Are Sacturary cities Constitutional ? I really want to Know!

  
When it comes to legislation I love gridlock, let me explain, think of all the unjust laws that our in the books of laws and then think how many that would be out there if we did not have gridlock or checks and balances. Even an opposing movement or Idea or organization can be a tool to be used to keep me or you from abusing the authority we have been blessed with in this country we do not want any organization to have too much power of authority whether it be A Church, Trade Union, Business ,Environmental Lobbyist, The Film Industry, and especially Federal Civil Government.

 I am a constitutionalist and a social conservative which means live right and you will not need civil government to punish you and that the United States Constitution is the supreme Law of the Land. I believe that a social conservative and a libertarian Idea such as The United States Constitution can coincide. You see as a social conservative we are bullied because of our Ideas on lifestyle and sometimes improperly legislated against. I am not going to assume why this happens but there is a blockade to prevent extensive legislation that hurt social conservatives and that blockade is the United States Constitution. Many times the supreme court when looking at the United States Constitution have given victories to social conservatives such as the recent decision to allow Hobby Lobby to choose what form of birth control to give their employees. I know as a constitutionalist I know our founders never dreamed that civil government would be in the affairs of business government such as birth control but that is the slow descent of where are freedoms have been taken away to argue for or against this claim of usurpation I would have to cite the constitution because again I am a Constitutionalist. I have a blog article where I discuss business and Property rights in the blog. This blog however is about sanctuary cities and if you are going to be against sanctuary cities or for them, buddy you better have a constitutional argument against or for them. I do not want to see propaganda films showing the big eyed kid being taken away from  their mother. We all know one of the biggest serial killers in England was a mother who was protected by the Father and do not show me the stats where Rape rises because of the fluctuation of Immigrants, rape is big in Chicago from illegal-immigrants as well as Chicago original residents. I want to know the constitutionality of the existence of the "Sanctuary Cities" This blog article looks at both sides of the Argument and if I feel like it I will write my opinion which is about as important as Meryl Streep's opinion on MMA Fighting.

 The Constitutional Argument For Sanctuary Cities

Under the Constitution, State and Local governments have every right to refuse to help enforce federal law. In Cases like Printz v. United States and New York v. United States 1992 the Supreme Court has ruled that the tenth amendment forbids federal "commandeering" of State Government to help enforce Federal Law.  This might help you understand why States are allowed to make laws on Abortion as well. What happened in the Printz Case The Brady Handgun Violence Act required "local chief law enforcement officers" to perform background-checks on perspective handgun purchasers, until such times as the Attorney General establishes a federal system for this purpose.

 County Sheriffs Jay Printz and Richard Mack, separately challenged the Brady Bill. In Both cases District Courts found the background checks unconstitutional.  In other words according the cases Local Government do not have to enforce Federal Law, you know like force a county clerk to marry a homosexual couple just kidding. You know what I am saying. Court cases like the one in Chicago also have said that cities and towns are free to expand the availability of social services however they please, then came the Supreme Court which ruled that cities had to give to everyone these social services including natural born and unnatural born citizens. This argument not only says that Cities do not have to enforce Federal Law but at the same time that basic social services given to citizens must be given to non citizens as well. One might argue that Jerry Brown has more authority over the "Sanctuary Cities" in California then the President of the United States due to the Tenth Amendment.

  The Constitutional Argument Against Sanctuary Cities 

  States refusing to obey federal Law can go back to where Virginia and Kentucky once blocked enforcement of the Alien and Sedition Acts passed in 1798 during the Quasi War with the French. Some states refused to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act and South Carolina also refused to enforce Federal tariffs. Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution reads This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, Shall be the Supreme Law of the Land: And the Judges in Every States shall be bound thereby, Any thing in the Constitution or laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

 What is the Law that Federal Law Enforcement are to enforce? Well that law would be found in the US Code Title 8 Chapter 12 Subchapter 2 part VIII Section 1325  

 Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. The Keyword is the United States not State. In a Recent Debate in the New  York Times Jan C. Ting a Professor at Temple University's Beasley School of Law Argued that

 It was right for these politicians to critique sanctuary policies: Laws imposed locally for the protection of illegal immigrants interfere with the normal cooperation between law enforcement agencies.
That is why the Department of Justice under Attorney General Loretta Lynch, under pressure from a Republican Congress, notified sanctuary cities that they must be in compliance with 8 USC Section 1373, which prohibits any agency from restraining the exchange of information among federal, state and local agencies regarding the immigration status of any individual. The attorney general warned that sanctuary cities would not receive Justice Department funding in the current 2017 fiscal year if they did not comply. President-elect Trump and the Republican Congress can be expected to attempt to cut other federal funding to sanctuary cities in 2017.
Any prohibition against state and local officers sharing information and cooperating with federal immigration enforcement is a threat to public safety, and should not be supported by federal funding.
Law enforcement agencies have traditionally relied on each other for support and back-up in carrying out their respective missions: It helps build trust and avoids unhappy surprises. Now, more than ever, with law enforcement officers and agencies under both scrutiny and attack, such coordination and cooperation should be facilitated and encouraged.

Well now it's my Turn

  I love the tenth amendment and the Constitution and I abhor federalism and the centralization of anything for instance why should Mississippi be forced to teach evolution and why the heck should New York be forced to teach Creation? The bottom line States have certain Sovereign rights except when they violate the Constitutional rights of others and in some case Human rights in the case of slavery many slaves were not born in this country and were treated wrongly does that mean that men and women of different states have the right to step in?  Yes because one's God given rights have been violated. State rights that involve the removal of individual rights are not protected by the Constitution and calls for the interventions if need be. The tenth amendment leaves all thing not listed in the Constitution up to the states that is why the Constitution is pure and simple. If state taxes Alcohol accordingly it has that right. The right to alcohol is not listed in the bill of rights sorry drunks deal with it. In the Case of the Printz Case we see the Brady bill as an Unconstitutional Law yes so law enforcement do not have to enforce that law see the United States constitution you know the Second Amendment.

  The Question is do Local Law Enforcement have to corporate with Federal Law Enforcement on Immigration Law? Here is the Real Question are Immigration Laws Unconstitutional? Well no obviously Immigration Laws were legally passed through Congress constitutionally and therefore have to be enforced whether local governments agree to them or not which in many case can cause a civil war so we are right at a place where this needs to go to the supreme court and I would tell Jerry Brown and Lawyers to gather their information and lets hear their case and side of the Argument and go from there. I have a indication due to recent rulings on Abortion and the hearing of testimony on whether any rights are violated especially civilians of the United States that Sanctuary cities will become legal at this time they are not deemed legal and must abide by the current immigration law. I have mentioned before Loretta Lynch pointed that out to Sanctuary cities recently. I have pointed out right now Sanctuary Cities are in no way Constitutional but States do have the right to Challenge the Current Laws that are on the books and of course if you go by the legal theory of Nullification. The Federalist Papers would say that the role of states is to "sound the Alarm" regarding any unconstitutional exercise of power by Congress which include maybe wrongful Immigration laws that might harm Human rights if there be any in the books. The Constitution according to the Federalist papers gives the Supreme Court the power to review decisions of state courts in cases arising regarding the Constitution or Federal Law. In other words lets see this thing in court before we force any Cities to abide by Federal Law and go from there. 

#Throwback Thursday Who do you blame For Illegal Immigration?

 If someone were to ask me what is the worst form of government there was I would tell them like people care what a mean Squirrel thinks. It would be slavery. Slavery is the worst form of government think about it you are treated like Property and most of all you have no say pretty much. At the birthing of this great nation a small minority owned slaves by 1840 all blacks in the north were free and the rise of slaves rose about 25% out of  that 25%, 2 percent owned were black masters owned black slaves and another percent were slaved to Native American tribes in Federal territories oh but no one wants to talk about that.
I know in my heart I could never own a slave number one I like doing things myself and number two I do not like people touching my Junk you hear that TSA!
You see some people though they're too good to do things on their own they have to have people waiting on them hand and foot that makes me very uncomfortable. You say but Poxy half of the Founders were Slave owners and Half of them were rich Plantation owners as well.
The other ones were already caught up in the abolitionist movement and was hoping the constitution would be the document that would free the slaves. 
Again people who think they could not get that crop on time were slave owners never content with the money that they could have but wanted more. You know greed like George Whitfield who hated the abuse of slaves but at the same time was okay with getting that money to line his pockets because he felt the Georgia Harvest would never get out in time. Who is going to pick that Tobacker? 

After Slavery was abolished it did not take long for people to figure ways to get those mators out by the twentieth century workers in Texas and California could travel on a temporary visa permit to get those carrots and produce out so that farmers could save money. People in Hollywood took advantage.Now think about this is the same people who will  go on strike at the drop of the hat if their standard of living is not met would hire the cheapest labor to wash their windows or vacuum their rugs. 

Because of regulations Our Government has pushed on businesses and farmers it has put them in a tough situation. THey can't lower the wages on American Citizens but it is okay if we do it on Illegals and Temporary Visa workers. I find this so stupid to wipe the slate clean on over thousands of people who have sneaked across the border and say well now you are Americans the next thing you will have them demanding the same wage and benefits as the American citizens and guess what it is already happening it is a vicious cycle. In a booming economy this would be okay but our economy sucks in a society we can barely take care of the people we got that already are drowning in our welfare system. You see most politicians want Amnesty because they are well off they have Jose and Carmelita doing their lawn and doing their dishes while the American worker has to wait for the next day off to get to take care of their lawn. You can't now pay the kid next door because he is so drunk on Ritalin or in some cities have made it Illegal for kids to babysit or mow lawns or pick tomatoes. Look if our kids were allowed to work  I doubt any of them would need Ritalin and I doubt they would want to kill anyone and Obesity would be definitely be down big time! Now think about this our country says it is against Child Labor but went to India and praised Child Labor in India for picking Cotton give me a Break but if you had your own Business and employed a few neighbor kids you would be fined big time ug We are so screwed. So when you make Illegals legal you are back where you started you are going have to find someone else to pick your tomatoes and I have no Idea where you are going to get them. If our government does not cut back on spending and stop requiring so much regulations on business for workers in the United States we are heading for disaster. Well there you go people my suggestion is do it on your own so that you do not get caught up in the vicious cycle.

I support The Dreamers Who Cross The Borders !

I would like to say that I support the dreamers that cross The Border. I support the dreamers like Burger King who has crossed the border for a better life on the other side in Canada. Yes that's Right in Canada where Burger King will Save on Taxes.That is the reason There should be no border Restrictions on those dreamers like Burger KIng. Who want to live a better life, who are tired of the oppression of 35% Corporate Income Tax who would love the joy of the cheaper Income tax in Canada. That is one of the reasons we should support the dreamers like Burger King for going to Canada.

 My hat is off to you Burger King I support you for Dreaming!!