Il n'y a pas de commentaires associés a cet article. Vous pouvez réagir.
1591C’est sans doute l’un des plus intéressants commentaires sur la situation de l'Etat de l’Arizona, à quelques jours de l’entrée en vigueur de sa loi anti-immigration (le 29 juillet), alors que le gouvernement fédéral a déposé plainte contre cet Etat. L’auteur est Ray Hartwell, ancien officier de l’U.S. Navy, actuellement avocat à Wahington D.C., dans le Washington Times du 17 juillet 2010.
D’abord, Hartwell expose le cas concret de la sécurité de cet Etat à la lumière d’un précédent historique, après avoir remarqué que, face à l’attaque en justice du gouvernement central (Washington), l’Etat de l'Arizona (et ceux qui suivront l’Arizona) est loin d’être dépourvu de possibilités légales spectaculaires.
«History first. In 1916, criminal gangs rivaled the authority of the Mexican government. Led by Pancho Villa, they launched attacks against Americans on both sides of the border. Following a bloody raid that killed American soldiers and civilians in New Mexico, President Woodrow Wilson dispatched 15,000 state militia to the border and sent Gen. John J. “Black Jack” Pershing and thousands more soldiers into Mexico after Villa and his bandits. Once Pershing's force clashed with the Mexican army, Wilson ordered another 75,000 National Guardsmen to the border region. Supported by an enraged American citizenry, Wilson reacted swiftly and with substantial force to secure our southern border and drive out what was, in effect, a marauding army of Mexican invaders.
»Today, armed drug cartels openly challenge the Mexican government. Deadly battles occur frequently in Mexico, where more than 6,500 people were killed by cartel forces last year and more than 5,000 have been killed so far this year. Paramilitary bands have entered the United States illegally and set up sentry and command posts. Federal authorities have actually ceded control of public land in Arizona to these invaders. Cartels claim openly that Mexico's border with the United States has been moved northward to Interstate 8. Federal officials have even advised the public to avoid the Sonoran Desert National Monument, which is not on the border; it's 35 miles southwest of Phoenix…»
Hartwell détaille ensuite la situation de l’Arizona et met en évidence l’absence de réactions sérieuses de Washington pour assurer la protection de cet Etat. Il conclut en examinant le cas constitutionnel, c’est-à-dire les moyens d’action de l’Arizona de lui-même. Ils sont impressionnants, dans le plus strict cadre de la Constitution des Etats-Unis.
»For one thing, Arizona can form and expand its own state militia. Such forces were common when our nation was founded, and the Second Amendment recognizes that a “well-regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State.” In short, Arizona and other states can raise and arm their own military forces. But, for what purpose can such forces legally act?
»The Constitution is informative here. In Article IV, Section 4, the federal government is required to “protect each [state] against Invasion; and [on request of the state government] against domestic Violence.” As St. George Tucker noted, this provision guards against “the possibility of an undue partiality in the federal government,” for example a “sectional” president who might, for political reasons, decline to protect states in a certain region. Today the federal government, at the direction of the president, has declined to carry out its duty under Article IV. Leaving aside its other possible consequences, this intentional failure to protect Arizona raises the question of what action the state is now entitled to take under the Constitution.
»This brings us to Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, which provides that “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.”
»So, the militias organized and armed by a state may go to war when the state has been invaded or is in imminent danger. This is clear under Article I, and plainly justified when the federal government has deliberately failed to protect against invasion as required by Article IV. As Joseph Story explains in his treatise on the Constitution, the prohibition against states engaging in war is “wisely” limited by “exceptions sufficient for the safety of the states, and not justly open to the objection of being dangerous to the Union.”
»At the time of our nation's founding, the states surrendered certain limited powers to the federal government. Logically, foremost among the enumerated powers delegated to the new central authority were those relating to foreign affairs, including the war powers. But the states were prudent; they had a logical concern that if the federal government should fail in its duty to protect them from “invasion” or “imminent danger,” perhaps for reasons of political “partiality,” then the states should have a robust right to defend themselves, including by armed force. And so they do.»
On ajoutera, pour compléter ce dossier particulièrement intéressant, un commentaire d’un lecteur de l’article, qui résume bien un sentiment naturel qui vient à l’esprit d’un citoyen américain devant certaines attitudes du Washington d’aujourd’hui… «The most serious threat to our democracy is not Arizona interfering with federal immigration, it is the silence of the president as the Union begins dividing, as California boycotts Arizona, the Federal government failure to help the governors of the Gulf States help themselves and the state of fear that has encompassed the country since Obama was elected and initiated his strategy of Never let a Crisis go to Waste. It is a strategy of power and has nothing to do with what is for the good of the country and its people.»
dedefensa.org
-
