contumacious,

Justice Miller writing for the majority in Henderson v. United States, 92 U.S. 259 (1875), held that under the commerce clause U.S. Congress has the power to regulate immigration.

“It is equally clear that the matter of these statutes may be, and ought to be, the subject of a uniform system or plan. The laws which govern the right to land passengers in the United States from other countries ought to be the same in New York, Boston, New Orleans, and San Francisco. A striking evidence of the truth of this proposition is to be found in the similarity, we might almost say in the identity, of the statutes of New York, of Louisiana, and California, now before us for consideration in these three cases.”

“We are of opinion that this whole subject has been con fided to Congress by the Constitution; that Congress can more appropriately and with more acceptance exercise it than any other body known to our law, state or national; that by providing a system of laws in these matters, applicable to all ports and to all vessels, a serious question, which has long been matter of contest and complaint, may be effectually and satisfactorily settled.”

Also, in Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889), Justice Field held,

“The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the right to exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interest of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of anyone.”

Hence in his opinion as well as others controlling the borders of a sovereign nation is an inherent power of a sovereign.

Further, while routinely accepted as a legitimate power of the courts (except to some legal scholars) to grant judicial review, Marshall conveniently points to no passage in the constitution which gives him such authority. He only states that it is an obvious and necessary result of a constitutional government. He points to the oath of office of judges, executives and legislatures of upholding the constitution and that because of this they could not allow a law to stand which is in contradiction to the constitution, yet no language in the constitution gives such a power. It is effectively grabbed by Justice Marshall and held forever because it is so inherent that it must be true. The same could be and has been said for the notion of controlling borders.

The Court did not say that ; it merely stated that the state of NY could not impose a state tax on foreign passengers while they were still on the ship.:


"The master requires of the passenger, before he is admitted on board, as a part of the passage-money the sum which he knows he must pay for the privilege of landing him in New York. It is, as we have already said, in effect a tax on the passenger, which he pays for the right to make the voyage,-a voyage only completed when he lands on the American shore. The case does not even require us to consider at what period after his arrival the passenger himself passes from the sole protection of the constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States, and becomes subject to such laws as the State may rightfully pass, as was the case in regard to importations of merchandise in Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 417, and in the License Cases, 5 How. 504.



U.S. Supreme Court
HENDERSON v. MAYOR OF CITY OF NEW YORK, 92 U.S. 259 (1875)



As I pointed out earlier in the Marbury vs. Madison decision the SCOTUS had previously ruled that if the power is not granted fedgov does not have it. I also introduced as evidence Thomas Jefferson opinion which he wrote against the 1st immigration Law which was allowed to expire two years after adoption in the year 1800.

In The Chae Chan Ping decision the Justices acknowledged that their decision contravened the Founding Fathers intent. But the Chinese presence in the US constituted an emergency which required that they usurp the power. What was the emergency? Well the Chinese did not want to work as domestic help any longer. They wanted to work in the California Gold Mines side by side with white folks. That in the racist's judges view constituted an emergency.

The court is holding that the NY statute in essence places a tax on people entering our country and that it is in the sole power of U.S. Congress to place a tax or any other barrier on immigrants entering our country. Your quote merely points out that at some point, not defined by the opinion, the immigrant becomes subject to the laws of the state they are entering. However, before they enter they cannot be faced with a tax or burden unless prescribed by the Federal Legislature.

“Since the delivery of the opinion in that case, which has become the accepted canon of construction of this clause of the Constitution, as far as it extends, the transportation of passengers from European ports to those of the United States has attained a magnitude and importance far beyond its proportion at that time to other branches of commerce. It has become a part of our commerce with foreign nations, of vast interest to this country, as well as to the immigrants who come among us to find a welcome and a home within our borders. In addition to the wealth which some of them bring, they bring still more largely the labor which we need to till our soil, build our railroads, and develop the latent resources of the country in its minerals, its manufactures, and its agriculture. Is the regulation of this great system a regulation of commerce? Can it be doubted that a law which prescribes the terms on which vessels *271 shall engage in it is a law regulating this branch of commerce?”

Justice Marshall does in fact say that in the opinion, but then goes on to usurp a power that is not so granted to the court, a branch of the federal government, which is the power to declare a law unconstitutional and therefore void. And while the words of one of the founders, and especially a prominent one such as Jefferson are helpful, they are not conclusive because he was only one of many.

“Those laborers are not citizens of the United States; they are aliens. That the government of the United States, through the action of the legislative department, can exclude aliens from its territory is a proposition which we do not think open to controversy. Jurisdiction over its own territory to that extent is an incident of every independent nation. It is a part of its independence.*604 If it could not exclude aliens it would be to that extent subject to the control of another power. As said by this court in the case of The Exchange, 7 Cranch, 116, 136, speaking by Chief Justice MARSHALL: ‘The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction. All exceptions, therefore, to the full and complete power of a nation within its own territories, must be traced up to the consent of the nation itself. They can flow from no other legitimate source.’

While under our constitution and form of government the great mass of local matters is controlled by local authorities, the United States, in their relation to foreign countries and their subjects or citizens, are one nation, invested with powers which belong to independent nations, the exercise of which can be invoked for the maintenance of its absolute independence and security throughout its entire territory. The powers to declare war, make treaties, suppress insurrection, repel invasion, regulate foreign commerce, secure republican governments to the states, and admit subjects of other nations to citizenship, are all sovereign powers, restricted in their exercise only by the constitution itself and considerations of public policy and justice which control, more or less, the conduct of all civilized nations “
-Chae Chan Ping

If you can read that and conclude that it is anything but an affirmative declaration that the United States Congress has the exclusive authority to regulate who comes in and out of this country then it is no longer necessary to debate. If you think they were wrong to say that then so be it, but to say the case does not stand for such a proposition is incorrect.

HUH?

Are you saying that it is not within the Judicial power to declare what the Law is?


Who defended the Alien and Sedition Act? And on what grounds?



How can the proposition not be open to controversy when they had previously acknowledged that:


"In discussing this question, we must not confound the rights of citizenship which a State may confer within its own limits, and the rights of citizenship as a member of the Union. It does not by any means follow, because he has all the rights and privileges of a citizen of a State, that he must be a citizen of the United States. He may have all of the rights and privileges of the citizen of a State, and yet not be entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen in any other State. For, previous to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, every State had the undoubted right to confer on whomsoever it pleased the character of citizen, and to endow him with all its rights. But this character of course was confined to the boundaries of the State, and gave him no rights or privileges in other States beyond those secured to him by the laws of nations and the comity of States. Nor have the several States surrendered the power of conferring these rights and privileges by adopting the Constitution of the United States. Each State may still confer them upon an alien, or any one it thinks proper, or upon any class or description of persons; yet he would not be a citizen in the sense in which that word is used in the Constitution of the United States, nor entitled to sue as such in one of its courts, nor to the privileges and immunities of a citizen in the other States. The rights which he would acquire would be restricted to the State which gave them. The Constitution has conferred on Congress the right to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and this right is evidently exclusive, and has always been held by this court to be so. Consequently, no State, since the adoption of the Constitution, can by naturalizing an alien invest him with the rights and privileges secured to a citizen of a State under the Federal Government, although, so far as the State alone was concerned, he would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen, and clothed with all the [60 U.S. 393, 406] rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character.

U.S. Supreme Court
DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)



So the "Chae Chan Ping" decision is Lawful IF IF IF there was an intervening amendment in which the States consented to delegate the entire spectrum of immigration to the federal government .

These are the racist/xenophobic facts advance in order to support the racist decision:

"The discovery of gold in California in 1848, as is well known, was followed by a large immigration thither from all parts of the world, attracted not only by the hope of gain from the mines, but from the great prices paid for all kinds of labor. The news of the discovery penetrated China, and laborers came from there in great numbers, a few with their own means, but by far the greater number under contract with employers, for whose benefit they worked. These laborers readily secured employment, and, as domestic servants, and in various kinds of outdoor work, proved to be exceedingly useful. For some years little opposition was made to them, except when they sought to work in the mines, but, as their numbers increased, they began to engage in various mechanical pursuits and trades, and thus came in competition with our artisans and mechanics, as well as our laborers in the field. The competition steadily increased as the laborers came in [130 U.S. 581, 595] crowds on each steamer that arrived from China, or Hong Kong, an adiacent English port. They were generally industrious and frugal. Not being accompanied by families, except in rare instances, their expenses were small; and they were content with the simplest fare, such as would not suffice for our laborers and artisans. The competition between them and our people was for this reason altogether in their favor, and the consequent irritation, proportionately deep and bitter, was followed, in many cases, by open conflicts, to the great disturbance of the public peace. The differences of race added greatly to the difficulties of the situation."


U.S. Supreme Court
CHAE CHAN PING v. U.S., 130 U.S. 581 (1889)

If you are going to down play Chae Ping by saying it used racist facts in order to advance a racist decision perhaps you should not go around quoting justice Taney in Dred Scott which held that African Americans are not citizens under the constitution and therefore have no right to sue in Federal Court. Further, Dred Scott is notoriously known as the worst decision in supreme court history. It drags original intent to the point of absurdity and bigotry.

No, I am not saying that judiciary does not have the power to declare laws unconstitutional, I am only saying that they do not have the power specifically enumerated anywhere in the text of the constitution. Rather it was implied. Marshall does not point to any text of the constitution that says that the court has the power to declare acts unconstitutional. He only says that it is a necessary conclusion, but in a longwinding more articulate manner. Just like it is a necessary conclusion that a sovereign nation has the power to control who comes in and out of the country. And clearly, this along with the commerce clause argument have carried the day and you are left in the dark declaring Dred Scott as your justification.

Under the dred scott, at best you could conclude that a state can offer citizenship, but under Chae Ping and other decisions that have followed, the Federal Government can prevent those citizens so declared by the state from remaining in the country. So give them a drivers license, and thats fine, but INS can come by the very next day and remove them from our national borders. Maybe that is the best plan, then at least we will know who they are.

Who defended the Alien and Sedition Act... Apparently, a majority of congress, and then president John Adams.

True.

But . But why is the Chae Ping decison better.?


The Founding Fathers INTENDED that they declare the law

"This exercise of judicial discretion, in determining between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens, that there are two statutes existing at one time, clashing in whole or in part with each other, and neither of them containing any repealing clause or expression. In such a case, it is the province of the courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and operation. So far as they can, by any fair construction, be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire to dictate that this should be done; where this is impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to give effect to one, in exclusion of the other. The rule which has obtained in the courts for determining their relative validity is, that the last in order of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is a mere rule of construction, not derived from any positive law, but from the nature and reason of the thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They thought it reasonable, that between the interfering acts of an EQUAL authority, that which was the last indication of its will should have the preference.

The Federalist No. 78

ALEXANDER HAMILTON
May 28, 1788


The Dred Scott decision confirms what James Madison - the Father of The Constitution - and Thomas Jefferson have stated. Without an intervening Amendment Chae Ping is an edict - a legislative act. But the SCOTUS can only declare the law - it can not legislate nor can it amend the constitution.

Actually they did NOT defend it. They allowed it to expire in 1800. We did not have an immigration Law until 1870.

And it did NOT apply to Mexicans or Canadians until 1965.

One of the fears I have heard a lot is that once these people get their citizenship they will go and sponsor their parents and other relatives who also came here legally to get citizenship as well, so it's just a longer more drawn out version of the big "amnesty" bill that went down the tubes over the summer.

__________________
Carolina Politics Online

Sam

Ah, that is one criticism I've not yet heard. In fact, that is something I've yet to think about. Good point, Sam. Are there certain loopholes that would allow them to do such a thing?

__________________
"The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom."
Isaac Asimov

Huckabee supported the Dream Act:



How do ya like that?

__________________
Formerly W.E.B. Du Bois (you can still call me "WEB")

Current Diplomacy thread
WEB Music Playlist
Protest Animal Cruelty

if this passes it is like an acceptence to me that illgeal entrey into america has happened and nothing can be done about it

__________________
If it can happen it will