It's not like we don't know why they're doing it. They can't feed the homeless they already have. It's about votes, electoral votes. Trump will be all over this soon, I hope.
Printable View
It's not like we don't know why they're doing it. They can't feed the homeless they already have. It's about votes, electoral votes. Trump will be all over this soon, I hope.
I'm trying to get my mind around how they can choose to not conform to federal immigration law in the first place. I haven't dug into it enough, there are lots of laws the states can ignore and Congress gets them to buy in by tying it to funding, but it's not clear to me a state can override an area of law that is clearly the proper federal role in something like who can come into the country.
for example, a state can't just choose to ignore a national draft could they? Could they refuse to enforce it?
can they refuse any federal warrant? Can they refuse to extradite someone wanted for a crime in another state? Of course they can have a legal hearing but can they just pass a law and say California will no longer extradite anyone wanted for a crime in another state?
The whole purpose of federal superiority is to avoid the problems of the Articles of Confederation, where state militias were almost massing at the borders and states passed laws that were state level tariffs on other state's goods.
It would seem that immigration law would be one area where federal authority prevails, and the states have to get in line, just like they can't just up and decide they will harbor criminals from other states.
I need to go back to some reading but don't have time. Obviously tariffs are covered more explicitly in the Constitution, and that's the basis for modern rulings on nexus, etc., but I'm curious what else I can find on the subject.
I heard a reference to the subject that I find intriguing, in the Nullification Crisis of 1832. In that situation South Carolina and John C Calhoun argued that states could rule federal laws unconstitutional, in response to the federal tariff.
Article 1 Section 8 is what establishes the absolute federal authority to govern tariffs but it also gives Congress the authority to "establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization", which IMO clearly makes this federal law, period, end of debate.
If the states cannot Nullify a tariff they certainly cannot nullify immigration law either.
So why isn't the DOJ in court right now going to SCOTUS to get the California law stricken?
BTW, if Sessions won't sue and take action on this he should be fired, or just quit out of his own sense of shame.
From what I've seen, if he doesn't Trump will fire him.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
trump needs to start firing a LOT of people at DOJ and FBI.Quote:
Originally Posted by badrose
the Nixon situation created a call for those agencies to be independent. Well they are, so much so that they now answer to no elected officials apparently. The President isn't supposed to tell them what to do despite the Constitution saying he's the chief law enforcement officer of the land, but they wont' answer to Congressional oversight either.
They've become the living embodiment of the Deep State, agencies that answer only to themselves and clearly promote people of like ideological minds.
They stonewall, refuse to turn over documents to the various oversight committees, and operate with near impunity. So they throw the book at a Navy sailor who takes a picture in a submarine but compose Hillary's walking papers before they even finish the investigation.
They see themselves as the guardians of the system and the nation, but when the voters disagree with them they work actively to thwart their will, and clearly have become a "ends justify the means" entities that break their own rules when they think it's the best course of action.
DOJ and FBI are not supposed to be independent of the President. The President should be running those agencies b/c he's elected, and if he abuses that power and authority then he should be impeached by the OTHER ELECTED AUTHORITY. The power must vest in those elected to the position, not in career bureaucrats who answer to no one and thus operate outside both the Constitution and democracy.
The president is wanting to build his wall in the wrong spot
If I were sessions I would have Jerry Brown indicted for obstruction of justice and aiding and abetting felons.
Looks as though the Libs now believe in States’ Rights. Maybe they will erect a statue of Strom Thurmund!
While I can certainly agree that there just might be a case there, I also believe that there isn't any federal prosecutors in Commiefornia that would dare take up that crusade. Therefore, it won't happen. And it would be a crusade, have no doubt about that.Quote:
Originally Posted by KeithKSR
You won't be able to because you're not a liberal. In their utopian minds all people are good (except those who disagree with them--those people are evil), all deserve being taken care of with having others pay for it and the government knows how to make decisions for you better then you do yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
I welcome immigrants, just want them to do it legally. People who do things legally are much more likely to be law abiding citizens than one who come in with no regard to the laws of the nation.
This, this, this, this and this!Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc