Donald Hank
Just nullify it
FacebookTwitterGoogle+
By Donald Hank
November 10, 2014

Facts and statistics on the alarming numbers of Americans killed by illegal aliens have been published from time to time, such as here, and in this list of victims of illegal aliens. In the list of the 13 most dangerous gangs in America published by Business Insider, all of ten have names in Spanish. The most dangerous gang in our cities is the Hispanic gang M-13.

We didn't get here with a government that protects our border or repatriates dangerous illegal alien criminals as it is mandated to do.

Against this backdrop, it seems inconceivable that any government official would protect illegal immigration.

Yet they do it as a matter of routine. A few days ago, Judge Susan Bolton struck down an Arizona anti-smuggling law aimed at protecting the state from criminals. Bolton's arguments rested on stereotypical far left concepts expressed in a recent Washington Times article which discussed the 'controversial' aspects of the smuggling law:

These included:
    1 – Prohibition of harboring illegal aliens

    2 – The law supposedly overlapped federal law and hence duplicated it
The law regarding harboring a fugitive criminal generally does not apply here because in most cases, the illegal alien is not the subject of a warrant. However, common sense tells us the state is entitled to protect itself if the federal government refuses to obey the law, an immutable fact not subject to discussion among rational people endowed with the instinct of survival.

The federal government has shirked its duty under Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution, which states: "The United States shall ... protect each of them [the States] against Invasion." Therefore, the States must have the right to protect themselves where the feds have failed.

The judge erred in asserting that the Arizona law duplicated federal law, for the following reason:

There is a universal assumption in legislation on all levels of government that any law that is passed by the legislature will be enforced. Otherwise the legislator would not bother to propose the law in question. Yet the US government, notably the Obama regime, has made it clear that it will not enforce the federal law that the Arizona law allegedly duplicates. Therefore the federal law is de facto no longer a law because it has been effectively annulled by the federal government that originally proposed and passed it, and no one, even a Supreme Court judge, can legitimately call it a law, because to do so would be proof that the government passed the law only as a pretense, not to accomplish the task set forth by the legislators. Consequently, the Arizona law is not a duplicate of a law because no enforced law exists to accomplish what the Arizona law attempts to accomplish – on the other hand, it can be assumed that, unlike the federal unenforced and hence annulled law, the Arizona law would be enforced, because it has been enforced since it was passed.

Further, since it is clear that the courts will do nothing but cynically prevent the states from protecting themselves, in violation of the Constitution, there is an increasing push for states to resort to a strategy called nullification, something promoted by our Founders.
This above-linked article further states that this strategy has never been upheld by the courts. But that is hardly relevant today, since the federal courts are full of judges like Susan Bolton who are part of the intended targets of nullification and would naturally not approve of the strategy. Further, in the past, there has never been a situation where the federal government obstinately refused to obey the Constitution as flagrantly as today, since roughly the 60s, and again, I refer to Article 4, Section 4, which is being unlawfully disregarded by the federal government to the undeniable detriment of We the people and the states.

Therefore, these times in which we live require something more forceful and bold than simply going begging to the Supreme Court or other corrupt court cup in hand, as it were, to assert rights clearly spelled out in the Constitution. At variance with current myth, when the Supreme Court blatantly refuses to follow the Constitution, the States have an unalienable right and duty to nullify its unlawful decisions because no government body standing outside the Constitution is a legitimate body with power over the People of the United States. Otherwise, we the people are doomed and will inevitably die as a nation at the hands of an enemy within.

After all, this decision is like forbidding passengers on a sinking ship to use lifeboats or forbidding starving people to eat produce from their own garden. States desperately need mechanisms to protect themselves from federal laws and court decisions that are unconstitutional and toxic to the States and their citizens.

It is further not inappropriate to assert that the foundation of our Constitution is common sense, because all of its clauses are clearly based thereon. Anything that annuls common sense and the basic needs for survival is, seen from that standpoint, unconstitutional, and must be opposed vigorously with all possible and necessary means.

The willingness of a gubernatorial candidate to resort to nullification if need be should be part of a litmus test of gubernatorial and other candidates for state office and those candidates who say they will not under any circumstances resort to nullification to protect their state must be made to fear for their chances of being elected.

The concept "constitutional crisis" has been abused frequently to force We the People to back down, as if we, in protecting our interests, our lives and our welfare from harmful unconstitutional deeds of government, were the guilty parties in such a crisis. But the guilty party is clearly the government itself when it opens our borders and invites hordes of invaders to enter and harm us, as it is doing at this very moment.

It is time to act, not to discuss unrealistic legalities that defy the laws of logic and reason. Such legalities are, for lack of logic and common sense, unconstitutional and we don't need any court to tell us that.

© Donald Hank

 

The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)

Click to enlarge

Donald Hank

Until July of 2009, Don Hank was operating a technical translation agency out of his home in Wrightsville, PA. He is now retired and residing in Panama with his wife and daughter.

A former language teacher, he holds an undergraduate degree in French and German from Millersville State University (PA), a Master's degree in Russian language and literature from Kutztown State College (also in PA), has studied Chinese for 3 years in Taiwan at the Mandarin Training Center, and is self-taught in other languages, having logged a total of 8 years abroad in total immersion situations.

He is also the founder of Lancaster-York Non-Custodial Parents, a volunteer organization that provides Christian counseling for non-custodial parents.

Subscribe

Receive future articles by Donald Hank: Click here

More by this author