San Fran Police Dept Cuts Ties with FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force

[IsailedawayfromFR]

It is indeed stark but the rest of the country should not be hostages to people that refuse to leave their communist areas. It's not like this is a sudden thing that no one, including them, saw coming.

If we have to relocate people from Cali, fine. Vet them like any other refugee. But they should care enough about the safety of their families to leave on their own. And if that means losing their toys and jobs, so be it. Nothing in Cali is worth the lives of ones wife and kids.

Pack up granny and go. If she won't, thats her call. If people want to stay, that's theirs as well. But screw California.

I fundamentally concur with your statement.

Having lived in CA for awhile, I would have certainly liked an opportunity to seek refuge somewhere else prior to being bombed financially.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And that's the key.  If you don't like what elected leaders in SF decide to do you are free to choose to move somewhere else.  And if you don't like what elected leaders in CA decide to do you can get the hell out of there too.  Citizens are free to choose.

----

Things change when you switch views from the city level (or state level) to the federal government level.  A federal law covers the entire nation.  Moving from SF to Dime Box, TX doesn't allow you to escape the law of the land.  In that regard citizens are not free to choose.

You are bringing up the fundamental issue of our time(and since the War between the States), and that is federalism.  Keeping a state's right to remain sovereign is fundamental in this country.

To allow the federal govt to usurp that right takes away all opportunities for someone to leave that state and better themselves.

California should remain free to rule its citizens by taxing them to death.  That is its right.  It is also a right for citizens of CA to leave for greener pastures.

Once all taxes and rules are made by the feds, there is no opportunity left.

I for one do not wish my state to have to absorb the largesse created by the govt in CA.  Let them die of their own choosing while my state prospers.

[Smokin Joe]

You are bringing up the fundamental issue of our time(and since the War between the States), and that is federalism.  Keeping a state's right to remain sovereign is fundamental in this country.

To allow the federal govt to usurp that right takes away all opportunities for someone to leave that state and better themselves.

California should remain free to rule its citizens by taxing them to death.  That is its right.  It is also a right for citizens of CA to leave for greener pastures.

Once all taxes and rules are made by the feds, there is no opportunity left.

I for one do not wish my state to have to absorb the largesse created by the govt in CA.  Let them die of their own choosing while my state prospers.

When it comes down to deciding who can be in the country legally, that is a national issue affecting all States. It is an issue over who crosses an international border and is allowed to stay--and thus, Federal.

If granny wants to pack her pipe with weed and sit on the porch, that does not so much affect the rest of the country (because granny will be subject to other State Laws when she crosses State lines. It could be argued that there is no Constitutional Authority for the Federal Government to regulate what a person consumes, so there is infringement on States' Rights for the Federal Government to act beyond its Constitutional Authority to regulate marijuana use, and that that decision should fall to the states and their legislatures.

But illegal aliens have already crossed the international border, and for a State/City to harbor them only shows contempt for national security. Providing for the common defense (against invasion) IS a Constitutional duty of the Federal Government. I don't see that as a State's Rights issue.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

When it comes down to deciding who can be in the country legally, that is a national issue affecting all States. It is an issue over who crosses an international border and is allowed to stay--and thus, Federal.

But illegal aliens have already crossed the international border, and for a State/City to harbor them only shows contempt for national security. Providing for the common defense (against invasion) IS a Constitutional duty of the Federal Government. I don't see that as a State's Rights issue.

another take:

Here is the Constitution of the State of Texas which says for the Executive Dept:

Sec. 7.  COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF MILITARY FORCES; CALLING FORTH MILITIA.  He shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State, except when they are called into actual service of the United States.  He shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions.

An invasion by a foreigners that are not US citizens in my mind can be interpreted as being an invasion.  The State has complete authority to protect its citizens, if it deems to be an invasion.

Otherwise, what type of invasion would you consider this article is written to address?

BTW, here's the equivalent for North Dakota:

The governor is commander-in-chief of the state's military forces, except when they are
called into the service of the United States, and the governor may mobilize them to execute the
laws and maintain order.


I can see the governor having the authority to execute the laws of the state to not have foreigners present in his state and to maintain order by invoking same.

[Smokin Joe]

another take:

Here is the Constitution of the State of Texas which says for the Executive Dept:

Sec. 7.  COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF OF MILITARY FORCES; CALLING FORTH MILITIA.  He shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State, except when they are called into actual service of the United States.  He shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrections, and to repel invasions.

An invasion by a foreigners that are not US citizens in my mind can be interpreted as being an invasion.  The State has complete authority to protect its citizens, if it deems to be an invasion.

Otherwise, what type of invasion would you consider this article is written to address?

BTW, here's the equivalent for North Dakota:

The governor is commander-in-chief of the state's military forces, except when they are
called into the service of the United States, and the governor may mobilize them to execute the
laws and maintain order.


I can see the governor having the authority to execute the laws of the state to not have foreigners present in his state and to maintain order by invoking same.

The way I read this:

Amendment X

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.

that while the responsibility for preventing invasion of these United States may rest with the Federal Government, that does not preclude the State taking action to prevent invasion, nor would such be prohibited to the States.
While those powers not delegated to the Untied States by the Constitution are reserved, nowhere does the Constitution say in the instance of providing for the common defense that that power is reserved solely to the Federal Government. Now, that might cause problems for the State Department in dealing with a foreign power, but in the instance that power or those who were subject to its jurisdiction have crossed the border of the State (and the United States), I would think the State would be free to act in the instance of Federal nonfeasance.

But then I am not a judge, nor an attorney.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

The way I read this: that while the responsibility for preventing invasion of these United States may rest with the Federal Government, that does not preclude the State taking action to prevent invasion, nor would such be prohibited to the States.
While those powers not delegated to the Untied States by the Constitution are reserved, nowhere does the Constitution say in the instance of providing for the common defense that that power is reserved solely to the Federal Government. Now, that might cause problems for the State Department in dealing with a foreign power, but in the instance that power or those who were subject to its jurisdiction have crossed the border of the State (and the United States), I would think the State would be free to act in the instance of Federal nonfeasance.

But then I am not a judge, nor an attorney.

So in other words, you agree that a state may declare an invasion of foreigners onto its soil is enough to trigger the imprisonment of illegals?

[Smokin Joe]

So in other words, you agree that a state may declare an invasion of foreigners onto its soil is enough to trigger the imprisonment of illegals?

I would, especially if the State has empowered its executive branch to act on such through legislation. If those people are in the country illegally, and the State is a political subdivision of the country, it follows that they are in the State illegally as well. Legislation at the State level would have to be passed to make it actionable by State authorities (a violation of State law, giving State and local LEOs the authority to act, and the state Standing in any case brought claiming they did not have that authority). The law would not contradict Federal law in its intent, and would essentially conform with the requirements for legality to be present in the country as a whole, thus avoiding questions of full faith and credit.

Now, there might be a turf battle over that, but in the absence of sufficient (or any) Federal action to quell the problem, I would think (again with State laws against being in the State without complying with Federal Immigration Law) the State could take action. However, the expense for doing so would lie with the State if they did not remand the defendant to Federal jurisprudence.