Nullification: Winning States Rights Guarantees Freedom from Tyranny

I think we have a miscommunication in our exchanges. Let me state again: The Constitution does not RESERVE powers or anything else for the Federal government. It GRANTS power and authority to the extent that the States wished to empower the new Federal Government. The Constitution describes how much or how little power and authority the thirteen states collectively wished to grant. Now the Fed can reserve all the power and authority it wants, but unless the Constitution specifically allows, such action is clearly unconstitutional. To reserve something establishes that one had it to begin with and seeks to protect. The Fed began with nothing. The States created it, and GRANTED the power and authority it needed, but at the same time RESERVED rights and power for themselves while doing so for protection because the founders were wise enough to recognize that they were creating an entity greater than any one of them and probably larger than all of them. The Tenth Amendment, a part of the Bill of Rights, attached and made a part of the Constitution later, reinforces the intent of founders to limit the scope of government by illuminating and clarifying those rights which they chose to be retained by the States. It's sort of a "read my lips" type of statement. Its easy to see how a large and powerful entity could over reach its authority and power to the detriment of the individual States and a clarification of intent was in order. Also, identification and inclusion of those "God given Rights", omitted originally, subsequently were deemed appropriate now, if not a necessity, to become a part of the Constitution. The Federal Government had shown that it couldn't be trusted to tend to the interests of the collective States over its own interests and required some guidance. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Nothing has changed in 230 years, either. I agree with you that Immigration deserves its own separate argument, but my point is not Immigration itself, but I used the subject as a familiar example of tyranny caused by denial of States Rights cast upon the State of Arizona. The conundrum created by the emasculation of Arizona in attempts to resolve its problem and the abject negligence and irresponsibility on the part of the Federal Government to allow Arizona to do so or to recognize its own authority to act causes violation of other aspects of the Constitution as well. The "general welfare" clause, one of three used often to negate States Rights, grants the "…power to lay and collect taxes…. .and provide for…general welfare…"(Art. I, Sec.8, Cl 1). It grants the power but does not impose responsibility to the Fed. The simple presence of illegals is, by definition, illegal. A law is violated, a crime has been committed. Nobody needs to be robbed, nor anyone killed, nor any drugs sold for there to be a violation of the law. The general welfare of the public at large, by default if not in fact, is compromised and placed in jeopardy by allowing such a condition to continue unchecked. Apparently "general welfare" is OK to cite when denying the rights to protect one's property and security, but also OK to ignore when tasked with execution of responsibility, by one's own admission. The failure to enforce or to prevent entry on the part of the Fed is not a result of conflicting policy or of uncoordinated efforts between rival agencies. It is a result of pure politics. People, generally, cross the border to arrive here not because of opportunity, they're not looking for work. They're here because everything is free. They've taken great risk to travel here. If the government provided food, housing, free medical care, free school, a big screen TV, and the opportunity to vote and vote often, by virtue of no requirement to show identification, even these illegal immigrants, newly arrived from their third world hell holes, know enough not to bite the hand which feeds them. Every illegal, here illegally, is a potentially reliable democratic vote on election day. I agree with you, too, that individual States, each with its own set of immigration laws, would create utter chaos in the enforcement of those laws. Absolutely there exists a need for a unified set of laws enforced in an organized and just manner. Note the contrast when Governor Perry (Texas) wants to give illegals free college tuition but Governor Brewer (AZ) only wants to send these people back home. Enter the Federal Government. One set of laws. An entity big enough to enforce them. Here lies the tyranny. The Fed is holding Arizona hostage by not enforcing the law and by preventing Arizona from doing so itself. All the while Arizona is required to feed, house, clothe, care for, supervise, and educate these people. Arizona can not enforce because the court says it can't . Arizona can't argue the issue in court because the court says it can't. Arizona can't enact its own laws because the court says it can't. Arizona can't compel the Fed to execute its responsibilities because the Fed has another agenda which it sees as greater than the "general welfare" of the good people of the State of Arizona. There is your tyranny, darceem. The big kid won't help the little kid nor will the big kid allow the little kid to help him/herself. Perhaps in the case of Arizona and its Immigration problem the Fed does indeed have authority and jurisdiction for the very reason which you cited earlier and that is a uniform and efficient application of the law by one central body, that being the Federal Government. But failure or refusal to act and further prevention of Arizona to exercise its own rights in the absence of Federal action also violates the mechanism of Tenth Amendment and States Rights. The States granted to the Fed certain powers and authority. Just because the States did so doesn't mean the States gave away or abandoned their own rights. The action to grant to the Fed was to cause a unified effort on behalf of all of the States. That Arizona is prevented from taking action is denying a right which it has always had. Complicit with the Fed in denying Arizona the right to action or remedy is the Court. The Court will neither allow Arizona to take action, it won't allow any discussion of the matter, nor will it provide a forum to encourage such a discussion. I don't believe our nation's founders intended such misuse of the powers of government to be used to these ends. The final result is not even unfortunately inadvertent, rather it is purposeful, methodical, and deliberate. These events can only be described as tyranny. I look forward to my opponents response