Look around. The country is inverted and upside down. As any follower of BREAKING ALL THE RULES knows, States’ Rights are a central position of our paleo-conservative populism. A sincere review of the U.S. Constitution clearly identifies that the Tenth Amendment specifies that “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.” Cornell Law School explains.
“Federal immigration law determines whether a person is an alien, the rights, duties, and obligations associated with being an alien in the United States, and how aliens gain residence or citizenship within the United States. It also provides the means by which certain aliens can become legally naturalized citizens with full rights of citizenship. Immigration law serves as a gatekeeper for the nation’s border, determining who may enter, how long they may stay, and when they must leave.
Congress has complete authority over immigration. Presidential power does not extend beyond refugee policy. Except for questions regarding aliens’ constitutional rights, the courts have generally found the immigration issue as nonjusticiable.
States have limited legislative authority regarding immigration, and 28 U.S.C. § 1251 details the full extent of state jurisdiction. Generally, 28 U.S.C. § 994 details the federal sentencing guidelines for illegal entry into the country.”
Our position and judgments are presented in a Dueling Twin segment on States’ Rights that has our counterpart from the Left contending The Myth of State Sovereignty does not supersede the authority of the Federal Government. Note the irony that such a contention argues that DC power is supreme. Of course this applies if the loony left controls the reins of government and does not apply to the Trump administration that represents the real majority of Americans.
“Myths like state sovereignty are simply grist for the mill of ideological minorities. Finding themselves deeply out in cold, they warm themselves by burning the Constitution and would love to declare a sovereign republic out of some flyover piece of land whose politics faintly resembles their own. But their arguments are no more credible now than they were in 1861.”
The difference between our populist advocacies is that BATR supports a representative Republic based upon the rule of law, limited in scope and the consent of sovereign individual states. Read The Philosophy of BREAKING ALL THE RULES. The position of the deranged left is that Democracy supplants a Republic with a centralized authority. Let the words of the collectivist twin speak for itself.
“Historically Americans have chosen a stronger federal government, one capable of looking after the general welfare of its citizens, of maintaining a standing professional army in their defense, one with the power to intervene against states who oppress the civil rights of their citizens, a nation vigorous enough to withstand the competition from other nation states abroad. The people are quite capable of deciding if this kind of strong national government suits them–and they have answered with a vigorous “Yes.” Anti-federalists like SARTRE can cringe at this choice, but the people, the only legitimate sovereigns in this debate, have spoken.”
Once again, where is the support and advocacy for Federal rule now that the Electoral College has followed the Constitution and President Trump is applying legal compliance to bring rogue States who are violating laws they do not like? Just look to California’s authoritarian commissars for proof that they are adopting the Red Chinese model of totalitarianism and have already seceded from an American union.
Welcome to Chinafornia: The Future of U.S.-China Relations is changing California for the worse. Applying Maoist communism with state centralized fascism is pushing the Golden State into the arms of greater cultural and economic monocracy.
“Under normal conditions, a boom in investment is considered a win for local citizens. But when that money comes from far away investors — especially from a country with a vastly different culture and an authoritarian government — the influx creates thorny tradeoffs. Every benefit California derives from these interactions comes with a potential dark side, one that threatens to spark a nativist backlash against the new arrivals.
Chinese tech and film investors are also pouring into California. They’re seeking out unicorn startups and filmmaking know-how. China’s tech juggernauts have all established research facilities or investment beachheads in Silicon Valley and Chinese filmmakers are looking to work with — or outright acquire — their American peers.
But when Silicon Valley and Hollywood execs return the visit, they are rebuffed. Many of Silicon Valley’s flagship companies — Facebook, Google and Twitter, to name a few — are outright blocked in China. Hollywood studios face sharp limits on the number of films that can enter China and they are often forced to sanitize scripts for fear of offending Chinese government censors.”
These negative impacts have not gone unnoticed in Washington DC. Congress during a session of the Commission on China examines The Long Arm of China: Exporting Authoritarianism With Chinese Characteristics.
“This hearing will examine the Chinese government’s foreign influence operations intended to censor critical discussion of its history and human rights record and to intimidate critics of its repressive policies. Attempts by the Chinese government to guide, buy, or coerce political influence and control discussion of “sensitive” topics are pervasive, and pose serious challenges in the United States and globally, particularly as China uses technology and the lure of the Chinese market to impose authoritarian practices abroad.”
Some of the areas brought up include:
- The academic whose scholarly paper provides background on the banned Chinese Democracy Party or
- Other politically sensitive issues refused a visa to conduct research in China; or,
- The Hollywood studio that shelves the film script with a storyline involving China’s abuse of the Tibetan people; or,
- The Washington “think tank” that puts out policy papers critical of legislative initiatives that would negatively impact the Chinese government, all the while never revealing their financial ties with senior Chinese officials; or
- The American Internet company willing to censor content globally in order to obtain access to the Chinese market.
If the Marxists limousine liberals get their way, they would apply the very nature of China’s authoritarian model, by basing its power on controlling their multicultural comrades, governed by sprawling bolshevik elites, who wants to impose their rule on the rest of our country.
Who dares to claim this is a valid application of States’ Rights? A California secession should reflect and be divided among dissenting factions of current state citizens. However, this approach would never be allowed since the radicals became the Sacramento establishment. Take this theme to its logical conclusion. If California would actually separate from the rest of the union, would China move in with their system of top down compliance? No doubt a surfer beach version of Tiananmen Square would not be allowed to ride the curl.
Like in the example of the Dueling Twin episode, the indoctrinated left has been so programmed that they are now promoting the desirability of despotic rule. This is a far cry when protesting activists would push back for personal freedom and defend individual civil liberties. Dissenters back in the 1960’s would view the central government as the enemy of the people. Those days are long gone.
Today the most obscene dictators and thugs are leftist psychopaths. This cult reads from their venerate Red Book. “Communists must never separate themselves from the majority of the people or neglect them by leading only a few progressive contingents in an isolated and rash advance, but must take care to forge close links between the progressive elements and the broad masses. This is what thinking in terms of the majority means.”
Just ponder this precept. Encourage the self-proclaimed enlightened inteligencia to embed the doctrine – tyranny of the majority – in the minds and culture of the masses. In plain English this defines the failure in any DEMOCRACY. Apply this standard to the anti-Christian California secular society and your end result produces a war against Federal authority.
Well, avoiding a war against the Washington District of Criminals could have merit. However, a revolt out of the Hollywood/BayArea progressive axis certainly would not be an improvement. Could the final response be a military enforcement of Federal law? Will Governor Jerry Brown Be Arrested, Prosecuted and Imprisoned…is a scenario that cannot be ignored.
President George Washington set the precedent. “The Whiskey Rebellion also occupies a distinguished place in American jurisprudence. Serving as the backdrop to the first treason trials in the United States, the Whiskey Rebellion helped delineate the parameters of this constitutional crime. Article III, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution defines treason as “levying War” against the United States. During the trials of the two men convicted of treason, Circuit Court Judge William Paterson instructed the jury that “levying war” includes armed opposition to the enforcement of a federal law.”
States such as California are actually precipitating a civil war. What’s next, a mutual defense treaty between La La Land and Beijing? Is there any doubt what the response of Federal authorities would be?
Via BATR
Featured Image: Randy Robertson/Flickr
The post States’ rights confronts federal supremacy appeared first on Intellihub.
