Sessions to California: Federal Law is Supreme, We Will Kill You

[Fife]

I do believe that this case is just going to boil down to whether or not that states have to do the federal government's job. If immigration is actually a federal matter then why do states have to spend resources (man-hours, housing, food, transportations, raids, etc...) of what is expected that federal agents are required (and some may argue only they can do) to do?

Replace "immigration" with "slavery" and "states" with "states and territories" in that post. Give that a think, regarding where we are.

[GloryofGreece]

I don't see how it could possibly be considered "legal" to rip a chunk out of a country. Expecting them to be cool with that is to ignore all of human history.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession ... _secession

Dubious legality of unilateral secession

The Constitution does not directly mention secession.[53] The legality of secession was hotly debated in the 19th century, with Southerners often claiming and Northerners generally denying that states have a legal right to unilaterally secede.[54] The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union.[53] There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding.[55] Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal. The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even "more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation.[56] Other scholars, while not necessarily disagreeing that the secession was illegal, point out that sovereignty is often de facto an "extralegal" question. Had the Confederacy won, any illegality of its actions under U.S. law would have been rendered irrelevant, just as the undisputed illegality of American rebellion under the British law of 1775 was rendered irrelevant. Thus, these scholars argue, the illegality of unilateral secession was not firmly de facto established until the Union won the Civil War; in this view, the legal question was resolved at Appomattox.[54][57]

Supreme Court rulings

Texas v. White[56] was argued before the United States Supreme Court during the December 1868 term. Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase read the Court's decision, on April 15, 1869.[58] Australian Professors Peter Radan and Aleksandar Pavkovic write:

Chase, [Chief Justice], ruled in favor of Texas on the ground that the Confederate state government in Texas had no legal existence on the basis that the secession of Texas from the United States was illegal. The critical finding underpinning the ruling that Texas could not secede from the United States was that, following its admission to the United States in 1845, Texas had become part of "an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states". In practical terms, this meant that Texas has never seceded from the United States.[59]

However, the Court's decision recognized some possibility of the divisibility "through revolution, or through consent of the States".[59][60]

In 1877, the Williams v. Bruffy[61] decision was rendered, pertaining to civil war debts. The Court wrote regarding acts establishing an independent government that "The validity of its acts, both against the parent state and the citizens or subjects thereof, depends entirely upon its ultimate success; if it fail to establish itself permanently, all such acts perish with it; if it succeed and become recognized, its acts from the commencement of its existence are upheld as those of an independent nation."[59][62]

Basically, "if you win, you can secede".

The Union as a sovereign state

Historian Kenneth Stampp notes that a historical case against secession had been made that argued that "the Union is older than the states" and that "the provision for a perpetual Union in the Articles of Confederation" was carried over into the Constitution by the "reminder that the preamble to the new Constitution gives us one of its purposes the formation of 'a more perfect Union'".[20] Concerning the White decision Stampp wrote:

In 1869, when the Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, finally rejected as untenable the case for a constitutional right of secession, it stressed this historical argument. The Union, the Court said, "never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation". Rather, "It began among the Colonies. ...It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction from the Articles of Confederation."[20]

I don't think its "legal" either, really, but when did legalities stop revolution? It would be fairly ironic if we ended up breaking up into 11 or more regional powers all loosely or not confederated. Might be for the best eventually.

[Speaker to Animals]

When states are actively acting to prevent the Federal government from doing its job, it’s a little disingenuous to frame the issue as the states refusing to do the Feds job.

It’s like framing Pablo Escobar as a guy who was simply unwilling to do the DEAs job for them. True, Pablo was no DEA agent, but his role consisted of a little more than passively refusing to bust drug dealers for the DEA.

Yeah, I think it's fucked up what they are trying to do, and what they have already done, which is why I think they need to shit or get off the pot. They need to go. This obviously is not working out.

Seriously, it wouldn't be that bad. We could still maintain mutual defenses. We could maintain open trade between ourselves. Just let Californians go live their own way of life.

[Penner]

I do believe that this case is just going to boil down to whether or not that states have to do the federal government's job. If immigration is actually a federal matter then why do states have to spend resources (man-hours, housing, food, transportations, raids, etc...) of what is expected that federal agents are required (and some may argue only they can do) to do?

Replace "immigration" with "slavery" and "states" with "states and territories" in that post. Give that a think, regarding where we are.

So you are trying to equate states that do not do the federal work of regulating illegal immigration to slave states?

[Speaker to Animals]

Read up on the Fugitive Slave Act, Penner.

[Fife]

So you are trying to equate states that do not do the federal work of regulating illegal immigration to slave states?

LOL Penn, you are my favorite meme.

[clubgop]

I do believe that this case is just going to boil down to whether or not that states have to do the federal government's job. If immigration is actually a federal matter then why do states have to spend resources (man-hours, housing, food, transportations, raids, etc...) of what is expected that federal agents are required (and some may argue only they can do) to do?

What a load of shit
1. Unfunded mandates are practically a democratic platform.

2. Now do gun laws.

3. We are talking phonecalls or having your mayor maybe not scream like a bitch everytime ICE is in the area.

[clubgop]

When states are actively acting to prevent the Federal government from doing its job, it’s a little disingenuous to frame the issue as the states refusing to do the Feds job.

It’s like framing Pablo Escobar as a guy who was simply unwilling to do the DEAs job for them. True, Pablo was no DEA agent, but his role consisted of a little more than passively refusing to bust drug dealers for the DEA.

"Yeah we're the cops, you actually think we enforce the law."

[DBTrek]

Highlights of California's Sanctuary State law:

• * Prohibits state and local law enforcement from holding illegal aliens on the basis of federal immigration detainers, or transferring them into federal custody, unless they’ve been convicted in the last 15 years for one of a list of 31 crimes, or are a registered sex offender: if not, they may only be held with a warrant from a federal judge
  
  * Prohibits state and local law enforcement from asking anyone about their immigration status
  
  * Prohibits state and local law enforcement from sharing any information with federal immigration authorities that is not available to the general public
  
  * Prohibits state and local law enforcement from using any of their money or personnel to “investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes”
  
  * Prohibits state and local law enforcement from allowing federal immigration authorities to use space in their facilities
  
  * Grants discretion to state and local law enforcement to cooperate even less with federal immigration authorities than the bill authorizes them to, but not more

... And stuff like this:
ICE blasts Oakland mayor over her warning. She stands by her decision

AKA - California makes it illegal to help ICE, and actively thwarts their attempts to secure America's borders.

Or as Penner would say - "Just because California won't do the Feds job for them . . ."

[Okeefenokee]

The Constitution contains no language that prohibits secession, and in two places explicitly limits the federal government's powers to only those enumerated therein.

Secession is constitutional, dude.

If the document does not list such a power, then it does not exist.

LOL The Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit rape and murder, but you'll find the government rather slow to accept that as well.

Tenth Amendment:

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.

NOWHERE does the Constitution delegate to the federal government the authority to deny secession.

Murder and rape are not federal crimes, either. Dumb ass.