SEE: SB 1070 Hearing in Phoenix today


“Salgado's attorneys argue the judge should block the law before it takes effect because it would require the officer to use race as a primary factor in enforcing the law and because the state law is trumped by federal immigration law.”


We are continually told by our big media that Arizona’s SB-1070 law is usurping the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration. But our big media, including FOXNEWS, never points to that part of our Constitution which grants an exclusive power to Congress over immigration. And, it never does so because the word “immigration”, surprising as it may seem, does not appear in our Constitution! In fact, the exclusive power granted to Congress which is alleged to be usurped under Arizona’s SB-1070 law is Congress’ power to set the requirements under which an alien may become a naturalized citizen of the United States. The specific wording in our Constitution being a power “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization“!


The power granted to the federal government over “naturalization” does not override the various State’s policing powers which may be adopted by a State for the protection and general welfare of its citizens, nor does the State of Arizona exercising its policing power as outlined in SB-1070 interfere in any manner whatsoever with Congress’ existing requirements (existing law) by which an alien may become a citizen of the United States.


As a matter of fact, one may argue that Arizona, and every State in the Union, actually has an obligation to determine who is and who is not a “citizen of the united States” as outlined in SB-1070, because citizens of the united States, under our Constitution’s 14th Amendment, are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” the state in which they are located has to offer. But those who are not “citizens of the united States”, and especially those who have entered a State, or the United States illegally, are not entitled to those “privileges or immunities“. And so, each State has an obligation and constitutionally grounded purpose to determine who is and who is not a “citizen of the United States”. The 14th Amendment only requires that those who have entered Arizona illegally may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of the state’s due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all others persons.


BTW, those who are interested in the limited power granted to Congress concerning its power over “naturalization” as articulated by our founding fathers ought to study our nation’s first Rule of Naturalization. For example, REPRESENTATIVE WHITE while debating the Rule of Naturalization notes the narrow limits of what “Naturalization” [a 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


In addition, REPRESENTATIVE SHERMAN, who attended the Convention which framed our Constitution expreses the very intentions for which the power [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


The irrefutable fact is, the various states never delegated to Congress their original policing powers within their borders as may apply to aliens who have entered their borders illegally, and exercising this power does not interfere with Congress’ existing rule of naturalization, PERIOD!


JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law, 1858.

Edwin Kneedler makes crap up, re-writes history for judge in Arizona SB-1070 case!


SEE: Judge doubts constitutionality of a portion of Arizona's immigration law


"The ultimate authority for enforcing (immigration laws) vests in the United States," said Edwin Kneedler, the deputy solicitor general. "The framers were very concerned that one member of the union could embroil the nation in a controversy."


Mr. Kneedler is correct that the founding fathers were concerned that one member of the union could embroil the nation in a controversy. But he made crap up when implying, that because a potential controversy may erupt over immigration “The ultimate authority for enforcing (immigration laws) vests in the United States," This is flat wrong and re-writing historical fact.


Now let us look at the irrefutable facts. The truth is, the word “immigration” does not appear in our Constitution and the power to regulate immigration at the time our Constitution was adopted, was a power exercised by each of the states and it was never relinquished or delegated to the Congress of the united States!


What was delegated to Congress was the power to set the requirements which aliens ___ regardless of what State they immigrated to ___ would have to meet to become a “citizen of the united states”, and this is the power vested in Congress to avoid the potential controversies between the States which Edwin Kneedler alluded to. And why was this specific power necessary to avoid the “controversy” Kneedler alluded to? Representative Sherman, who attended the Constitutional Convention which framed our Constitution gives us the answer to this very question, and does so in crystal clear language! 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


The truth is, our founders were very "concerned" about the quality, loyalty and virtue of immigrants who became a citizen in one of the states, because once an immigrant became a citizen of one state, they would be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States SEE: Article 4, Section 2 of the Constitution.


The very intentions for placing the power over “Naturalization” (granting citizenship) in the hands of Congress was to prevent some states from granting citizenship on easy terms or to unworthy aliens. The idea was to have Congress set a number of specific requirements an alien must meet before being granted citizenship, and the requirements were to insure a high quality immigrant population. But all this is documented in the debates over our nation’s first “Rule of Naturalization”.


Bottom line is, Edwin Kneedler is a freaken liar. The States have never relinquished their original power over immigration to the federal government, but the dimwit lawyer representing Arizona has never read our nation’s founding documents so he is at a loss to document the very intentions under which our Constitution was adopted and challenge the federal government‘s alleged authority within Arizona‘s borders over an original policing power retained by the various states.


Arizona’s lawyer needs to immediately invoke judicial notice with the court and provide the historical documentation that the intended power granted over “naturalization” is limited to the power of setting the qualifications an alien must meet to become a “citizen of the united States”.


JUDICIAL NOTICE


On the federal trial court level, judicial notice is recognized in rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence for U.S. District Courts and Magistrates. Rule 201 provides, in part, that "[a] judicially noticed fact must be one not subject to reasonable dispute in that it is either (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

Under rule 201 a trial court must take judicial notice of a well-known fact at the request of one of the parties, if the court is provided with information supporting the fact. A court also has the option to take judicial notice at its discretion, without a request from a party.


Regards,

JWK


"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law (1858)

"Arizona is not usurping federal power with SB-1070, but the big lie continues. Why?"

Because we Americans allow it to continue.

The art of preaching is very simple. "Read the Text, Explain the Text and Apply the Text". It is the same for the Constitution. If the Federal Government had been following the Constitution in the first place we would never have gotten to the point where a State had to do something about a problem that is a federal issue. (indeed the Constitution solves just about any problem we have).

Most Americans are political idiots! I am having to answer questions at work now. One Hispanic American I work with is all for sending the illegals back to their own country, and he speaks their language. Another who is illegal wanted to argue with me on this Arizona issue right on company property.

I said "Before we get into this, explain the 10th amendment."

He said "I don't know what the 10th amendment is."

I replied "Then you have no business arguing with me about it, and I don't argue with idiots."

Martinez, the American Latino started hooting and laughing! He loved it! He reminds me of my old school buddy Art Lucero.

Why is Arizona not challenging the federal government’s interfering in Arizona’s reserved policing powers which have never been relinquished to the federal government, and are constitutionally protected under the Tenth Amendment?

Without this power being challenged by Arizona, its almost as if the whole case is a set up, a contrivance, to enlarge, by an opinion of the court, the federal government’s power!


The big lie in this whole thing begins with the assumption the federal government has been granted exclusive power over “immigration” within a particular state’s borders. Fact is, as I have demonstrated at the top of the thread, the actual power granted to the federal government is that which allows Congress to create the requirements which an alien, regardless of what state that alien has immigrated to, must meet in order to become a “citizen of the United States”.

The way for Arizona to immediately challenge the federal government’s case and its assumption of power and jurisdiction is to invoke “Judicial Notice” under rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. There is actually compelling evidence on the face of the record [in such matters the Constitution is always considered part of the record] that contrary to the federal government’s contention, that it has been entrusted a supreme power over “immigration”, the word “immigration” does not even appear in the wording of the Constitution!

But what does appear in the Constitution is the 14th Amendment and Arizona, as well as every other State in the Union, actually has an obligation to determine who is and who is not a “citizen of the united States”, which is part of what SB-1070 is designed to do. Keep in mind citizens of the united States, under our Constitution’s 14th Amendment, are guaranteed the “privileges or immunities” the state in which they are located has to offer. But those who are not “citizens of the united States”, and especially those who have entered a State, or the United States illegally, are not entitled to those “privileges or immunities“. And so, each State has an obligation and constitutionally grounded purpose to determine who is and who is not a “citizen of the United States”. The 14th Amendment only requires that those who have entered Arizona illegally may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the benefit of Arizona’s due process of law being applied to them equally, as it is applied to all others persons within the jurisdictional limits of Arizona.

If Arizona does not challenge the federal government’s assumption of power, and there is still time to do so, the court assumes such power exists and it then becomes the burden of Arizona to defend against a power which really has been usurped.

So, once again I ask the questions, why can’t our “conservative” radio talk show hosts get the argument right?

Who among the following list has pointed out the facts documented at the top of this thread? Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Schnitt, Mark Levin, Dennis Prager, Bill O'rielly, Mike Gallagher, Lee Rodgers, Neal Boortz. Tammy Bruce, Monica Crowley, Sean Hannity …. WHO?


Regards,
JWK


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.___ Tenth Amendment

Why?
"Federal Government Working to Remove Sovereignty of States."
Activist Post | July 25, 2010

Re:
"Los Zetas drug cartel seizes 2 U.S. ranches in Texas"
by Kimberly Dvorak | July 24, 2010
San Diego County Political Buzz Examiner

Despite the above story's purportedly having
been "[...]100% confirmed by second source
within the Laredo Police Department," note
the update below:

Invasion: Gangs, gun battles at Tex-Mex border;
Updated: No US ranch seizures,
51 bodies discovered in Monterrey
By Michelle Malkin • July 24, 2010 07:11 PM

In the interest of truth, NO HOAX:

Rancher claims Mexican cartels takeover Texas ranch -
Police blotter confirms story is not a hoax
August 10th, 2010

and, also by Kimberly Dvorak -
San Diego County Political Buzz Examiner,

Laredo Police Dept. finally confirms Zeta incident-2
August 13th, 2010