jump to navigation

Government Lawsuit Against Arizona – Revealing Our Illegal Government 07/08/2010

Posted by Leona Dawnfire in Freedom, Government, Obama.
Tags: , , , , , ,
1 comment so far

The federal government has brought a lawsuit against the state of Arizona over S.B. 1070, which allows police in Arizona to look into the immigration status of people under suspicion of being illegal who have committed another violation or offense. Arizona, along with other states along the border, are very adversely affected by illegal immigration, even including kidnappings and murders because of human trafficking and drug gangs from Mexico.

According to the lawsuit, the federal government wants to permanently declare S.B. 1070 invalid, “because S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.” Incidentally, United States Code Title 8, 1227, a law by the federal government, allows the deportation of immigrants through a criminal act (such as moral turpitude, murder, forgery, trafficking, falsely claiming citizenship, being an illegal immigrant, etc.) – so, technically, the Arizona law is actually in accordance with the federal government code on this matter.

The Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution is the main argument for the federal government’s case in the lawsuit. Here is was has been dubbed “The Supremacy Clause” in Article VI:

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.

For years, the government has interpreted this passage as meaning that anything that the government does comes first over the states and citizens. However, this is incorrect: this clause makes it so that any treaties or laws made in accordance with the Constitution by the federal government supersede laws and treaties made by the individual states. The meaning of this clause, and much of the Constitution, has been lost to the federal government.

The lawsuit claims that the United States government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters, and then goes on to make the (absurd) claim that this power derives from the United States Constitution. Ironically, the Constitution the government claims is on their side in this matter is actually very much the opposite.

As I have already shown, the Supremacy Clause can only apply if the laws made by the federal government are in accordance with the US Constitution. There is only one reference to immigration/migration in the entire Constitution, in Article I, Section 9:

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.

So, until the year 1888, the government could do nothing about immigration except put a tax or duty on the importation. Thus, now, they have the right to deny the immigration of peoples, but they can do nothing to force said immigration, or even to make laws about it at all – it isn’t up to the federal government. Thus, the “Supremacy Clause” cannot apply.

The lawsuit says that: “The United States understands the State of Arizona’s legitimate concerns about illegal immigration, and has undertaken significant efforts to secure our nation’s borders.” Interestingly enough, nothing is really being done by the federal government to stop the illegal immigration into Arizona.

The federal government is, essentially, in a business contract with the states. The government keeps their end, the states/citizens keep theirs, the partnership continues. If, at any time, the government does not keep their side of the agreement, the states and the citizens have a right and duty “to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security” (Declaration of Independence). As Thomas Jefferson said, “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing.”

Here is part of the agreement:
Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states:

The United States shall 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.

Shall protect each of them against Invasion? Does the illegal immigration over the Southern border, which is putting a burden on the economy, not to mention causing deaths and disappearances, not count as Invasion? How can it not be considered such? Yet the federal government, in one of the few things that they are supposed to do, is turning a blind eye, and even attempting to stop the states from protecting themselves.

This conduct alone, this extreme breach of contract, means that the bonds between the federal government and the States are legally dissolved. Legally, the federal government no longer has any power.

And, just to add to the reasons why the federal government has no right to be our federal government, I present, once again, the Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights:

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.

The Arizona lawsuit has no legal grounds whatsoever – in fact, this lawsuit exposes how illegal our own government is.

Advertisements

Hillary Clinton Announces that Obama Will Sue Arizona Over Immigration Law 06/17/2010

Posted by Leona Dawnfire in Freedom, Government, Obama.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

In an interview in Ecuador on June 8th, Hillary revealed that the Obama Administration is going to sue Arizona over their immigration law.

First off, more than half of America agrees with the Arizona immigration law, and many states wish to implement similar laws in the near future. With such support from citizens and states in the Union, one would think that Obama would never go so far as to challenge the Law in court…especially on the grounds that:

“President Obama has spoken out against the law because he thinks that the federal government should be determining immigration policy.” (Quote from Hillary in the interview)

Contrary to the federal government’s belief, determining immigration policy is not in their power. The only part of the Constitution giving them any power in immigration is as follows:

Excerpt of Article 1, Section 9
“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.”

Essentially, until the year 1888, the federal government could not keep states from allowing the immigration of those they see fit. They could only place a minor tax on such importation.

Since it is clearly after 1888, the government now has the power to keep states from allowing some immigration.

The federal government does not have the power to force a state to allow for the immigration for certain people. That power lies within the separate states themselves, along with most power in the country.

If Obama sues Arizona over the law, Arizona must win. There is no choice – the federal government does not hold the Constitutional right to force immigration of peoples upon a state. Need I repeat the 10th Amendment of the Bill of Rights?

Amendment X
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.

The power to keep people out of the States is not delegated to the US federal government by the Constitution, and it is not prohibited to the States by the Constitution – thus, it is reserved to the States or to the people!

(Then, of course, there’s the fact that the law is dealing with illegal immigration – thus, Invasion, which the federal government is supposed to protect the States and the citizens from. More on this in previous blog entry)

http://www.therightscoop.com/hillary-clinton-yes-obama-is-filing-a-lawsuit-against-the-arizona-law

Serious Violation of the Constitution – Obama Gives Strip of Arizona to Mexicans and Does Not Protect Americans 06/15/2010

Posted by Leona Dawnfire in Freedom, Government, Obama.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO

The following video reveals extremely important information about the Arizona border – and how Obama and our federal government are failing their constitutional duties. This is very wrong.

One does NOT take care of crime by relinquishing control of a crime-ridden area to the criminals and advising everyone else to stay away. That land belongs to Arizona – not Mexico, and not the federal government.

And even more importantly, the federal government is severely violating the Constitution, resulting in loss of American property and life. Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution states [emphasis mine]:

The United States shall 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.

How is drug and gang crime from a neighboring country, which results in the death and loss of Americans near the Southern border, NOT invasion? And now Obama has surrendered these lands to these invaders.

The federal government is REQUIRED to protect American citizens. It is one of the few purposes that the federal government was supposed to exist for! They are failing as our government – they are failing the American people.

From the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

The federal government is there for our protection. Yet, time and time again, the federal government continues to violate our rights, our freedoms, for their own gain on their own whims. The more they do, the more they violate our rights.

Americans are being taken from their homes because the federal government is not even trying to do their job.

Americans are dying on American soil because the federal government is violating our Constitution.

How much more are we going to take? Our Founding Fathers revolted over taxation without representation – that is the least of our government’s crimes.

Obama Hung in Effigy in Jimmy Carter’s Hometown – Secret Service Involved 01/04/2010

Posted by Leona Dawnfire in Obama.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

A dummy of President Obama was found hanging from a sign dedicated to Jimmy Carter in Plains, Georgia. The Secret Service is now on a hunt for the person or persons responsible.

“The sheriff made this clear: This is a country that has freedom of speech, and we protect that right even when we think it’s idiotic and stupid and in bad taste,” said Steve Whitmore, spokesman for the Sheriff’s Department.

The display “appears to violate no law, said officials of the Secret Service.”

Yet, the Secret Service is investigating and is in search of who did it, when it is nothing more than a use of free speech? That is because the above quotes are not about the effigy of Obama, but another effigy:

Flashback: October, 2008, West Hollywood, California. Sarah Palin hung in effigy.

When Palin was hung in effigy, no one did anything about it because it was “free speech.” Even the Secret Service themselves admitted that the effigy violated no laws.

Hanging someone in effigy is a form of speech and protest, both of which the American people have a right to under the US Constitution. Hanging someone in effigy has long been a symbol of distaste, anger, or resentment and is sometimes used as an extreme way to communicate that you disagree with the person.

Whoever it was who hung Obama in effigy did nothing wrong. The Secret Service should not be hunting for them. The act was one of free speech and protest against the President – again, both rights are guaranteed through the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2010/01/video-obama-effigy-hung-in-georgia.html
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/29/local/me-palineffigy29

“Obama Respects the Constitution” – What?! 08/26/2009

Posted by Leona Dawnfire in Freedom, Government.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
2 comments

John McCain held a town hall meeting yesterday. He responded to one of the questions by saying that “He [Obama] respects the Constitution of the United States…I really do [believe he does].”

Here’s the video of this part of the town hall:

I have trouble with McCain. I can’t seem to decide whether I like him or not. I mean, he is respecting the President by saying this, and being nice, which is a good thing. But there’s a problem with him being nice and respectful – it makes him say statements that are downright wrong.

The US government has not shown any respect of the Constitution of late.

I don’t even know where to begin.

Article II, Sec. 1 of the Constitution states (emphasis mine):

Before he [the President] enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:–”I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

So the President must obey and protect the US Constitution. Is he, and our government, doing such?

Article VI, Sec. 4 of the Constitution states (emphasis mine):
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

Really? A Republican? Not a Democratic? Hmm. That’s not what I was taught in school. A republican government is one entirely selected by the people it governs, and one that works for the people. Also, the republican state governments are supposed to be – gasp – separate from the federal government.

The federal government is not allowed to impose anything – whether it be laws or taxes – without the states’ consent (unless specified in the Constitution). I think we have that backwards in our current government. It seems to me that the government feels in can impose anything it wants on the states and the people without their consent. Yet, the Declaration of Independence states that:

That to secure these rights [the rights endowed by their Creator], Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Personally, I don’t consent to paying a ridiculous amount of the money I earn in taxes to the government that apparently doesn’t understand what a budget is anyway. (9 trillion dollar DEFICIT? Not even just what they spend? Good God!) Not to mention that I don’t consent to having the government take over health care or spend billions in stimulus packages or pass the cap and trade bill or regulate what light bulbs I can buy.

But I digress.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights states (emphasis mine):
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 extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Amendment I of the Bill of Rights:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The government is not allowed to interfere with religion, yet they attack and force the removal of public displays of Christianity, such as the Ten Commandments. The government cannot interfere with free speech, yet the imperial-appointed Head of the White House Information and Regulatory Affairs wants to keep bloggers like me from speaking my mind. Not to mention the constant attacks on those like Rush Limbaugh. Oh, and apparently because I disagree with Obama, I’m a racist.. The people have the right to assemble and protest when the government does something that they don’t approve of, yet those going to town hall meetings are labeled as “Nazis.”

Amendment II:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The government is not allowed to regulate the sale of firearms. Yet Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor has ruled that the states have the right to regulate firearms. Um…fail?

Let’s jump to the big one, the Amendment easily the most broken of them all – Amendment X:
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.

Whoa, there! You mean that the government does not have the right to do anything that isn’t in the Constitution? Everything else is up to the States and the people? Who knew?!

Seriously, folks. The US government has constantly broken the Tenth Amendment. The Health Care Bill, the Cap and Trade Bill, the laws about what light bulbs you can buy, flag@whitehouse.gov, the Czars, the federal taxes on citizens, even Social Security and Medicare – it’s all illegal.

The statement “Obama respects the Constitution” is, judging by his beliefs, who he supports, what he does – is wrong. More than that, the US Government does not respect, support, or protect the Constitution.

This must change.

Another First Amendment Fail – Cass Sunstein 07/16/2009

Posted by Leona Dawnfire in Government.
Tags: , , , , ,
add a comment

As written in one of Hotonis’ posts, Cass Sunstein has been appointed as head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs by Obama. This gives him full control of such agencies as the Environmental Protection Agency.

How is this (imperial) appointment of Sunstein a First Amendment fail?

One of his books reveals his view that what is said online should be “regulated” in order to keep bloggers, etc. under control. Essentially, he wants to keep people from saying what they believe online if it might offend someone, or, more likely, if the government does not agree.

If he gets his way, goodbye free speech.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,532183,00.html

Sotomayor 2nd Amendment 07/14/2009

Posted by Hotonis in Government.
Tags: , , , ,
10 comments

The new Supreme Court nominee Judge Sotomayor has been questioned about her view of the second Amendment of the United States Constitution.  According to a case DC v. Heller, Sotomayor judged that states have the right to control firearms that have nothing to do with militia.

The second amendment reads:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The idea that Nunchaku could be banned from New York was used in her case to say that firearms could be regulated.

I am no lawyer, but I believe that when something that says “the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed,” means that they will not be infringed (or regulated). I shall be posting more on Sotomayor as she continues to be interviewed.

First Amendment Fail – Pentagon Issues Exam Labeling Protests as Terrorism 06/30/2009

Posted by Leona Dawnfire in Government.
Tags: , , , ,
add a comment

The Pentagon issued an exam to employees of the Department of Defense with a question about low-level terrorism.  The answer to one particular question angered supporters of the First Amendment.  Read the following question to see why:

“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”

— Attacking the Pentagon

— IEDs

— Hate crimes against racial groups

— Protests

According to the exam, the correct answer is “Protests.”

Does the freedom of speech mean nothing to the government?  This exam question equates civilians voicing their opinions to terrorists.

This is just one more example of how the US government is overlooking the ideals of the United States Constitution.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526972,00.html