US Constitution

[Skiddles2014]

This law made me snort my ice tea!

• Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
– A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
– Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)

I guess that doesn't count if the kiddies are just passing through.

You're right.

They should jail the children until they turn 18 then jail them some more as an adult.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Ultimately they cry about it.

Though they have tools they can use aside from declaring war on Mexico.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

How many US citizens have to die to qualify Hogan?

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/30/illegal-immigrant-suspected-murder-arizona-rancher/

I'm actually going to pretend that's a sincerely legitimate question. Just for you. Just this once.

The language of Article 1, Sec. 10 does not link a state's authority to wage war on the number of casualties the state must sustain. Instead, it defines a state's war fighting authority on the basis of the characteristic of the invading force.

If we are going to justify shooting someone "on sight," which the nature of warfare typically allows, it would seem at bare minimum that person would reasonably be designated as an "enemy combatant."

I don't believe illegal aliens are in any way, shape or form, enemy combatants.

Seal the border. Arrest illegals. Throw them in jail until their trial dates come up. Increase penalties substantially for repeat offenders. There are any number of law enforcement tactics that can be applied to this crisis if the federal government should ever decide to take it seriously.

Pretending that illegal aliens are Nazi blitzkrieg troops or Japanese infantry is just stupid in the extreme.

p.s. - Nice "selfie" on the av, btw.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

So what happens to the people of Texas when the President checks out, decides not to enforce the law? What happens when 147,000 criminal aliens have breached your border and are now in the civil society committing 447,000 crimes, including 5000 rapes and 2000 murders and the state estimates they now have 100,000 illegal alien gang members in their state, more than they have sworn peace officers in the state? So they can expect to be pillaged by the rest of the continent until Barack Obama or the next President takes the necessary actions to protect America? I find it hard to believe the state of Texas does not have the inherent right to self defense in the face of a dereliction of duty by the present executive.

Obviously the state of Texas becomes unfairly saddled with a disproportionate demand on its law enforcement, judicial and penal resources with an unfairly disproportionate tax burden on its citizens.

Nothing I've said should be considered as a justification for our President's pathetically feeble response on this issue or that Texas does not have an inherent right to protect its citizens.

 

[Dream59]

I'm actually going to pretend that's a sincerely legitimate question. Just for you. Just this once.

The language of Article 1, Sec. 10 does not link a state's authority to wage war on the number of casualties the state must sustain. Instead, it defines a state's war fighting authority on the basis of the characteristic of the invading force.

If we are going to justify shooting someone "on sight," which the nature of warfare typically allows, it would seem at bare minimum that person would reasonably be designated as an "enemy combatant."

I don't believe illegal aliens are in any way, shape or form, enemy combatants.

Seal the border. Arrest illegals. Throw them in jail until their trial dates come up. Increase penalties substantially for repeat offenders. There are any number of law enforcement tactics that can be applied to this crisis if the federal government should ever decide to take it seriously.

Pretending that illegal aliens are Nazi blitzkrieg troops or Japanese infantry is just stupid in the extreme.

p.s. - Nice "selfie" on the av, btw.

Your arguments are well reasoned, on point, and correct. I agree with all of this. Though I want the border sealed and illegals deported. They can in no way be considered an invading army.

 

[Ishmael]

Your arguments are well reasoned, on point, and correct. I agree with all of this. Though I want the border sealed and illegals deported. They can in no way be considered an invading army.

Maybe you and the Col. might want to read the pertinent section over again, carefully.

"unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

That portion I emboldened is NOT conditional on an invading army. All the governors have to do is declare an imminent danger that will not admit of delay. If that clause were conditional the conjunction would have been "AND," not "OR."

Ishmael

 

[Sean Renaud]

I guess they could try to claim imminent danger and it would be legal in that same way that impeaching Obama buying the Queen an iPod is technically legal. You might even get away with it. Doesn't make your reasoning not bullshit.

 

[eyer]

Lot of talkin' goin' on in this thread...

...while Rangers, Troopers, Guard, and Militia are already walkin' the front line in the Lone Star State.

Go ahead: mess with Texas...

...border patrolling the Rio Grande:

http://static01.nyt.com/images/2014/08/07/us/TEXAS1/TEXAS1-master675-v2.jpg

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Maybe you and the Col. might want to read the pertinent section over again, carefully.

"unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

That portion I emboldened is NOT conditional on an invading army. All the governors have to do is declare an imminent danger that will not admit of delay. If that clause were conditional the conjunction would have been "AND," not "OR."

Ishmael

And you might try reading the relevant section in its entirety and with an eye towards an HONEST appraisal of its accurate and unmistakeable context instead of dancing around trying to simply avoid losing an argument.

If you do that, you will find, as I have said repeatedly, that your "imminent danger as will not admit of delay" is one of two conditions by which the Constitution permits a state to engage in outright WARFARE. It doesn't grant any lesser police powers or immigration management authority. It is an authorization to WAGE WAR, PERIOD! More precisely, they are the ONLY TWO EXCEPTIONS to the Constitutional DENIAL of a state's war making power.

If we can agree that that is the clause's sole and specific operational effect, then I would ask you if it is your sincere belief that ANY DANGER "AS WILL NOT ADMIT OF DELAY," no matter its severity or lack thereof, is sufficient to invoke the war making exception as long as such danger is IMMINENT?

In other words, do you honestly believe that it was the intent of the Constitutional Convention via Article I, Sec. 10 to give a state the power to wage WAR strictly on the basis of a "danger's" immediacy irrespective of that same danger's severity?

Is that an interpretation of Article 1, Sec. 10 that you believe would be upheld by federal judicial review?

Get real.

 

[badbabysitter]

and this is why I love Colonel Hogan

if more conservatives were like him, the Republican party would win in landlsides

 

[Sean Renaud]

Fuck landslides, if more Conservatives were like Colonel Hogan there wouldn't be liberals. At least not on a lot of things. I'm not honestly familiar with his opinion on fiscal matters but on nearly everything else the man is beyond reproach.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Fuck landslides, if more Conservatives were like Colonel Hogan there wouldn't be liberals. At least not on a lot of things. I'm not honestly familiar with his opinion on fiscal matters but on nearly everything else the man is beyond reproach.

Not that you specifically asked, but my basic belief in government fiscal policy at the federal, state and local levels is that we don't have much wiggle room for diverse fiscal policies to begin with.

There just isn't much true discretionary spending at any level of government if you are going to fund even the most basic of public services.

At the federal level, entitlement programs will, in all likelihood, eventually bankrupt us, and yet WE CANNOT fail to provide some reasonable measure of subsidized health care for seniors and the disabled.

A lasting solution for this category of government spending has true bipartisan neglect. Neither Republicans nor Democrats; liberals nor conservatives have the political will to take the lead.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The answer is appreciated however.

 

[about_average]

Wrong. It has nothing to do with English and everything to do with the law. Changing what you call them does not change their status.

http://www.llr.sc.gov/Immigration/

Amendments to the "South Carolina Illegal Immigration and Reform Act” were signed into law by Governor Nikki Haley on June 27, 2011.

http://www.legis.ga.gov/legislation/en-US/display/32190

Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06770.pdf

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION
Border-Crossing Deaths Have Doubled. Since 1995;

 

[about_average]

referring to the libtard loonies deciding to drop the world illegal in front of the word immigrant. I know that might be a bit of a stretch for ya to grasp, but feel free to ask for help anytime.

Rand Paul is a libtard loonie?

http://www.paul.senate.gov/?p=issue&id=12

I support local solutions to illegal immigration as protected by the 10th amendment. I support making English the official language of all documents and contracts.

And we know about those libtard loonies at the Cato Institute.
http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/irb_august2010.pdf

 

[Ishmael]

And you might try reading the relevant section in its entirety and with an eye towards an HONEST appraisal of its accurate and unmistakeable context instead of dancing around trying to simply avoid losing an argument.

If you do that, you will find, as I have said repeatedly, that your "imminent danger as will not admit of delay" is one of two conditions by which the Constitution permits a state to engage in outright WARFARE. It doesn't grant any lesser police powers or immigration management authority. It is an authorization to WAGE WAR, PERIOD! More precisely, they are the ONLY TWO EXCEPTIONS to the Constitutional DENIAL of a state's war making power.

If we can agree that that is the clause's sole and specific operational effect, then I would ask you if it is your sincere belief that ANY DANGER "AS WILL NOT ADMIT OF DELAY," no matter its severity or lack thereof, is sufficient to invoke the war making exception as long as such danger is IMMINENT?

In other words, do you honestly believe that it was the intent of the Constitutional Convention via Article I, Sec. 10 to give a state the power to wage WAR strictly on the basis of a "danger's" immediacy irrespective of that same danger's severity?

Is that an interpretation of Article 1, Sec. 10 that you believe would be upheld by federal judicial review?

Get real.

War making or defense? Would an Indian raid constitute an 'invasion?' I can see reasons, even in that time and place, for that clause being written in even barring the initiation of undeclared war. Think of it as the States equivalent of the second amendment. An acknowledgement that States, just like individuals, have the right, and obligation, to protect their citizens.

It's also interesting that the clause appears in Article I, the legislative section, as opposed to the administrative section. I read that as an implication that not even congress, let alone the president, can remove that power from the State.

As to what the final decision would be should some governor act on that section and it began to wind it's way through the courts is anyone's guess. But that would take considerable time, time enough for the action to have had it's effect no doubt.

I'll spend a little time later today to see if the Federalist's have anything to say on the subject.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.
Madison, Federalist 45.

I infer that if we are not at war, then the State should be the actor.

 

[Ishmael]

I guess they could try to claim imminent danger and it would be legal in that same way that impeaching Obama buying the Queen an iPod is technically legal. You might even get away with it. Doesn't make your reasoning not bullshit.

????? Impeach?

Impeach for what reason? The giving of a tacky gift. It wasn't the iPod per se' but what it contained. Kinda like Hitler handing out copied of 'Mein Kampf' as state gifts. Incredibly tacky.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security.
Madison, Federalist 45.

I infer that if we are not at war, then the State should be the actor.

You just happened to have your 'pocket' version handy I see.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Hamilton in 23 seems to be arguing against the states.

24 seems to argue against militias...

25 talks about rivalry.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You just happened to have your 'pocket' version handy I see.

Ishmael

I have some quotes and I broke down the chapters into an overview to more quickly get to a desired topic.



23-25 seem to be the relevant passages.

 

[Ishmael]

Hamilton in 23 seems to be arguing against the states.

24 seems to argue against militias...

25 talks about rivalry.

All three are, more or less, an argument for the Col.s position on the subject. Not so much anti militia or states right of defense, but an argument for the preeminence of the national military under singular national leadership. Hamilton's arguments did not preclude the ability of the various states to act individually in the event of a localized threat, he was pointing out the faults of the Articles of Confederation and the absolute requirement for national leadership of land and sea forces along with the ability of congress to raise, equip, and fund such forces.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FORESEE OR DEFINE THE EXTENT AND VARIETY OF NATIONAL EXIGENCIES, OR THE CORRESPONDENT EXTENT AND VARIETY OF THE MEANS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY TO SATISFY THEM. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense."
Hamilton, 23

I think the problem with his argument is the crux of what we have here and that is the subjective divide between those who see this as one of those infinite dangers and those who see it as an opportunity for investment (votes purchased by benefits derived from the public weal).

 

[Ishmael]

"The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FORESEE OR DEFINE THE EXTENT AND VARIETY OF NATIONAL EXIGENCIES, OR THE CORRESPONDENT EXTENT AND VARIETY OF THE MEANS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY TO SATISFY THEM. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense."
Hamilton, 23

I think the problem with his argument is the crux of what we have here and that is the subjective divide between those who see this as one of those infinite dangers and those who see it as an opportunity for investment (votes purchased by benefits derived from the public weal).

Forgetting about the purchasing of votes for the moment.

The Articles of Confederation model was more or less based on the feudal system whereby Baron Hamilton of New York, would have an army and navy AND Count Adams of Massachusetts would also have an army and navy. And each would be required to provide those resources to the national government, at their own expense, in times of threat to the Confederation. That didn't work out so well for the feudal system either. Alliances changed, resources withheld, rivalries, as many determinations of the severity of the threat as there were feudal lords with armies and navies.

The Constitution threw that system out and established that the army and navy would be under the command of the federal government and the federal government would have the power to raise, equip, and fund such armies and navies as required.

But what you are reading in 23-25 is the argument for the national defense. When, indeed, what we are faced with here is the national non-defense. And that is a notion that, it seems, the founders did not quite envision. I don't think they could quite wrap their head around the notion that the federal government would purposely not protect the citizens. And therein I can see the rationale behind the clause under discussion. In the instance of that time and place they foresaw that circumstances may arise that the federal government could NOT react to in a timely manner. My argument is that it is just as valid in the instance where the federal government WON'T react at all.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Let's say that those arguing that it is not an invasion are correct, then Texas is not "defending" the border, but securing the peace and prosperity of its commonwealth.



It should be free to assist foreign nationals in returning to their right and proper state and status.