Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
States Rights Trump Federal Power
2 views
Skip to first unread message
Tracey12
Dec 13, 2011, 1:23:23 AM12/13/11
to
For over twenty years, the federal government has refused to enforce
border laws. As a result, many millions of illegal aliens are in the
USA 80 percent of which are from Mexico.
Now, states are taking action to arrest and remove illegals. However,
the feds say that immigration is their purview and that states have no
right to deal with the immigration issue.
Our founding fathers stated that "states rights" are greater than the
power of the federal government. Thankfully, the USSC will soon rule
on this issue and its already being stated that states will be
acknowledged as having the power to protect their citizens from the
effects of illegal immigration; This will mean that each state will
be able to deal with illegals rather than waiting on the feds to act.
border laws. As a result, many millions of illegal aliens are in the
USA 80 percent of which are from Mexico.
Now, states are taking action to arrest and remove illegals. However,
the feds say that immigration is their purview and that states have no
right to deal with the immigration issue.
Our founding fathers stated that "states rights" are greater than the
power of the federal government. Thankfully, the USSC will soon rule
on this issue and its already being stated that states will be
acknowledged as having the power to protect their citizens from the
effects of illegal immigration; This will mean that each state will
be able to deal with illegals rather than waiting on the feds to act.
Ramon F. Herrera
Dec 13, 2011, 3:22:31 AM12/13/11
to
Constitutional experts estimate that the outcome will be 6 to 2, in
favor of the United States of America against the Fractured States of
America.
-Ramon
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-arizona-immag-20111212,0,4294410.story
Patriot_Gaymes
Dec 13, 2011, 3:54:33 AM12/13/11
to
"Tracey12" wrote in message
news:d1d7991e-8a73-4024...@p14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
For over twenty years, the federal government has refused to enforce
border laws. As a result, many millions of illegal aliens are in the
USA 80 percent of which are from Mexico.
Now, states are taking action to arrest and remove illegals. However,
the feds say that immigration is their purview and that states have no
right to deal with the immigration issue.
Our founding fathers stated that "states rights" are greater than the
power of the federal government. Thankfully, the USSC will soon rule
on this issue and its already being stated that states will be
effects of illegal immigration; This will mean that each state will
be able to deal with illegals rather than waiting on the feds to act.
Our Founding Fathers did not say state rights are superior to federal power.
be able to deal with illegals rather than waiting on the feds to act.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the
Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, U.S. Treaties, and
Federal Statutes as "the supreme law of the land." The text decrees these to
be the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all
state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal
law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
Even the CSA had the same clause in its constitution.
Ramon F. Herrera
Dec 13, 2011, 4:14:37 AM12/13/11
to
is very confusing.
-Ramon
Rightard Whitey
Dec 13, 2011, 4:38:00 AM12/13/11
to
Tracey12
Dec 13, 2011, 8:28:32 AM12/13/11
to
The states are a more basic entity whereas federal government is an
agreement between the states designed to form a more perfect union
among them, however, that union never trumps the power of the states
when brought into question. In other words, the federal government
can be brought to an end and restarted / reconstructed by the states
at any time because it is simply an agreement between the states to
which they voluntarily submit.
If the federal government fails in some role that according to the
agreement, it should take care of, then should the states have no
power to affect change themselves? Are they stranded, powerless to
affect the issue that in this case, harms the citizenry of that
state? Of course not. We the People are greater than both the states
and the federal government. If both the states and the federal
government fail us, we have the right to end the existence of each,
and start over again, formulating each as we so desire.
Therefore, states are more fundamental than any agreement that forms a
central government, and individuals are those who formulate the
states, and then a federal government, and it is they who are the most
fundamental and they have the ultimate power.
agreement between the states designed to form a more perfect union
among them, however, that union never trumps the power of the states
when brought into question. In other words, the federal government
can be brought to an end and restarted / reconstructed by the states
at any time because it is simply an agreement between the states to
which they voluntarily submit.
If the federal government fails in some role that according to the
agreement, it should take care of, then should the states have no
power to affect change themselves? Are they stranded, powerless to
affect the issue that in this case, harms the citizenry of that
state? Of course not. We the People are greater than both the states
and the federal government. If both the states and the federal
government fail us, we have the right to end the existence of each,
and start over again, formulating each as we so desire.
Therefore, states are more fundamental than any agreement that forms a
central government, and individuals are those who formulate the
states, and then a federal government, and it is they who are the most
fundamental and they have the ultimate power.
Kevin Cunningham
Dec 13, 2011, 9:42:16 AM12/13/11
to
it's both!
What Tracey can't do is cite any SC case, any law or any part of the
constitution that shows he is right. That's a big problem.
The last discussion of states rights was either the Civil War, states
rights scum lost, or the civil rights protests, states rights scum
lost. See the difference? I can cite things like Brown v. Board of
Education that ended school desegregation, a right the state of
Arkansas thought they had. Thank goodness the state of Arkansas was
corrected on that one.
Now, Tracey, how many laws are you willing to change to gain your
states rights?
Patriot_Gaymes
Dec 13, 2011, 1:08:06 PM12/13/11
to
"Tracey12" wrote in message
news:c499f0c5-1ab2-4e70...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
Where did you get that legal theory? The federal supremacy clause in the
constitution makes it clear who’s in charge. The Civil War was fought over
this issue.
news:c499f0c5-1ab2-4e70...@b32g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
constitution makes it clear who’s in charge. The Civil War was fought over
this issue.
Ramon F. Herrera
Dec 13, 2011, 1:19:10 PM12/13/11
to
On Dec 13, 12:08 pm, "Patriot_Gaymes" <patriot.gay...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Again, what of the above -if any- was written by you? What was written
by others?
When I arrived to the US, in the ESL classes they told us newcomers
that in this country plagiarism is a very serious issue. Ever heard of
proper attribution?
-Ramon
wrote:
by others?
When I arrived to the US, in the ESL classes they told us newcomers
that in this country plagiarism is a very serious issue. Ever heard of
proper attribution?
-Ramon
Paul Duca
Dec 14, 2011, 9:26:32 PM12/14/11
to
man-child sex, and Patriot hopes his state will ban everything HE
doesn't like.
Paul
Pere Marquette
Dec 15, 2011, 10:50:14 PM12/15/11
to
In article
<d1d7991e-8a73-4024...@p14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
support that statement?
Bearing in mind that many "founding fathers" were slave-owners whose
original intentions have been superseded by more progressive descendants
of the early colonists, I would dearly like to see exactly which texts
you think relevant.
<d1d7991e-8a73-4024...@p14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
Tracey12 <tracey...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Our founding fathers stated that "states rights" are greater than the
> power of the federal government.
Would you mind quoting the pertinent parts of the Constitution to
> Our founding fathers stated that "states rights" are greater than the
> power of the federal government.
support that statement?
Bearing in mind that many "founding fathers" were slave-owners whose
original intentions have been superseded by more progressive descendants
of the early colonists, I would dearly like to see exactly which texts
you think relevant.
Message has been deleted
Pepe Le Jew
Dec 17, 2011, 10:22:35 AM12/17/11
to
In article
<7d4ef4c53bfdb3ee...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,
Federalist Papers. The "Laboratories of democracy".
You are correct that Progressives have worked tirelessly against the
concept, preferring instead a centralized system closer to their ideal of
communism.
<7d4ef4c53bfdb3ee...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,
You are correct that Progressives have worked tirelessly against the
concept, preferring instead a centralized system closer to their ideal of
communism.
Ramon F. Herrera
Dec 17, 2011, 10:33:17 AM12/17/11
to
On Dec 17, 9:22 am, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> In article
> <7d4ef4c53bfdb3ee6a58626d6c380...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,
> Pere Marquette <hicnonab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <d1d7991e-8a73-4024-bd92-beb155682...@p14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
(1) Which is the most important of the 85 papers?
(2) What does it say?
(3) What party is trying to wipe its ass with it?
-Ramon
> In article
> <7d4ef4c53bfdb3ee6a58626d6c380...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,
> Pere Marquette <hicnonab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <d1d7991e-8a73-4024-bd92-beb155682...@p14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> > Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Our founding fathers stated that "states rights" are greater than the
> > > power of the federal government.
>
> > Would you mind quoting the pertinent parts of the Constitution to
> > support that statement?
>
> > Bearing in mind that many "founding fathers" were slave-owners whose
> > original intentions have been superseded by more progressive descendants
> > of the early colonists, I would dearly like to see exactly which texts
> > you think relevant.
>
> Federalist Papers. The "Laboratories of democracy".
Indeed...
>
> > > Our founding fathers stated that "states rights" are greater than the
> > > power of the federal government.
>
> > Would you mind quoting the pertinent parts of the Constitution to
> > support that statement?
>
> > Bearing in mind that many "founding fathers" were slave-owners whose
> > original intentions have been superseded by more progressive descendants
> > of the early colonists, I would dearly like to see exactly which texts
> > you think relevant.
>
> Federalist Papers. The "Laboratories of democracy".
(1) Which is the most important of the 85 papers?
(2) What does it say?
(3) What party is trying to wipe its ass with it?
-Ramon
Pepe Le Jew
Dec 17, 2011, 11:16:59 AM12/17/11
to
In article
<a6b4f1e5-202a-47fb...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
I can offer resources for you to study.io
> (3) What party is trying to wipe its ass with it?
Given that you're a left wing Latino, we pretty much know your answer.
As an exercise, read the party platforms of the Democrat Party, the party
platform of the CPUSA, and the Communist Manifesto. Explain to us the
differences.
<a6b4f1e5-202a-47fb...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> (3) What party is trying to wipe its ass with it?
As an exercise, read the party platforms of the Democrat Party, the party
platform of the CPUSA, and the Communist Manifesto. Explain to us the
differences.
Ramon F. Herrera
Dec 17, 2011, 11:26:09 AM12/17/11
to
> <a6b4f1e5-202a-47fb-9047-66dacc44c...@f11g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
institutions is the US Chamber of Commerce, hardly commie.
What the Chamber says is -by definition- the opposite of communism.
Proud Member of the US Chamber of Commerce (regular and Hispanic)
So quit calling me commie, will ya'?
100% Supporter of the position on immigration being
lobbied and led by The US Chamber of Commerce
--------------------------------------------------------------
> "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 9:22 am, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <7d4ef4c53bfdb3ee6a58626d6c380...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,
> > > Pere Marquette <hicnonab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <d1d7991e-8a73-4024-bd92-beb155682...@p14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Our founding fathers stated that "states rights" are greater than the
> > > > > power of the federal government.
>
> > > > Would you mind quoting the pertinent parts of the Constitution to
> > > > support that statement?
>
> > > > Bearing in mind that many "founding fathers" were slave-owners whose
> > > > original intentions have been superseded by more progressive descendants
> > > > of the early colonists, I would dearly like to see exactly which texts
> > > > you think relevant.
>
> > > Federalist Papers. The "Laboratories of democracy".
>
> > Indeed...
>
> > (1) Which is the most important of the 85 papers?
>
> > (2) What does it say?
>
> I can offer resources for you to study.io
>
> > (3) What party is trying to wipe its ass with it?
>
> Given that you're a left wing Latino,
> we pretty much know your answer.
I am socially liberal, economically conservative. One of my respected
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Dec 17, 9:22 am, Pepe Le Jew <Peps...@zionet.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <7d4ef4c53bfdb3ee6a58626d6c380...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>,
> > > Pere Marquette <hicnonab...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <d1d7991e-8a73-4024-bd92-beb155682...@p14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Tracey12 <tracey12em...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Our founding fathers stated that "states rights" are greater than the
> > > > > power of the federal government.
>
> > > > Would you mind quoting the pertinent parts of the Constitution to
> > > > support that statement?
>
> > > > Bearing in mind that many "founding fathers" were slave-owners whose
> > > > original intentions have been superseded by more progressive descendants
> > > > of the early colonists, I would dearly like to see exactly which texts
> > > > you think relevant.
>
> > > Federalist Papers. The "Laboratories of democracy".
>
> > Indeed...
>
> > (1) Which is the most important of the 85 papers?
>
> > (2) What does it say?
>
> I can offer resources for you to study.io
>
> > (3) What party is trying to wipe its ass with it?
>
> Given that you're a left wing Latino,
> we pretty much know your answer.
institutions is the US Chamber of Commerce, hardly commie.
What the Chamber says is -by definition- the opposite of communism.
Proud Member of the US Chamber of Commerce (regular and Hispanic)
So quit calling me commie, will ya'?
100% Supporter of the position on immigration being
lobbied and led by The US Chamber of Commerce
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon F. Herrera
Dec 17, 2011, 11:38:21 AM12/17/11
to
"Federalist No. 10, in which Madison discusses the means of preventing
rule by majority faction and advocates a large, commercial republic,
is generally regarded as the most important of the 85 articles"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_Papers
> (2) What does it say?
"measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice
and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an
interested and overbearing majority."
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm
The Father of The Constitution successfully argued against a crappy
democracy in favor of a REPUBLIC.
> (3) What party is trying to wipe its ass with it?
coincidentally- are punished, prevented to this day from changing a
comma in their electoral laws without previous approval by the Federal
branch.
-Ramon The Believer in Our Constitution
ps: Glad to do the work that your American teacher wouldn't/couldn't.
Pepe Le Jew
Dec 17, 2011, 11:42:03 AM12/17/11
to
In article
<b6c07d3c-3e87-4777...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
What exactly does that mean?
> One of my respected
> institutions is the US Chamber of Commerce, hardly commie.
>
> What the Chamber says is -by definition- the opposite of communism.
>
> Proud Member of the US Chamber of Commerce (regular and Hispanic)
> So quit calling me commie, will ya'?
I reviewed the thread, and can't really see the cause of your complaint.
Perhaps you've confused me with someone else?
> 100% Supporter of the position on immigration being
> lobbied and led by The US Chamber of Commerce
Bully for you.
<b6c07d3c-3e87-4777...@o9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> One of my respected
> institutions is the US Chamber of Commerce, hardly commie.
>
> What the Chamber says is -by definition- the opposite of communism.
>
> Proud Member of the US Chamber of Commerce (regular and Hispanic)
> So quit calling me commie, will ya'?
Perhaps you've confused me with someone else?
> 100% Supporter of the position on immigration being
> lobbied and led by The US Chamber of Commerce
Pepe Le Jew
Dec 17, 2011, 1:19:58 PM12/17/11
to
In article
<60d24a71-71b4-4c4d...@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
That's very true.
>
> > (3) What party is trying to wipe its ass with it?
>
> Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia: Jim Crow states that -non
> coincidentally- are punished, prevented to this day from changing a
> comma in their electoral laws without previous approval by the Federal
> branch.
But the efforts against the will of the people being enacted by their
elected representatives is not what we would call "Federalist"
So is there a point in your contradiction"
And what of the municipalities which declare themselves "sanctuary
cities", how does that fit?
<60d24a71-71b4-4c4d...@l19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > (3) What party is trying to wipe its ass with it?
>
> Arizona, Alabama, South Carolina, Georgia: Jim Crow states that -non
> coincidentally- are punished, prevented to this day from changing a
> comma in their electoral laws without previous approval by the Federal
> branch.
elected representatives is not what we would call "Federalist"
So is there a point in your contradiction"
And what of the municipalities which declare themselves "sanctuary
cities", how does that fit?
0 new messages