Makes sense, apart from the minor problem of the 10th being roundly ignored long since, and things like the commerce clause being stretched liberally to mean the feds have unlimited power and purview.

More emphasis as to why President Bush's remarks -- when asked about the MinuteMen project, saying that he "(didn't) endorse vigilantiism" -- were quite so shocking.

I voted for Bush and I'd at this point not even remotely consider abandoning the Republican Party as to my voter affiliation and support, BUT, this issue about refusing to secure our borders, to enforce immigration legislation ("the border's a hard thing to monitor" -- um, well, yeah, it is, but consider the alternatives), and more, the emphasis on discouraging citizen activity on behalf of themselves and the country as to border security...it all adds up to a very disappointing failure to my view and to that of many others, as to the huge burdens that illegal immigration have and continue to wage against our nation and our culture as a country. Not to mention having completely made unbelievable the whole notion of public services, so abused by so many and in ever increasing numbers.

Hillary Clinton is going to use this issue like a club over the heads of everyone for 2008 along with bashing Bill's Bible onto anyone and everyone she can nab at arm's and microphone's length. The Republican Party is completely mishandling the issue of illegal immigration and border security and it's disappointing to many of us.

About citizen action, yes, you're right. Everyone mostly understands this concept, too, among most conservatives, anyway, about what it means to act responsibly as a citizen in the context of "protecting and defending" our country. But many are very disrespected by whomevers when they assert that responsibility.

Jay Tea writes: Now, it may be a bit of a stretch, but like the liberals like to say, the Constitution is a "living document" and "an evolving paradigm."

Nice to see your commitment to the principle of originalism is as strong as I've been saying.

Tell us, Jay. What other line-in-the-sand principles of conservative idealism are you willing to throw away the second political expediency requires a new situational ethic?

Let me make an introduction.

s9, this is humor.

Humor, this is s9.

As to the substance, the tenth amendment makes clear that anything not prohibited specifically, the States can do. So Jay Tea's argument holds. The federal government would have to actually PROHIBIT the enforcement of its own immigration law to stop what the local sheriffs are doing.

Humor? Shouldn't the original post have been filed in the "humor" category then? (Paul is much more diligent about that gambit than Jay, it seems.)

I HATE having to explain a joke. It just sucks all the humor out of it.

That being said, s9, that one PARAGRAPH was sarcastic. The rest was not satire.

Every now and then, I just about give up on posting humorous pieces. I realize that I could never deliberately be as funny as you are unintentionally. But then I realize I don't want to let you shape my actions in any way, and I shrug it off.

J.

Jay, keep posting the funny pieces. Most people, myself included, 'get it', enjoy and laugh along with you. Others, of the humor-impaired variety don't, won't, and will never - so frig'em.

Also, it is a given that 'severe humor-impairment' is a hall mark of the looney left. But the question is, does looney-leftism cause the humor impairment, or is humor impairment required to be a looney lefter?

Also - great article. We need more like leaders like Chief Chamberlain.

- Jay - you are exactly correct but not stating it strongly enough. ( let me stray from the humor side for a moment ). You don't have to "stretch" anything. The states retain the final say and importment of any and all powers to the federation. Period. Not only can they act if the fed jumps the shark, they have the total power to act, even if the fed does and does it badly, as is the case here. The only possible exception would be if the other states as a group "vetoed" such a move and then the state in question could always susceed, and do as they please. The whole purpose of the IX and X amendments was to insure that the tail could never wag the dog.