Grassroots Network of the Republican Party of Virginia

Constitutional Issues & Remedy for AMNESTY related Vote Fraud and Vote Buying; also immigration enforcement

Constitutional Issues & Remedy for AMNESTY related Vote Fraud and Vote Buying; also immigration enforcement

There  are several points where lack of faithful execution of the US immigration laws may be a knowing and willing trespass against our Constitutions and their duly authorized laws. 

The hyperbole in citizen opinions both pro and con may or may not be warranted – Much of the uncertainty in that can be removed now by discovering the constitutional provisions
that determine what strategies are useful and what strategies are overstuffed with

The tangle of issues are persistent enough that we will likely see what is actually true.

Perhaps, we should start by separating the tangle into bit sized issues:

1)        AMNESTY for the illegal presence on an alien is not the same thing as granting citizenship is it?

Perhaps setting up a citizenship validation after voter registration could be used to invoke CONVICTION & DEPORTATION under:18USC-CHAPTER 43—FALSE PERSONATION-§911.
Citizen of the United States.”Whoever falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

Do you think this is possible in your state? Why?

2)        Yet even given a 100% & toothy stop to non-citizen voting, AMNESTY is a bit of "QUID PRO QUO to buy what lawful votes can be had from the friends
and families of person given AMNESTY. 

There are likely public records that determine if any knowing and willing criminal conduct is involved. 

It is unlikely that the mosaic of evidenced knowledge, intention, and action can be pieced together into crimes obligating indictment unless before-the-fact
and after-the-fact accessories to crime are established according to state laws that are established as the rule-of-decision by US Code. 

Do you think this is possible in your state? Why?

3)       Likewise, 
officers of the executive branch, including the POTUS, are likely to have issued
orders or directives to effect AMNESTY. 
The scope of non-usurpateous, non-felonious civil executive orders now becomes an

See “Vesting Clause Limit Analysis  

Perhaps, I misunderstand how our CONSTITUTION vests limited authority to the legislative, executive and judicial branches.  If so, how so and why? 

4)        Even if the POTUS acts against his oath to support the Constitution (A2S1C8), 

in violation of “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” (A2S2C4

by ORDERING the federal immigration law not be executed 

in what the POTUS without lawful authority calls 'AMNESTY',

then state law enforcement officials who are still oath-bound to enforce federal law as the law of the land

are still obligated to enforce the law by raising the due indictments.

The list of those who received amnesty is now subject to subpoena by a state grand jury to facilitate those indictments - given US Constitution Article VI [Legal Status of the Constitution, Supre... and supporting state law. 

Do you think this is possible in your state? Why?

5)        True, the POTUS may still pardon those indicted – BUT if your state followed Arizona’s example and incorporate the spirit & substance of the federal immigration law into their own penal codes and indictment is made under state statute then the POTUS is powerless to grant pardon
– now only your state governor may lawfully do that.  

Do you think this is true in your state? Why?

6)       Most likely the governor of your state is also oath-bound by a state constitutional requirement like “he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” (A2S2C4) . 

If so, and if your oath-bound governor is more Democrat or RINO than oath-bound governor then the requirement that the governor see that immigration laws are enforced can give you a remedy of RECALL by INDICTMENT.  It is true that a governor could pardon himself
but the utility of that is likely limited by both politics and statute.  

Do you think this is true in your state? Why?

7)       Unfunded Mandate Fiscal Remedies (applied to immigration enforcement):

In that state officers are oath-bound to support and defend the U.S. Constitution

(which inherently includes oath-bound duty under all U.S. law duly authorized by the U.S. Constitution)

when the federal government chooses to default on its federal enforcement duties

such that the burden devolves upon state and local officials

the financial cost of that burden appears to be lienable debt upon the federal Government.

I believe this is supported by both English common law and precedent regarding militia expenses, particularly when dealing with INVASION - but my ‘knowledge’ in that is not currently supported by reference links.  

Do you think this is true in your state? Why?

Related Post: http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/we-have-to-get-the-truth...

Views: 7

Reply to This








(sales help fund this site)




© 2020   Created by Tom Whitmore.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service