 |
|
no, where do you find fault in the original 1875 supreme
Posted on: February 8, 2021 at 13:33:10 CT
tigerinhogtown STL
Posts:
62834
Member For:
23.60 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
case that immigration is commerce between nations.
Our lives are our property, exchange of property is commerce, when that exchange takes place between 2 different nations, it is commerce exchange between 2 nations which is in the federal scope, just like declaring war and making treaties.
Allowing a state to control this form of commerce can be in direct conflict with other Federal responsibilities.
"...if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity was proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government? If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, ..."
Edited by tigerinhogtown at 13:34:20 on 02/08/21
Our lives are our property, exchange of property is commerce, when that exchange takes place between 2 different nations, it is commerce exchange between 2 nations which is in the federal scope, just like declaring war and making treaties.
Allowing a state to control this form of commerce can be in direct conflict with other Federal responsibilities.
"...if this plaintiff and her twenty companions had been subjects of the Queen of Great Britain, can anyone doubt that this matter would have been the subject of international inquiry, if not of a direct claim for redress? Upon whom would such a claim be made? Not upon the State of California, for, by our Constitution, she can hold no exterior relations with other nations. It would be made upon the government of the United States. If that government should get into a difficulty which would lead to war or to suspension of intercourse, would California alone suffer, or all the Union? If we should conclude that a pecuniary indemnity was proper as a satisfaction for the injury, would California pay it, or the federal government? If that government has forbidden the states to hold negotiations with any foreign nations or to declare war and has taken the whole subject of these relations upon herself, has the Constitution, which provides for this, done so foolish a thing as to leave it in the power of the states to pass laws whose enforcement renders the general government liable to just reclamations which it must answer, ..."
Edited by tigerinhogtown at 13:34:20 on 02/08/21
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
- 
no, where do you find fault in the original 1875 supreme - tigerinhogtown STL - 2/8 13:33:10