Our Supreme Court, our founding fathers, and immigration vs. naturalization!

SEE:
SCOTUS Upholds AZ Law Imposing Penalties On Employers

Published: May 26, 2011

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld an Arizona law that imposes harsh penalties on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.
___cut___

The challenge to the Arizona law that was the subject of Thursday’s decision was brought by a coalition of business and civil liberties groups, with support from the Obama administration.

They said the law in question, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, conflicted with federal immigration policy.

Now, just for the record, let us review our founding fathers own words regarding immigration and naturalization.

The big lie, which Eric Holder and his puppet big media have been promoting is, that the federal government has supreme authority to deal with “immigration” and thus, exclusive authority over aliens who have invaded a State’s borders. They claim the exclusive power is found in Article VI, clause 2 of our federal Constitution which declares:


“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”


But the above “supremacy” only applies to those powers specifically enumerated and delegated by the States to the federal government in our written federal Constitution. And the irrefutable fact is, there is no power granted to Congress to regulate “immigration” mentioned in our Constitution! More importantly, a reading of the debates of our founding fathers involving our nation’s Rule of Naturalization in 1790 established beyond any doubt, the various States specifically avoided granting a sweeping power over immigration to Congress. And, the limited power granted is over “Naturalization” which is stated as follows:
Congress shall have power:


To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization … Article 1, Section 8

The Constitution also states The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States Article IV, Section 2)

NOTE: It is important to keep in mind that prior to the adoption of our existing Constitution citizenship was bestowed under state law. And upon the adoption of our existing Constitution, as stated above, the Citizens of each State became entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. However, once the Constitution was ratified, the federal government was granted exclusive authority To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization …

Now, let us determine our founding fathers use of the word “Naturalization” and if there is a clear distinction between the word “Naturalization” as distinguished from “immigration” which is not even mentioned in our Constitution!


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 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. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790,
PAGE 1156 and PAGE 1157


In addition, REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution expresses 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


In fact, the power delegated to Congress over Naturalization was to preclude a State from granting citizenship on easy terms and allowing undesirables to gain citizenship, and those citizens then moving to another state and upsetting local customs or become disruptive to the general welfare of the State. The founders wanted to make certain that those who obtained citizenship would be productive citizens and loyal to America! And thus, the power was granted to Congress To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization… But, no power was ever granted to our federal government over the various States original policing powers dealing with immigration and aliens who enter their borders, and especially not over aliens who have entered our country or a state illegally!.

The only expressed authority regarding “migration“ found in our Constitution is Article 1, Section 9 which 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.

And this provision was of course the precursor to ending slavery in America by taxing the importation of slaves, and not a grant of power to the federal government to enter a state and meddle in a state‘s policing powers designed to promote its internal general welfare ___ a power specifically retained by the States!


From the above we learn that, “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. We also learn that the rules by which a foreign national may become a citizen of the united States have been entrusted to Congress and done so for a specific reason ___ to ensure the general welfare of the states against undesirable aliens becoming citizens.

So, while President Obama and his Administration may pretend that the federal government has authority to determine immigration policy within a State‘s borders, our Constitution is very clear in granting Congress a power to establish how an alien may become a citizen of the united states, which has nothing to do with the State of Arizona, or any State in the union, from dealing with aliens who have entered their state illegally. The power over this subject matter has never been relinquished by the various united States and remains in tact as it was prior to the adoption of our Constitution which declares in crystal clear language: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment


JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?" Justice Story

Judicial tyranny: the ACLU and Justice Ginsburg’s inventions exposed!

One of the Supreme Court‘s “inventions” used to impose its will upon the people unknown to those who framed and ratified our Constitution, are various tests the court has created which are now used to subjugate and overcome the documented intentions and beliefs under which the various provisions of our Constitution have been adopted. These “tests” began to appear and gain a foothold during the Warren Court of the l960’s. One such test was the "rationality" test under which a law being challenged had to withstand the court’s judgment that the law in question was “rationally based” or “reasonable” to survive the court‘s review. Of course, this allowed the court to switch the subject from what is and what is not cstitutional, to a question having nothing to do with its constitutionality. Whether rational or not, a law which violates the Constitution cannot be justified as being constitutional if it is rationally based! Likewise, if a law is not rationally based it is not the Court’s job to second guess the wisdom of the legislature! To do so is to usurp legislative authority and its prerogative, and ignore the separation of powers in our system of government.

For example, imaging for a moment that a black male was denied employment as a prison guard by a local state government based upon his race and the court, in spite of the 14th Amendment’s intended protection against state imposed race discrimination, upheld the denial of employment because the local government presented an “exceedingly persuasive justification” for not hiring the black male. This is what these tests are about, creating a platform for progressives on the Court to ignore the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted and impose their whims and fancies upon the people using flowery terms and phrases to justify ignoring the will of the people as expressed in a written Constitution!

By the early 1970’s the Court using a variety of invented “tests” [rationally based, compelling state interest, intermediate scrutiny, strict scrutiny, etc.], started, with impunity, to ignore the documented intentions under which our Constitution was adopted and went on to impose its own ideas of social justice and court-ordered social reforms. Some of the important cases which demonstrate the Court’s assumption of legislative power by using these newly created tests are Reed vs. Reed 404 U.S. 71 (1971), Frontiero vs Richardson 411 U.S. 677 (1973), and Craig v. Boren 429 U.S. 190 (1976).

It is also important to note that the ACLU and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a volunteer for the American Civil Liberties Union in the 1970’s, were both very active in these cases and assisted the court in engineering clever words and phrases in conjunction with “tests” which were designed to parse words and subjugate the very intentions and beliefs under which the 14th Amendment was adopted.

When Ginsburg became a member of the Supreme Court the ground work had already been laid with her help in establishing these despotic tests as part of the Court’s arsenal used by its progressive members to make the Constitution mean whatever they wished it to mean.

In delivering the Court’s opinion in the Virginia Military Institute (VMI)case, decided June 26, 1996, which commanded the Institute to accept women by citing the 14th Amendment as forbidding sex discrimination, Ginsburg pointed to previous Supreme Court rulings and the invented tests in question, and asserted a party seeking to uphold government action making a distinction based upon sex must establish an "exceedingly persuasive justification" In addition, Ginsburg noted, “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation. And it must not rely on overbroad generalizations about the different talents, capacities, or preferences of males and females.”

But the fact remains, Ginsburg, in delivering the opinion, never established that under the 14th Amendment the people of America decided to prohibit distinctions based upon gender in addition to their intentional prohibition against state legislation based upon “race and color”! And, the fact remains, Justice Ginsburg couldn’t establish this constitutional prohibition (sex discrimination) because time and again during the debates which framed the 14th Amendment the intended prohibition against discrimination was identified as being limited to discrimination based upon “race, color, or former condition of slavery”, and only intended to apply in a very narrow area and protect the inalienable right of Blacks: “to make and enforce contracts, to sue...to inherit, purchase...property as was then enjoyed by white citizens. “Congress did not assume...to adjust what may be called the social rights of men...but only to declare and vindicate these fundamental rights.”___ see the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3,22 (1883)

The argument that the wording in the 14th Amendment: (a)“all persons”, (b)"No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of United States.", (c) "[N]or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws", as being evidence the 14th Amendment was intended to forbid distinctions based upon sex, or intended to be a universal rule to bar every imaginable type of discrimination, such as in Martin vs. PGA Tour and also include discrimination based upon sex, falls flat on its face when reading the words of next Amendment to the Constitution! This Amendment (the 15th) prohibits a new type of discrimination not covered by the 14th Amendment! It prohibits discrimination, or to be more accurate, prohibits the right of voting to be denied or abridged on account of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” The intent of the 15th Amendment clearly being to enlarge the intended prohibition on state legislated race based discrimination mentioned in the 14th Amendment, and enlarging it to include the prohibition at the voting booth ---forbidding discrimination at the voting booth to be based upon “race, color, or previous condition of servitude“, while gender, and in particularly females, were not yet included in the protection.

The argument that the 14th Amendment prohibits state discrimination based upon gender, becomes even weaker when reading the 19th Amendment which specifically forbids a new kind of discrimination. In this Amendment, the People of America decide to forbid gender discrimination [the discrimination mentioned by Ginsburg] but only extend the prohibition with respect to the right to vote being “denied or abridged” on account of “sex”

If the 14th Amendment prohibited every kind of discrimination, including discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleged in the VMI Case, then why were these subsequent Amendments added to the Constitution after the adoption of the 14th Amendment?


Finally, why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination but which never received the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex as Ginsburg alleges?

Bottom line is, our SC, including Justice Ginsburg, is acting in rebellion to our written Constitution and the documented intentions and beliefs under which it was adopted. Indeed, our Supreme Court is in fact "legislating from the bench" so as to impose its own visions and court ordered social reforms using a variety of tests which switch the subject of a law’s constitutionality, to a question of the lawmakers wisdom. And, to meet the Court’s standards a law must be “reasonable“ and reflect what progressives on the Court arbitrarily fancy as social justice. In fact, a questioned law to pass Ginsburg’s test, must have an "exceedingly persuasive justification" and “The justification must be genuine, not hypothesized or invented post hoc in response to litigation”, regardless of whether or not the law is within the four corners of our Constitution which no longer appears to be an important factor to Ginsburg and her progressive friends on the Court.


JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records,wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.