ROL20100726:
Randy has the night off as he is giving another RemediesInRealEstate seminar. (Go Randy!!)
Eddie reads from Local Government Code, section 87.015, “Removal of county officers from office and filling of vacancies”, which has no provisions for removing district judges. Applications exist for this purpose. Execution is another matter.
Deborah reads an article [at 0hr19m] about a pre-trial hearing on the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona for its recently enacted law SB1070, which authorizes law enforcement officers to demand certain identification papers from certain people under certain situations. SB1070 is controversial to those who (a) haven’t read it or (b) have a special interest in its demise (foreign invaders, certain federal officials). In this hearing, United States District Judge Susan Bolton (a Clinton appointee to the federal bench in 2000) played devil’s advocate, asking seemingly tough questions of the federal attorney. (Her true colors have since become famous in her legal opinion on SB1070, declaring its most important clauses “unconstitutional”.) Deborah reads several ridiculous statements made by the federal attorney and Bolton in that pre-trial hearing.
…………
[NOTE: The article mentions the federal government’s “supreme” authority to deal with matters related to immigration. This commentator sees no such authority. The word “immigration” is not mentioned in the federal constitution. There is a mention at 1.9.1 that “The Migration…of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress…”, but that merely indicates the original thirteen States entered into the confederation (1788–1790) reserving their power (see 10th Amendment) over the “migration of such persons” the States thought “proper to admit”.
Migration encompasses both immigration and emigration and both of these activities are very short-lived, lasting only as long as it takes to cross a border. Thereafter a foreign invader is unlawfully present in, rather immigrating into, a foreign State. In either case, from time immemorial, a State’s police powers have included the arrest and prosecution of those who violate its laws. All governments, even Arizona, avail themselves of their police powers on a daily basis. The several States did not grant the federal government any police powers within the several States.
Likewise, the several States did not grant the federal government any powers concerning the subject of officers of the several States demanding identification papers of foreigners; the federal constitution is silent on this matter. Furthermore, suggestions that the several States need the permission of the federal government to deport (emigrate) a foreign invader is weak. Although SB1070 does not address deportation in any way, it nonetheless retains the right to do so. But SB1070 revolves chiefly around identification papers of persons reasonably suspected of illegal activities.
The federal constitution clause 1.8.4 states that “The Congress shall have the Power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. Immigration and naturalization are two very different activities: the former precedes the latter by a significant period of time in America. Congress is allowed to establish a “Rule of Naturalization”. But the fact that Congress may and has done so is entirely irrelevant to SB1070, which does not deal with naturalization.
I cannot find any place in the Constitution where the States granted the federal government any powers over immigration or emigration. I do not see where the topic was even discussed at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The writings of Madison and Farrand appear to be silent on the issue. Ketcham quotes from the debates of August 9, 1787 about the dangers of allowing foreigners “into our public Councils” (meaning Congress) after only a brief residence in America, but nothing at all on the act of immigration itself. (Perhaps someone else out there is aware of some historical evidence on this subject?)
Bottom line: I believe that the federal courts simply usurped State powers in the arena of immigration/emigration. I’m thinking that John Marshall, the Grand Wazoo of Judicial Activism, was involved, but that’s just a guess.
The Supremacy Clause (6.2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”) is also invoked in the article Deborah reads. What is omitted is the fact that SB1070 is based principally upon the allegedly constitutional immigration laws of the United States. If these laws are “the supreme Law of the Land”, SB1070 acknowledges them! SB1070’s intention seems to be to enforce these supreme laws. A federal law that is not enforced is the opposite of “supreme”. In reality it is no law at all.
Article 6 does not say that the States are prohibited from acting in concert with, and inferior to, the federal government. It would be absurd to suggest that uniformity in a system of laws is something to be avoided. The checks and balances in our system of government are intended to shackle humans; the laws themselves should have complete continuity. The fact that the States granted the federal government supreme authority over certain governmental activities does not automatically mean that the States have NO authority in these governmental activities. Case in point: at 1.8.9 the States granted that “Congress shall have the power…To provide for the calling forth of the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. Are we to believe that that our State governors have somehow been emasculated of their centuries-old authority to call forth the Militia to execute the laws and repel invasions? That would be too ludicrous for words.
Arizona passed a law in complete compliance with federal immigration laws; SB1070 tightly embraces these laws. Judge Bolton seems oblivious to all of this, even though 6.2 clearly states that “the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby” to the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof “.
A final story (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/62529.html) to show just how bizarre this Bolton ruling is. The Obama Administration took Arizona into court over the idea that State law enforcement could question people suspected of unlawful behavior and demand proof of identity. Nonetheless, AFTER the Bolton opinion, “President” Obama’s U.S. Border Patrol is questioning people like Glenn Jacobs (who give no indication whatsoever of being a foreign invader) and who are not suspected or accused of any unlawful behavior. This lawsuit is not about correcting injustice. It is about destroying American liberty by tightening the noose on law-abiding Americans and giving free rein to foreign invaders.]
…………
Eddie opines [0hr33m20s] that Arizona should have brought Obama to the witness stand to testify about what he has told Republican senators in the Oval Office: he will not enforce federal immigration laws until an “immigration reform” (amnesty) legislation is passed. As Eddie says, he should be imprisoned for non-enforcement of the laws of the land. Deborah notes that Obama has a personal reason to dislike SB1070: his own identification papers could be demanded in Arizona. Eddie and Deb talk about the number of ex-Goldman Sachs employees working for the Obama Administration, and the non-allegiance that goes with dual citizenship.
Dan (CT) informs us [at 0hr38m30s] that Randy will be a guest speaker at the Connecticut Libertarian Party Convention soon. He also informs us of Connecticut’s Secretary of State violating the law by urging voters registered as independent to re-register in either branch of the Republican-Democrat Party.
Mohammed (Louisiana) talks [at 0hr47m] about how his iPod was stolen, the thief was found guilty, yet is still in possession of his phone. He is encouraged to file against the parents for possession of stolen property and to go after the lying and lazy district attorney. He then tells of the thief giving him another stolen phone as a substitute. Eddie and Deborah worry of a set-up (possession of stolen property) and urge him to take that stolen phone to the police.
Jason (TX) [at 0hr56m] returns [see ROL show dated 20100709 at 3h33m] and asks very educated questions. Jason has done his homework. Eddie suggests filing criminal charges against the police for organized criminal activity, official misconduct, abuse of official capacity, etc. Jason did not receive an examination trial, which must be recorded in some way.
Anthony (CA) is interested [at 1hr12m40s] in speaking with Randy about mortgage/foreclosure issues. He learned of Randy on Alex Jones’ show. He and an association of like-minded mortgage-holders are seeking remedy and are looking into a class action proceeding. He asks about Randy’s approach and Deborah explains the basics of the RemediesInRealEstate. She suggests that he write to Randy, since he is in California giving seminars, and that Anthony call in on Thursday show.
Terry (MI) asks Eddie [at 1hr34m] about connections between the driver’s license, voter registration (that was thrust on him at DMV), and property taxes. Eddie clarifies the legal definitions of “resident” and “inhabitant” as being temporary, whereas “domicile” implies a permanent status. He also distinguishes between real, private, and personal property, as well as the fact that “resident” and “person” are sometimes defined in a way to define someone as a taxpayer. Deborah chimes in that you would want to own private, rather than real, property, and that land patents are the way to get to that end.
Danny (TX) has information [at 1hr45m30s] for Eddie on complaints against public officials.
Eddie finishes [at 1hr49m] the show by telling about his traffic seminar updates, particularly his step-by-step process for how a traffic case typically flows, and his 18 motions with which to bury the court, including the Motion for a Fair and Impartial Trial”. Look out, everyone!
ROL20100726:
Randy has the night off as he is giving another RemediesInRealEstate seminar. (Go Randy!!)
Eddie reads from Local Government Code, section 87.015, “Removal of county officers from office and filling of vacancies”, which has no provisions for removing district judges. Applications exist for this purpose. Execution is another matter.
Deborah reads an article [at 0hr19m] about a pre-trial hearing on the U.S. Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona for its recently enacted law SB1070, which authorizes law enforcement officers to demand certain identification papers from certain people under certain situations. SB1070 is controversial to those who (a) haven’t read it or (b) have a special interest in its demise (foreign invaders, certain federal officials). In this hearing, United States District Judge Susan Bolton (a Clinton appointee to the federal bench in 2000) played devil’s advocate, asking seemingly tough questions of the federal attorney. (Her true colors have since become famous in her legal opinion on SB1070, declaring its most important clauses “unconstitutional”.) Deborah reads several ridiculous statements made by the federal attorney and Bolton in that pre-trial hearing.
…………
[NOTE: The article mentions the federal government’s “supreme” authority to deal with matters related to immigration. This commentator sees no such authority. The word “immigration” is not mentioned in the federal constitution. There is a mention at 1.9.1 that “The Migration…of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress…”, but that merely indicates the original thirteen States entered into the confederation (1788–1790) reserving their power (see 10th Amendment) over the “migration of such persons” the States thought “proper to admit”.
Migration encompasses both immigration and emigration and both of these activities are very short-lived, lasting only as long as it takes to cross a border. Thereafter a foreign invader is unlawfully present in, rather immigrating into, a foreign State. In either case, from time immemorial, a State’s police powers have included the arrest and prosecution of those who violate its laws. All governments, even Arizona, avail themselves of their police powers on a daily basis. The several States did not grant the federal government any police powers within the several States.
Likewise, the several States did not grant the federal government any powers concerning the subject of officers of the several States demanding identification papers of foreigners; the federal constitution is silent on this matter. Furthermore, suggestions that the several States need the permission of the federal government to deport (emigrate) a foreign invader is weak. Although SB1070 does not address deportation in any way, it nonetheless retains the right to do so. But SB1070 revolves chiefly around identification papers of persons reasonably suspected of illegal activities.
The federal constitution clause 1.8.4 states that “The Congress shall have the Power…To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, …”. Immigration and naturalization are two very different activities: the former precedes the latter by a significant period of time in America. Congress is allowed to establish a “Rule of Naturalization”. But the fact that Congress may and has done so is entirely irrelevant to SB1070, which does not deal with naturalization.
I cannot find any place in the Constitution where the States granted the federal government any powers over immigration or emigration. I do not see where the topic was even discussed at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. The writings of Madison and Farrand appear to be silent on the issue. Ketcham quotes from the debates of August 9, 1787 about the dangers of allowing foreigners “into our public Councils” (meaning Congress) after only a brief residence in America, but nothing at all on the act of immigration itself. (Perhaps someone else out there is aware of some historical evidence on this subject?)
Bottom line: I believe that the federal courts simply usurped State powers in the arena of immigration/emigration. I’m thinking that John Marshall, the Grand Wazoo of Judicial Activism, was involved, but that’s just a guess.
The Supremacy Clause (6.2: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof…shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby…”) is also invoked in the article Deborah reads. What is omitted is the fact that SB1070 is based principally upon the allegedly constitutional immigration laws of the United States. If these laws are “the supreme Law of the Land”, SB1070 acknowledges them! SB1070’s intention seems to be to enforce these supreme laws. A federal law that is not enforced is the opposite of “supreme”. In reality it is no law at all.
Article 6 does not say that the States are prohibited from acting in concert with, and inferior to, the federal government. It would be absurd to suggest that uniformity in a system of laws is something to be avoided. The checks and balances in our system of government are intended to shackle humans; the laws themselves should have complete continuity. The fact that the States granted the federal government supreme authority over certain governmental activities does not automatically mean that the States have NO authority in these governmental activities. Case in point: at 1.8.9 the States granted that “Congress shall have the power…To provide for the calling forth of the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. Are we to believe that that our State governors have somehow been emasculated of their centuries-old authority to call forth the Militia to execute the laws and repel invasions? That would be too ludicrous for words.
Arizona passed a law in complete compliance with federal immigration laws; SB1070 tightly embraces these laws. Judge Bolton seems oblivious to all of this, even though 6.2 clearly states that “the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby” to the “Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof “.
A final story (http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/62529.html) to show just how bizarre this Bolton ruling is. The Obama Administration took Arizona into court over the idea that State law enforcement could question people suspected of unlawful behavior and demand proof of identity. Nonetheless, AFTER the Bolton opinion, “President” Obama’s U.S. Border Patrol is questioning people like Glenn Jacobs (who give no indication whatsoever of being a foreign invader) and who are not suspected or accused of any unlawful behavior. This lawsuit is not about correcting injustice. It is about destroying American liberty by tightening the noose on law-abiding Americans and giving free rein to foreign invaders.]
…………
Eddie opines [0hr33m20s] that Arizona should have brought Obama to the witness stand to testify about what he has told Republican senators in the Oval Office: he will not enforce federal immigration laws until an “immigration reform” (amnesty) legislation is passed. As Eddie says, he should be imprisoned for non-enforcement of the laws of the land. Deborah notes that Obama has a personal reason to dislike SB1070: his own identification papers could be demanded in Arizona. Eddie and Deb talk about the number of ex-Goldman Sachs employees working for the Obama Administration, and the non-allegiance that goes with dual citizenship.
Dan (CT) informs us [at 0hr38m30s] that Randy will be a guest speaker at the Connecticut Libertarian Party Convention soon. He also informs us of Connecticut’s Secretary of State violating the law by urging voters registered as independent to re-register in either branch of the Republican-Democrat Party.
Mohammed (Louisiana) talks [at 0hr47m] about how his iPod was stolen, the thief was found guilty, yet is still in possession of his phone. He is encouraged to file against the parents for possession of stolen property and to go after the lying and lazy district attorney. He then tells of the thief giving him another stolen phone as a substitute. Eddie and Deborah worry of a set-up (possession of stolen property) and urge him to take that stolen phone to the police.
Jason (TX) [at 0hr56m] returns [see ROL show dated 20100709 at 3h33m] and asks very educated questions. Jason has done his homework. Eddie suggests filing criminal charges against the police for organized criminal activity, official misconduct, abuse of official capacity, etc. Jason did not receive an examination trial, which must be recorded in some way.
Anthony (CA) is interested [at 1hr12m40s] in speaking with Randy about mortgage/foreclosure issues. He learned of Randy on Alex Jones’ show. He and an association of like-minded mortgage-holders are seeking remedy and are looking into a class action proceeding. He asks about Randy’s approach and Deborah explains the basics of the RemediesInRealEstate. She suggests that he write to Randy, since he is in California giving seminars, and that Anthony call in on Thursday show.
Terry (MI) asks Eddie [at 1hr34m] about connections between the driver’s license, voter registration (that was thrust on him at DMV), and property taxes. Eddie clarifies the legal definitions of “resident” and “inhabitant” as being temporary, whereas “domicile” implies a permanent status. He also distinguishes between real, private, and personal property, as well as the fact that “resident” and “person” are sometimes defined in a way to define someone as a taxpayer. Deborah chimes in that you would want to own private, rather than real, property, and that land patents are the way to get to that end.
Danny (TX) has information [at 1hr45m30s] for Eddie on complaints against public officials.
Eddie finishes [at 1hr49m] the show by telling about his traffic seminar updates, particularly his step-by-step process for how a traffic case typically flows, and his 18 motions with which to bury the court, including the Motion for a Fair and Impartial Trial”. Look out, everyone!