Article I, Section Eight, clauses 15 and 16

Status
Not open for further replies.
I

Ira Aten

member
Joined
Mar 28, 2006
Messages
355
Location
Texas
I have a question. The current Congress, President, and the Media/Press, continue to put forth the idea that nothing can be done about twelve million illegal immigrants invading our country because there are too many to deal with.

I am not the brightest guy in the world, but after reading Article I, Section Eight of the Constitution, particularly clause numbers 15 and 16, there seems to be no question whatsoever, that the militia, is designated as the tool to be used in order to repel invasions. (It does not say armed invasions, it says invasions)

Can someone at least explain why the Press, Congress, nor the President, has not at least brought the issue up for discussion and debate in Congress?

I need help understanding why, when Congress admits their are at least twelve million people who have crossed our border illegally, rather than them admitting there is a resolution to at least consider that is both Constitutional, but also the ONLY legal method under that document to handle this matter, nobody in the Press, the Congress, nor the President's office, has brought up Article I, Section Eight, clause numbers 15 and 16?

After all. We have, according to Congress, had more people from other nations cross, and remain within our borders, than we have in total number of Armed Forces personnel.

How come hardly anyone at all, has at least mentioned this in the Press, Congress, or within the Executive office?

Am I just nuts, or does not the clauses within Article I, Section Eight, set out a pretty clear, and legal method constitutionally, to repel an invasion?
 
Two Words

Money - Illegal aliens in the work force help to drive down the cost of wages for legal aliens and citizens. This increases the profit margin for business that employ illegals, leading to more money that can be donated to politicians and their campaign funds.

Image - By supporting "guest worker" programs, and "fast track to citizenship", blood suck^H^H^H^H^H politicians can present the image that they are compassionate toward those less fortunate.
 
Well then, certainly none currently in office, be they Socialist, Liberatarian, Republican, Democrat, or Green Party, deserves to be re-elected.

They all need to be voted out, in mass, in the upcoming election.
 
Can someone at least explain why the Press, Congress, nor the President, has not at least brought the issue up for discussion and debate in Congress?
Click to expand...

Heck, that's an easy one. They don't WANT to do anything about the problem. Haven't you been listening to our president?
 
I understand your arguement, but I really don't agree.

The illegal immigration may be called an dinvasion by some, but what matters is the definition the word's definition when passed.

-----------------
Answers.com defines invasion as:
1.The act of invading*, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.
2.A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.
3.An intrusion or encroachment.
* and "invade" as:
1.To enter by force in order to conquer or pillage.
2.To encroach or intrude on; violate
3.To overrun as if by invading; infest
4.To enter and permeate, especially harmfully.
-----------------

They can try it, but presumably most people in congress don't agree with your interpretation, and don't feel like putting it up to SCOTUS scrutiny. And once there, it probably wouldn't pass muster.

I personally take it as definition # one.
 
Can of worms

Your question would open a larger can of words given the clauses
that come before it:

Congress shall have Power...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
Click to expand...

No one on the Hill has the spine to touch this one because it opens up
a different can of worms when it comes to the "Long War" aka The War
on Terror.

Imagine what this country would be like if we weren't constantly looking
for a war somewhere overseas? Ike warned us and he was right :(
 
Dear Dmack 901:

Well it seems to me those guys were smart enough to know to put "armed invasion" if they meant "armed". They just wrote "invasion" and your definition that you say they meant, says "1.The act of invading*, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer."

Notice it says "The act of invading" and then says "especially" the entrance of armed forces to conquer a territory. It does not exclude the conquering without guns as being an invasion, and they are claiming they are "Re-Conquering" as a "Reconquistadore" movement.

My Senator's aide, when asked if any reasonable person could consider twelve million people entering the country without permission "an invasion" responded that she certainly would define it as an invasion. But when I then pointed out the Article, and the language in it, she could not explain to me any reason why they have yet to bring it up.

My whole point is, if a mass of illegal immigrants "demands" are debated in Congress with the sole purpose of "addressing thier needs", then at least Article I, Sectin Eight, should at least get mentioned for debate, if Congress is acting for us, rather than the "Global Village".
 
Sure, They'll Solve It!

I have a question. The current Congress, President, and the Media/Press, continue to put forth the idea that nothing can be done about twelve million illegal immigrants invading our country because there are too many to deal with.
Click to expand...

Correction: with all due respect, sir, the word you're looking for is "Invaders." "Illegal immigrant" is a sugar-coated term used by politicians when "undocumented workers" isn't harsh enough, like when they're speaking to Republican voters.

The term is also invalid, as an "immigrant" by definition is someone entering the country legally.

Anyway, now that that's said, on to the solution:

National ID Cards! Yes, folks, it will solve all your problems! And if it doesn't, we'll use RFID chips instead--but rest assured, we're serious about the issues of our time...I uh...I mean, it will sort of be a moot point after the invaders get amnesty, but hey! Think of all those socialist votes and cheap laborers! And to top it off, the government gets what they've always wanted: detailed information on all American citizens, in one handy database. Everyone's happy, at least those people who matter. And don't you worry your pretty little head about abuse of the system: as long as you don't do anything the government doesn't want you to do, they won't use the system against you. That's fair, isn't it? After all, anything the government doesn't want you to do is illegal, and everything that's illegal is automatically bad anyway, right? So quit being such a party pooper and get with the program, or get a grip, or take off the tinfoil hat, or whatever we say to make you feel weird so you change your mind and we don't have to.

Never mind liberty! We need this, because it's praaagmaaatic!
 
Why NOT????

Move the current southern US border to what is currently the southern border of Panama? That will instantly make most illegal Latinos "Probationary U.S. Citizens". They would have only LOCAL voting rights. No more exports of oil or stuff we need or like, it has to stay in the U.S.! Force businesses moving south to become community stewards, paying a percentage of their gross receipts to provide water and utilities and upgrade housing to current US codes, PLUS having to pay workers the prevailing wage rates of the rest of the US. The businesses must also be ecologically sound- no pollution allowed. GIVE THEM AN INCENTIVE TO STAY HOME BY MAKING IT JUST LIKE WHAT WE HAVE NORTH OF THE CURRENT BORDER!

Illegal Asians and the millions of illegals from other continents could be required to settle in unpopulated areas of our new "Probationary State" and become Industrious American Wannabees, or collect together until their numbers allow them to move home and take over their old government and becoming their own "Probationary State", following the pattern established by our new "southern state".
 
Quote from Phetro
"Correction: with all due respect, sir, the word you're looking for is "Invaders."

I get your point, and my post, and others in this regard are specifically centered around the fact, twelve million illegal immigrants entering the border in defiance of our laws, is an "invasion". I have been pointing out Article I, Section Eight, of the Constitution addresses specifically, the manner in which invasions are to be handled.

I have sent specific inquiry to numerous Congressional and Senate representatives in order to simply ask "Why has not a Congressional Member at least addressed this portion of the Constitution, since it is the EXACT manner in which the Founders promised (in another Article) the United States Government, would protect individual States against invasions, when an invasion occurs. I have had not one single response.

But I realize your point, that Illegal Immigration to the point we are experiencing, is being done by a mass of people that are in fact "Invaders" since they are doing so by force of the masses.

But I used the term "Immigrant" in that sentence since the Congressional Representatives I have been citing, used that term, and I am trying to point out, that in my humble opinion, they are hiding from the legal citizens of America, the fact that an illegal immigrant, is in fact, and "Invader".

They additionally use the term "Guest Workers", but my understanding of the definition of a guest is an invited individual, not someone who literally breaks in to your home, or trespasses on your property. I guess if a Congressman was discussing a home being burglerized, the alleged "Burgler" would be described as an alleged "Residential Entry and Procurement Officer".

So I share your frustration, and in fact, am wondering if the definition of commonly used terms such as "guest" and "invade", mean a totally different thing once a human being steps inside the "Beltway" surrounding Washington D.C.

After all, the FF's dumbed down the language of the Constitution, specifically for simple, uneducated, agrarian individuals such as myself, so we would be able to understand it in full, for the sole purpose of securing our liberty and continuing a government, "Of the People, By the People, and For the People".

But there has to be some type of "Cosmic Vortex" surrounding the Beltway, because it seems that nobody is able to get through to them. :)
 
I’ll say this here once. Republicans need poor workers to exploit. Democrats need poor voters to exploit. Beyond that, this whole “illegal-alien” nonsense is just a big waste of time, effort, and attention.

~G. Fink
 
While many feel it is a wast of time, some of us still feel a duty to work toward resolution of this ridiculous issue.

Blowing off as a waste of time, Legislative, Judicial and Executive actions clearly outside our Constitution, is exactly how American Citizens in cities and states around the nation managed to lose their actual Constituional-based rights.

As example, just yesterday in San Antonio the learned Mayor of that burg claimed "the citizens of San Antonio" "are responsible for the monetary upkeep and well being, of the families of Illegal Aliens left behind who managed to avoid the INS, when their other family members were recenty deported after a raid at a pallet manufacturing company in the U.S.

Unfortunately, our education system has worked according the the plan of the enemies of the form of government we originally established.

We are supposedly, a "Representative Republic" whose legislators, executives, and judicial officers serving at a local level, are supposed to be sworn or affirmed by oath to upheld the Constitution of the United States. Damned shame, not one of them I have seen lately, appears to have read it, or even been made aware of it.

The educational system has managed to produce an entire generation which unfortunatley has inflitrated "public service" having no clue (apparantly) if a United States Constitution even exists, and if they are aware of it, they have absolutely no regard for it whatsoever.

Nikita was right apparantly when he said they would bury us from within. He just didn't tell us it would be through the schools.
 
Not enough Americans yet realize that the "invaders" here amongst us have hostile intent or that their presence is a threat. In that delusion they have been, and continue to be, whisked along by our political elite, our intellectual elite, and the mainstream media. We have been told either there is no problem or the presence of the aliens is really a plus if we will only open our eyes and see with the welcoming, compassionate orbs of our President. So far Americans have just shrugged, for the most part, and said, "What, me worry?" That L.A. County last year spent $300 million on welfare for the children of illegal aliens--about $3,000 per kid--doesn't seem to faze them. Yet. And why should it when our Mayor is more concerned about getting a pro football franchise than in looking at our real problems. Bread, circuses, and pigskin will solve all problems. In a few years it will be a chicken in every pot and a cockfight around the corner, but, hey, don't sweat it. Americans are more interested in the Viagra-like inhaler I just saw on Fox News than in illegal immigration. They didn't say if it's called Soma but I wouldn't be surprised.
 
The whole problem with illegal immigration, invasion, whatever you want to call it, is that we have an indefensible 1989-mile southern border, at least in the traditional sense of troops there protecting the border from incursion. The northern border is even worse, at 5525 miles.

The southern border, especially, is the problem, but the Canadians aren't too choosy about the type of terrorist Muslim they allow into THEIR country, so it can't be too hard for those terrorist Muslims to cross that 5525 mile border into ours.

But Mexico is the primary problem, and if my math is correct, 1989 miles = 10,501,920 feet. And if we put 1 troop every 50 feet we'd need 210,038 troops to accomplish that mission for 1 shift. Having 1 troop every 50 feet is certainly debatable, but it enjoys the advantage of pretty much assuring there's no illegals/terrorists slipping through. And, of course, we'd need to double that number so there'd be 2 x 12 hour shifts to perform the duty, plus add 10% for troops who are out sick, get hurt, emergency leaves, etc., at any given time. Those numbers are impossible to sustain based on current manpower levels.

Building a wall would cost billions, and would require a large number of active and passive sensors, and people to monitor and respond to attempted or actual breaches, but it's much more practical and "doable."

But the wall option won't be seriously considered by the leadership of either political party. They're too concerned with winning the Latino vote, and not with winning our votes. Sounds like we need to vote the bums out and elect leadership who'll take our concerns seriously.
 
Dear AFSNCO:
You are correct about voting out every single "representative" inside the Beltway.

That is the ONLY reason the border is "indefensible".

The reason we continue to have any S.O.B. that wants to walk into our country, is that the supposed "representatives" have convinced everybody in the country, and everyone in the worrld, that "our borders are indefensible".

They can be defended, and defended quickly and efficiently, were our so called "representatives" to initiate the actions described under clause no.'s four, fifteen, and sixteen of section eight, article one, of the U.S. Constitution.

The reason I say this, is if you allow the militia to enforce the laws of the union, as described under that article, or simply hint to the world that you were going to allow about ten million americans a(that many alone have logged on to the Minuteman project web site) I believe the invaders, would take the United States government seriously.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Government only seems to be interested in pursuing law abiding citizens by making legal acts illegal, while making illegal acts, legal. No wonder the invaders are laughing at us.
 
Ira,

You're right about calling up the unorganized militia. The gov't actually did that during WWII, and required younger boys and older men to bring their own weapons to serve checkpoint duty near the east coast.

Every able-bodied male between 17-45? That would be a lot of guys. You'd still have huge logistics problems to keep them fed and housed on a perpetual basis, however.
 
If we don't "wall up" Congress, SOON, any other wall won't matter. You see, there won't be a "we" to do much of anything if they have their way. That's the plan.

"We the People" is about to become "You the Rulers."
 
meanwhile, percolating up from the tar pits...


Angus Reid Global Scan : Polls & Research
Americans Want Third Major Political Party
April 25, 2006


(Angus Reid Global Scan) – Many adults in the United States believe there should be a viable alternative to Republicans and Democrats, according to a poll by Princeton Survey Research Associates for the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 53 per cent of respondents believe there should be a third major political party in the country, up three points since June 2004.

In the November 2004 congressional ballot, the Republican Party elected 232 lawmakers to the House of Representatives, while the Democratic Party secured 202 seats. The Republicans also have a majority in the Senate, with 55 members in the 100-seat upper house.

In the 2004 presidential election, Ralph Nader—running as a Reform Party candidate—received 0.34 per cent of all cast ballots. Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian Party was fourth in the race with 0.32 per cent, followed by Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party with 0.11 per cent, and David Cobb of the Green Party with 0.09 per cent.

American voters will renew the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate on Nov. 7.

Polling Data

Some people say we should have a third major political party in this country in addition to the Democrats and Republicans. Do you agree or disagree?


Apr. 2006

Jun. 2004

Agree

53%

50%

Disagree

40%

43%

Not sure

7%

7%

Source: Princeton Survey Research Associates / Pew Research Center for the People and the Press
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,501 American adults, conducted from Apr. 7 to Apr. 16, 2006. Margin of error is 3.5 per cent.
 
AFNSCO:

And now, with this coming Monday, the "Day without a Gringo" day that the invaders are attempting to intimidate shopkeepers and businesses, and gringos such as myself, from going to work on Monday, to stage theri "Day without a Gringo" Equine Fecal Matter-like demonstration. (Demonstrating they can coerce, and intimidate Americans, and American business into closing down.

Well the Constitution, in the same article, addresses insurrection, in the same manner.

So we have over twelve million illegal invaders, not only halting traffic, and wearing "plan of San Diego" tee shirts and carrying banners reading "plan of San Diego, and Reconquistidore" logos, we now have them announcing they are going to attempt to intimidate Americans into not travelling to work, or opening their businesses.

I truly believe, any reasonably honest Congressman would have to say, such actions are both, invasion, and insurrection.

It's funny. You can petition the Government, call your Congress, etc., and they pay no attention to you. A foriegn invasion and insurrection can occur, and they can (and will) shut down L.A. monday, and not one stinking peep from Congress.

But let some gunsmith try and repair a loose screw on a single action colt peacemaker ejection rod housing for some Cowboy Action shooter free of charge, and the BATF and FBI will come zip lining down from copters to make damned sure, some sort of tax gets paid, and "All Zee Paper-Vork" is complete!

Our country is going to hell in a "Made in China" Hand Basket.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
The Lautenberg Amendment Violates Sec. 1 Article 9 Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution
Replies
56
Views
4K
Legal
JRH6856
JRH6856
2
  • Locked
Commerce Clause abuse
Replies
3
Views
591
Legal
Standing Wolf
S
M
  • Locked
RKBA without invoking Amendment II
Replies
11
Views
611
Legal
DRZinn
D
B
  • Locked
The even more neglected 3rd amendment...
Replies
7
Views
883
Legal
Vang
V
2
  • Locked
Commerce Clause used to Obliterate the Individual Right to Possess Firearms
Replies
2
Views
495
Legal
El Tejon
E
Top Bottom
Back