Arizona Enforces Federal Immigration law

Not only is our President illegal but so is our entire Congress and the Supreme Court, our Government existents at the pleasure of the people. When the government fails to do the job it was elected or appointed to do, it then is in violation of the law, namely the US Constitution and therefore illegal. ‘Our illegal Federal Government’

By de Andréa

The following is a study of the Obama administrations accusation that Arizona’s enforcement of the Federal border law is unconstitutional. I will try to show that it is the ‘Federal Government’ that is in contempt of the ‘US Constitution’, and not the state of Arizona.

First, what makes the Federal Government illegal? As you surely must know by now until Barack Hussein Obama shows proof of his natural born citizenship just as the congress requested of McCain and every other presidential candidate in our more than 200 year old history, then Obama is illegal and every bill or treaty that he has sign into law is constitutionally illegal.

Article II Section 1 US Constitution. “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.”

That being said and historically documented, the US Congress is in violation of most of Constitutional Law and should be brought up on charges of violation of oath of office and dereliction of duty.

I find it interesting that the most unknown and abused Amendments are also the most powerful tools the people have in maintaining a free and non-oppressive State. The ninth and the tenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The Ninth: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” And the Tenth: “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.”

As the architects of the constitution knew they would, the Federal government tries from time to time to take rights away from the people by indicating that they are not specifically listed in the bill of rights. This, by the way, is exactly what the “Federalists” were trying to establish when the bill of right were originally installed during the first constitution convention, saying that one could not possibly list all the God given rights that a free people have.

So they listed eight of the most important and followed up with the ninth and the tenth Amendments. (Re-read them if you need to) These two Amendments leave the rights of the people absolutely open ended but totally restricts the rights of the Federal Government to what is allowed and ordered by the people within the in the confines of the Constitution itself, and not the other way around.

Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution Says: “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.”

Not only do we have a President possibly born in Kenya, who has refused to prove otherwise, a violation of Article II Section 1 US Constitution, and a Communist Dictatorship a violation of Part ‘a’ of Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution which guarantees us a Republican Form of Government. But we have a government that refuses to carry out its duty of protecting each of the states against Invasion, and against domestic violence, a clear violation of Article IV Section 4 part ‘b’ of the US Constitution. Moreover a Supreme Court that is charged with riding herd on the Constitution which takes an average of two years and two million dollars for someone with standing to bring to the attention of the Supreme Court which more often that not refuses to hear the case. As I said we have an illegal Federal Government…

As for the Federal Constitutional violation of Article IV Section 4 part ‘b’ of the US Constitution refusing to carry out its duty of “protecting each of the states against Invasion, and against domestic violence”, it is then left up to the States or the People respectively (the tenth Amendment).

America is being invaded by foreign nations committing domestic violence and our Federal Government is not only refusing to do its constitutional duty to stop it, but it is encouraging it and enabling it in a time of war. Oh yes! This is yet another constitutional violation aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war. The Constitution calls it “Treason” punishable by death.

Let me put this into some perspective: Would our previous governments have granted immigration to Nazis during the Second World War or North Korean Communists during the Korean War much less granting Citizenship? I think not! But our illegal Federal government now grants not only immigration to our enemy in time of war but it grants citizenship to them and it looks the other way when they invade our country illegally.

I am not just talking about our Mexican brothers and sisters from across our southern border, although we are in an undocumented war with the Mexican dictators and their partners the drug lords. But more importunately our illegal Federal Government is granting amnesty and citizenship to every one and anyone including from the Nation that has declared war on us and has threatened to kill every one of us. The Nation of Islam…

In defense of the State of Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer, which has been accused of all kinds of lies and false accusations, is in effect just enforcing Federal law that already exists that our Federal Government illegally refuses to enforce.

Amnesty will in one way or another spell the death knell of this country. 70 percent of Americans support Arizona's dramatic and courageous action to fill the void of federal failure on policing our borders. Moreover, Washington is about to flout the will of the people once again. This is a brazen action to buy illegal votes and to strengthen this Obama Muslim/Communist régime. This is utter contempt for the rule of Constitutional law and the will of the people. It must be stopped, or this will exemplify the genie that cannot be placed back into the bottle, at least not without war in the streets.

Meanwhile, here is the text of a letter of encouragement that I have sent, and you might want to send as well to Arizona’s Gov. Brewer:

"Thank you for your courage in taking a stand on behalf of all American citizens through the signing of the recent illegal alien legislation.

It is the federal government, which has failed your state and the rest of our country by not following the Constitution. Article IV, Section 4 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.'

There is little question that a silent invasion of our country has been underway for too long. There comes a time when our government disobeys the law and fails its citizens, that the citizens of the many States must take action to insure the right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The action taken by you and your legislature is restrained, reasonable and is just common-sense. Washington is not living up to its own legislation to build the double border fence that would alleviate many of the problems Arizona and other border states are having.

I hope this letter serves as encouragement to you and your citizens. America stands with you and appreciates you very much"

Is the Arizona immigration bill unconstitutional as Obama says it is?

Many so-called “progressive” opponents of the Arizona immigration law are arguing that the law is unconstitutional because foreign affairs are exclusively the province of the federal government. Read the argument. The statement that foreign affairs are exclusively the province of the federal government is commonly asserted. But it is a myth – at least if one respects the Constitution’s text and original understanding it is.

Before explaining why, I have to say that a claim that the Constitution reserves powers exclusively for one level of government is an unusual argument for “progressives” to make. In general, of course, the most vocal “progressive Communists” could care less about what responsibilities the Constitution assigns to what levels of government. It is not just that they favor the federal government invading the sphere that the Constitution reserves to the states. It’s also that they have repeatedly urged state and local governments to invade the supposedly exclusive sphere of the federal government. Remember all those campaigns for state and local governments to adopt nuclear-freeze resolutions, South Africa boycotts, and nuclear-free zones? Anyway, let’s move beyond the limitless subject of political hypocrisy to describe just how the Constitution does distribute foreign affairs authority.

That being said: the Constitution gives the federal government supreme authority over foreign policy. Congress and the President can pre-empt an issue by exercising one or more of their enumerated powers. If Congress dislikes a state action in that realm, Congress can pass a law overriding it.

If, however, Congress has not acted or acted incompletely, the states have certain reserved powers to act on their own. In other words, the Constitution acknowledges concurrent, although subordinate, state authority over foreign affairs – including immigration into their respective states

How do I know this? From both the constitutional text and from the record left by those who debated and ratified the Constitution.

Here is the evidence

* Instead of simply stating that states have no foreign affairs powers, the Constitution (Article I, Section 10) only lists a few specific foreign affairs powers denied to the states. For example, a state may not make a treaty or enter into a confederation with a foreign government.

* Under a rule of interpretation widely recognized by the Founders, the Constitution’s listing implies that all foreign affairs powers not denied remain with the states (subject to veto by federal law or treaty).

* In addition to prohibiting the states from exercising a few foreign affairs powers, the Constitution lists a few others subject to congressional pre-approval – such as the power to make non-treaty compacts with foreign governments. If foreign policy power were exclusively in the federal government, the Constitution would not recognize that states had any ability to enter compacts with foreign governments.

* Nowhere does the Constitution include language such as “all state authority over foreign relations is hereby abolished.” On the contrary, at several points the document assumes some state authority over the subject is retained. For example, the Constitution explicitly acknowledges state power to tax foreign goods to fund inspection programs. It elsewhere assumes that if Congress chooses not to adopt a “uniform Rule of Naturalization,” the states may adopt their own laws.

* The historical record confirms what the text suggests. For example, the records of the Constitutional Convention tell us that the delegates considered whether states could impose embargoes on foreign goods, and deliberately decided to leave that power with the states. A committee of the First Federal Congress recognized this power also.

The doubt about the judicial fate of Arizona’s law arises only because of the Supreme Court’s occasional practice of striking down state laws that Congress has decided to leave alone. This occurs primarily in the area of commerce and foreign affairs, and appears to be driven in part by the historically-false claim that federal power in those areas is exclusive.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court also sometimes lets such enactments stand. So what the Court would do with the Arizona law. if anything is anybody’s guess.

THE BOTTOM LINE: It is not the State of Airizona that is in violation of the US Constitution, it is clearly the Federal Government. More over Arizona did not pass a law that overrides suspends or supersedes Federal law but instead supports and enforces it.

These are the kinds of issues the lead to ‘State Secession’ or even civil war. This is certainly not the time for that, not in the middle of an international war. The citizens might temporality have the support of the Islamic enemies that because of the dereliction of our government already reside within our borders. But then what? If we crush our own government as we did in the Revolutionary War we then become even more vulnerable to the Terrorist Nation of Islam and MS 13, the terrorists of Mexico that have already infiltrated and are thoroughly embedded in our county.

The only way to protect what we have left of our freedom and liberty and reengage the track that we were once on, is to effectively defeat this evil Muslim/Communist government at the polls starting in November and again in 2012. As I said: “We have an illegal Federal Government”---that has totally lost my respect and I hope yours as well. .

As ‘American Citizens’, we have the right and the obligation to overthrow this oppressive and dangerous Treasonous Communist government…I truly do not want to have to invoke the Second Amendment as may be “necessary to the security of a free State”

See you at the polls.

de Andréa