Judge Nap Is Right, But Doesn't Matter
The Market Ticker - Commentary on The Capital Markets
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.

NO MATERIAL HERE CONSTITUTES "INVESTMENT ADVICE" NOR IS IT A RECOMMENDATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO STOCKS, OPTIONS, BONDS OR FUTURES.

The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2018-06-28 09:49 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 284 references Ignore this thread
Judge Nap Is Right, But Doesn't Matter*
[Comments enabled]

So says Judge Nap

Because the Supreme Court has ruled that there are no word choice errors in the Constitution and the words of its text mean what they say, the Framers must have carefully and intentionally chosen to protect every person, not just every citizen. "Person," in this context, has been interpreted to mean any human being on American-controlled soil against whom the American government is proceeding, irrespective of how the person got there.

That's correct, but that doesn't prevent Trump from stopping an invasion without implicating said due process rights.

And let's be clear: Those coming here are not "immigrants"; they're invaders.

An "immigrant" presents themselves at a legal border crossing, explains their intentions, and requests a decision on entry, which they abide.

An invader claims they need no authorization nor will they abide the decisions of officials; they claim a right (which they do not have) to take what they want.

How do you stop invaders?

Order the border sealed, except at legal crossing points which are not US territory until you are past them, enforced by the military.

The Constitution not only authorizes this action it REQUIRES said action (Article V Section 4):

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

It is not an option or choice for the federal government to do this.

IT IS A DUTY FOR THE EXECUTIVE TO PREVENT THE INVASION OF ANY STATE BY FOREIGN NATIONALS.  PERIOD.

No entry except through lawful means at a legal border crossing, period.

And yes, period means period.  It means if necessary you shoot those who, after clear warning (which a fence plus a pointed gun certainly is, and admits no language barrier!) choose to attempt to proceed.

There is no due process right implicated in preventing an invasion.

A person coming here for the pure reason of accessing someone else's economic wealth is in fact invading for the purpose of plunder.  War is, in virtually every case, about plunder.  The taking of territory is plunder.  The taking of people (e.g. rape, assault, murder, etc) is plunder.  The theft of things (e.g. oil, cars, money, etc) is plunder.

An invader comes for the specific purpose of plunder.  Millennia of international law recognizes the right of nations to a border, to stop those who come for the purpose of plunder, and to enforce that prohibition by any means necessary including physically stopping said person by causing them to cease to be alive.

Attempt to proceed across a marked border when there are rifle barrels pointed at you is a clear declaration of your intent to invade. 

The solution to the problem of illegal immigration is to make clear that plunder will not be tolerated and it will be stopped.  There is no due process right for someone who is in the process of invading another nation.  Such an individual has in fact declared war on your nation and intends plunder upon it.

We both can, should and indeed must stop that.  A wall, along with sufficient sensors to detect attempted breaches whether over or below, may be part of the answer but it must include, in any event, fair notice that attempts to plunder our nation will be repelled before the invader sets foot on our soil and must be enforced.

Go to responses (registration required to post)
 



 
Comments.......
User: Not logged on
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ
User Info Judge Nap Is Right, But Doesn't Matter in forum [Market-Ticker] *
Login Register Top Blog Top Blog Topics FAQ