Tag Archives: Tenth Amendment

Arizona never denied licenses to immigrants

Posted on by

Across the country headlines are reading that the Ninth Circuit court blocked Arizona from denying licenses to immigrants. This is, of course, a lie. The decision of ARIZONA DREAM ACT COALITION V. JANICE BREWER (PDF) blocks the executive order of Jan Brewer ordering the Arizona Department of Transportation not to issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens.

Brewer noted in a response to the Ninth Circuit court ruling that Arizona Revised Statute 28-3153, Subsection D forbids the Arizona Department of Transportation from issuing licenses to anyone who cannot prove they are here in accordance with federal law. Immigrants — who are those here legally applying for citizenship or by other authorized means such as a work visa — can get a license in Arizona. The law forbids issuing licenses to illegal aliens.

The Ninth Circuit Court stated in their decision:

The federal government has enacted a program called “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (“DACA”), which authorizes certain immigrants who came to the United States as children, without permission, to remain in the United States. In response, Arizona officials — Defendants here — implemented a policy that prevents DACA recipients from obtaining Arizona driver’s licenses.

The “federal government” — so-called by the Ninth Circuit court. They are referring to the national government in Washington D. C. — never enacted such a program. The Department of Homeland Security page on DACA states:

Over the past three years, this Administration has undertaken an unprecedented effort to transform the immigration enforcement system…

The DACA program was started by Executive Order to contravene United States Code. It is not based on law authorized by Congress. On July 2d, 33 Republican lawmakers sent a letter (PDF) to the Obama administration demanding that he stop this program and start deporting illegal aliens.

The reponse of Governor Brewer also read, in part:

In 2012, based on President Obama’s lawless directive, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) made an administrative policy choice to defer removal proceedings of illegal aliens who were brought to the United States as children, a program referred to as DACA. This policy choice is not federal law authorizing an illegal alien’s presence in the country – it simply is a choice by the executive branch not to enforce deportation proceedings as required under existing federal statute. DHS itself has expressly acknowledged that the DACA Program does not grant any substantive rights and that only Congress can do that.

The DACA Program, the decision to not enforce federal law, has directly led to the massive influx of illegal crossings and the crisis we are witnessing today. If the Ninth Circuit ruling is allowed to stand, the President, as he has already threatened, can contrive a new program refusing to deport the latest arrivals, issue employment authorization cards, and Arizona would have to issue licenses to them as well.

. . .

Lawless decrees by the President demonstrate animus to Congress, states and the Constitution. It is outrageous, though not entirely surprising, that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has once again dealt a blow to Arizona’s ability to enforce its laws. With today’s decision, a three judge appellate panel, appointed by Presidents Carter, Clinton and Obama, disregarded judicial precedent and procedure. This continues us down a dangerous path in which the courts and the President – not Congress – make our nation’s laws.

Executive Orders were first issued by President George Washington to explain to cabinet members how to enforce the laws enacted by Congress; not how to circumvent enforcement.

The Constitution give Congress no authority to regulate the issuance of drivers licenses within a State which makes it a Tenth Amendment issue. A law or “order” that violates the Constitution of the United States of America can safely be ignored by States. The policing power of the sovereign States has been established since the Supreme Court decision of Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824).

The decision would mean that Arizona would have to issue licenses to terrorist group members who have come through the Mexican border illegally and are now waiting for “comprehensive immigration reform.” This is especially troubling since Arizona moved to “real ID” licenses which they claimed they would never do. This will give terrorists groups access to airports and flights.

The Tenth Amendment

Posted on by

“When government acts in excess of its lawful powers, individual liberty is at stake.”—Justice Kennedy, Supreme Court, Bond v. United States (564 U.S. __ (2011))

“One great object of the federal Convention was, to give more power to future Assemblies of the States. In this they have done liberally, without partiallity to the interests of the states individually; and their intentions were known before the honourable body was dissolved.”—Casius

Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.—Articles of Confederation, Article II, March 1, 1781

Alexander-Hamilton-1806

“But let it be admitted, for argument’s sake, that mere wantonness and lust of domination would be sufficient to beget that disposition; still it may be safely affirmed, that the sense of the constituent body of the national representatives, or, in other words, the people of the several States, would control the indulgence of so extravagant an appetite. It will always be far more easy for the State governments to encroach upon the national authorities than for the national government to encroach upon the State authorities. The proof of this proposition turns upon the greater degree of influence which the State governments if they administer their affairs with uprightness and prudence, will generally possess over the people; a circumstance which at the same time teaches us that there is an inherent and intrinsic weakness in all federal constitutions; and that too much pains cannot be taken in their organization, to give them all the force which is compatible with the principles of liberty.”—Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 17

Cliven Bundy on ‘the Negro’: Why his words aren’t a huge surprise

Posted on by


Unedited Version

0424-Rancher-clive-bundy_full_380The Nevada rancher who took on the BLM now posits that ‘the Negro’ may be better off as slaves. The link between racially offensive views and a certain strain of far-right politics seen at the Cliven Bundy ranch is well established, analysts say.

The “Battle of Bunkerville” – the ongoing grazing standoff between old-school Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the federal Bureau of Land Management – was, of course, never just about cattle grazing. But it has now taken a turn that, at first glance, seems bizarrely unrelated: “the Negro.”

“I want to tell you one more thing I know about the Negro,” Mr. Bundy, who with help from armed supporters won a standoff with the BLM last week over cattle grazing rights, told admirers and a New York Times reporter at a press conference Wednesday. “They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered, are they better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things, or are they better off under government subsidy? They didn’t get no more freedom. They got less freedom.”

Conservatives who had framed Bundy’s fight with the BLM as an act of patriotism are now backing off their support in light of his comments, which Sen. Dean Heller (R) of Nevada, who had previously lauded Bundy, called “appalling and racist.”

Yet the connection between racially offensive views and a certain strain of tea party politics at the Bundy ranch is not all that surprising, some political analysts argue. Race and segregation have, after all, long been defended in the context of the 10th Amendment’s state sovereignty guarantees.

Read more at Christian Science Monitor

Arizona Bill to reduce metadata collection moves forward

Posted on by

nsa-hubArizona Senator Kelli Ward introduced SB 1156 (HTML | PDF) which would prevent agencies and corporations of The Great State of Arizona from assisting in the metadata collection by the NSA and other agencies.

The Tenth Amendment web site calls it the first in the nation.

Arizona Senator Kelli Ward (Photo AZ Legislature web)

Arizona Senator Kelli Ward (Photo AZ Legislature web)

FOURTH AMENDMENT

The Fourth Amendment of the inalienable Bill of Rights provides:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The Supreme Court has so watered down most of the Bill of Rights through decisions based on ideology and not constitutionality that this provision is almost worthless. For example, TSA can violate your person without a warrant based on probable cause by Oath or affirmation by your simple act of buying a ticket for public transportation.

Apparently, however, the “fake” NSA spying scandal has finally pushed Senator Ward too far. The bill would not stop illegal data collection by the NSA and other agencies which has tapped into all forms of communications. It would only prevent the State agencies and corporations dealing with the State from providing any assistance to the federal government.
Continue reading →