Thursday, July 22, 2010

Arizona is not usurping federal power with SB-1070, but the big lie continues. Why?

SEE: SB 1070 Hearing in Phoenix today


Salgado's attorneys argue the judge should block the law before it takes effect because it would require the officer to use race as a primary factor in enforcing the law and because the state law is trumped by federal immigration law“.


We are continually told by our big media that Arizona’s SB-1070 law is usurping the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration. But our big media, including FOXNEWS, never points to that part of our Constitution which grants an exclusive power to Congress over immigration. And, it never does so because the word “immigration”, surprising as it may seem, does not appear in our Constitution! In fact, the exclusive power granted to Congress which is alleged to be usurped under Arizona’s SB-1070 law is Congress’ power to set the requirements under which an alien may become a naturalized citizen of the United States. The specific wording in our Constitution being a power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization“!

The power granted to the federal government over “naturalization” does not override the various State’s policing powers which may be adopted by a State for the protection and general welfare of its citizens, nor does the State of Arizona exercising its policing power as outlined in SB-1070 interfere in any manner whatsoever with Congress’ existing requirements (existing law) by which an alien may become a citizen of the United States.

As a matter of fact, one may argue that Arizona, and every State in the Union, actually has an obligation to determine who is and who is not a “citizen of the united States” as outlined in SB-1070, because citizens of the united States, under our Constitution’s 14th Amendment, are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” the state in which they are located has to offer. But those who are not “citizens of the united States”, and especially those who have entered a State, or the United States illegally, are not entitled to those “privileges or immunities“. And so, each State has an obligation and constitutionally grounded purpose to determine who is and who is not a “citizen of the United States”. The 14th Amendment only requires that those who have entered Arizona illegally may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state’s due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all others persons.

BTW, those who are interested in the limited power granted to Congress concerning its power over “naturalization” as articulated by our founding fathers ought to study our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization. For example, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [a power granted to Congress] means, and he ”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

And REPRESENTATIVE STONEconcluded 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. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157

In addition, REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution expreses the very intentions for which the power [Naturalization] was granted to Congress. 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

The irrefutable fact is, the various states never delegated to Congress their original policing powers within their borders as may apply to aliens who have entered their borders illegally, and exercising this power does not interfere with Congress’ existing rule of naturalization, PERIOD!


JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

Saturday, July 03, 2010

Justice Alito was wrong in McDonald v. Chicago

The 39th Congress did not intend by the 14th Amendment to make the provisions of our Constitution’s first ten amendments enforceable upon the States by the federal government as alleged by Justice Alito. SEE HERE

As for the right to keep and bear arms, I assume all freedom loving Americans agree that is a right not to be infringed upon by government, local, state or federal. As for me, I see that right originating and manifesting itself in the inalienable right of mankind to defend one’s self and family, and as such, every state, local or federal law which would infringe upon a law abiding member of the community to exercise this right, is an assault not only upon an inalienable right, but an assault upon the very principles our founding fathers believed in and engrained in our constitutions, state and federal.


The right to keep and bear arms is a self evident right, just as the right to breath air is a self evident right of mankind … and neither need a law to protect the right! But our wise founding fathers, after adopting our federal Constitution, decided to add further declaratory restrictions to our federal Constitution to prevent the newly formed federal government from misconstruing or abusing its powers, one of which was specifically directed at preserving the right to keep and bear arms. How do I know this to be true? Because it is stated, in crystal clear language, in the Resolution of the First Congress Submitting Twelve Amendments to the Constitution; March 4, 1789


THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added .


And as to powers reserved by the States and the people, often referred to as “federalism”, Madison states the following with regard to adopting the first ten amendments to our federal Constitution:


“It cannot be a secret to the gentlemen in this House, that, notwithstanding the ratification of this system of Government by eleven of the thirteen United States, in some cases unanimously, in others by large majorities; yet still there is a great number of our constituents who are dissatisfied with it; among whom are many respectable for their talents and patriotism, and respectable for the jealousy they have for their liberty, which, though mistaken in its object, is laudable in its motive. There is a great body of the people falling under this description, who at present feel much inclined to join their support to the cause of Federalism” ___See :Madison, June 8th, 1789, Amendments to the Constitution


The misapplication of the 14th Amendment and the subjugation of federalism by our federal government has brought us the slaughtering of millions of unborn babies by fraudulently applying the Ninth Amendment to the States via the 14th Amendment (Roe vs. Wade). The 14th Amendment has also been used to removed traditional references to God in our State public school systems by having the federal government applying the First Amendment to the States via a misapplication of the 14th Amendment. A misapplication of the 14th Amendment has also been used to compelled schools and colleges to set up and recognize homosexual clubs on a par with traditional type clubs, calling it equal protection of law, and a misapplication of the 14th Amendment has been used to compel taxpayers to finance pornography and alleged “art”, “art” which makes a bigoted mockery of religion, calling it freedom of speech, not to mention the enforcement of the federal bill of rights upon the states by the federal government to dissolved parental rights calling it a federal privacy right, while the Fourth and Fifth amendments have been fraudulently applied to the states by the federal government to coddle criminals in each of the 50 States! And now, it is called a “victory” because the federal government [Congress and federal judges] will be in charge of applying the 2nd Amendment to the states via Alito’s misapplication of the 14th Amendment, and will then be the final arbiter in determining “reasonable” regulations over the right to keep and bear arms?


For the Court to apply the 2nd Amendment to the states and have the federal government [Congress and federal judges] protect this right within each of the various State borders is to hand another victory to our progressive crowd who will now be able to apply the Daley plan in every state in the union, and do so with one stroke of the federal pen, and in the process undermine federalism, our Constitution’s plan and rob the reserved powers of the States and the people as was done in Roe vs. Wade! This is what Alito has handed to our PROGRESSIVE DOMESTIC ENEMIES a usurped power for folks in the federal government to regulate the right to keep and bear arms into extinction!


Now, if Alito really wanted to preserve the inalienable right to self defense in McDonald v. Chicago, there was a constitutional argument to be made and it did not need a misapplication of the 14th and Second Amendments, nor a further erosion of federalism to protect an inalienable right. The argument is as I have already stated The right to keep and bear arms is a self evident right, just as the right to breath air is a self evident right of mankind … and neither need a law to protect these inalienable rights! They stand on their own as being self evident!


Alito and Thomas could have continued, We all know by reading our original state constitutions, and of course our federal Constitution’s preamble, that our founding fathers irrefutable intentions were to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, and within the meaning of Liberty, the inalienable right to self defense is irrefutable. Although the case can be made that members of a community who have proven to be a danger to the community ought not be entitled to keep and bear arms, this argument will never justify a State’s Legislature to use the force of government and sweeping language which infringes upon the law abiding citizen’s right to keep and bear arms for self defense and defense of one’s family.


With these thoughts in mind, we urge Chicago’s Legislature to immediately re-write its regulations which deal with gun ownership so as to not infringe upon a law abiding citizen’s inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Failure to do so will suggest to the people of the united States that the Legislature of Chicago is acting in rebellion to the most fundamental principles under which our nation and constitutions, state and federal, were founded.



JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)