Being a Libertarian does not simply equate to “leave it all up to the states.”

FYI - From Stephen Carter/ProgressiveLibertarian.org.

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Being a libertarian does not simply equate to “leave it all up to the states”                

small http://haloppaydayloans.com

The idea that libertarians are just states’ rights supporters who have no problem with rights oppression on the state level is a misconception that needs to be put down.

First of all, you should read this primer on states’ rights before continuing forward. Also, states do not have rights, only people have rights.

Heard all too often from far too many people is that libertarians only want limited government at the federal level, but they’re fine with the state and local governments trouncing all over people’s rights. The sort of people being talked about here can most accurately be described as constitutionalists, but even then these types of people rarely understand the US constitution.

There are two things that need to be understood here, the first being that libertarians want a government at every level that does one thing, that is secure and protect the natural rights of all people equally by providing them a venue of recourse against aggressors. This would be the judicial system. The other thing that needs to be understood is that next to the people, the second best thing to protect our rights is a constitution which limits what governments can do. It is because of this that libertarian types strive to understand and enforce the constitutional roles of each level of government.
Something to keep in mind is that the majority of libertarians are not “pure” by any sense and are more pragmatic while using libertarian principles as a guide. While a person will say that they are opposed to for example Social Security as a federal program because the federal government is not provided this power by the constitution, they may or may not be opposed to it at the state level. A person with deeper libertarian beliefs is going to also oppose such a program at the state level, though they will recognize the legitimacy of the state to implement such a program due to the constitutional roles of government.

Touching on a highly sensitive subject, there is no official libertarian stance on abortion simply because the matter is so intricate that there are a number of views on the matter. What some libertarians will argue though is that the federal government is not granted the authority to regulate abortion and due to this the constitutional role of government dictates that this be a state issue.

However, even as people advocate this be a state issue and not a federal one, they will still advocate for the right to an abortion, though there are others who want to either restrict abortion or eliminate it. These people make up a minority though. Others will argue this does fall under federal jurisdiction. In short, it’s a mixed bag.

Marriage is another issue that seems to confuse people when it comes to libertarians. The grand majority of libertarians believe that government on all levels has absolutely no business being involved with the matter of marriage. This is another area where libertarians can be split on the matter. One group believes it is a federal matter because pragmatically this is the only way to treat all people equally under the law. Others believe that this is not a matter that the federal government has any jurisdiction over except in cases where state laws do not treat people equally. Those who believe states are able to make laws concerning marriage in any way they choose are not libertarians, this is a firm assertion regardless of what anyone claims.

Many libertarians are constitutionalists and indeed understand the constitution far greater than many self-proclaimed constitutionalists. There are those who are not constitutionalists though and are this way because they either do not understand constitutional roles of government or believe the constitution is a faulty document. Of course there are those who do support the constitutional roles of government and still believe the constitution to be a faulty document. It’s very hard to pigeonhole these people on such matters.

In short the grand majority of libertarians believe in limited government at all levels, a government that does not restrict people except to make laws criminalizing force and fraud, and constitutional roles. The government which is closest to the people is going to generally be the most efficient at delivering government services and will also be the easiest to impact as an individual rather than some large entity a thousand miles away. So yes, libertarians support the proper constitutional role of government and states’ jurisdiction while opposing discrimination at every level. This also means that libertarians support the federal government stepping in to ensure that state laws are not used in a discriminatory manner.

Again, I urge you to read this primer on states’ rights in order to get a far better understanding of the subject and the views of those who advocate states’ rights, or what is better termed as states’ jurisdiction.

By: Stephen Carter
Administrator@ProgressiveLibertarian.org

Gov. Gary Johnson's Speech at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

FYI - From RockyMountainStreams.com.

-ADY "A Regular Guy On The Issues"

The 10th Amendment Center - Nullification: Our Rightful Remedy

-ADY"A Regular Guy On The Issues"

Before You Criticize - READ THE BILL!

Eventhough they've both publicly denounced the law, Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano have admitted that they have yet to actually read it. As many of you know, I consider myself a libertarian minded person. A lot of my fellow libertarians are up in arms about this law, but I don't see any violations of civil liberties. Although the media will have you believe that the police can get all Nazi on you and demand to see your "papers," I don't find that at all. On the other hand, if the federal government does try to interfere with this law, that would be a constitutional violation of states' rights. (The 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") Also, something needs to be said about the fact that the Federal Government has failed in its duty to protect the states and enforce the law. Therefore, state governors have to do what they have to do in order to protect their citizens. So FYI...


Fact Sheet: Arizona's New Immigration Enforcement Law


Purpose of the Law:
To ensure “the cooperative enforcement of federal immigration laws throughout all of Arizona;”

To “make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona;” and

To “discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States.”


What the Law Requires:
Cooperation of and assistance by state and local officials in the enforcement of federal immigration laws to “the full extent permitted by federal law.”

During the course of “any lawful stop, detention, or arrest” made by any state or local law enforcement officer “in the enforcement of any other law or ordinance,” if the officer determines that there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien, “a reasonable attempt” shall be made to determine the immigration status of the person by verifying immigration status with the federal government pursuant to federal law (8 U.S.C. 1373(c)).

In determining whether reasonable suspicion that an individual is illegally present, the law specifically prohibits unconstitutional profiling based on “race, color, or national origin in implementing” this section of the law.

The law specifically states that an individual is presumed to be lawfully present if he or she provides a valid Arizona driver’s license or identification card, a valid form of tribal identification, or valid identification issued by any U.S. federal, state, or local entity that requires proof of legal presence as a requirement of issuance.

An individual’s immigration status may be determined ONLY by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), or a law enforcement officer authorized by the federal government to make such a determination.

ICE or CBP must be notified any time an illegal alien is released from imprisonment or fined following conviction of a violation of state or local law.

No state agency, county, city, town or other political subdivision of Arizona may enact or enforce a sanctuary policy in violation of federal law (8 U.S.C. 1644).

No official or agency may be prohibited or restricted from communicating with federal authorities for the following official purposes:

Determining eligibility for public benefits, services, or licenses;

Verifying a claim of residence if such determination is required by law;

Determining whether an alien is in compliance with federal registration requirements (8 U.S.C. 1302-1304).

Any legal resident of Arizona may file suit against any official or agency or the state or a political subdivision that enacts or enforces a sanctuary policy in violation of federal law. If the court finds a violation has occurred, the official or agency may be fined (the money would go to the Gang and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission Fund) and the person who brought the suit may be awarded court costs and reasonable attorney fees.
Compliance with certain federal immigration laws at the state level.

Violation of the federal law requiring that all aliens over the age of 13 and present in the United States for 30 days or longer must register with the federal government (8 U.S.C. 1302) is now also a violation of Arizona law.
Violation of the federal law requiring all aliens over the age of 17 to carry their alien registration document with them at all times (8 U.S.C. 1304) is now also a violation of Arizona law.

Just as under federal law, violation of these new state laws is a misdemeanor carrying a penalty of no more than 30 days in jail.

Day laborers and those who hire them to obey traffic laws and hiring laws.
It is a misdemeanor for a person seeking to pick up day laborers and transport them to a work site to block or impede the flow of traffic in order to pick up the workers.
It is a misdemeanor for day laborers to enter a motor vehicle to be transported to a work site if that motor vehicle blocks or impedes the flow of traffic to pick them up.
It is a misdemeanor for an illegal alien to knowingly apply for work, solicit work in a public place, or perform work as an employee or independent contractor in Arizona.
Compliance with Arizona’s E-Verify law.

Existing Arizona law requires every Arizona business to use E-Verify to verify the employment eligibility of every new hire. The new law requires all Arizona businesses to keep a record of such verification for the duration of the employee’s employment or for three years, whichever is longer.

Recommended Reading List for President Obama, Attorney General Eric Holder, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano(Along with those who, not having read either federal immigration law or the Arizona law, believe it is “misguided” or “unconstitutional,” or have called for a boycott of Arizona, including Arizona’s own Rep. Grijalva and the City Councils of San Francisco, Los Angeles, and others)

Note: The Supreme Court has stated clearly and often that the U.S. Constitution gives Congress “plenary power” over immigration policy, meaning that Congress has virtually unlimited authority to regulate immigration into the United States. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution says that federal law supersedes conflicting state law. In immigration matters, the courts have consistently held that this means that states may enact immigration-related laws that go as far as, but no further than, duly enacted federal laws, except in areas where Congress has specifically preempted state action. (The primary example of Congress preempting state action is 8 U.S.C. 1324b(h)(2), which prohibits states and localities from “imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens,” which is why states and localities must tie E-Verify mandates to the issuance of business licenses.) Congress has not preempted state or local action regarding any of the federal laws that the new Arizona law seeks to enforce, so long as the state law goes no further than existing federal law. The Arizona law was drafted meticulously to ensure that it complies fully with the U.S. Constitution and with federal immigration laws.

The Arizona law (SB 1070, as amended by HB 2162)—don’t worry, it’s not that long, so it shouldn’t take more than an hour to read, and that’s if you read every single word. You really should read it, though, before you publicly state whether it is misguided (President Obama) or unconstitutional (AG Holder), or whether you would have vetoed it (Secretary Napolitano). For folks like Rep. Grijalva, reading it probably won’t make much difference for you, since your goal is open borders, rather than the rule of law.
Pay special attention to the FOUR separate prohibitions on racial profiling in the bill (11-1051(B); 13-1509(C); 13-2928(D); and 13-2929(C))

Also note that the only individuals who are authorized under the law to determine an alien’s immigration status are: (1) ICE officials; (2) CBP officials; and (3) law enforcement officers “authorized by the federal government to verify or ascertain an alien’s immigration status.”

8 U.S.C. 1302—This is the federal law, first enacted in 1940, that requires every alien over the age of 13 who plans to remain in the United States for 30 days or longer to register with the federal government and be fingerprinted.

8 U.S.C. 1304—This is the federal law that requires that “every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him” by the Federal government.

8 U.S.C. 1373—This is the federal law, enacted in 1996, that prohibits states and localities from enacting or adopting so-called sanctuary policies that prohibit state or local officials from communicating with Federal officials regarding the legal status of individuals with whom they come into contact while performing their official duties. It also requires federal immigration authorities to respond to all inquiries by state and local officials about the immigration status of individuals. This section is the reason that the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC) was created—so that ICE officials would be available 24 hours a day, seven days a week to verify the immigration status of individuals at the request of state and local law enforcement officials for a duly authorized purpose.

President Obama Not Happy!..Arizona Gov. Signs Arizona Immigration Enforcement Bill Into Law.

I believe this piece of legislation is a good one in combating ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION. Notice that I said ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION because there's this stigma that if you're against illegal immigration then you must be racist. This stigma REALLY bothers me. My ancestors immigrated to the United States from Germany, but they did it LEGALLY. I have no problem whatsoever with someone wanting to come to America and make a better life for their selves and their family, I just ask that it is done legally.

Now, President Obama has publicly denounced this piece of legislation, and he's been lobbied by special interest groups to block the bill. If this happens, this is a CLEAR and BLATANT infringement of states' rights. FYI...70% of Arizonans favor this bill.

-Aaron

________________________________________________________________________________________

Via NumbersUSA.com

UPDATE 3:30 p.m. -- Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed S.B. 1070, the tough immigration enforcement bill, into law during a press conference this afternoon.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has until Saturday to sign or veto the nation's toughest illegal immigration bill, and it appears she'll announce her decision at a press conference later today. The bill would make it a crime to be in the state illegally and gives authority to local police to enforce federal immigration laws. A Rasmussen poll revealed that 70% of Arizona likely voters support the bill.

In addition to expanding the authority of local police, the bill, first offered by Sen. Russell Pearce, would also crackdown on day laborers and those who transport illegal aliens. Arizona has an estimated 460,000 illegal aliens, which ranks 7th nationally.

"Illegal is illegal," said Sen. Pearce. "We'll have less crime. We'll have lower taxes. We'll have safer neighborhoods. We'll have shorter lines in the emergency rooms. We'll have smaller classrooms."

While opponents from outside Arizona pressure Gov. Brewer, she has to consider the ramifications of her decision on her future as Arizona governor. Gov. Brewer is in a primary battle before she can run for re-election in the fall, and her primary opponent has already expressed his support for the bill. Senator John McCain, who is also in a primary battle, has publicly supported the bill.

On Thursday, Gov. Brewer announced a new border security plan that would include an increase in border patrolling by the National Guard and the use of $10 million of stimulus funds to assist local law enforcement in the border regions.

5 States Join HealthCare Lawsuit.

(CNN) - Five more states - Indiana, North Dakota, Mississippi, Nevada and Arizona - on Wednesday joined 13 others in a lawsuit against the historic overhaul of the U.S. health care system signed into law last month by President Barack Obama, the Texas attorney general announced.

The lawsuit initially filed by Florida, South Carolina, Nebraska, Texas, Utah, Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Idaho, South Dakota and Washington argues that the legislation's requirement that individuals buy health insurance violates the Constitution.

It calls the health care bill an "unprecedented encroachment on the sovereignty of the states" and asks a judge to block its enforcement.

"The Constitution nowhere authorizes the United States to mandate, either directly or under threat of penalty, that all citizens and legal residents have qualifying health care coverage," the lawsuit states.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said last month that the Obama administration expected to win any legal challenge to the health care bill.


Legal experts say the lawsuit is unlikely to succeed.

Renee Landers, a law professor at Suffolk University in Massachusetts, said the Constitution gives Congress broad power to regulate commerce and promote the general welfare of Americans.

"If the federal courts follow existing precedents of the United States Supreme Court, I don't think that the claims will be successful," Landers told CNN last month.

Separately, legislatures in three dozen states are considering proposed measures aimed at blocking elements of the health care bill. But Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University in Texas, said the Constitution says laws passed by Congress trump state laws.