Gov. Perry calls out National Guard to protect Texas, but is this constitutional?

[johnwk]

Let us begin by agreeing that a legislative Act contrary to and not in harmony with the legislative intent of the Constitution is null and void! The irrefutable fact is, our Constitution is superior to laws enacted which defeat the legislative intent of our Constitution. And this must be our starting point to resolve the question within the four corners of our Constitution.

Indeed, our Constitution does command our federal government to ”…guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.

Note that our Constitution also declares ” No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay”.

The simple truth is, the legislative intent of our Constitution is not to preclude the States from exercising their original power to defend themselves from invasions and/or “imminent danger”! And so, the question to be answered is, does the ongoing invasion of the border of Texas pose an “imminent danger”?

The answer to that question is an irrefutable yes and the Governor of Texas is preforming a fundamental duty to protect the good people of Texas from an ongoing invasion which is putting the general welfare of Texas in peril, e.g.:

Texas Faces Rising Cost For Illegal Immigrant Care

”Texas spent at least $250 million in the past year for medical care and imprisonment of illegal immigrants and other non-citizens.”


Preventing and Controlling Tuberculosis Along the U.S.-Mexico Border

In 1999, Mexico was the country of origin for 23% (1,753) of all foreign-born persons with TB. Of TB cases among Mexican-born persons, three fourths were reported from the four U.S. states bordering Mexico: California, 820 cases; Texas, 364 cases; Arizona, 67 cases; and New Mexico, 17 cases (3). In 1999, TB cases among Mexican-born persons represented approximately 25% of all reported TB in the four border states. Incidence of TB was higher for the majority of border counties than the national TB rate.


The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on Texans (2014)

” After a brief hiatus that coincided with the worst of the economic recession, Texas’s illegal alien population is on the rise again. There are about 1,810,000 illegal aliens residing in Texas — 70,000 more than resided in the state in 2010 when we estimated the fiscal burden at nearly $8.9 billion annually.

In 2013, illegal immigration cost Texas taxpayers about $12.1 billion annually. That amounts to more than $1,197 for every Texas household headed by a native-born or naturalized U.S. citizen.”


Trends in Tuberculosis — United States, 2013

”Four states (California, Texas, New York, and Florida), home to approximately one third of the U.S. population, accounted for approximately half the TB cases reported in 2013. The proportion of TB cases occurring in these four states increased from 49.9% in 2012 to 51.3% in 2013.”

Now, instead of our federal government protecting Texas from an ongoing invasion which certainly is posing an “imminent danger”, Obama is giving aid and comfort to those invading the borders of Texas by feeding them, clothing them, giving them medical and dental care, and then actually giving some of these invaders free passage to the interior of our country and destinations of their own choosing where they are set free to disappear into our nation’s population to spread infectious diseases to American citizens and their children, become a public burden on local communities, and will avoid deportation as they disappear without a trace.

This action by Obama actually violates “federal law”! See: 8 U.S. Code § 1324 - Bringing in and harboring certain aliens

I cannot find anything in the Constitution to suggest the State of Texas does not have authority to detain these invaders at the border and put them on a plane back to their country of origin!

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)

 

[Mad Scientist]

Obama will say that the Federal Government controls Immigration but we all know he's purposely ignoring the Law.

What will be interesting is if these State Guard Troops will actually do Border Patrol and Interdiction or just stand around for photo ops.

Perry backed down the last time he challenged the Feds with an "Anti Groping" Law back in 2011 when Obama threatened a near total air blockade of the State.

I hope it works but I don't have much confidence in Perry.

 

[Claudette]

I'm not sure but I do believe the State have the right to mobilize their own NG whenever they need to and Gov Perry must feel he needs to since they keep bringing those disease and lice ridden illegals into his State. All those border States should do the same.

I'm wondering if its constitutional to allow all these illegals in here using a bill that supposed to be used for victims of the sex trade, period?

 

[johnwk]

Obama will say that the Federal Government controls Immigration but we all know he's purposely ignoring the Law.

Obama may say that but the truth is, our Constitution does not say that! Keep in mind the meaning of "naturalization" as opposed to "immigration", a word which does not appear in our Constitution!


JWK

 

[BlindBoo]

I think it's constitutional. They should help process these refugees. Maybe build a few tent cities to house them while they get processed.......imho.

However, "Obama has indicated that he has no “philosophical objections” to the deployment of the National Guard or to the expanded use of drones on the border. For both the Democrats and Republicans, the only solution to this “humanitarian crisis” is a military one.
This is not the first time National Guard troops have been deployed along the border. In 2006 President George W. Bush sent 6,000 troops to California, New Mexico and Arizona. President Obama, along with the New Mexico governor at the time, Bill Richardson, deployed National Guard troops in that state in 2010."

Texas governor to mobilize National Guard along Mexican border - World Socialist Web Site

 

[johnwk]

I think it's constitutional. They should help process these refugees. Maybe build a few tent cities to house them while they get processed.......imho.

I contend that the power to regulate immigration is a power exercised by the original 13 States and preexisted our existing Constitution. I further contend that if this power has not been expressly delegated to Congress, then it is a power reserved by the States under our Constitution’s Tenth Amendment.


NOTE: The most fundamental rule of constitutional law is stated as follows:


“The fundamental principle of constitutional construction is that effect must be given to the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it. This is the polestar in the construction of constitutions, all other principles of construction are only rules or guides to aid in the determination of the intention of the constitution’s framers.” numerous citations omitted).___ Vol.16 American Jurisprudence, 2d Constitutional law (1992 edition), pages 418-19, Par. 92. Intent of framers and adopters as controlling

In addition, and with reference to the meaning of words in our Constitution see:

16 Am Jur 2d Constitutional law
Meaning of Language
Ordinary meaning, generally

”Words or terms used in a constitution, being dependent on ratification by the people voting upon it, must be understood in the sense most obvious to the common understanding at the time of its adoption…” (my emphasis)


Now, let us examine the distinction between “immigration” and “naturalization”.

The ordinary meaning of the word immigration is the movement of people from one place to another. Our Constitution does in fact use the word Migration in the following context:

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. see: Article 1, Section 9

As to the ordinary meaning of “naturalization”, its meaning is nothing more than the act by which an alien becomes a citizen. Congress, under our Constitution, is granted exclusive power to establish an uniform rule by which an alien may become a citizen, regardless of what State the alien migrates to. But the power over “naturalization” does not, nor was it intended to, interfere with a particular state’s original power over aliens wishing to immigrate into their State. This is verified by the following documentation taken from the debates dealing with our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790

REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order toprevent 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 addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the 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 finally, 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, pages 1156 and 1157

CONCLUSION:
The current big lie begins with the false notion the federal government has been granted exclusive power over “immigration” when the actual power granted to the federal government is that which allows Congress to create the requirements which an alien, regardless of what state that alien has immigrated to, must meet in order to become a “citizen of the United States”.


It should also be noted that the 14th Amendment, by its very language obligates each State to make a distinction between “citizens” and “persons” when regulating and enforcing its laws!

Please note that a review of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment declares that “citizens” of the united States are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” offered by the state in which they are located. But those who are not “citizens of the united States” and referred to as “persons“ (which would include aliens and those who have entered a State or the United States illegally), are not entitled to the “privileges or immunities“ which a state has created for its “citizens“.


The 14th Amendment only requires that “persons” may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state’s codified due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all other “persons” within the state in question.

And thus, a State in enforcing laws designed to promote the State’s general welfare, which would include the original power to protect its borders from invasions, is doing nothing more than exercising its legitimate policing powers with the obligation that in doing so it makes distinctions between “citizens” and “persons” as required under the 14th Amendment.

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)

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

ThoughtCrimes thoughts are in Blue so you don't confuse yourself trying to figure out when you wrote the blue stuff john.

The half-assed analysis below wouldn't get past any HS Civics teacher for just one minor example...it's nothing but Bull Shit! For your edification, and that of others that may have been misled by your swill, I'll first quote Amendment XIV Sec 1, and from there discuss your multiple errors.

Amendment XIV, Sec 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

CONCLUSION:
The current big lie begins with the false notion the federal government has been granted exclusive power over “immigration” when the actual power granted to the federal government is that which allows Congress to create the requirements which an alien, regardless of what state that alien has immigrated to, must meet in order to become a “citizen of the United States”.

Your paragraph above is the first bit repugnant to Constitutional understanding. Your first clause sets up a straw man argument, then you go on by ignoring the enumerated powers of Congress then backfilling with horseshit about aliens and citizenship...babble!

Article I, Sec 8, Cls 15 & 18 gives Congress the power, "To...execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions" and "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." No "big lie" here. The Framers gave Congress the power. To become a US citizen, one simply follows the laws passed by Congress Constitutionally enumerated in Article I Sec 8 Cls 4. That ain't a freakin' mystery to those of us who have actually read and understand the Constitution.

It should also be noted that the 14th Amendment, by its very language obligates each State to make a distinction between “citizens” and “persons” when regulating and enforcing its laws!

Good grief! Did you even read Amendment XIV? I posted Sec 1 above for everyone to see/read. Your statement above is nothing but a setup contrived to establish a false premise for your misguided and woefully erroneous conclusion.

Please note that a review of our Constitution’s 14th Amendment declares that “citizens” of the united States are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” offered by the state in which they are located. Where is that, where can I read that? But those who are not “citizens of the united States” and referred to as “persons“ (which would include aliens and those who have entered a State or the United States illegally), are not entitled to the “privileges or immunities“ which a state has created for its “citizens“. You really haven't got a clue!

Again, Amendment XIV, Sec 1:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Does the actual text of Amendment XIV even come close to your "interpretation"? HELL NO!

The 14th Amendment only requires that “persons” may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state’s codified due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all other “persons” within the state in question.

WRONG AGAIN! See the Supremacy Clause of Article VI. Amendment XIV is an extension of all Constitutional Rights. To get an a good grip, see SCOTUS, MV. Chicago, June 28, 2010 to get better understanding of Amendment XIV, the Supremacy Clause and the Constitutional reality that State sovereignty is secondary to US sovereignty.

And thus, a State in enforcing laws designed to promote the State’s general welfare, which would include the original power to protect its borders from invasions, is doing nothing more than exercising its legitimate policing powers with the obligation that in doing so it makes distinctions between “citizens” and “persons” as required under the 14th Amendment.

Hey Bucko, the several States surrendered their primacy of sovereignty when they ratified the US Constitution. Your conclusion is a total fiction. Your concept of an Amendment X exception is debunked by the enumerated powers of Article 1 Sec 8 as defined numerous times by SCOTUS in conjunction with the Supremacy Clause of Article VI.

JWK

Have a nice day.