The States Vs. The Federal Government: Borders And The Constitution

From The Tenth Amendment Center:

States vs Feds: Borders and the Constitution




by Robert Greenslade



The battle raging between the federal government and the State of Arizona over its so-called anti immigration law has raised some constitutional issues that will ultimately be decided by the United States Supreme Court. It has been asserted by the federal government that the States are precluded from protecting their borders and controlling illegal aliens because the Constitution grants the federal government these powers. This assertion is erroneous because the individual States, as sovereign political entities, have the absolute right to protect their borders from illegal aliens irrespective of the Constitution or any power granted to the federal government.



We are constantly told that people illegally entering the country are undocumented immigrants and the federal government has jurisdiction over all matters concerning immigration. This is not the case. In fact, the word immigration does not appear any where in the Constitution. The only general power granted to the federal government concerning aliens, in times of peace, is the power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” This provision was inserted because there was, in the words of James Madison, “a dissimilarity in the rules of naturalization” among the States. By vesting this power in the federal government, as opposed to the individual States, the Founders ensured that the qualifications for becoming a citizen would be uniform throughout the several States. If the rule were not uniform, one State could impose a different standard than another State or discriminate against immigrants from certain nations. No other power is granted to the federal government concerning this subject.



The federal government also claims the duty of securing the borders of these United States rests solely with the federal government. The Constitution states: “[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion….” [See Article IV, Section 4] If aliens entering into a State from a foreign country constitute an “invasion,” then the federal government is constitutionally mandated by this provision to intervene and protect the State.



The Constitution grants the federal government the power to fulfill this duty in one of two ways. It can either use the military, or Congress can call forth the militias of the several States to repel the invasion. [See Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15] Once Congress calls forth the militia, the President, as commander in chief, has the power to direct the movement of these forces. Thus, the President could constitutionally send the State militias to any State to repel the “invasion” by illegal aliens. However, if illegal aliens pouring into the States by the millions do not constitute an “invasion,” then the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to intervene and prevent the States from protecting their borders.



Note: The National Guard is a State military force and is referred to as the organized militia. The so-called common folk who meet certain age requirements are referred to as the unorganized militia. There is no federal militia. In addition, there is no specific provision in the Constitution for the so-called Border Patrol to function within the several States. Protecting the borders of the States from illegal aliens has nothing to do with the federal government’s power “to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.” The regular military and the militia are the only entities designated in the Constitution to protect the States from invasion.



Even though the word immigration does not appear in the Constitution, the federal government claims that anything relating to immigration and the border is vested exclusively in that government. In other words, the States are prohibited by the Constitution from exercising any power that touches on these issues.



During the debates in the Virginia State Convention of 1788, John Marshall made the following statement concerning the constitutional prohibitions on State power:



“The truth is, that when power is given to the general legislature, if it was in the state legislatures before, both shall exercise it, unless there be an incompatibility in the exercise by one to that of the other, or negative words precluding the state governments from it… All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to the Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article.”



Marshall stated that if the States possessed a power prior to the adoption of the Constitution and a like power was granted to the federal government, the States retained a concurrent power unless there was a conflict in the exercise of power or there was a clause that specifically prohibited the States from exercising that power.



Alexander Hamilton made this observation, several months prior to Marshall, in his writings in the Federalist Essays. In Essay No. 32 he wrote:



“The necessity of a concurrent jurisdiction in certain cases results from the division of the sovereign power; and the rule that all authorities, of which the States are not explicitly divested in favor of the Union, remain with them in full vigor, is not a theoretical consequences of that division, but is clearly admitted by the whole tenor of the instrument which contains the articles of the proposed Constitution. We there find that, notwithstanding the affirmative grants of general authorities, there has been the most pointed care in those cases where it was deemed improper that the like authorities should reside in the States, to insert negative clauses prohibiting the exercise of them by the States. The tenth section of the first article consists altogether of such provisions. This circumstance is a clear indication of the sense of the convention, and furnishes a rule of interpretation out of the body of the act, which justifies the position I have advanced and refutes every hypothesis to the contrary.” [Bold added]





In Essay No. 82, Hamilton restated this principle and noted that there were only three instances where the “exclusively delegated” rule would apply:



“The principles established in a former paper teach us that the States will retain all preëxisting authorities which may not be exclusively delegated to the federal head; and that this exclusive delegation can only exist in one of three cases: where an exclusive authority is, in express terms, granted to the Union; or where a particular authority is granted to the Union, and the exercise of a like authority is prohibited to the States; or where an authority is granted to the Union, with which a similar authority in the States would be utterly incompatible.” [Bold not added]





As stated by Marshall and Hamilton, the States retained every preexisting power that was not exclusively delegated to the federal government. The exclusively delegated rule, as defined by Hamilton, has no application to the States concerning illegal aliens and their borders.



Marshall and Hamilton also noted that all of the constitutional prohibitions on State power are contained in Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution. A review of this section shows that it does not contain a single clause that places any restraint on State power concerning illegal aliens or protecting the borders of the several States.



In Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, the States have the power to engage war when “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit delay.” How could the States have the power to engage in war, independent of the federal government, but not have the civil authority to protect their borders?



Even if the federal government had been granted authority over foreigners in the several States, the States would not be precluded from exercising this power as well.



Since the Constitution prevents the States from maintaining a standing army, without the consent of Congress, in times of peace, the State force contemplated in Article 1, Section 10 is the State militia. Thus, the States have the constitutional authority to use the militia to protect their borders.



It should be noted that the Constitution only grants the federal government limited powers concerning use of the militias. Congress has no constitutional authority over these militias unless and until they are called into the actual service of the United States. When not in federal service, the States have exclusive authority over their militias.



This principle was discussed during the debates on the Constitution. In the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788, there was a lengthy debate concerning the militia.



Mr. HENRY wished to know what authority the state governments had over the militia.





Mr. MADISON answered, that the state governments might do what they thought proper with the militia, when they were not in the actual service of the United States.





Mr. JOHN MARSHALL The state governments do not derive their powers from the general government… The state legislatures had the power to command and govern their militia before, and still have it, undeniably, unless there is something in this Constitution that takes it away… But there are no negative words here… To me it appears, then, unquestionable that the state governments can call forth the militia, in case the Constitution should be adopted, in the same manner as they could have done before its adoption… All the restraints intended to be laid on the state governments (besides where an exclusive power is expressly given to the Congress) are contained in the 10th section of the 1st article… But what excludes every possibility of doubt, is the last part of it–that ‘no state shall engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.’ When invaded, they can engage in war, as also when in imminent danger. This proves that the states can use the militia when they find it necessary.



Marshall, who would later become Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, went on to state:





“[T]he power of governing the militia was not vested in the states by implication, because, being possessed of it antecedent to the adoption of the government, and not being divested of it by any grant or restriction in the Constitution, they must necessarily be as fully possessed of it as ever they had been.”



As stated by Marshall, since the States were not divested of the power to govern their militia they have the authority to use their militia in any manner they see fit. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a single clause that places a prohibition on State power concerning the use of their militias. If a State wants to send its militia to the border to stop intrusions by illegal aliens, it has the power to do so irrespective of the Constitution or the powers delegated to the federal government.



In California, Article 5, Section 7 of our Constitution states:



“The Governor is commander in chief of a militia that shall be provided by statute. The Governor may call it forth to execute the law.”



Thus, a governor has the constitutional authority to call forth the militia independent of the California Legislature.



The conditions under which a governor can call forth the militia is spelled out in California’s Military and Veterans Code. Section 146 grants a governor the authority to:



“[C]all into active service any portion of the active militia as may be necessary, and if the number available be insufficient, the Governor may call into active service any portion of the unorganized militia as may be necessary, in any of the following events:





a) In case of war, insurrection, rebellion, invasion, tumult, riot, breach of the peace, public calamity or catastrophe, including, but not limited to, catastrophic fires, or other emergency, or imminent danger thereof, or resistance to the laws of this state or the United States.” [Bold added]



Note: This provision grants the governor the statutory authority to use California’s militia to enforce so-called federal immigration laws within this State.



Hundreds of thousands of illegals pouring into California every year triggers several of these provisions and is nothing short of a human invasion. Thus, a governor has the statutory authority to use the militia to protect California’s border and stop the flow of illegals. Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have similar provisions in their laws.



If you have ever watched a documentary on legal immigrants entering the country through Ellis Island, you saw they were screened for any diseases. Thus, the States could employ this same standard under their police powers to protect its citizens from any potential diseases. Since the general power of protecting the health, safety and welfare of the people was reserved to the States, the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to prevent the States from performing this function.



In addition, a governor could send the State militia to the border to protect property. Other than federal land, where the States have no jurisdiction, all the property belongs to private citizens or the individual States. The federal government has no constitutional authority over this land. It is well documented that illegals are trespassing and vandalizing property during their trip north. Thus, a governor could mobilize the State militia to protect State land and private property.



California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas have the power, unrestrained by the Constitution for the United States, to engage in war with Mexico to protect their citizens and borders from the human invasion. One or all of these States should inform the clowns in Washington D.C. that we are mobilizing our militia for the trip south and we double dog dare you to try and stop us.



FYI If you read the Naturalization Acts of 1790 & 1795, which were the first two Naturalization Acts passed by Congress after the Constitution was ratified, you will note that they are not called Immigration Acts. In fact, the word immigration does not appear in either Act. These Acts negate the assertion that the Constitution made the so-called immigration process an exclusive federal function because individuals wishing to become citizens could do so through the States and their courts.



Bob Greenslade [send him email] has been writing for www.thepriceofliberty.org since 2003.



© Nitwit Press