User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:22:41 PM EDT
[#1]
All power not granted to the Federal Government belong to the State.
I would think a law like this would need some very creative wording to pass constitutional muster. But what do I know??? I'm just some jackass posting drivel on the internet. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:27:04 PM EDT
[#2]
And what is the remedy if State Border Patrols aren't constitutional?
will the Nine Ringwraiths of the SCOTUS swoop down and smite them? Andrew Jackson bet they couldn't enforce their decrees, told them to pound sand, and won. will the Federal Government send the Border Patrol, the US Marshals, the FBI, the BATFEces, etc., down to the border to say "no, young state, STOP I say! You MUST leave that border unsecured!" Hey kids, can you spell political suicide for the president? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:28:17 PM EDT
[#3]
I think states should protect their borders from each other.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:28:44 PM EDT
[#4]
Couldn't they hire new state troopers but have their beats along the Mexican/US border?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:32:43 PM EDT
[#5]
State Militia units, AKA the National Guard.
Other than that, if the governor of the states decides to create a State BP they should be allowed to, or allow the property owners along the border to form an armed coalition of tresspass enforcement (AKA citizens arrest). I am all for it, and would join such a movement if given a chance that didn't interrupt my cash flow (bills must be paid...) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:38:19 PM EDT
[#6]
I think it would pass SCOTUS I mean damn as soon as they cross into that state it is a state problrem first fed second
it would be a political mess if the feds tried to keep the states from securing the border there will be a big shooting clusterfuck invlvong US LE and Mexi officals ptretty eventally and this will really be at the forefront |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:40:18 PM EDT
[#7]
Yup. G |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:46:28 PM EDT
[#8]
The constitution is a completely worthless relic. The men in power make it up as they go along. If state border patrols fit within their agenda then they will be allowed. If not, then they will not be allowed. Simple as that.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:51:01 PM EDT
[#9]
Build the wall.
Catch the illegals Toss them back No court, no body. Who really cares who catches them and tosses them back. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:51:56 PM EDT
[#10]
I don't think the Feds could squash this by sending in the FBI or even the Nazgul.
However, they do control the pursestrings...so, states that try to field these patrols would face a cut-off of certain Federal funds. It is clear to all but the blind that the men who control Bush have no desire to close our borders. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 7:54:34 PM EDT
[#11]
yeah, Nevada should protect its border from Kali. Ok, we know you're going to slide into the ocean, dont drag us down with you! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 8:07:33 PM EDT
[#12]
All Nevada has going for it is whores, organized crime, and illegal immigrant laborers.
They don't even have their own WATER. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 8:13:28 PM EDT
[#13]
And don't forget Full auto AW's Mags over 10 rounds Switch blades Hand guns you can't have CCW Face to face transfer, no FFL required  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 8:15:41 PM EDT
[#14]
It'll REALLY get interesting when Texas decides to set up a Border Patrol.
Recruiting poster: Join the TBP and drive an M1 tank at work! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 8:27:43 PM EDT
[#15]
No problems passing a constitutional muster. Any LEO (or citizen in most states) can arrest somebody for violations of the law occuring in their presence. City, State, Federal or UN laws. Now will the US Attorney or ICE refuse to accept the prisoners? The states or cities can't prosecute federal violation in their courts.
OK not really UN laws but that will spin up some of the tin foil boys around here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 8:38:58 PM EDT
[#16]
As long as Mexico sells us oil, I don't see anything happening to secure the border.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 8:48:55 PM EDT
[#17]
d'oh! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 9:50:16 PM EDT
[#18]
There should be no illusions. Patrolling the border costs a ridiculous amount of money. It's one thing for a government to say, "OK, you can do this thing." It's another thing for a government to say, "OK, we will cough up the money to do this thing for you."
I don't think anyone is opposed, in principle, to enforcing the rules we have about who we let into the country. The trouble is simply that people disagree as to how much money should be spent on it. How much is enough? A thousand dollars, a million, a billion? So you build your multi-million dollar fence around Texas, and man it with dick cheney with his shotgun and a hundred cops (each who gets paid $40/yr), and then what? When the Latinos keep coming, just in boats instead of cars, will you fill the San Diego bay with water mines? Will you check every container in every truck and ship coming into the US from MX? You could spend a trillian dollars, and still the Latinos would find a way in, as surely as we could find a way out. This is a fight to the death; and they will do anything to live. The question is: how much money do we want to spend? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 11:36:06 PM EDT
[#19]
This would not be unconstitutional. Because the states have a broad police power. When they enacted the law providing for the Border Patrol they would simply state that is was to protect their citizens from the crimes committed by those seeking to illegally gain residence within the state, yada yada yada.
As long as each state had their own patrols and it did not effect interstate or forgein commerce it should be ok. The only problem might be if the government, in this case Mex., would protest the apprehension of their citizens by the states' authorities. While the states can't enforce federal laws they could easily pass a law that requires legal immigration in order to gain residence within the state. It could be passed at the same time the border patrol is created. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2006 11:59:36 PM EDT
[#20]
I could see California putting the border patrol on the Nevada border:
"Sir, do you have any assault weapons in your vehicle?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 8:03:17 AM EDT
[#21]
I'm sure that another law enforement agency within a state would be totally legal. Hell states have their own militaries. The National Guard, many have a state defense force that is answerable only to the governor and has no federal mission, and some like Washington can consript it's citizens in times of emergency.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 8:05:50 AM EDT
[#22]
Where do I sign up? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 8:12:54 AM EDT
[#23]
Don't be so quick to knock the US Border Patrol.
They work hard at their job, but from my understanding, they lack support from upstairs. The main problem is that once illegals get in the country, they are pretty much home free. If you allowed states and towns to go after illegals once they got in the country, that would be far better than another set of fingers in the dike, so to speak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 8:21:10 AM EDT
[#24]
The ACLU would sue the state(s), and most likey win, for infringing on the "rights" of the poor unfortunate undocumented migrant workers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 8:39:20 AM EDT
[#25]
Didn't the Texas Rangers have this mission for years?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 9:18:46 AM EDT
[#26]
I thought that is what a states' National Guard was for? If not, I guess the Federal argument that the National Guard was the malitia to serve the a states' needs is flawed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 9:25:15 AM EDT
[#27]
That would be fucking brilliant. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 9:30:54 AM EDT
[#28]
I'm no lawyer, but I wonder about how they (liberals in general, ACLU in particular) might use the "Interstate Commerce " clause, especially as stretched to suit some liberal ideas. You're right that they would sue, and possibly win, especially if that fit a hidden agenda (Mexican oil, as some alluded). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 10:59:49 AM EDT
[#29]
That's an easy fix. Pass a state law saying that federal immigration violations are also state misdemeanors. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 11:18:55 AM EDT
[#30]
I would think that the State Highway Patrol would fit this bill. Didn't the .gov of SC use them to turn away nuclear materials that were being trucked across their border not long ago? Aren't they also taxed with enforcing the laws of the state? I think they have a perfectly legitimate role as a state border patrol provided the state writes the law(s) correctly...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 11:35:37 AM EDT
[#31]
Since the National Guard of the United States has been part of the peacetime defense establishment of the US since 1921 (National Defense Act of 1921, amended 1922 - which extended the previous Dick Act to peace), and is Federally funded, Federally organized, and Federally equipped, any governor that tried to use their state's NG as a "State Border Patrol" would find it Federalized and removed from their control ASAP. As George Wallace found out in Alabama when JFK pulled the Alabama ARNG out from under him in 1962/3. The state could use its state police / highway patrol / "rangers" or state defense force (if it has one). Since foreign relations are a function of the Federal government, it would be best done some distance back from the actual border. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2006 1:30:18 PM EDT
[#32]
Even then they would run into trouble with the Feds unless they could show that none of the Fed LE funds recieved by the state are used by the new border patrol. |
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
