from the public road in
front of my house onto my property without permission it is called
trespassing. Trespassing and illegal
immigration are one and the same, therefore someone that has entered Arizona ,
or any other State in the Union , illegally has committed
a crime and should be arrested. As in
most cases of trespassing if the crime is simply that they were in a place they
had no right to be in they should have their day in court, receive a fine and
then they should be returned to the place they are allowed to be in legally, in
the case of Arizona we are talking about back across the border into Mexico.
Naturalization
can only occur after legal immigration into the States of the Union
has occurred. Naturalization is the
process of becoming an American citizen.
Part of this process includes a residency requirement which would lead
one to believe that would mean a certain amount of time legally living in one
of the States within the United States . Currently each State, as far as I know, have
their own laws of residency before you can consider yourself to be a citizen of
that State, since the United States are made up of the individual States then
it would lead me to believe that you would have to first meet the residency
laws of the State you have chosen to live in before you can meet the
requirements for Naturalization to be a citizen of these United States.
The
residency statement leads me to my final dissention with the ruling of the
Supreme Court. On Tuesday, July 17, 1787 the Continental Congress
voted down what was referred to as a negative of State laws. A negative of State laws would have put all
the power of legislating laws into the hands of the Central Government. Two Clauses in the Constitution of the United
States reflect the final rulings of the day,
Article II, Section VIII, Number 18 gave the power of law making to Congress
only as far as the execution of the enumerated powers of Article II, Section VIII. Article VI, Section 2 was specifically voted
on that day. This Article which is now
referred to as the Supremacy Clause simply states that the Constitution and the
laws of the United States
made in pursuance thereof, to include Treaties made under the Authority of the United
States will be the Supreme Law of the
land. I have made this argument before,
this does not mean Congress can make any law it wants and call it the Supreme
law of the land, it has to be a law supported by one of the enumerated powers,
not preambles or introductory statements, only in accordance with the
enumerated powers of Article II, Section VIII.
All this
being said, the Supreme Court; and the Department of Justice for bringing suit
against Arizona were wrong. While I have argued that possibly illegal
immigration could be an argument for the Federal Government not protecting the
States from invasion, the States making their own immigration law in no way
oversteps the bounds of their Sovereignty nor does it interfere with any
enumerated Constitutional power.
The Supreme
Court then finally released its ruling on Health Care Affordability Act. In short they determined that it was
Constitutional and that it was not a mandate but a tax. By calling it a tax in a sense they
backpedaled on their argument that they could enforce the Act by claiming that
the purchasing of Health Insurance fell under the commerce clause, once again a
very misused and misinterpreted enumerated power. By calling it a tax they are placing within
the 16th Amendment, no apportionment, no census and no enumeration,
in other words Congress can run amok.
The real problem with this ruling is the beast that it has
unleashed. With the belief that Case Law
takes precedence over Constitutional Law the Supreme Court of the United
States has just set precedence. It will take little to no effort now for any
Congress with an agenda, and the backing of limitless corporate dollars, to
write a law that will require the People of the United
States to purchase a particular product or
service or be taxed for not doing so.
Whether or
not the right President or Congress is elected the precedence has been
set. The Supreme Court of the United
States will overrule any State law they
desire. State sovereignty has been
nullified in the eyes of the Central Government. The Supreme Court has also set the precedence
for the Federal Government to rule over how we may spend our hard earned income;
they will decide what is best for you, so once again sovereignty has been nullified;
only in this case it is personal sovereignty.
It actually pains me to write this but, welcome to the United Socialist
States of America . There are limited options open to the States
and to the People. The States can
nullify Federal Laws that are not in accordance with the enumerated powers of
the Constitution of the United States . Of course this action will cause more law
suits to be brought against the States by the Department of Justice. The other is for the States to secede from
the Union . This
was tried in the 1860’s, it was the correct action then and it could be the
correct action now for the same reason, the Federal Government is in violation
of the Contract it has between themselves and the States, it’s called the
Constitution of the United States.
Steve Avery
No comments:
Post a Comment