December 5th   
Federalism in action    

Federalism used to have a bad reputation, especially when it involved the protection of the Federal Union during that crushing of states’ rights from 1862 to 1865.

During that time, the featured goal of the Confederacy was for states to be able to deny Federal Laws with which they did not agree. That procedure was, and still is, called “Nullification.”

The tactic seceding states followed was a continuation and extension of earlier efforts of individual states to nullify federal laws – The Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions (or Resolves) were political statements drafted in 1798 and 1799, in which the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures took the position that the federal Alien and Sedition Acts were unconstitutional. The resolutions argued that the states had the right and the duty to declare unconstitutional any acts of Congress that were not authorized by the Constitution. In doing so, they argued for states' rights and strict constructionism of the Constitution. The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 were written secretly by Vice President Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, respectively. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentucky_and_Virginia_Resolutions)

Proving that it matters “whose ox is getting gored,” in 1799, the New England States rejected the doctrine of nullification as pronounced by the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, but in 1807, scarcely enough time to get a boy born in 1799 potty trained, the states of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island found themselves believing that they too could Nullify – ignore – refuse to enforce – federal law if they so choose when it impacted their states’ ability to impose taxes (sound familiar) for goods they needed in the form of import taxes.

It wasn’t until the United States fought the British in 1812 about the time that “our boy” entered puberty, and completed the American Revolution for once and for all, thus really uniting the states against a common enemy, that nullification became a shelved concept – at least until 1832 – the potty trained boy is now a land owner with children of his own, and can’t get a job because of the depression caused when Andy Jackson closed the National Bank as the first “Populist” President.

By 1862, our “boy” is a grandfather, and has lived with the concept of “nullification” and its possibility all his life. So he was not startled when the Confederacy grew from the ability of states to exert their rights in the face of the Federal Government.

Yes, the nullification was alive and well because when the Union was formed, it came with the condition that the states would attend to their laws and the Federal Government (the combined union called the United States – the National Government) would only pass laws allowed to it by the Constitution.

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. Amendment 10 – Constitution of the United States.

The way that pundits and politicians look at the concept of Federalism today is totally different from what the definition in the Constitution. No wonder Liberals want to scrap the Constitution – It prevents wholesale Socialism from taking over the country. True Federalism is separation of the powers of the states from those limited by the Constitution to the Federal Government.

It may well be that the Obama will ignore the pending lawsuits, but as steam builds amongst other states to fight against the blatant overreach of this Administration, our states will have to lead the charge.

It is apparent that the Washington DC crowd, including Republicans as well as the expected Democrats, are too entrenched in their bloated Bureaucracies to attempt any real, meaningful change.

So it is going to rest on the states to enforce the respect of the Law.


Take a look at this map and ask yourself two things:  States%20Against%20Obama%20Illegal%20Immigration%20Exec%20Order.jpg

1.            What do the Highlighted states have in common?

2.            Could the coastal states live without the “Fly-over” states?

Time will certainly tell, won’t it?

 
​KYPD/TAPP
Tuum Arida Pulveris Pyrii

DET

For the Actual news interview with the Texas Attorney General and Governor Elect Abbot

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3923528451001/17-states-challenge-obamas-immigration-executive-action/#sp=show-clips

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/12/03/texas-leads-lawsuit-by-17-states-against-obama-immigration-actions/?intcmp=latestnews

Texas leads coalition of states in lawsuit against Obama immigration actions

Texas Gov.-elect Greg Abbott announced Wednesday that Texas is leading a 17-state coalition suing the Obama administration over the president's executive actions on immigration.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Texas on Wednesday, and names the heads of the top immigration enforcement agencies as defendants.

Abbott, in a news conference in Austin, said the "broken" immigration system should be fixed by Congress, not by "presidential fiat."

He said President Obama's recently announced executive actions -- a move designed to spare as many as 5 million people living illegally in the United States from deportation -- "directly violate the fundamental promise to the American people" by running afoul of the Constitution.

"The ability of the president to dispense with laws was specifically considered and unanimously rejected at the Constitutional Convention," he said.

Abbott specifically cited Article 2, Section 3 of the Constitution which states the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed."

He said the lawsuit asks the court to require Obama to go through Congress before enforcing laws, "rather than making them up himself."

However, a White House official defended the actions as perfectly within the president's authority.

“The Supreme Court and Congress have made clear that federal officials can set priorities in enforcing our immigration laws, and we are confident that the President’s executive actions are well within his legal authorities," the official told Fox News.

The announcement opens a new front in the roiling debate across the country over the immigration actions.

The legal action comes as a separate legislative battle plays out on Capitol Hill. Some Republicans want to use a must-pass spending bill as leverage to defund the president's immigration initiatives. But House Speaker John Boehner is trying to push off that battle until next year, when his party will control both chambers.

Under Obama's order, announced Nov. 20, protection from deportation and the right to work will be extended to an estimated 4.1 million parents of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents who have lived in the U.S. for at least five years and to hundreds of thousands more young people.

In the lawsuit, Texas is joined by 16 other, mostly southern and Midwestern states, including Alabama, Georgia, Idaho and Indiana.

Abbott argued Wednesday that Obama's action "tramples" portions of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit raises three objections: that Obama violated the "Take Care Clause" of the U.S. Constitution that limits the scope of presidential power; that the federal government violated rulemaking procedures; and that the order will "exacerbate the humanitarian crisis along the southern border, which will affect increased state investment in law enforcement, health care and education."

Wednesday's announcement marks the 31st time the Texas attorney general has brought action against the federal government since Obama took office in 2009. The only other high-profile lawsuit against the immigration action has come on behalf of Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Potential 2016 presidential candidate and current Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who leaves office in January, also spoke out against the executive order earlier Wednesday, saying it could trigger a new flood of people pouring across the Texas-Mexico border. Perry and Abbott also have said the order will promote a culture of lawlessness.

Perry said at a news conference that Obama's 2012 executive order delaying the deportation of children brought into the U.S. illegally by their parents triggered an unprecedented wave of unaccompanied minors and families, mostly from Central America, crossing into the U.S. this summer.

"In effect, his action placed a neon sign on our border, assuring people that they could ignore the law of the United States," said Perry, who has deployed up to 1,000 National Guard troops to the border.

The federal lawsuit involves the following states: Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

You need to be a member of The Patriots For America to add comments!

Join The Patriots For America

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • Stand-by ~ cleaning my  glass's,  refresh  my  coffee,  Mr.  Riley   turns  the  sound  Up..!! Salute

  • Nullification that could be the tkt

    also WTP must dial it up many notches and KEEP OUR VOICES HEARD

  • It will have to be done by the states .I just do not see the D.C. crowd doing anything other than put out BS.
     
  • Thanks for the informnation.

  • Nullify, git'ter done...Semper Fi Nam 66-67

  • 8143085897?profile=original

    • Check out your states involvement with the rebirth of the Common Law Grand Jury.  The NationalLibertyAlliance.org is chairing the effort. Florida is going with them & in a different way at the same time. Nullification is alive & I thought being used today.

  • They are 18 States now ; Arizona joined yesterday.

  • For what it's worth, I wrote my representative Rep Tom Rice to start Impeachment proceeding against Obama for Bribery and Treason, and stop immigration of people coming into our country. I will put presser on my Senators as well.  I voice my opinion to worthless Politicians---- Now do I feel good---- Hell No      Merry Christmas to all     

This reply was deleted.