Biden Admin Uses DOJ To Push Agenda To Infringe On State's Rights

Article posted with permission from the author, Suzanne Hamner

The Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) reported that “the Biden-Harris administration has aggressively pursued litigation against red states as a means of advancing its agenda, which legal experts said could infringe on states’ rights.”

States such as Texas, which have taken steps to limit the surge of illegal migrants — reaching record levels under the Biden administration — are now facing lawsuits from the federal government. Similarly, states that passed laws contradicting the Biden administration’s positions on issues like abortion and gender have faced lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the bills.

The amount of lawsuits the Biden administration has filed is “unprecedented,” Hans​​​​ von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

• Buy All-American!
• Bring health and vitality back to your body with these non-transdermal patches
• Get your Vitamin B17 & Get 10% Off With Promo Code TIM
• How To Protect Yourself From 5G, EMF & RF Radiation – Use promo code TIM to save $$$
• The Very Best All-American Made Supplements On The Maret
• Grab This Bucket Of Heirloom Seeds & Save with Promo Code TIM
• Here’s A Way You Can Stockpile Food For The Future
• Stockpile Your Ammo & Save $15 On Your First Order
• Preparing Also Means Detoxifying – Here’s One Simple Way To Detoxify
• The Very Best Chlorine Dioxide
• All-American, US Prime, High Choice Grass-Fed Beef with NO mRNA, hormones or antibiotics… ever!

“And all of them are examples of the DOJ abusing its law enforcement power and infringing on federalism by going after the states,” he said.

Legal “experts” say this “could infringe on states’ rights”. However, looking at the Constitution for the united States of America, one can definitely say it DOES infringe on states’ rights.

An agenda or a “position” is not law. It doesn’t matter what the agenda or the position is unless that agenda or position follows the law. Agendas or positions that contradict constitutionally, righteously passed laws by Congress and then are “enforced” upon the people through edict or decision rendering are lawless usurpations that can and should be ignored. To prove this point, we can turn to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights – the first ten amendments to the Constitution.

All legislative powers are vested in Congress, consisting of the House and the Senate (Article I, Section 1). No other branch of government can make law, nor repeal law. This means the Executive Branch of government nor the Judicial Branch can make or repeal law through edict or decision rendering. The Constitution defines the powers Congress is authorized to make law in Article I, Section 8. It also places limits on Congress in Article I, Section 9. Congress can only appropriate funds for the operation of those powers, which include housekeeping duties of salaries, benefits, etc. Congress also determines the time for choosing electors and the day on which those electors cast their votes.

Article IV, Section 4 declares the states are guaranteed a Republican form of government by the “united States” and the “united States” shall protect each of them against invasion. Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution states, “The powers not delegated to the united States of the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The current administration (executive branch) holds “positions” on murder of babies in the womb and “gender” (boys using girls locker room and bathroom facilities when claiming to be girls, boys pretending to be girls playing in girls’ sports, genital mutilation for boys and girls when claiming to be another sex, etc.) Regardless of what “position” they hold, the administration possesses no authority under the Constitution to implement that position or agenda.

Article II outlines the Constitutional authority of the president of the united States. The executive branch has very little power. The executive has authority to make sure the laws are executed faithfully (Article II, Section 3) through the use of executive orders. The executive can order departments to enforce laws made pursuant to the Constitution and order departments not to enforce laws made contrary to the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it state the executive branch can push or force a position through edict or unlawful use of other branches of government outside the executive branch or under the executive branch through executive order.

Understanding this, the Biden administration has refused to enforce constitutionally passed legislation regarding immigration by Congress. Instead, executive orders have been issued to departments under the executive branch to ignore or fail to enforce immigration laws – allowing individuals to enter illegally with impunity in droves then providing lawbreakers with housing, food, utilities, etc. This violates Article II, Section 3; Article IV, Section 4; and Article I, Section 8. Congress has failed in its duty to impeach and try a president for violating the Constitution (Article I, Section 2 and Section 3) and violated Article I, Section 8 by refusing to call forth the citizenry to enforce the laws of the union and repel the invasion.

What are states to do when the federal government has failed to exercise its authorized Constitutional duties when it comes to immigration? Article I, Section 10 has the answer – “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.” Would anyone argue that unlawful entry into the country through several states does not pose an imminent danger? Would anyone argue that unlawful entry into the country in the numbers that have been experienced does not constitute an invasion? The States have the authority per the Constitution to immediately defend themselves against invasion and imminent danger. That imminent danger could be societal, economic, infrastructure, etc.

There is no authority for Congress, the executive, nor judicial branches to form “departments” or entities outside of those needed to perform the authorized duties.

Does the Department of Justice (DOJ) hold authority to initiate lawsuits to “force” States to adopt an administration position by declaring the States’ action unconstitutional? If the States are following constitutionally passed legislation by Congress, the DOJ cannot declare State actions unconstitutional. In fact, the DOJ is acting unlawfully by supporting a “position”, not law.

What about the administration’s position on murder of babies in the womb or “gender”? Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution for the united States of America does not authorize Congress to make any law regarding either of those issues. Since only Congress can make law pertaining to the limited authority given it, the States retain authority over those issues or the people. The executive branch cannot issue an executive order to bind States, the people, State entities, or departments under the executive branch to violate the law, issue instructions to refuse to enforce the law, or invent law through agenda, policy or “position”.

The DOJ sued Virginia on Friday over an initiative intended to remove non-citizens from the voter rolls “too close” to the election. Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin called it a “desperate attempt to attack the legitimacy” of the state’s elections.

“With less than 30 days until the election, the Biden-Harris Department of Justice is filing an unprecedented lawsuit against me and the Commonwealth of Virginia, for appropriately enforcing a 2006 law signed by Democrat Tim Kaine that requires Virginia to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls — a process that starts with someone declaring themselves a non-citizen and then registering to vote,” Youngkin said in a statement.

The administration likewise targeted Alabama over an effort to remove noncitizens from the voter rolls. Alabama Secretary of State Wes Allen, who announced in August that 3,251 registered voters had been issued noncitizen identification numbers by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), noted the federal government repeatedly denied requests for a list of noncitizens residing in the state.

When the state decided to tackle the issue itself, it was promptly hit with a lawsuit. Removing voters from the state registration list within 90 days of an election violates federal law, the DOJ argued.

The Biden-Harris DOJ has launched an unprecedented assault against American voters.

Just days before the election, they have sued the States of Alabama and Virginia to keep illegal aliens on the voter rolls.

One has to ask, “How did illegal aliens aka non-citizens end up on State voter rolls?” Only citizens of the States AND the united States possess the right to vote in any election, period. But, through agenda, policy, or “position”, illegal alien invaders and non-citizens were provided an exception to vote in local and State elections. Anyone who has voted knows when it comes election time during a national cycle, the voting for local offices are contained on the ballot. How does the machine know if you are a citizen or not? Are there two different access cards for voting – one for citizens and a different one for non-citizens?

The States are responsible for voter rolls. Had the States been filled with actual men and women instead of creampuffs, no illegal alien invader and non-citizen would have made it onto voter rolls. Moreover, had States only allowed citizens to obtain driver’s licenses and identification cards, there wouldn’t be the “motor/voter” issue we have today with non-citizens and illegal alien invaders possessing driver’s licenses. The States are not violating the rights of any citizen by removing illegal alien invader non-citizen voters – they are upholding the law since no non-citizen should be on the voter roll. One could argue these non-citizens are not “voters”. So, the DOJ is interfering with the election process by attempting to keep individuals voting who cannot legally vote.

Other election litigation include the DOJ’s lawsuits against Arizona in July 2022 over a proof of citizenship voting law and Georgia in June 2021 over an election integrity law.

The Supreme Court allowed Arizona to partially enforce its law in August after the Republican National Committee (RNC) intervened in a separate lawsuit brought by a left-wing activist groups. While the high court rejected a ban on casting ballots for president without proof of citizenship, the majority allowed Arizona to reject state voter registration forms that lack it.

In Georgia, Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger suggested the DOJ may have coordinated with activists on the case, requesting documents related to the Department’s decision.

“Given that it is a felony under federal law for an alien to register or vote, DOJ should be applauding the states trying to do something about this problem and helping the states defend lawsuits filed against them instead of suing the states,” von Spakovsky told the DCNF, noting the same is true in the immigration space. “The federal government needs the assistance and help of state governments and state law enforcement to enforce our immigration laws and stop the unlawful flood of illegal aliens coming into the country.”

According to federal law, the DOJ is aiding and abetting individuals to commit felonies. And, the Supreme Court “allowed Arizona to partially enforce its law ….” This is where the State of Arizona should have told the Supreme Court to pound sand. The Court concluded Arizona could enforce its law requiring officials to reject state voter registration forms that did not include proof of citizenship. However, the court rejected the requirement to have proof of citizenship when casting a vote for president or by mail. So, if they don’t need proof of citizenship to vote for president, do poll workers just issue them a ballot without being on the voter roll? It begs the question, “How does this stop illegal aliens from voting?” All an illegal alien or non-citizen has to do is request a mail-in ballot or go in to vote for president in a presidential cycle.

And the wheels of the bus go ‘round and ‘round. The Supreme Court is about as useful as a cockroach in a kitchen, at this point. It decided “it” had the authority to confer “rights”. Only God is the grantor of rights. Our framers recognized God as the giver of rights, with government being instituted to safeguard those rights. The Supreme Court erroneously decided women had the “right” to murder their unborn children. Then, the court decided to remand it to the States. Some states decided to let the people decide (majority rule). When any group of people can “vote” to decide who is worthy of life and who is not, that group of people has devolved into creatures no better than Nazi Germans, Stalin Soviets, Mao Communists, Pol Pot Marxists, or any other barbaric culture that engaged in child sacrifice.

States dilly-dally around with the out-of-control, constitution-violating federal government because they have taken the money offered to them by the feds. In any other scenario, it would be called bribery. They can’t stand in defiance when they flock to feed from the federal money trough. States were happy to turn their back on the Constitution for a dollar. Now, with the encroaching tyranny coming from the oligarchy, they don’t even have a state force or militia to call up to help them repel the tyrants. In fact, they were happy to be tyrants themselves – remember CONvid-19 interventions and lockdowns. If States want to stand in defiance, States have to stop feeding from the federal money trough and adhere completely to the Constitution, which they should have been doing all along instead of acting like diners at a buffet bar.

Just know that the federal government has not a constitutional leg to stand on when it comes to suspending law through presidential executive order, trying to force “positions” where it has no authority to act per the Constitution, and engaging in frivolous legislation to sanction States for failure to adhere to an agenda or position and refusing to violate federal law. While “legal experts” contend the actions of the administration “could infringe upon States’ rights”, the Constitution indicates the actions DO infringe upon States’ rights when reading it. At least it appears this way from someone who is not a legal expert and has never played one on TV.

Article posted with permission from Sons of Liberty Media