LESSONS IN LOGIC: Latest Ruling on DACA is Perfect Example of the Subversive Agenda Hidden in the Issue of Illegal Aliens

Have you seen the news about the judge who recently ruled that President Trump cannot end the DACA program?  That ruling is unlawful.  It should be vacated and the judge should be impeached and — possibly — charged with and tried for subversion. But there are two issues here.  The first is a coordinated act of subversion on the part of the States, Courts and many politicians.  The second is a judge who has assumed the authority to aplply one set of rules to one Political Party, and another set of rules to the other.  Let’s start with the greater issue first: subversion.

Levin: ‘This is judicial tyranny. You’re viewing it now.’

We do not need to be lawyers or Constitutional ‘experts’ to see that this judge has exceeded his authority.  All we need to do is apply logic and common sense to the wording of the Constitution.  Let’s start with the only language in the Constitution related to immigration:

Article I, Section 8, Line 4

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

OK, this does not address immigration, therefore, we should assume that immigration is not under the authority of the Federal government.  I understand that they passed laws placing immigration under Federal control, but those laws are — themselves — unconstitutional.  In order to grant the federal government authority over something that is not specifically authorized in the Constitution, that area must be added by Amendment, not the passing of a law.  This means that the Federal government never had control over who was allowed into the States and, therefore, it still should not have that authority.  But look at what is addressed!

The Constitution grants the authority to regulate naturalization.  What does this mean?

NATURALIZATION, noun [See Naturalize] The act of investing an alien with the rights and privileges of a native subject or citizen. naturalization in Great Britain is only by act of parliament. In the United States, it is by act of Congress, vesting certain tribunals with the power.

Therefore, Congress does have control over the process by which a person becomes a citizen and, by this process, is granted the privileges of citizenship.  One of those privileges is the right to vote.  This means that any illegal alien who votes is breaking the law, and any State or political organization that encourages and/or helps illegals vote is also breaking the law.  This is also found in the Constitution:

Article IV, Section 4

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.

Next question: what does the Constitution mean by a ‘republican form of government?’  Well, look up what ‘republic’ meant at the time and apply that to the form of government in the several States:

REPUB’LIC, noun [Latin respublica; res and publica; public affairs.]

1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

We can keep playing these definition games, but that shouldn’t be necessary — not for any intellectually honest person seeking to understand this issue.  It should already be clear that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to regulate naturalization and to insure a republican form of government.  The ‘People’ of the States does not refer to any and all human beings living within a State, but to the citizens of those States.  We know this because the Constitution addresses the rights of citizens as opposed to aliens living within a State:

Article IV, Section 2

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

14th Amendment, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Finally, a citizen is defined as:

CITIZEN, noun

1. The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides; the freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises.

Clearly, a citizen is someone who is differentiated from a non-citizen.  The Constitution defines a citizen as someone born in the United States, or who has been naturalized.  Congress has sole authority over the process of naturalization.  If anyone other than a citizen votes, this violates the right to a republican form of government as it destroys the concept of ‘representation’ by allowing non-citizens to participate in the government.  To illustrate this in the extreme, if non-citizens are allowed to vote, then the people of the world might as well all vote in our nation’s various elections.  No!  The Constitution is clear: only citizens can vote, and a citizen is a person who is born in this country or who has been properly naturalized.

This then means that anyone — anyone — who advocates, supports, encourages or makes it possible for a non-citizen to vote is in violation of the Constitution.  Furthermore, if the case of political organizations and especially representatives and servants of the people, such an act would also constitute subversion (and in the case of public representatives and servants, a violation of their oaths).  This judge should know all of this, which means he not only violated the Constitution, but he did so willingly.  Furthermore, this judge presumed authority not granted to him by the Constitution.  In fact, he presumed the authority to usurp authority rightly given to the Congress.  This is why the judge should be removed and prosecuted for subversion.  However, we should not stop with this one judge.  We should go after all judges, politicians, and bureaucrats who have acted– in any way — to enable illegals to vote.  We should also charge any and all organizations that have provided assistance toward this end with subversion and, upon demonstrating that they have actually helped illegals to vote, we should dissolve those organizations and prosecute their leadership.  This would be the lawful way to deal with this systematic and coordinated act of organized subversion.

Fortunately, dealing with the favoritism in this specific ruling is much easier.  DACA was established by a stroke of President Obama’s pen.  This means President Trump can change or eliminate it with the stroke of a pen.  If Trump does not have such authority — as this judge claims — then Obama did not have the authority to establish DACA in the first place.  That then means DACA is unlawful and should be eliminated on that ground.  But, if Obama is going to be assumed to have had that authority, then Trump must also have the authority to change or eliminate it.  If not, the judge is committing another act of subversion by trying to usurp the President’s authority to himself and the Court.  Therefore, Trump should either be allowed to do as he wishes with DACA, or DACA should be ended on the grounds that it is unconstitutional (incidentally, DACA actually is unconstitutional.  It carries the weight of law, and, therefore, must originate in Congress.  No President has any authority to create anything that carries the weigh of law.  That would be an unconstitutional usurping of Congressional authority to the Executive.)

Either way, this ruling should be vacated and the judge removed from the bench, disbarred and prosecuted for subversion.  Anything less is to suborn lawlessness, and lawlessness by the government is — by definition — tyranny!

 

NOTICE: See how we were able to figure this out without the need for a single lawyer, Constitutional ‘expert’ or ‘authority’ of any type?  That is the way the Constitution was supposed to work, and that is the way it should still work.  Otherwise, if we need others to tell us what the Constitution means, then this is not a republic, nor is there is any principle of democracy in our government.  If we have to have authorities tell us what the law means, then we live under tyranny — plain and simple.  But one can only live under tyranny if one chooses to do so, and yes!  One has a choice!  There may be a high cost associated with that choice, but one most certainly has a choice in whether or not they will submit to other humans as their lords and masters.