they whine about states rights only when they aren’t getting what they want. kinda like when mom says no, go to dad.
they don’t give a rats ass about states rights. they just want what they want.
The story here is not the Barrett broke with the right. The story is that four Justices think we should chunk ~200 years of legal precedent out the window and let individual states have priority over the federal government on immigration issues.
What are they going to do? Vote her out?
The party of “Family Values” continues to lose its shit any time someone suggests that human families have any value.
They whine and cry like toddlers when they don’t get their way on anything.
Maybe this brilliant legal scholar finally understands the obvious: this is what happens when you defy the fascists who put you into a position of power.
So much for states rights
It’s a Federal border. Like @danimagoo said, the real issue here is 4 justices went against 200+ years of precedence and, literally, the constitution.
Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the authority over international migration.
I think you mean Section 9, but that’s not exactly what it says. What it does say it interesting:
The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.
Odd phrasing, yeah? So what is this talking about? It’s talking about the slave trade. It says that Congress can’t restrict the slave trade prior to 1808, but they can impose a tax on each enslaved person brought into the country.
The Constitution doesn’t directly address immigration. It does briefly discuss naturalization in Section 8 (“Congress shall have power . . . to establish a uniform rule of naturalization”) but it doesn’t otherwise address immigration. It wasn’t really a concern at the time. People immigrated to the US by just showing up here. There weren’t any restrictions at the time. Later, courts decided this fell under the powers of the federal government to regulate, because it concerned federal border security. So this does come exclusively from precedent and legislation, not from the Constitution. Still…it’s ~200 years of precedent.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.