States May Engage in War

by

From Article 1, section 10:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

I had forgotten about this clause. It seems so natural that a state should have the right to deploy their troops to defend themselves even if there were inaction at the federal level.

What this means for the US is that the flood of immigrants moving north across Arizona are nothing short of an invasion. Were the invasion peaceful, it would be hard to argue that it is an act of war. However, because the people are armed and engaging in battles, it is obviously an act of war.

The other party of the war is not, necessarily, the Mexican government. It is probably not even the Mexican states south of the border. It is obviously those gangs and other organizations that are organizing, carrying arms into Arizona, and engaging in battles. These illegal immigrants have even captured territory–territory the US government has all but surrendered to the invading mobs.

Arizona doesn’t need to wait for Barack Obama to act. The governor of Arizona could, at any time, mobilize the national guard and engage with force those invading the state. She can even go as far as to invade the territory south of her border to establish peace and order. If it were necessary, the state of Arizona could even be involved in an all-out war between itself and Mexico. All this without a word from congress or the president.

Let’s be clear here. The reason why borders exist between two countries is to delineate what is our and what is theirs. By mutual pledge, we agree to respect each other’s borders and thus the rule of law within those borders, determined by the governments over the land across the borders.

Once one of the states no longer respects the border, the two states revert to war (there being no law agreed to between the people) until they can come to a new agreement on where that border should be.

While Arizona didn’t start the war, it could quite easily finish it.

Advertisements

7 Responses to “States May Engage in War”

  1. demo kid Says:

    The governor of Arizona could, at any time, mobilize the national guard and engage with force those invading the state.

    Sorry, Charlie… but that would imply that a sovereign state would be invading Mexico. Unless you actually have the Mexican armed forces coming across the border, this entire blog post is irrelevant.

    Who precisely is misreading the Constitution now?

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      So, hold on, if a foreign nation invaded Arizona, wouldn’t Arizona have the power and authority to wage war against that nation in its self defense? The constitution says, emphatically and clearly, :”Yes.” If so, then that would mean the state and the invading nation were at war. As such, Arizona would be perfectly reasonable to invade the invading country and crush their government or people until they no longer desired to wage war on her.

      Granted, it is most likely not the Mexican government, state or federal invading Arizona. However, it is the gangs and mobsters doing so. As such, Arizona has a right and duty to wage war on them, including penetrating their territory and throwing them out of power. That means Arizona state militia crossing the border to the south and engaging in warfare with the criminal organizations there. If the Mexican government is incapable of securing her own territory, then that means they have nothing to say and are incapable of stopping Arizona from executing the war it is already engaged in.

  2. demo kid Says:

    As such, Arizona would be perfectly reasonable to invade the invading country and crush their government or people until they no longer desired to wage war on her.

    That is not what you are discussing here, at all. You’re talking about a separate, sovereign government making a decision to invade Arizona. That is not the case here.

    Granted, it is most likely not the Mexican government, state or federal invading Arizona. However, it is the gangs and mobsters doing so.

    Then you concede the point… they cannot “declare war”. An individual state or even the entire nation cannot “declare war” against private individuals or collections of private individuals according to the Constitution.

    • Jonathan Gardner Says:

      So as long as it’s violence without sanction by the government, we’re supposed to ignore it?

      I’m sorry, the real world doesn’t work that way. If there were a country that was incapable of managing its outlying territory, and those territories were harassing foreign powers, then those foreign powers have a right and a duty to invade the unruly territories.

      That is exactly what is happening in Mexico. It’s hard to argue that Mexico is run by the Mexican government, and it’s equally hard to argue that states like Arizona who are suffering at the hands of these unruly territories should stand by and wait for the Federal Government to pacify those territories.

      • demo kid Says:

        So as long as it’s violence without sanction by the government, we’re supposed to ignore it?

        Why would you assume that the only reaction would be to “declare war”? Violence without sanction by the government happens inside the US every day, and we don’t (officially) declare war on our own citizens. It is a criminal matter, not a military one.

        I’m sorry, the real world doesn’t work that way. If there were a country that was incapable of managing its outlying territory, and those territories were harassing foreign powers, then those foreign powers have a right and a duty to invade the unruly territories.

        The real world? In the real world, a US state doesn’t actually consider invading another country and starting a war with an ally of the country.

        Likewise, casus belli in general could include what you describe… but state powers from the Constitution don’t. Aside from the fact that this was written two centuries ago, when the federal government might not even know that it was invaded several days before a state government, “imminent threat” does not include criminal activity on the border.

        If that is the case, should New York declare war on Canada? I’m sure that you could argue that you could invent some “imminent threat” from people smuggling Cuban cigars from Montreal.

        That is exactly what is happening in Mexico. It’s hard to argue that Mexico is run by the Mexican government, and it’s equally hard to argue that states like Arizona who are suffering at the hands of these unruly territories should stand by and wait for the Federal Government to pacify those territories.

        No, you’re arguing for a declaration of war, and ignoring the Constitutional powers of the federal government. State governments taking over the powers granted to the federal government under the Constitution is the issue here, across the board.

      • Jonathan Gardner Says:

        Aside from the fact that this was written two centuries ago

        Of all the arguments against the constitution, this is the most absurd. The age of a clause has nothing to do with its meaning. The reason why the constitution was written was to preserve its meaning across the ages. If our founding fathers wanted a document that would lose all meaning as time flowed by, they would have said so.

        No one person has the power to rewrite the contract between the people and their government. Nor does any government, save by those conditions laid forth by the people. If we allow our constitution to mean nothing as time flows by, then we allow our government to be a tyranny over us as time flows by.

        I am arguing for a declaration of war against the gangs operating along our borders in Mexico. Let congress prepare the document immediately. We can resolve this problem in a matter of weeks, saving countless lives here and abroad in the process.

        The Federal Government must stand and defend our borders. If the Mexican Government cannot pacify Mexico, then we must, out of necessity.

        If the Federal Government fails to act, and elements from the borderlands are allowed to infiltrate and sabotage our states, then by definition of the very right to life, that state has the power to defend itself just as much as every person on this planet has the right to defend themselves regardless of what any government thinks.

        If you are unable to see what is truly happening it is because you are blind. There are videos of the endless stream of “mules” operating through our borders. There are endless stories of cops and law-abiding people injured by illegal aliens who are not coming to our country looking for work but looking to commit crime. If we do not defend our borders, we have no borders and we rightfully suffer as if there were no law because there isn’t. If the federal government won’t defend the borders, then Arizona and California and New Mexico and Texas and every other state suffering from our federal government’s inaction has the power to do so.

        The illegal immigration was never about whether we should allow poor people to come to the US and work. While that is what we talk about, that is not why people care about the issue. The illegal immigration debate is about securing our borders and having a lawful government enforce its laws fairly.

  3. Ron Hyatt Says:

    There have been instances when agents of the state, i.e. Mexican Soldiers have crossed the Border into AZ and engaged in gunfire. There’s your precedent, now buy it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: