Feds Usurp State Immigration Authority

Being an 'ole immigration counselor, and having perfunctorily accepted the general notion that the feds are, in fact, pre-eminent in the area of immigration, I decided to research the matter for myself. Lesson learned yet again: ALWAYS question the feds ANY TIME they claim primacy on ANY issue. Why? Chances are they've overstepped their Art 1 Sec 8 enumerated powers. And, indeed, on the matter of immigration law they have grossly violated the constitution with impunity, proving once again that all the feds require in order to expand their powers is a submissive State and an uninformed citizenry. But, a ray of hope: on the matter of immigration, and illegal aliens specifically, Alabama is successfully reasserting its rightful constitutional authority over immigration. The lingering concern for me, of course, is whether or not Alabama will eventually back down if the imperious and overreaching federal judicial system once again thwarts the Constitution by trampling on State sovereignty.

On September 28th, US District Judge Sharon Blackburn upheld most of Alabama's recently enacted immigration law, arguably the toughest immigration law passed by any State to date. Horror of horrors!!! And, of course, the bleeding hearts and open border simpletons among us are in an uproar! Oh, the indignity!!!

Essentially, Blackburn ruled that Alabama's law enforcement officers may check the immigration status of those they suspect may be illegal entrants. Shocking!!! Unbridled tyranny!!! Fascism!!!

The ruling also upholds the law's requirement that all businesses use E-Verify, a national database operated by the US Citizenship & Immigration Services that allows employers to check potential employees' Social Security numbers to determine if they are work-authorized. Sedition!!! Shameless racism!!!

Also upheld is the requirement that all school enrollees must present a birth certificate within 30 days of enrollment, this to determine the legal status of their parents. (Note: the law does not prohibit an illegal alien's attendance.) Oh, the humanity!!! Have we no heart???

On the flipside, the Judge blocked the law's 1) prohibition against an illegal's applying for a job, 2) imposition of civil action against employers who knowingly hire illegals, 3) criminalizing the harboring and transportation of illegals, and 4) prohibiting businesses from claiming deductions on wages paid to illegals. A confident and appropriately assertive Alabama plans to appeal these negative portions of the ruling straightaway. My sense is that Governor  Bentley has no intention of continuing to obediently yield Alabama sovereignty to an overweaning federal government. Not this time anyway--I hope.

My research into this subject quickly and manifestly shows that federal primacy relates only to matters of naturalization, but that immigration still remains very much a State power.

We must remember that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution clearly reserve those powers and rights not specifically granted by the Constitution to the federal government to the States or to the people. Simply put, if a power is not specifically granted to the federal government (Art 1 Sec 8), that power falls within the sole purview of the States. The Ninth was intended to preserve all rights existing under state laws as of 1791. The intention of the Tenth was to prevent future federal encroachments upon the states via its exercise of non-delegated powers.

As the federalistblog points out, "because the States retained just about everything they had before joining the union, and the fact this is clearly enumerated in the Constitution, gives Congrss no more authority to authorize entry of immigrants or asylum seekers within the individual States any more than it has the authority to direct another country to accept them." In fact, before and after the 14th Amendment, most States actually had their own immigration commissioners to supervise state immigration activities as well as state immigration representatives in various foreign countries to encourage legal entries into their states of specially qualified persons. But, by slow erosion of the Constitution over the years, the feds have pretty much usurped nearly all authority over immigration matters. Willfully negligent or otherwise financially dependent, aka bought-off, States have, by their silence over the years, stupidly and irresponsibly consented to this--and countless other--federal encroachments.

Rep. John Bingham, co-author of the14th Amendment, argued that while States may not deny entry of US Citizens, States may forbid entry of aliens and to deny their right to acquire property in the States. Surely, 'ole John must have been a crackpot. Huh?

Justice Taney argued Congress has no right to authorize the introduction of aliens without the express consent of the States involved. He also cited Holmes v Jennision, Groves v Slaughter, and Prigg v Pennsylvania to demonstrate that the States alone had the power to expel and exclude. Another Constitution-first troublemaker!!!

In a note to Congress, Pres. Grant asserted that the federal government was prohibited from interfering with immigration matters and that "responsibility over immigration can only belong with the States since this is where the Constitution kept the power." And all this time I thought Grant was a nice guy!!!

The challenge for the feds over the years has been to prove that immigration somehow directly relates to  foreign affairs, thus incident to its exercise of delegated powers under Art 1 Sec 8. However, because the federal government has been unable to constitutionally or cogently demonstrate that relationship, it has simply usurped state authority. And, as said, up to now States have routinely submitted.

While Art 1 Sec 8 specifically grants Congress the power "to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States", nowhere in the Constitution is Congress granted authority over matters related to immigration. NOWHERE!!! (Note: by definition, "immigration" relates to the movement of people while "uniform rules of naturalization" relate solely to citizenship requirements.) Again, the Constitution's enumerated federal powers say absolutely nothing about immigration; thus, if immigration/asylum authority is not expressly granted to the federal government, it is, therefore, expressly withheld from it. (Note: the only allusion to immigration, per se, is Art 1 Sec 9 which prohibits the "migration and importation" of slaves after 1808, a deal which the States agreed to as a condition of ratification.) Fullstop.

In a nutshell, for the feds to rightly claim constitutional primacy in immigration--or in any other matter--two conditions must be met: 1) that power must be expressly delegated to the feds, or be "incidental to a delegated power granted to Congress",  and 2) that power must be expressly withheld from the States. On this subject, the Constitution very clearly places primacy with the States. But, constitutional  primacy is utterly irrelevant if the several States are inclined to ignore or otherwise duck that primacy.

None other than Thomas Jefferson unequivocally stated that States retained jurisdiction and authority over immigration matters: "Alien friends (as opposed to enemy aliens) are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state within they are; that power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citizens..."

James Madison succinctly explained that "the powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State govenrments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce with which the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

The short of it is this: since the Articles of Confederation, the sovereign States--not the feds--have had exclusive authority over immigration matters, and that authority was carried over into the Constitution itself. Clearly, the culprits here are the States themselves who have cavalierly and gratuitously surrendered their sovereignty. Well, up until now that is.

However, to checkmate further federal violations of the Constitution and to reverse the litany of violations already committed, I urge all readers to do their own research on this and a whole host of related subjects. You may be surprised and very much appalled by the extent of federal overreach perpetrated on the Republic over the years. In short, take nothing for granted. Accept nothing at face value. Challenge long-held assumptions, court rulings and popularly held notions about the Constitution which simply don't square with the Constitution. Don't expect to be properly educated by the media's agenda-driven talking heads and political elites, most of whom have already bought into the myth of federal supremacy in nearly all spheres of our lives. Don't routinely acquiesce to your own State's shortsighted failure to properly assert their constitutional powers. Finally, on ALL constitutional matters scrupulously question with boldness and probity.  Leave no stone unturned. As the final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional, it is encumbent upon We the People--not a gaggle of dopey self-serving attorneys--to be the experts. Research!!!! To determine what is and what is not constitutional, rely on the Founders, your own integrity, resourcefulness and objectivity, and most certainly NOT on the feds--and not even on your own lackadaisical State authorities who, by their own negligence, have conspired to cede so many of our rights to an increasingly unbridled national government.

Time to Privatize Postal Service & TSA

Editorial, Published D&C 9/19/11

Like the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and countless other costly and sorely mismanaged govenrment-run programs, the chronically deficit-prone U.S. Postal Service should be privatized. Indisputably, to achieve efficiency and financial stability, the profit motive always works best. This would save Americans billions.

Common-sense realists not blinded by pie-in-the-sky big government ideology know that government has never, ever been the answer. As President Ronald Reagan said, "Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem." We need but to look around at our shattered economy to see how painfully relevant that assessment is today.

What Really Drives Obamanomics?

Recently, a writer for the American Thinker asserted that "no intelligent president would do the things Obama has  done",  and went on to conclude that, in fact, Obama "is an intelligent anti-American president" and that he "is not a failure at his job--his job is the failure of our country." Wow! Couldn't be more perfectly stated.

In truth, one would need to be deaf, dumb and blind not to see that this cunning and thoroughly indoctrinated child of Marxism is anything but incompetent. Thus, only insofar as a brainwashed Socialist/Marxist is, by predisposition, narrowly fixated on ideology can he be accurately characterized as "incompetent". Clueless, ideologically or developmentally challenged, or, quite possibly, cognitively dissonant would, perhaps, be more accurate descriptions.

Obama's long and intimate associations with Socialist and Marxist individuals and mentors-- Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers being among the more notorious--as well as the support lavished on him by the likes of the Democratic Socialists of American (DSA), an affiliate of the Socialist Internationale, and the Communist Party USA is ample evidence of his warped political and economic propensities. And, of course, his unrelenting and divisive race-baiting and class warfare rhetoric are straight out of Bolshevism's playbook for achieving political power.

In any event, my greatest worry is the ultimate "what if" question. WHAT IF Obama knows exactly what he's doing? WHAT IF  he is applying the now well-known Cloward & Piven strategy of orchestrating economic collapse in order to impose a Socialist utopia? Such a strategy involves deliberately generating economic turmoil which will lead to societal upheavel which, in turn, will result in the public's clamoring for authoritarian  intervention in order to "save the country" and "restore order". (And where have we heard that before in the annals of history?) With that "order", of course, would come the Marxist state, the culmination of all that Progressivism has been so fervently pursuing over the last 100 years.

It should be noted that both the Communist Party USA and the Democratic Socialists of America now openly and unabashedly sing Obama's praises, their only complaint being that he isn't "fundamentally transforming the USA" fast enough. Scour their sites for yourselves. That said, given that over 70 members of Congress are bonafide members of the DSA, one has to reasonably wonder how many of these Socialists are also CPU sympathizers as well.

(FYI, among the 70 are Andre Carson (IN-7), of "the Tea Party wants blacks hanging from a tree" infamy and Maxine Waters (CA-35) of "let the Tea Party go to Hell" ignominy. For my NYS compatriots, Carolyn Maloney (NY-14), John Hall (NY-19), M. Hinchey (NY-22), Yvette Clarke (NY-11) and our own Louise Slaughter (NY-28) are also proud DSA members.)

Yes, the foxes are clearly in the coop and our Republic is under seige from within by all manner of Marxist Czars, Socialist legislators, leftist apologists and academics, and their usual coterie of thuggish union allies and useful idiots, underscoring yet once again that history does, in fact, repeat itself with disturbing regularity. By nature, it seems that Man is averse to learning from history, and is predestined to repeating the same painful mistakes of the past. "Stuck on stupid" perfectly describes this age old phenomenon.

In any event, I pray I'm dead wrong and that Obama and his Czars are simply impractical theoreticians and bubble-headed incompetents.  But even the casual observer must concede that something is dangerously amiss when so many obviously bright apparatchiks in this Administration continue to insanely press forward with their failed economic policies. One must realistically wonder if these policies really are intended to be remedies or a  means to an alien political end? Shouldn't the stark contrast between the commonsense and demonstratively successful Milton Friedman economic model and Obama's destructive Keynesian economic approach be blindingly obvious to even the most committed ideologue? Are the Obamanomics advocates genuinely dumb or are they cold and calculating? That question should bother us all.

SO, can we impeach him before it's too late? Absolutely. We have the majority in the House. BUT, can we remove him from office? Nope! Not so long as the Senate is in Progressive hands.

So what do we do until 2012? Encourage gridlock and relentlessly prepare to electorally remove Obama and his minons from office in 2012. We should also demand of Congress that they stop ceding power to the Executive Branch and that Congress deprive revenue to any federal programs which impede economic recovery or that otherwise impel our country toward the brink of collapse. Most importantly, NO COMPROMISE with Progressive tyranny. Of course, we will be attacked for our "obstructionism" and "stubborn inflexibility"--even our "lack of patriotism", laughable as that may seem. But, in this pivotal struggle with the radical left we must hang tough.

With the electoral defeat of Obama in 2012--and I don't think there's much doubt about that anymore-- I think we can reasonably hope that constitutional order will be slowly restored and that all the unconstitutional edicts, fiats, executive orders and laws perpetrated upon the Republic over the past several years will be placed on a fast track to reversal. However, a word of warning: since Progressives plague both parties, achieving this critically important goal will require our continued vigilance and unwavering commiment.

Finally, if the WHAT IF scenario does invade our reality before January 20, 2013, then only civil disobedience and even a willingness to commit ourselves to patriotic rebellion and secession can protect us from tyranny. For that reason, we must not take electoral victory for granted. To dodge electoral defeat, Progressives may very well manufacture a WHAT IF crisis. From all they've shown us over the years,I simply don't put such a cynical, self-serving manipulation past them. Not at all.

So, forewarned is forearmed. Patriots need not--should not--submit to a Marxist takeover merely to restore social order. By definition, social order without constitutional order is tyranny.

("It is error alone which needs the support of government. The truth can stand by itself." Thomas Jefferson)

("When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson)

Supreme Court: Faithful Guardian of the Constitution? Nope!

On the grounds that Justice Thomas's wife is involved with the Tea Party movement, Jeffrey Toobin of The New Yorker recently demanded that Justice Thomas recuse himself from sitting on a  case challenging the constitutionality of Obamacare's "individual mandate", the linchpin of the health care leviathan.

True to hypocritical liberal form, Toobin studiously neglected any mention of Justice Elena Kagan's conflict of interest occasioned by her having worked on the issue in the Justice Department before her appointment as Associate Justice.  Another case of selective lib indignation.

The liberal strategy is embarrassingly obvious: eliminate conservative judicial threats to their activist agenda before the case is reviewed.

For me, however, such deceitful attempts to manipulate the court underscores a much greater concern, that being the menacing power and corruption of the Supreme Court itself.

For years, SCOTUS has substituted "constitutional supremacy" with "judicial supremacy", surely a recipe for constitutional disaster. To better illustrate this dangerous transformation, during the Roosevelt years Chief Justice Hughes arrogantly asserted  that "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." Wow! But at least he was honest about how he felt.

These nine unelected, unaccountable, life-long tenured, black-robed oligarchs, more often than not driven by their political dispositions than by their faithfulness to the Constitution itself, have exercised far too much influence over our Republic's direction. Relying on politically driven and often arbitrary rulings, the dissembling of the Constitution over the years has been unrelenting and corrosive. By the court's failure to faithfully abide by its sworn oath to uphold the Constitution as the fundamental law of the land, they have all but wrecked the constitutional framework so carefully crafted by our founders.

In short, SCOTUS has become an unbridled and overzealous power unto itself--NOT what the founders intended at all. And if SCOTUS again blows it by imperiously granting its blessings to the "individual mandate", then it is encumbent upon the States and "we the people" to assert our 10th Amendment right and duty to nullify or otherwise ignore the ruling. For as Alexander Hamilton held, just as an unconstitutional act of the legislative body is null and void, it should be clear that an unconstitutional edict by the Supreme Court is equally invalid. .

We must remember that the founders intended that "we the people"--not SCOTUS or any of the other branches of government--are THE final arbiters of what is and what is not constitutional. But, if we continue to routinely yield to judicial, executive and legislative overreach, we have only ourselves to blame for the calamity which will surely follow.

A final note: just as the founders intended, Justice Thomas has proven to be a faithful defender of the original meaning and intent of the Constitution. For this reason, he has my unwavering support and respect. 

Rule of Thumb: whenever a liberal "living constitutionalist" attacks a judge, in this case Justice Thomas, you can be sure that the victim of that attack is a patriotic American we should all enthusiastically rally around.

Will theTea Party Form a Third Party?

There's been much speculation on the internet regarding the Tea Party's possibly bolting from the left-leaning GOP and forming a third party.

Of this I am certain: while grassroots Americans, aka Tea Partiers, feel deeply disaffected and justifiably distrustful of big government elites on both the left and the right, they are NOT politically suicidal.

Comprising the overwhelming majority of Tea Partiers, thoughtful and pragmatic country-first patriots will continue to strive to transform the GOP from within, one political battle at a time at the local, state and  national levels.

Being a Tea Partier myself, I can say with confidence that for most of us safeguarding country and family and fully restoring constitutional  governance will always trump parochialism. We are practical and we are serious.

That said, Tea Partiers are resigned to taking their lumps and a bitter pill now and then along the way, but most of us intend to continue pushing for a return to "constitutional order"--a concept which, when clearly explained, resonates with the majority of Americans. By pursuing this strategy, Tea Party values, aka traditional American values and constitutional governance, are certain to triumph, and all our lives will be better for it.

Who Won Last Night's Debate?

Nobody really won, but I would venture to say that Pawlenty, Santorum, Huntsman are history

Though a commendably and staunchly social conservative, Santorum was overly testy, and that didn't sit well with me. Exhibited a lack of poise. The grueling pace of an energetic campaign had clearly taken its toll. Lacks the gravitas needed to secure nomination. He's out. (Hope he runs for the Senate, or the House where his social conservatism can help shape legislation.)

Huntsman, surely a successful governmor, businessman and diplomat, was clearly shaking and quaking. Didn't inspire confidence at all. He's out. (More suitable for another ambassadorship perhaps?)

Pawlenty mishandled his defense against Bachman's barbs and didn't do himself any favors in the testy exchange with her. Lots of executive experience, but I'm afraid he's out. (Would like to see him as Secretary of Interior.)

A tad over the top, Bachman didn't do herself any favors either. She could have studiously pointed out Pawlenty's misguided policies as governor, e.g. Cap & Trade, without resorting to character assassination by describing Pawlenty's record as Obamaesque. That was just too much. She's clearly tough, fearless, but I still question whether her lack of executive experience is an insurmountable deficiency. Eventually, my guess is that she'll be out as well. (She would do well to remain in the House or run for the Senate.)

As always, I was impressed by Gingrich's feistiness and self-confidence, his ability to quickly think on his feet and his obvious mastery of subject matter. Detracting, however, were the flashes of petulence and impatience which do nothing to enhance his amiability. While he's not yet down and out, he needs to work on a more balanced "presidential" delivery. That said, he's still my favorite, though I remain troubled by his "establishment" predilection. (If not the nominee, would like to see him as HHS Secretary or Domestic Affairs Advisor to the President.) He's very bright and I wouldn't want us  to lose that cornucopia of competence and intellect.

Lost for me in the mix was Ron Paul whose foreign policy outlook remains impractical to most and, by in large, unconvincing to many of the rest. That said, his mastery of economics and advocacy of small government remain his towering  strengths. Arguably, on that score he was the best on the stage. However, his 18th century foreign policy stances are, I believe, his Achilles heel which will eventually eliminate  him from the running. He's out. (I would hope he'd eschew retirement and accept appointment as Secretary of Treasury. He would be stellar and transformational in that role.)

Cain exudes authenticity, and possesses that common touch and first-hand business experience. Though an outsider, clearly a plus for me, I just don't believe he's sufficiently polished and experienced, and for that reason I would be somewhat concerned about his ability to effectively deal with foreign leaders, much less our carnivorous  elitist press. (Would like to see him as Secretary of Commerce--if that superfluous bureaucracy is still around for any length of time after 2013.)

And then there's Romney. I see lots of window dressing, but I'm still unconvinced he's anything but a RINO. But, then, except for Paul, all the candidates are as well to varying degrees. I doubt his genuineness and commitment to small government. My guress is that he will not get the nomination, but I think he'll take his candidacy to the wire. (He should be in the next administration.)

So, I'm left with a feisty Newt Gingrich, the best and the brightest from my viewpoint, a carefully choreographed Romney and a thoroughly amiable but inexperienced Bachman.

Of the three, only Gingrich can effortlessly cut Obama down to size in any debate. But, there's the Gingrich amiability factor which militates against him. And on that score, Gingrich  has much work to do to endear himself to the electorate, thus negating Obama's seductive charisma, the most potent weapon remaining in his dwindling arsenal.

In any event, that's my humble take on last night's...show.

Ballot Box Can Get Rid of Elitist Lawmakers

Editorial, Published D&C 08/01/11

According to the Reid-Schumer-Pelosi-McCain progressive tag team, mainstream American Moms and Dads, otherwise known as the Tea Partiers, are "astroturf", "extremists" and now "hobbits".

To the pompous bubbleheads in DC, this word of advice: there's no surer way to lose re-election than to bite the hand that empowers you, no surer way to lose all semblance of credibility than to scorn and vilify "We the People". Have you lost your bloody minds? Have you really become that disconnected? That elitist? That far-removed from reality?

To all but the willfully ignorant and hopelessly ideological, it is now crystal clear that big government simply doesn't work! The federal government has morphed into a bloated, self-serving, unsustainably costly and unmanageable leviathan, and it's well past time to cut it down to size--not with a scalpel, but with a bludgeon!

Will this advice be lost on the power-brokers in DC? More than likely. So, let the ballot box do what it does best--clean house!

Jim Delaney
Greece