Our Supreme Court confirms why the Texas law, SB 4, is constitutional.

[johnwk]

.
Our United States Supreme Court has confirmed the object of the Texas law, SB 4, which is designed to protect the general welfare of the State by prohibiting an influx of unwanted foreign nationals who would financially or otherwise burden its citizens, falls within an original power exercised by the states prior to the adoption of our current Constitution, and has not been surrendered.

In support of my assertion, I will here take the liberty of quoting from United States Supreme Court Justice Barbour’s written opinion in New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837), which involves a challenge to a New York Law “… intended to prevent the state being burthened with an influx of foreigners, and to prevent their becoming paupers, and who would be chargeable as such.”

Supreme Court Justice Barbour begins by pointing out “… the state of New York possessed power to pass this law before the adoption of the constitution of the United States, might probably be taken as a truism, without the necessity of proof.” And, he goes on to quote a legal scholar of the time, Emer de Vattel, showing the origin and character of the power in question:

“The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory, either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state.”

Justice Barbour continues:

“It is apparent, from the whole scope of the law, that the object of the legislature was, to prevent New York from being burdened by an influx of persons brought thither in ships, either from foreign countries, or from any other of the states; and . . . to prevent them from becoming chargeable as paupers.” And this is essentially the same object of the Texas law SB 4.

Justice Barbour then points out:

”New York, from her particular situation, is, perhaps more than any other city in the Union, exposed to the evil of thousands of foreign emigrants arriving there, and the consequent danger of her citizens being subjected to a heavy charge in the maintenance of those who are poor. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens from this evil; they have endeavoured to do so, by passing, amongst other things, the section of the law in question. We should, upon principle, say that it had a right to do so.”

The bottom line is, New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837), and the Texas 2023 law, SB 4, both seek to protect the citizens of these States from being financially, or otherwise, burdened with unwanted foreign nationals. And in the end, our Supreme Court confirmed:

“ . . . it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a state, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation, which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a state is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.

As noted elsewhere in the thread, Congress has been granted an exclusive power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Naturalization involves the process and steps by which a foreign national, who is already in our country, is granted citizenship. Immigration, on the other hand involves a foreign national traveling to and entering the United States . . . which is a distinct activity far different from naturalization.

And according to our very own Supreme Court, with respect to this power (Naturalization), “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others, and upon the general government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” PASSENGER CASES, 48 U. S. 283 (1849).

The bottom line is, the Texas law, SB 4 is a reserved power of the States protected and guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment.

JWK

Is it not New York City’s Democrat Party Leadership which has filled NY’s inner-city schools, public housing and emergency care rooms with illegal entrant foreign nationals, and has given the finger to our nation’s needy CITIZENS?

 

[rightwinger]

“The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory, either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state.”

States are not sovereign and cannot forbid entrance

 

[johnwk]

States are not sovereign and cannot forbid entrance

New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837), confirms you are full of shit.

 

[rightwinger]

New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837), confirms you are full of shit.

Superseded by almost 200 years

 

[johnwk]

Superseded by almost 200 years

According to you, the shit maker

 

[lennypartiv]

States are not sovereign and cannot forbid entrance

We need more leaders like Sheriff Joe.

 

[johnwk]

We need more leaders like Sheriff Joe.

And informed voters.

 

[johnwk]

Judge David Ezra lied when suggesting immigration is an exclusive federal matter.​

Judge David Ezra wrote in his ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION:

“Several factors warrant an injunction. First, the Supremacy Clause and Supreme Court precedent affirm that states may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government.”

In response to the concern about the “Supremacy Clause” [Article 6], let us always keep in mind what it states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof. . .” Self-evidently, federal laws not made in pursuance of our Constitution – and that would include, e.g., the Tenth Amendment, Section 4 of Article 4, and the qualifying condition of Section 10 of Article 1 – would not be Supreme, but a subversion, and in violation of our Constitution!

And with regard to the fabricated and lying assertion that “… states may not exercise immigration enforcement power except as authorized by the federal government…”, that lie is quickly put to rest in New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837) – involving a New York law adopted to prevent the entry of an unwanted influx of foreign nationals into the state and to protect itself from an onslaught of unwanted “foreign paupers” and avoid “. . . the consequent danger of her citizens being subjected to a heavy charge in the maintenance of those who are poor” as stated in Miln, which upheld the law.

The sad truth is, this invasion at our southern border is being perpetuated and orchestrated, not only by the Biden Administration, but by a number of traitorous judges who are intentionally ignoring and subverting the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text.

The irrefutable fact is, with reference to immigration and its regulation, it is a subject matter which may lawfully, and constitutionally, be acted upon by our federal and individual state governments, each acting within their own sphere of constitutionally assigned powers as enumerated in our federal Constitution.

JWK

The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASSOCIATION v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

 

[boevans]

States are not sovereign in federal law.

 

[johnwk]

States are not sovereign in federal law.

What does that stupid remark have to do with what is actually being discussed?

 

[boevans]

What does that stupid remark have to do with what is actually being discussed?

That your silly state law cannot override federal jurisdiction, sweety. Barbour is wrong and will be overturned.

 

[Foxfyre]

.
Our United States Supreme Court has confirmed the object of the Texas law, SB 4, which is designed to protect the general welfare of the State by prohibiting an influx of unwanted foreign nationals who would financially or otherwise burden its citizens, falls within an original power exercised by the states prior to the adoption of our current Constitution, and has not been surrendered.

In support of my assertion, I will here take the liberty of quoting from United States Supreme Court Justice Barbour’s written opinion in New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837), which involves a challenge to a New York Law “… intended to prevent the state being burthened with an influx of foreigners, and to prevent their becoming paupers, and who would be chargeable as such.”

Supreme Court Justice Barbour begins by pointing out “… the state of New York possessed power to pass this law before the adoption of the constitution of the United States, might probably be taken as a truism, without the necessity of proof.” And, he goes on to quote a legal scholar of the time, Emer de Vattel, showing the origin and character of the power in question:

“The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory, either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state.”

Justice Barbour continues:

“It is apparent, from the whole scope of the law, that the object of the legislature was, to prevent New York from being burdened by an influx of persons brought thither in ships, either from foreign countries, or from any other of the states; and . . . to prevent them from becoming chargeable as paupers.” And this is essentially the same object of the Texas law SB 4.

Justice Barbour then points out:

”New York, from her particular situation, is, perhaps more than any other city in the Union, exposed to the evil of thousands of foreign emigrants arriving there, and the consequent danger of her citizens being subjected to a heavy charge in the maintenance of those who are poor. It is the duty of the state to protect its citizens from this evil; they have endeavoured to do so, by passing, amongst other things, the section of the law in question. We should, upon principle, say that it had a right to do so.”

The bottom line is, New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837), and the Texas 2023 law, SB 4, both seek to protect the citizens of these States from being financially, or otherwise, burdened with unwanted foreign nationals. And in the end, our Supreme Court confirmed:

“ . . . it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a state, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation, which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a state is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.

As noted elsewhere in the thread, Congress has been granted an exclusive power “To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Naturalization involves the process and steps by which a foreign national, who is already in our country, is granted citizenship. Immigration, on the other hand involves a foreign national traveling to and entering the United States . . . which is a distinct activity far different from naturalization.

And according to our very own Supreme Court, with respect to this power (Naturalization), “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others, and upon the general government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.” PASSENGER CASES, 48 U. S. 283 (1849).

The bottom line is, the Texas law, SB 4 is a reserved power of the States protected and guaranteed under the Tenth Amendment.

JWK

Is it not New York City’s Democrat Party Leadership which has filled NY’s inner-city schools, public housing and emergency care rooms with illegal entrant foreign nationals, and has given the finger to our nation’s needy CITIZENS?

Interesting. I hope our current SCOTUS is looking at all that.

 

[johnwk]

Interesting. I hope our current SCOTUS is looking at all that.

What I find a bit bewildering is, I could not find New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837), cited in any case briefs, which actually goes into depth regarding a State's retained power to refuse entry to an unwanted "influx" of foreign nationals, and the duty for a State to protect itself and her citizens from an onslaught of unwanted “foreign paupers” thereby avoiding “. . . the consequent danger of her citizens being subjected to a heavy charge in the maintenance of those who are poor”, as stated in Miln, which upheld the law.

Same with Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. 7 How. 283 283 (1849), which emphatically emphasized the legislative intent of delegating power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization: “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others, and upon the general government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.”

Also, nowhere to be found in the briefs mentioned are quotes from our Forefathers expressed during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, which provide an important insight regarding the subject of unwanted immigration.


REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148


In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152


And REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157


Finally, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790

Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

 

[Foxfyre]

What I find a bit bewildering is, I could not find New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837), cited in any case briefs, which actually goes into depth regarding a State's retained power to refuse entry to an unwanted "influx" of foreign nationals, and the duty for a State to protect itself and her citizens from an onslaught of unwanted “foreign paupers” thereby avoiding “. . . the consequent danger of her citizens being subjected to a heavy charge in the maintenance of those who are poor”, as stated in Miln, which upheld the law.

Same with Passenger Cases, 48 U.S. 7 How. 283 283 (1849), which emphatically emphasized the legislative intent of delegating power to Congress to establish a uniform rule of naturalization: “Its sole object was to prevent one State from forcing upon all the others, and upon the general government, persons as citizens whom they were unwilling to admit as such.”

Also, nowhere to be found in the briefs mentioned are quotes from our Forefathers expressed during our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, which provide an important insight regarding the subject of unwanted immigration.


REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution points to the intentions for which a power over naturalization was granted to Congress. He says: “that Congress should have the power of naturalization, in order to prevent particular States receiving citizens, and forcing them upon others who would not have received them in any other manner. It was therefore meant to guard against an improper mode of naturalization, rather than foreigners should be received upon easier terms than those adopted by the several States.” see CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES, Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790 PAGE 1148


In addition, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [the power granted to Congress] means, and he ”doubted whether the constitution authorized Congress to say on what terms aliens or citizens should hold lands in the respective States; the power vested by the Constitution in Congress, respecting the subject now before the House, extend to nothing more than making a uniform rule of naturalization. After a person has once become a citizen, the power of congress ceases to operate upon him; the rights and privileges of citizens in the several States belong to those States; but a citizen of one State is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the citizens in the several States…..all, therefore, that the House have to do on this subject, is to confine themselves to an uniform rule of naturalization and not to a general definition of what constitutes the rights of citizenship in the several States.” see: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, page 1152


And REPRESENTATIVE STONE … concluded that the laws and constitutions of the States, and the constitution of the United States; would trace out the steps by which they should acquire certain degrees of citizenship [page 1156]. Congress may point out a uniform rule of naturalization; but cannot say what shall be the effect of that naturalization, as it respects the particular States. Congress cannot say that foreigners, naturalized, under a general law, shall be entitled to privileges which the States withhold from native citizens. See: Rule of Naturalization, Feb. 3rd, 1790, pages 1156 and 1157


Finally, let us recall what Representative BURKE says during our Nations` first debate on a RULE OF NATURALIZATION, FEB. 3RD, 1790

Mr. BURKE thought it of importance to fill the country with useful men, such as farmers, mechanics, and manufacturers, and, therefore, would hold out every encouragement to them to emigrate to America. This class he would receive on liberal terms; and he was satisfied there would be room enough for them, and for their posterity, for five hundred years to come. There was another class of men, whom he did not think useful, and he did not care what impediments were thrown in their way; such as your European merchants, and factors of merchants, who come with a view of remaining so long as will enable them to acquire a fortune, and then they will leave the country, and carry off all their property with them. These people injure us more than they do us good, and, except in this last sentiment, I can compare them to nothing but leeches. They stick to us until they get their fill of our best blood, and then they fall off and leave us. I look upon the privilege of an American citizen to be an honorable one, and it ought not to be thrown away upon such people. There is another class also that I would interdict, that is, the convicts and criminals which they pour out of British jails. I wish sincerely some mode could be adopted to prevent the importation of such; but that, perhaps, is not in our power; the introduction of them ought to be considered as a high misdemeanor.

JWK

Why have a written constitution, approved by the people, if those who it is meant to control are free to make it mean whatever they wish it to mean?

Once the Constitution can be redefined or ignored we no longer have a republic but we have moved from a representative democracy to a totalitarian government of some sort. That is precisely why the power hungry Democrats look for/hope for ability to do away with the electoral college, to pack the Supreme Court (with leftist who will do their bidding of course), to make voting laws so murky that elections can be rigged any way they want them to go most especially with millions of illegals that can be encouraged to vote where they are able, and why the DOJ and other government agencies are now weaponized to either attack, imprison, silence, or intimidate anyone with power or ability to get in their way.

The current Supreme Court is excellent as such courts go as it offends pretty much everybody with rulings over time. That pretty much means it follows the letter and INTENT of the Constitution rather than the political dictates of either side. That is precisely why the Founders decided on such a court as an independent branch of government that hopefully would be interested in the integrity of the law instead of being political operatives.

Even though Joe Biden chooses to pretty much ignore what the Court rules, it still remains as a significant barrier to a small but powerful oligarchy intent on obtaining total control.

 

[rightwinger]

Once the Constitution can be redefined or ignored we no longer have a republic but we have moved from a representative democracy to a totalitarian government of some sort.

That is why Trump wants to terminate the Constitution

 

[Foxfyre]

That is why Trump wants to terminate the Constitution

Doesn't it embarrass you at all to say something that dumb?

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Doesn't it embarrass you at all to say something that dumb?

Democrats are not known for having any shame.

 

[johnwk]

Does Edwards v. California (1941), contradict Justice Barbour's comments in New York v. Miln, (1837)?


In a previous post regarding Texas’ SB 4 law, I pointed to New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. 102 (1837) to confirm the reserved power of Texas to prohibit the entry of unwanted foreign nationals


Since then, I was informed that Mayor of New York v. Miln was reversed in Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941). So, I carefully reviewed the case.



As I expected, I found there is absolutely nothing stated by the Court in Edwards, even remotely, suggesting a State does not maintain the power to refuse entry to an unwanted "influx" of foreign nationals, and moreover, a duty for a State to protect itself and her citizens from an onslaught of unwanted “foreign paupers” thereby avoiding “. . . the consequent danger of her citizens being subjected to a heavy charge in the maintenance of those who are poor”, as stated in Miln by United States Supreme Court Justice Barbour



But getting back to Edwards:



It involved interstate commerce [commerce among the States], not migration of “foreign paupers,” illegally crossing into a particular State from foreign soil.



The party’s involved in the Edwards case were citizens of the United States as noted in the case:



“Appellant is a citizen of the United States and a resident of California. In December, 1939, he left his home in Marysville, California, for Spur, Texas, with the intention of bringing back to Marysville his wife's brother, Frank Duncan, a citizen of the United States and a resident of Texas.”



The law in question was § 2615 of the Welfare and Institutions Code of California, which provided:

"Every person, firm or corporation or officer or agent thereof that brings or assists in bringing into the State any indigent person who is not a resident of the State, knowing him to be an indigent person, is guilty of a misdemeanor."



The Court concluded:



“We are of the opinion that § 2615 is not a valid exercise of the police power of California, that it imposes an unconstitutional burden upon interstate commerce, and that the conviction under it cannot be sustained. In the view we have taken, it is unnecessary to decide whether the Section is repugnant to other provisions of the Constitution.”



As everyone can see, Edwards v. California, not even remotely, conflicts with Justice Barbour’s comments in Miln, concerning a state having the authority, and duty, to forbid entry to unwanted foreign national paupers.



In any event, I thought those interested in the case, would find the above factual, informative, and important in the fight to have Texas’ SB 4 upheld, and Biden’s orchestrated invasion of our border brought to an end.



JWK



When terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership _ voted into office by your neighbors - who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and unvetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country.

 

[johnwk]

Well, this is certainly astounding. With all the in-house opinionated defenders of filling our country with millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and unvetted terrorist foreign nationals, not one is willing to step up and answer the question:

Does Edwards v. California (1941) contradict Justice Barbour’s comments in New York v. Miln, (1837)?

Keep in mind in the case cited, Miln,that United States Supreme Court Justice Barbour emphatically confirmed . . .​

“But we do not place our opinion on this ground. We choose rather to plant ourselves on what we consider impregnable positions. They are these: That a state has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation; where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a state, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation, which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a state is complete, unqualified, and exclusive.”

In the end, the Court upheld the New York Law!​

JWK

When terrorist attacks begin on American soil, let us not forget it was the current Democrat Party Leadership _ voted into office by your neighbors - who encouraged and invited millions upon millions of poverty-stricken, poorly educated, low-skilled, diseased, disabled, criminal, and unvetted terrorist foreign nationals, into our country.

 

[johnwk]

I see there still is no answer to the above question asked. Even our supposed "conservative" media, e.g., FoxNews and NEWSMAX, have failed to point out what Justice Barbour concluded with regard to a state's retained power to prohibit an onslaught of foreign paupers entering their borders.