The Jack Kimball for Gov event that the ‘Grok attended (me, Tom, Steve (miss ya, Tim!) last night was all about the 10th Amendment with Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center speaking speaking via a live stream setup; we’re working on the videos right now – had me remember this long article by Andy McCarthy over at The Corner (emphasis mine):
Perhaps because I see the Arizona situation more as a political one than a legal one, I come at it from a different angle. The nation is built on a political power-sharing arrangement in which the states maintained their sovereignty while surrendering certain powers to the national government. Two important things flow from this.
First, the states are sovereign. That is not just a slogan, it is a concept that has real meaning. Inherent in sovereignty is the natural right of self-defense. If states are no longer at liberty to protect their territories and defend their citizens, they are no longer sovereign, and the social compact on which the nation is based is broken.
Second, the presumption in our system is against the forfeiture of rights and powers. The Constitution expressly provides that unless a power has been delegated to the federal government, it is retained by the states. Our law holds that individuals are not deemed to forfeit their fundamental rights unless there has been a waiver that is clear, knowing, and voluntary. I don’t see why sovereign states would rate any less deference. This is critical because (a) the Constitution does not delegate the power of immigration enforcement to the national government (the power to set terms for naturalization, which is federal, is not a power over immigration enforcement), (b) the power to regulate immigration was understood to be retained by the states, as a core part of their police power, for the first century-plus of our nation’s history, and (c) the states have continued to exercise this power and have never forfeited it. In point of fact, until the turn of the 19th century, the pertinent question was whether the national government had any power over immigration enforcement (Jefferson, for example, was quite certain it did not). It was federal power that was dubious; state power was unquestioned. See, e.g., Joseph Baldacchino, “Regulation of Immigration Historically a State Function” (National Humanities Institute, July 19, 2010).
To me, this is the necessary context for any consideration of a federal attempt to prohibit the exercise of state police power within a state’s sovereign territory….
Once again, RTWT…and he knows this subject cold. Frankly, the fact that this topic, states’ rights, is even getting the attention it is right now is…
…the absolutely revolting display of hubris by our Political Class that rather think they are our New Royalty? Think I’m kidding?Ask yourself – why is it that the Majority Party, in each and every new law passed since the Democrats took power (both in DC and in Concord) has Government doing more and more and taking true self-governance away from individuals? Further, why is it that each of these new laws, especially what Congress has been passing, results in more and more power acceded to the Executive Branch?
