• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Go arizona!

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,544
Location
Washington
Actually, it doesn't. Some lower court had to use convoluted logic to say it does.

Folks, again, read the bill. Don't take my word or any other poster's word for what it says or does.

Did you read my analysis? I quoted directly from the amended bill, and stated numerous court cases that make it pretty clear that no convoluted logic is needed to see how this falls short of constitutional scrutiny.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,520
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
The AZ law essentially rescinds the power it originally delegated to the Fed gov't upon entry to the Union.

No it does not.

Art.I, Sec.8 of the U.S. Constitution

The Congress shall have Power..........To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,

This is for the application to make someone a naturalized citizen only.

However; Art.IV, Sec.4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion;.....
It does not define what an invasion consists of and if this does not meet the criteria for an invasion then there is no such thing as invasion. Nor does it say it must be an invasion force by military or other armed forces.

If the feds refuse to do their part, why can't AZ take it upon themselves to do it for them?
 

simmonsjoe

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Messages
1,662
Location
Mattaponi, Virginia, United States
I'm confused. If AZ starts defending it's borders, it would be doing the job originally delegated to the US in ArtIV sec 4 as you posted. Unless they were contracted by the US to do so wouldn't AZ be reclaiming that power?

Or is the illegal immigration issue not severe enough to call it an invasion?
 
Last edited:

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,520
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
I'm confused. If AZ starts defending it's borders, it would be doing the job originally delegated to the US in ArtIV sec 4 as you posted. Unless they were contracted by the US to do so wouldn't AZ be reclaiming that power?

Or is the illegal immigration issue not severe enough to call it an invasion?

AZ has always had the right to defend it's border. There is no reclaimation of power. Art.IV, Sec.4 says the feds SHALL defend AZ and all other states against invasion.

The power is not delegated, it is demanded, think "shall issue" as in concealed permits. The feds have not acted accordingly, so AZ can and should defend it's own border. Az, Tx, NM, Ca, and all other states that have an over abundance of illegal immigrants should file suit on the feds for failing to perform it's duty.

If 11,000 people a day (IIRC) is not an invasion, I want someone to tell me how many it takes.
 
Top