; Sanctuary Cities, The Tenth Amendment, The Constitution, Nullification, and the Oath

Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1

    Default Sanctuary Cities, The Tenth Amendment, The Constitution, Nullification, and the Oath

    For the last roughly 20 plus years the federal government has allowed cities and counties to operate outside their constitutional authority in relating to immigration and naturalization law. In the current political climate in which we find ourselves, the issue of what is termed "sanctuary cities" is coming to a collision. The real question is who according to The Constitution and the history of the courts has authority and what is really going on?




    One of the arguments being forwarded is that the federal government has no authority to impose its will on the local government because of The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. Especially in the area of law enforcement. So what does The Tenth Amendment exactly say? Additionally, how does it apply to sanctuary cities? The tenth amendment says this.




    “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.”




    In laymen terms, if the federal government has not specifically been granted a power/authority or a power/authority is not specifically prohibited to a state, then the state has authority and if the state chooses to not exercise that authority, it is a right of the people of that state.




    The next logical question is this. Does the federal government have constitutionally granted powers of immigration and naturalization? The answer to this question is yes. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, specifically grants the Congress the power to determine all laws related to naturalization and incidentally banking. There is no authority granted to the executive branch in Article II relating to the ability to decide immigration and naturalization. In fact the only role the executive branch has is in the administering of the law. Their discretion is very limited. The executive deciding to ignore the law are in violation of their oath of office. The tenth amendment is not applicable to the sanctuary city argument from their authority to ignore federal law. The most recent ruling by The Supreme Court vacated an Arizona law designed to strengthen immigration laws in the state. The state was determined to have no authority.




    What we are really seeing in the "sanctuary city" issue is the modern reincarnation of a concept known prior to the civil war as nullification. It is also called interposition. The idea of nullification was that since the states have allowed for the federal government to have authority, then the state has the right to nullify powers and decisions it disagrees with. Interposition makes it a duty of the state to nullify acts it considers unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) vacates nullification and interposition.




    The simple truth is this. The federal government has no direct authority under The Tenth Amendment to directly override the authority of the state. However, it does have the expectation that every state and municipality will comply with its constitutional authority. The federal government also has its own agencies related to its immigration and naturalization authority which does have national jurisdiction. Every mayor, sheriff, and governor. Every state office holder and municipal office holder swears an oath upon taking office to uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States. They are legally and morally obligated to execute the federal and local laws of the land. Those jurisdictions claiming sanctuary city status are assuming authority not granted to them under our current form of government. State and local laws which remove the obligation to execute properly established federal law are unconstitutional. Officials violating their oath to The Constitution should be subject to criminal liability. Especially where the lives of their constituents have been lost do to their refusal to uphold their oath.

  2. Sponsored Links


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    California
    Posts
    6,263
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by c.r.citizen View Post
    For the last roughly 20 plus years the federal government has allowed cities and counties to operate outside their constitutional authority in relating to immigration and naturalization law. In the current political climate in which we find ourselves, the issue of what is termed "sanctuary cities" is coming to a collision. The real question is who according to The Constitution and the history of the courts has authority and what is really going on?

    One of the arguments being forwarded is that the federal government has no authority to impose its will on the local government because of The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. Especially in the area of law enforcement. So what does The Tenth Amendment exactly say? Additionally, how does it apply to sanctuary cities? The tenth amendment says this.

    “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.”

    In laymen terms, if the federal government has not specifically been granted a power/authority or a power/authority is not specifically prohibited to a state, then the state has authority and if the state chooses to not exercise that authority, it is a right of the people of that state.

    The next logical question is this. Does the federal government have constitutionally granted powers of immigration and naturalization? The answer to this question is yes. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, specifically grants the Congress the power to determine all laws related to naturalization and incidentally banking. There is no authority granted to the executive branch in Article II relating to the ability to decide immigration and naturalization. In fact the only role the executive branch has is in the administering of the law. Their discretion is very limited. The executive deciding to ignore the law are in violation of their oath of office. The tenth amendment is not applicable to the sanctuary city argument from their authority to ignore federal law. The most recent ruling by The Supreme Court vacated an Arizona law designed to strengthen immigration laws in the state. The state was determined to have no authority.

    What we are really seeing in the "sanctuary city" issue is the modern reincarnation of a concept known prior to the civil war as nullification. It is also called interposition. The idea of nullification was that since the states have allowed for the federal government to have authority, then the state has the right to nullify powers and decisions it disagrees with. Interposition makes it a duty of the state to nullify acts it considers unconstitutional.

    The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) vacates nullification and interposition.

    The simple truth is this. The federal government has no direct authority under The Tenth Amendment to directly override the authority of the state. However, it does have the expectation that every state and municipality will comply with its constitutional authority. The federal government also has its own agencies related to its immigration and naturalization authority which does have national jurisdiction. Every mayor, sheriff, and governor. Every state office holder and municipal office holder swears an oath upon taking office to uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States. They are legally and morally obligated to execute the federal and local laws of the land. Those jurisdictions claiming sanctuary city status are assuming authority not granted to them under our current form of government. State and local laws which remove the obligation to execute properly established federal law are unconstitutional. Officials violating their oath to The Constitution should be subject to criminal liability. Especially where the lives of their constituents have been lost do to their refusal to uphold their oath.
    As I remember, Arizona tried to do something re immigration law during the previous administration. The then-AG brought suit, claiming that "immigration was a federal matter"--all the while overlooking the multiple "sanctuary cities."

    Now, when we have a new President and a new AG who actually try to enforce the law, they get pushback from the sanctuary cities. Chicago has said they will sue the federal goverment over the grant money that the AG says will be withheld from such cities.


    Here is the text of the relevant section (Article 1, Section 8)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...rs_of_Congress

    Congress's legislative powers are enumerated in Section Eight:
    The Congress shall have power

    Does the government work for us or do we work for the government?
    --Judge Andrew Napolitano (FNC senior judicial analyst)


  4. Sponsored Links


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •