Home > Uncategorized > DOJ Lawyers Draft Challenge to AZ Law

DOJ Lawyers Draft Challenge to AZ Law

“A team of Justice Department attorneys reviewing the new immigration law in Arizona has recommended that the U.S. government challenge the state law in federal court, but the recommendation faces an uncertain future and tough scrutiny from others in the Justice Department, sources with knowledge of the process tell Fox News.
The draft complaint challenges the Arizona law as unconstitutional, saying it is illegal because it impedes federal law, according to the sources, who would not offer any more details about the draft complaint or the arguments made in it.”
Hopefully Obama and his un-American pals will challenge the law which will then set the stage for Obama and his Administration to be publicly charged with dereliction of duty, malfeasance and misfeasance! And why should such charges be made? Because our Constitution is explicitly clear on the subject! Let us establish the facts.
Article I, Section 8 vests power in Congress… To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
But unlike Article I, Section 8, which specifically applies to Congress, Article IV, Section 4 of the federal Constitution is directed at the Executive Office and uses the word “shall”:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
The word “shall” does not leave the Obama Administration with any options in the matter and as such, and in considering Obama has been in office for over a year, there is little question that the Obama administration is guilty of malfeasance and misfeasance for refusing to protect our borders and in particularly, protect Arizona‘s borders from an ongoing invasion.
In addition, contrary to the Obama Administration’s assertions regarding Arizona exercising its policing powers, keep in mind the various united States have not surrendered their sovereign authority to control “migration” within their borders, which is a power that was exercised by each of the states prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution, and is a power that has not, in any expressed language, been delegated to Congress or repealed!
We are told by our un-American crowd that the federal government has supreme power over immigration law. But the truth is, the word “immigration” does not even appear in the Constitution! What does appear in the Constitution is a power delegated to Congress “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. And just what is “Naturalization” as the word is used in our Constitution? It is the act by which an alien becomes a citizen of the united States, which is something far different than the meaning of ‘migration” which also appears in our Constitution. Did our founding fathers understand the distinction between these words?
REPRESENTATIVE WHITE, while debating our nation’s Rule of Naturalization in 1790 notes the narrow limits of the power in question and ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152
Also see:
“MR. STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens.[page 1157] Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157
And what does our Constitution say with regard to “migration“?
Article 1, Section 9 declares:
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.
By the very wording of this section there is an acknowledgement that “migration” of persons into a state shall be as each state thinks proper. But more importantly, “migration” is the act by which people move from one place to another, while “Naturalization” is the act by which an alien becomes a citizen ___ the latter subject being entrusted to Congress by the Constitution, while the former is a reserved power of the States and constitutionally protected under the Tenth Amendment!
But why was Congress vested with power to make a uniform rule by which an alien could become a citizen? Rodger Sherman, who attended the Convention of 1787, notes the intentions during the framing of our nations Rule of Naturalization on February 3rd,1790. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1148
Indeed, the power over naturalization granted to Congress is very limited in its scope, and merely determines who shall or shall not be a Citizen of the united States. By contrast, the State of Arizona is well within its policing powers to deal with aliens who have invaded its borders, and those who now object to Arizona exercising its policing powers, especially disloyal police officers who have taken an oath to support and defend our federal Constitution, are aiding those who have invaded the borders of our Country, and ought to be relieved of their duties for their disloyalty to their oath of office!

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. No comments yet.
  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: