Washington Times says states have constitutional right to stop invading illegals.

[AmericanFirst1]

[
Nope. Immigration is always Federal. It has never been any different. They set the policy, not the States.

Not what the constitution says. The only power re immigration given to the feds is "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization".. Everything else is up to the states. THINK

Nope...

Yep. But then you are an anti constitution lib commie. You need to shut up commie.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The far right and libertarians have to show the Constitution does not provide as they say. SCOTUS says otherwise. SCOTUS rules, shootspeeders drools.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The far right and libertarians have to show the Constitution does not provide as they say. SCOTUS says otherwise. SCOTUS rules, shootspeeders drools.

SCOTUS RULES???? 9 unelected judges run the country?

That's what happens when the courts give themselves final say on every issue!!!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Washington Times says states have constitutional right to stop invading illegals."

The Times often lies, and prints things that are wrong – this being one of many examples.

And those in the United States who have refugee status are neither ‘invaders’ nor ‘illegal’ – they are in fact legal immigrants known to DHS.

Such is the ignorance of many on the right.

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS, yep, is the final arbiter of matters constitutional.

 

[Lakhota]

The Moonie Times is a very poor source for factual information.

 

[Moonglow]

The far right and libertarians have to show the Constitution does not provide as they say. SCOTUS says otherwise. SCOTUS rules, shootspeeders drools.

SCOTUS RULES???? 9 unelected judges run the country?

That's what happens when the courts give themselves final say on every issue!!!

That's what you get for asking them for their opinion...

 

[JimBowie1958]

This is not a new idea. For years people have said the illegals are invading us and the Compact Clause of the constitution gives states the authority to fight back. The tenth amendment does too.

JANINE TURNER: States should use the Compact Clause to guard against illegal immigration - Washington Times

nov 25 2015 Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution:

“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.”

We face a crisis in our country today. Wide swaths of open land on our borders are literally open doors for terrorists; we are inviting them in to threaten our communities and kill our citizens. Due to this emergence it serves Americans well to be aware of what options the United States Constitution offers them via the States. Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3 may provide the answer. Your representative may not even be aware of this lawful loophole.

Under the current dire circumstances, it is time for the governors of the border states to utilize the Compact Clause and take action since the federal government is doing absolutely nothing. To focus on the southern border, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas are currently being “invaded” and are certainly in “imminent danger.” Thus, they can take action to seal up the border, send in the militia, send in armed guards or take whatever action they deem necessary to prevent the illegal and dangerous movements into their states. The compact can be between as little as two states. Thus, if California doesn’t want to join in they do not have to do so, but Arizona, New Mexico and Texas can be pro-active.

Well, the Moonie Times, there ya go. If Sum Dung Moon doesn't know the Constitution -- who does?

Another stupid ass comment from Pogo the Nogo.

Simply because someone quotes the Constitution it does not mean that the importance of or accuracy of what is quoted is in any way affected by the reputation of the quoter.

I./E, deal with the facts, jack ass and stop changing the fucking subject.

Shit.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The Moonie Times is a very poor source for factual information.

The look up the clause and give a more accurate version, fool

 

[JimBowie1958]

"Washington Times says states have constitutional right to stop invading illegals."

The Times often lies, and prints things that are wrong – this being one of many examples.

And those in the United States who have refugee status are neither ‘invaders’ nor ‘illegal’ – they are in fact legal immigrants known to DHS.

Such is the ignorance of many on the right.

roflmao, now it is settled; Clayton always confirms which side is wrong by supporting that side of the question more reliably than a quartz time piece.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

SCOTUS, yep, is the final arbiter of matters constitutional.

Really?. So show us where the constitution says that. Most people think it says the states are final arbiters of matters constitutional.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

SCOTUS, yep, is the final arbiter of matters constitutional.

Really?. So show us where the constitution says that. Most people think it says the states are final arbiters of matters constitutional.

Most are like you, as dumb as dog shit.

The Court and Constitutional Interpretation - Supreme Court of the United States

 

[JakeStarkey]

SCOTUS, yep, is the final arbiter of matters constitutional.

Really?. So show us where the constitution says that. Most people think it says the states are final arbiters of matters constitutional.

No, they don't, and, no, you can't prove any of your silly stuff. Think!

 

[ShootSpeeders]

SCOTUS, yep, is the final arbiter of matters constitutional.

Really?. So show us where the constitution says that. Most people think it says the states are final arbiters of matters constitutional.

No, they don't, and, no, you can't prove any of your silly stuff. Think!

The tenth amendment gives the states authority to decide what the constitution means. Where does it give the authority to the supreme court as you claim?