Should Arizona declare war and defend it boarders with force?

[Capitalist]

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States



No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net




It can be argued that Arizona is under imminent danger, since the Feds are unwilling to uphold the law. Arizona has a legal right to protect itself, even engaging in war to do so........

 

[Capitalist]

BTW..........

"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."
​

In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled.
U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government's lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983

​

 

[Sarah G]

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States



No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net




It can be argued that Arizona is under imminent danger, since the Feds are unwilling to uphold the law. Arizona has a legal right to protect itself, even engaging in war to do so........

With what army? Sherriff Joe?

 

[Moon]

Um, what?

 

[Moon]

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States



No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net




It can be argued that Arizona is under imminent danger, since the Feds are unwilling to uphold the law. Arizona has a legal right to protect itself, even engaging in war to do so........

The fact that this has been going on for years makes the imminent danger exception invalid.

 

[DiveCon]

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States



No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net




It can be argued that Arizona is under imminent danger, since the Feds are unwilling to uphold the law. Arizona has a legal right to protect itself, even engaging in war to do so........

With what army? Sherriff Joe?

well, should it be deemed necessary the national guard is under the command of the governors

not that i'm saying they would need to do this, but it seems like you dont know what you are talking about once again

 

[Modbert]

It's "boarders" with force? What exactly do you want? Shooting unarmed people as they try to enter this country or something?

 

[Moon]

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States



No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net




It can be argued that Arizona is under imminent danger, since the Feds are unwilling to uphold the law. Arizona has a legal right to protect itself, even engaging in war to do so........

With what army? Sherriff Joe?

What more would they need?

 

[topspin]

Yes the Klan should regroup

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States



No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net




It can be argued that Arizona is under imminent danger, since the Feds are unwilling to uphold the law. Arizona has a legal right to protect itself, even engaging in war to do so........

With what army? Sherriff Joe?

no silly the Arozina state defense force. Most states still have them

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's "boarders" with force? What exactly do you want? Shooting unarmed people as they try to enter this country or something?

How about they just target the drug lords in para military grab when they come accross the border in those convoys

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes the Klan should regroup

A post that has no substance the klan wasn't mentioned until you mentioned it. Are you a klansman?

 

[Woyzeck]

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States



No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net




It can be argued that Arizona is under imminent danger, since the Feds are unwilling to uphold the law. Arizona has a legal right to protect itself, even engaging in war to do so........

It requires the consent of Congress, so it's very unlikely.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States



No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net




It can be argued that Arizona is under imminent danger, since the Feds are unwilling to uphold the law. Arizona has a legal right to protect itself, even engaging in war to do so........

With what army? Sherriff Joe?

well, should it be deemed necessary the national guard is under the command of the governors

not that i'm saying they would need to do this, but it seems like you dont know what you are talking about once again

I do not think the nation gaurd in under the control of the govenor.

But there is the state defense force

Federal bills specific to State Defense Forces
HR 206 State Defense Force Improvement Act, 2009, 111th Congress
HR 5658 Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act FY09, 2008, 110th Congress
HR 826 State Defense Force Improvement Act, 2007, 110th Congress
HR 3401 State Defense Force Improvement Act, 2005, 109th Congress
HR 2797 State Defense Force Improvement Act, 2003, 108th Congress

 

[ConHog]

Article 1 - The Legislative Branch
Section 10 - Powers Prohibited of States



No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 10 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net




It can be argued that Arizona is under imminent danger, since the Feds are unwilling to uphold the law. Arizona has a legal right to protect itself, even engaging in war to do so........

With what army? Sherriff Joe?

well, should it be deemed necessary the national guard is under the command of the governors

not that i'm saying they would need to do this, but it seems like you dont know what you are talking about once again

You're wrong. The National Guard is under the command of the President as I pointed out when Ravi and company wanted to argue that the Gulf Coast Governors should have called out the Guard without Obama's okay. They can't.

H.R. 5122 (2006) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nor can a state declare war on anyone.

 

[DiveCon]

With what army? Sherriff Joe?

well, should it be deemed necessary the national guard is under the command of the governors

not that i'm saying they would need to do this, but it seems like you dont know what you are talking about once again

You're wrong. The National Guard is under the command of the President as I pointed out when Ravi and company wanted to argue that the Gulf Coast Governors should have called out the Guard without Obama's okay. They can't.

H.R. 5122 (2006) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nor can a state declare war on anyone.

that does NOT say that the governors cant, it is a new law so a POTUS can bypass the governors
that law wouldnt have been needed if the governors didnt have that control in the first place


National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this, however says the governors CAN

 

[ConHog]

well, should it be deemed necessary the national guard is under the command of the governors

not that i'm saying they would need to do this, but it seems like you dont know what you are talking about once again

You're wrong. The National Guard is under the command of the President as I pointed out when Ravi and company wanted to argue that the Gulf Coast Governors should have called out the Guard without Obama's okay. They can't.

H.R. 5122 (2006) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nor can a state declare war on anyone.

that does NOT say that the governors cant, it is a new law so a POTUS can bypass the governors
that law wouldnt have been needed if the governors didnt have that control in the first place


National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this, however says the governors CAN

Even prior to that law, the National Guard has ALWAYS deferred to the President over the Governor of their state. The most famous example of this is in Arkansas in 1957 when Governor Orval Faubas deployed troops to keep black students from attending Little Rock Central High which was segregated at that time. Dwight Eisenhower responded by federalizing the same troops and ordering them to make sure the students COULD go to Little Rock Central.

The National Guard is and has been a Department within the Army since the National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933. Which of course means that the four star general in charge of the National Guard Bureau answers to the President of the United States alone and can be fired for refusing said orders, and NO Guard troops ANYWHERE may be deployed without the General's command. Meaning Governor says deploy , President says no. troops go nowhere.



Legal Basis of the National Guard


However, it is customary that for inter border situations the President does not usually get involved or countermand a Governor's orders , which are really requests, I think we all know that Obama would do so here.

 

[DiveCon]

You're wrong. The National Guard is under the command of the President as I pointed out when Ravi and company wanted to argue that the Gulf Coast Governors should have called out the Guard without Obama's okay. They can't.

H.R. 5122 (2006) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Nor can a state declare war on anyone.

that does NOT say that the governors cant, it is a new law so a POTUS can bypass the governors
that law wouldnt have been needed if the governors didnt have that control in the first place


National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this, however says the governors CAN

Even prior to that law, the National Guard has ALWAYS deferred to the President over the Governor of their state. The most famous example of this is in Arkansas in 1957 when Governor Orval Faubas deployed troops to keep black students from attending Little Rock Central High which was segregated at that time. Dwight Eisenhower responded by federalizing the same troops and ordering them to make sure the students COULD go to Little Rock Central.

The National Guard is and has been a Department within the Army since the National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933. Which of course means that the four star general in charge of the National Guard Bureau answers to the President of the United States alone and can be fired for refusing said orders, and NO Guard troops ANYWHERE may be deployed without the General's command. Meaning Governor says deploy , President says no. troops go nowhere.



Legal Basis of the National Guard


However, it is customary that for inter border situations the President does not usually get involved or countermand a Governor's orders , which are really requests, I think we all know that Obama would do so here.

but that doesnt change what i said to Sarahg

 

[ConHog]

that does NOT say that the governors cant, it is a new law so a POTUS can bypass the governors
that law wouldnt have been needed if the governors didnt have that control in the first place


National Guard of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this, however says the governors CAN

Even prior to that law, the National Guard has ALWAYS deferred to the President over the Governor of their state. The most famous example of this is in Arkansas in 1957 when Governor Orval Faubas deployed troops to keep black students from attending Little Rock Central High which was segregated at that time. Dwight Eisenhower responded by federalizing the same troops and ordering them to make sure the students COULD go to Little Rock Central.

The National Guard is and has been a Department within the Army since the National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933. Which of course means that the four star general in charge of the National Guard Bureau answers to the President of the United States alone and can be fired for refusing said orders, and NO Guard troops ANYWHERE may be deployed without the General's command. Meaning Governor says deploy , President says no. troops go nowhere.



Legal Basis of the National Guard


However, it is customary that for inter border situations the President does not usually get involved or countermand a Governor's orders , which are really requests, I think we all know that Obama would do so here.

but that doesnt change what i said to Sarahg

Oh yes it does. The Governers can NOT use the National Guard against the President's wishes. It's that simple.

 

[DiveCon]

Even prior to that law, the National Guard has ALWAYS deferred to the President over the Governor of their state. The most famous example of this is in Arkansas in 1957 when Governor Orval Faubas deployed troops to keep black students from attending Little Rock Central High which was segregated at that time. Dwight Eisenhower responded by federalizing the same troops and ordering them to make sure the students COULD go to Little Rock Central.

The National Guard is and has been a Department within the Army since the National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933. Which of course means that the four star general in charge of the National Guard Bureau answers to the President of the United States alone and can be fired for refusing said orders, and NO Guard troops ANYWHERE may be deployed without the General's command. Meaning Governor says deploy , President says no. troops go nowhere.



Legal Basis of the National Guard


However, it is customary that for inter border situations the President does not usually get involved or countermand a Governor's orders , which are really requests, I think we all know that Obama would do so here.

but that doesnt change what i said to Sarahg

Oh yes it does. The Governers can NOT use the National Guard against the President's wishes. It's that simple.

i disagree
the national guard CAN be used by the governors but there are limits