View Full Version : Feds to file lawsuit over Arizona immigration law
The Chicago thugs respond...!
http://azstarnet.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_f1da2922-8919-11df-bad0-001cc4c03286.html
PHOENIX - The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and state over the nation's toughest immigration crackdown.
The planned lawsuit was confirmed to The Associated Press by a Justice Department official with knowledge of the plans. The official didn't want to be identified before a public announcement planned for later Tuesday.
The lawsuit will argue that Arizona's new measure requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws, like traffic stops, usurps federal authority.
Tuesday's action has been expected for weeks. President Barack Obama has called the state law misguided. Supporters say it is a reasonable reaction to federal inaction on immigration.
The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that they are in the country illegally.
Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed the law in April, and it was set to go into effect July 29. The lawsuit could delay implementation of the law.
Arizona passed the law after years of frustration over problems associated with illegal immigration, including drug trafficking and violent kidnappings. The state is the biggest gateway into the U.S. for illegal immigrants, and is home to an estimated 460,000 illegal immigrants.
The lawsuit is expected to be announced by Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor.
President Barack Obama addressed the Arizona law in a speech on immigration reform last week. He touched on one of the major concerns of federal officials, that other states were poised to follow Arizona by crafting their own immigration enforcement laws.
"As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country," Obama said. "A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed."
The law makes it a state crime for legal immigrants to not carry their immigration documents and bans day laborers and people who seek their services from blocking traffic on streets.
The law also prohibits government agencies from having policies that restrict the enforcement of federal immigration law and lets Arizonans file lawsuits against agencies that hinder immigration enforcement.
Govern against the will of the people, we are in trouble.
I don't understand the strategy. How can they try to negate the Arizona law without also negating current federal law. There is nothing substantial in the Arizona law that is not in federal law. Local LEO's are allowed to arrest for federal laws, including immigration. Most local agencies simply do not choose to pursue them, as it tends to be a headache contacting ICE and waiting to see if they are going to come and get them. In my experience, they tend to respond only if the subject has a lengthy record, to include crimes of violence and drugs. They seldom respond if the only infractions are misdemeanors and simply being here illegaly. Gov. Brewer is simply trying to force the feds to enforce the laws already there.
Entire post.If the court agrees with RD's assessment, the unintended consequences could be interesting.
In any case, I think this lawsuit is a good idea because it keeps AZ's solution under discussion and helps to push the debate towards resolution.
YMMV.
I don't understand the strategy. How can they try to negate the Arizona law without also negating current federal law. There is nothing substantial in the Arizona law that is not in federal law. Local LEO's are allowed to arrest for federal laws, including immigration. Most local agencies simply do not choose to pursue them, as it tends to be a headache contacting ICE and waiting to see if they are going to come and get them. In my experience, they tend to respond only if the subject has a lengthy record, to include crimes of violence and drugs. They seldom respond if the only infractions are misdemeanors and simply being here illegaly. Gov. Brewer is simply trying to force the feds to enforce the laws already there.
ICE is toooo busy trying to do the job's of other Federal agencys like DEA, FBI. If they would just do their established job things would work a lot more...... Normally they are too busy snaking cases form others or fighting with CBP.
I don't understand the strategy. How can they try to negate the Arizona law without also negating current federal law.
Very well said, Sir! Am wondering the same thing! Honestly, how can the Federal Government challenge Federal Law upheld by a state??? Unless, the Federal Government thinks that no-one will ask this question??? Scary, IMHO!:rolleyes::confused:
Arizona is doing what it must, and as a future resident of that state, I applaud them!
Holly
This may help provide some understanding of the Feds and their legal strategy/authority. I have not read the Complaint - but I do recall from years ago the concept of congress "occupying the field."
That is, there is a concept in the area of constitutional law commonly referred to as Federal preemption...
Preemption is the rule of law that states that if the federal government - through Congress - has enacted legislation on a subject matter it shall be controlling over state laws and/or preclude the state from enacting laws on the same subject if Congress has "occupied the field."
It may be argued that the Feds have occupied the field in the area of immigration law (although they have chosen to selectively enforce the federal immigration statutes), thus, the AZ statute may be found to be constitutionally invalid.
As I say, I have neither the time nor the inclination to read what the Justice Department has filed, but I did want to share the notion that there may be legal precedent for the suit.
Hope this helps.
I have not read the Complaint.I do not agree that shooting from the hip is the way to go when it comes to the most devisive political debate of the day. YMMV.
FWIW, the complaint is reprinted here (http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja-arizona/2010/07/06/full-text-of-complaint-filed-against-arizona-on-sb-1070-by-us/). It says in part:1. In this action, the United States seeks to declare invalid and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the enforcement of S.B. 1070, as amended and enacted by the State of Arizona, because S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.
Thanks - no hip shot here - my response was squarely aimed at some suggestions that maybe the feds were "shooting from the hip" - they are not - ample precedent exists for this lawsuit - that was my point - thanks for the cite to the Supremacy Clause.
FYI, generally speaking, The Supremacy Clause invalidates state laws that conflict or interfere with an act of Congress. Moreover, Federal law may preempt state law in any of three ways: (1) Congress explicitly defines the extent to which it intends to preempt state law; (2) in the absence of express preemptive language, Congress indicates an intent to occupy an entire field of regulation and has left no room for states to supplement the federal law; or (3) when compliance with both state and federal law is impossible or when state law stands as an obstacle to accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.
Thus, I stand by my comments for their intended purpose.
Thanks again.
alright4u
07-06-2010, 16:16
About time for desert training with live fire exercises on the border.That is my 02.
I bet those ranchers on the border would cut out a few prime head of beef for our troops.
Agreed - I do not wish to confuse my acknowledgment of legal precedent (on the side of the feds in filing this lawsuit) with my support for AZ's attempt to get something done to alleviate this horrible situation. AZ needs to do what AZ feels it needs to do to protect its citizens.
The Adminstration and the DOJ like things like they are, and do not want to be called to the carpet for ignoring the law and their sworn duty.
Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility
One might consider the POTUS speech regarding immigration as a potential reason why they are sueing Arizona.
In the speech, he criticized Arizona’s law and warned that national legislation is needed to prevent other states from following suit.
If States prevail they might starting wondering what else they can do better than the Feds...
About time for desert training with live fire exercises on the border.That is my 02.
I bet those ranchers on the border would cut out a few prime head of beef for our troops.
I don't know if it is a good or bad thing, but civilains are already discussing just that.
The Adminstration and the DOJ like things like they are, and do not want to be called to the carpet for ignoring the law and their sworn duty.
IMHO, Very well said!!!
And just WTF is the "Administration" using as its criteria, or polling numbers for trying to pull this bull shit??? IMHO, they do not think the American Public will bat an eyelash, or care one iota.
Hope They know that they're wrong, and going to be met with stern opposition!!!:eek::mad: For crying out loud, "ILLEGAL, is UNLAWFUL!"
Get It???:rolleyes:
Holly
alright4u
07-06-2010, 19:55
I don't understand the strategy. How can they try to negate the Arizona law without also negating current federal law. There is nothing substantial in the Arizona law that is not in federal law. Local LEO's are allowed to arrest for federal laws, including immigration. Most local agencies simply do not choose to pursue them, as it tends to be a headache contacting ICE and waiting to see if they are going to come and get them. In my experience, they tend to respond only if the subject has a lengthy record, to include crimes of violence and drugs. They seldom respond if the only infractions are misdemeanors and simply being here illegaly. Gov. Brewer is simply trying to force the feds to enforce the laws already there.
My donations are going to the Gov Jan Brewer. I will vacation in Arizona if possible this year.
There are way too many contradictions in the complaint for my likeing. Immigration law is the responsibility of the federal government but they can ignore all or part of it if they wish. If they succeed in abolishing the the Az law, will they also supplant all other border state laws including California? The complaint claims that Arizona is creating STATE criminal sanctions for federal immigration violations. They are not. Az is giving LEO's the tools to enforce the fed law. The complaint states that not everyone may have the required ID. This in itself is a misdemeanor violation of every state law. If you are driving without a license, you can get arrested. If you have a fake license, you can get arrested. This is nothing more than an attempt by the federal government to give themselves an excuse to NOT enforce laws on the books. The complaint says the states cannot enforce immigration law, and that the feds won't/ don't have to, if they don't want to. It is pure BS.
Another perspective......
You can draw a similarities to Arizona and Chicago, Illinois.
In each case you have a government bureaucracy that is failing to protect it's citizens and creating circumstances that limit or prevent the citizens from protecting themselves.
And in each case you have another common denominator....BHO and the Chicago Gang.
If they succeed in abolishing the the Az law, will they also supplant all other border state laws including California?The current administration will NOT mess w/CA!
Democrats raise a significant amount $$$ in CA.
Hollywood would throw a fit.
CA supports the current admin.
Boxer, Feinstein & Pelosi!:lifter
Need I say more?:D
Stay safe.
dr. mabuse
07-07-2010, 09:20
*
ICE is toooo busy trying to do the job's of other Federal agencys like DEA, FBI. If they would just do their established job things would work a lot more...... Normally they are too busy snaking cases form others or fighting with CBP.
Sir,
Very well Sid, IMHO. And also, your knowledge and expertise on this matter was overlooked by my post, stupid me...I think you have hit the nail on the head...quietly.
Great Post B!;):munchin
Holly
mark46th
07-07-2010, 16:02
This is already a law in California. If I was governor, I would cut off funds from every county, city or law enforcement agency which does not comply with the law...
Here is California's law, copied straight from the California Penal Code...
834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully
cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is
suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected
of being present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the
following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen
of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent
resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time
or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of
immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not
be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and
place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien
who is present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal
justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or
leave the United States.
(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal
status and provide any additional information that may be requested
by any other public entity.
(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city,
county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with
jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent
or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly
prohibited.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf
Good post Mark. Now, tell me what are the substantive differences between the CA and AZ law. The only one I can see is, CA seems to imply the suspect must be under arrest before being required to determine alien status, while AZ can attempt to determine status on initial contact, if reasonable suspicion exists. Other than that, they are very similar.
alright4u
07-07-2010, 16:37
There are way too many contradictions in the complaint for my likeing. Immigration law is the responsibility of the federal government but they can ignore all or part of it if they wish. If they succeed in abolishing the the Az law, will they also supplant all other border state laws including California? The complaint claims that Arizona is creating STATE criminal sanctions for federal immigration violations. They are not. Az is giving LEO's the tools to enforce the fed law. The complaint states that not everyone may have the required ID. This in itself is a misdemeanor violation of every state law. If you are driving without a license, you can get arrested. If you have a fake license, you can get arrested. This is nothing more than an attempt by the federal government to give themselves an excuse to NOT enforce laws on the books. The complaint says the states cannot enforce immigration law, and that the feds won't/ don't have to, if they don't want to. It is pure BS.
That is exactly what AZ did. Leave it to Holder, Zero's CAIR pals and La Renza pals, and add every hate America group to rewrire, negate, or refuse to uphold constitution. Oprah and Obama agree on how to change America. DESTROY IT FIRST.
mark46th
07-08-2010, 21:17
RD- Arizona has courage. California has Pelosi, the governator, many self-serving politicians and no courage...
swatsurgeon
07-08-2010, 21:27
Yet another example of our Federal government's failures at our borders, at least Arizona seems to be doing something about it.
Proves they will use anyone or anything to smuggle drugs into this country.
And here you have an industrious Mexican national, just simply on her way to visiting her friends and relatives across the international border in Arizona, all the while passing through the port of entry at Nogales, Arizona probably daily. After all, she's only 94 years old, so what harm could this Mexican do. Well I'll be dipped. What's all that padded stuff affixed to her body, underneath her dress. Well, after the dress was removed, loooookeeee here at what we have. Why it's only 10.45 pounds of marijuana strapped to her body. Can we blame her, after all, she's probably just supplementing her social security check she gets monthly at her P.O. box on the American side. And one can't help but wonder how many of these such trips has she already made across the border, toting 10 3/4 pounds of marijuana daily. Hang it up lady, as it's time for you to retire permanently in Mexico.
pics wouldn't load..........
ss
Interesting if true, I wonder if any of the lawyers here know RI law, or had thoughts on this?
NRO Wednesday, July 07, 2010
United States v. Arizona — How 'Bout United States v. Rhode Island?
[Andy McCarthy]
Well whaddya know? It turns out that Rhode Island has long been carrying out the procedures at issue in the Arizona immigration statute: As a matter of routine, RI state police check immigration status at traffic stops whenever there is reasonable suspicion to do so, and they report all illegals to the feds for deportation. Besides the usual profiling blather, critics have trotted out the now familiar saw that such procedures hamstring police because they make immigrants afraid to cooperate. But it turns out that it’s the Rhode Island police who insist on enforcing the law. As Cornell law prof William Jacobson details at Legal Insurrection, Colonel Brendan P. Doherty, the state police commander, “refuses to hide from the issue,” explaining, ”I would feel that I’m derelict in my duties to look the other way.”
If, as President Obama and Attorney General Holder claim, there is a federal preemption issue, why hasn’t the administration sued Rhode Island already? After all, Rhode Island is actually enforcing these procedures, while the Arizona law hasn’t even gone into effect yet.
Could it be because — as we’ve discussed here before — the Supreme Court in Muehler v. Mena has already held that police do not need any reason (not probable cause, not reasonable suspicion) to ask a person about his immigration status?
Could it be that just this past February, in Estrada v. Rhode Island, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld the Rhode Island procedures, reasoning that, in Muehler v. Mena, the Supreme Court “held that a police officer does not need independent reasonable suspicion to question an individual about her immigration status…”?
So, we have a Justice Department that drops a case it already won against New Black Panthers who are on tape intimidating voters in blatant violation of federal law, but that sues a sovereign state for enacting a statute in support of immigration enforcement practices that have already been upheld by two of the nation’s highest courts. Perfect.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjkzMmNjMjIxMjIxYWNmODA0OGI3ZTU5MmIyZGUyMjg=
This article touches on several of the points we have been making in this conversation. ICE 287(g) just goes to show Obama hasn't a clue what he and his administration are doing. I never thought I would see something like this from the New York Post though.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/border_police_bait_switch_9avLj7QlaBxEbIWapnRF1H
This article touches on several of the points we have been making in this conversation. ICE 287(g) just goes to show Obama hasn't a clue what he and his administration are doing. I never thought I would see something like this from the New York Post though.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/border_police_bait_switch_9avLj7QlaBxEbIWapnRF1H
Great article RD..thanks That it ws in the NY Post, doesn't surprise me one bit.
I see this lawsuit as just another form of destruction to America. As somebody pointed out earlier, Obama and Oprah agree the only way to change America is to destroy it. I read somewhere (and have been searching for the article in the last two days) that stated the lawsuit against AZ also had to do with "copyright" infringement on federal law because of how they wrote the law. I laughed it off and now I wish I could find it. Now looking back, it leads me to question "if any state enforces/strengthens a federal law that the federal government won't, is it copyright infringement"?
I read articles about a week ago that the defense fund for Gov. Brewer to fight off this and other lawsuits is only $20,000, meanwhile, the Feds are using OUR TAX DOLLARS to suit the state of Arizona! Go figure! My money is on Brewer and Arizona!!!
Another perspective......
You can draw a similarities to Arizona and Chicago, Illinois.
In each case you have a government bureaucracy that is failing to protect it's citizens and creating circumstances that limit or prevent the citizens from protecting themselves.
And in each case you have another common denominator....BHO and the Chicago Gang.
YGBSM. :eek:
Richard :munchin
YGBSM. :eek:
No, but YMMV ;)
ZonieDiver
07-11-2010, 13:52
Great article RD..thanks That it ws in the NY Post, doesn't surprise me one bit.
I see this lawsuit as just another form of destruction to America. As somebody pointed out earlier, Obama and Oprah agree the only way to change America is to destroy it. I read somewhere (and have been searching for the article in the last two days) that stated the lawsuit against AZ also had to do with "copyright" infringement on federal law because of how they wrote the law. I laughed it off and now I wish I could find it. Now looking back, it leads me to question "if any state enforces/strengthens a federal law that the federal government won't, is it copyright infringement"?
I read articles about a week ago that the defense fund for Gov. Brewer to fight off this and other lawsuits is only $20,000, meanwhile, the Feds are using OUR TAX DOLLARS to suit the state of Arizona! Go figure! My money is on Brewer and Arizona!!!
Gov. Brewer's fund is over $500,000 now - with contributions from all 50 states AND D.C. ($434,000 from online)
AZ's Att'y General would normally 'defend' the state, but Republican governor (and gubernatorial candidate) Brewer prefers not to use Democrat AG (and gubernatorial candidate) Terry Goddard - and he agreed to step out. (Undoubtedly for good reason!)
Gov. BrewerZD--
What's your take on her long term political goals? Do you see a run for the presidency in her future?:munchin
ZonieDiver
07-11-2010, 22:51
ZD--
What's your take on her long term political goals? Do you see a run for the presidency in her future?:munchin
I am sure she realizes that NO Arizonan will ever be elected president, as has been proven by Goldwater, Udall, Babbitt, and McCain. :D
Two months ago it was a long shot for to even be elected governor in her own right. SB 1070 changed that, almost overnight. That very day, 'Sheriff Joe' Arpaio was waiting in the wings to ride to the rescue, as if a horse could support him. She had to sign, or end her governorship.
I really don't know much about her, since she toiled in the anonymity of the Sec'y of State office - AZ's 'record-keeper' and not like the federal office of the same name. When Napolitano bailed, just in time, Brewer became governor - and quickly became unpopular with her party... until 1070.
A friend who worked with her in the legislature for years speaks very highly of her. I think she realizes that governor will be her highest elective office - unless VP is higher.
alright4u
07-11-2010, 23:50
This is already a law in California. If I was governor, I would cut off funds from every county, city or law enforcement agency which does not comply with the law...
Here is California's law, copied straight from the California Penal Code...
834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully
cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization
Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is
suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected
of being present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the
following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen
of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent
resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time
or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of
immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not
be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and
place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien
who is present in the United States in violation of federal
immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal
justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or
leave the United States.
(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United
States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal
status and provide any additional information that may be requested
by any other public entity.
(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city,
county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with
jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent
or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly
prohibited.
What good has this law done? I do not live in CA, but; it appears the law is not enforced. I would cut CA's power off if I were AZ. This is dead wrong to make AZ the bad guys. The bad guys are punks who do not enforce laws. Add MALDEF to your list of anti American organizations.
I am sure she realizes that NO Arizonan will ever be elected president, as has been proven by Goldwater, Udall, Babbitt, and McCain. :D
Two months ago it was a long shot for to even be elected governor in her own right. SB 1070 changed that, almost overnight. That very day, 'Sheriff Joe' Arpaio was waiting in the wings to ride to the rescue, as if a horse could support him. She had to sign, or end her governorship.
I really don't know much about her, since she toiled in the anonymity of the Sec'y of State office - AZ's 'record-keeper' and not like the federal office of the same name. When Napolitano bailed, just in time, Brewer became governor - and quickly became unpopular with her party... until 1070.
A friend who worked with her in the legislature for years speaks very highly of her. I think she realizes that governor will be her highest elective office - unless VP is higher.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/07/09/arizona.tough.sheriff/index.html?iref=allsearch
It appears he is having his own troubles.
Stephen Colbert has teamed up with the United Farm Workers of America to have unemployed Americans sign on as farm workers in an attempt to demonstrate that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that Americans don't want.
http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news-wires/2010/0712/Stephen-Colbert-tries-to-take-job-from-illegal-immigrant
http://www.takeourjobs.org/
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
mark46th
07-14-2010, 08:38
Alright4U- LAPD does not enforce this, they have Special Order 40, which was put in place to foster "Cooperation" with LAPD. There are a couple of cities that do enforce the law. Costa Mesa in Orange county actively enforces this law...
FWIW/FYI, a federal judge has temporarily blocked certain provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law. That order is available here (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20100729_ARIZONA_DOC.pdf).
FWIW/FYI, a federal judge has temporarily blocked certain provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law. That order is available here (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20100729_ARIZONA_DOC.pdf).
The impending October surprise, a tidal wave of 20 million new voters through Executive Order.
http://www.examiner.com/x-37620-Conservative-Examiner~y2010m7d31-Explosive-new-evidence-shows-ruling-of-AZ-judge-illegal
In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the state of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal.
The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press. Her argument states in part,
"Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don’t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.
"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:
"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."
In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state.
This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue.
Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government's lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.
The attorney whose heads-up thinking concerning the Constitution provides the legal remedy for dealing with this blatant disregard for Constitutional law in the article at Canada Free Press, which can be accessed at the link above.
In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously. The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government. This information was cited by United Patriots of America.
From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words: "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."
No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border.
This is every bit as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston.
The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in its self-defense.
This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance.
Governor Jan Brewer and the stalwart members of the Arizona legislature have ample legal reason to stand firm against the illegal bullying of an arrogant, lawless federal government.
Entire post.FWIW, the U.S. Code, title 28, part IV, chapter 81, § 1251 offers a clarification here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001251----000-.html): (b) The Supreme Court shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of:
(1) All actions or proceedings to which ambassadors, other public ministers, consuls, or vice consuls of foreign states are parties;
(2) All controversies between the United States and a State;
(3) All actions or proceedings by a State against the citizens of another State or against aliens.
alright4u
08-01-2010, 15:12
FWIW, the U.S. Code, title 28, part IV, chapter 81, § 1251 offers a clarification here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/usc_sec_28_00001251----000-.html):
Ike knew the problem in 54. Operation Wetback. No PC crap then.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Operation_Wetback
Ike knew the problem in 54. Operation Wetback. No PC crap then.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Operation_Wetback
What was Eisenhower's campaign slogan in 1952 ? ...I like Ike...timeless
Here's a pretty good timeline for anyone interested.
http://www.pbs.org/kpbs/theborder/history/index.html
The border issue has been a complex matter for a long time - and as far as Operation Wetback goes, many citizens around this part of the country still remember it and the memory of its many 'questionable practices' brings back a lot of ill will whenever it is brought up in a border-migrant worker debate.
http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/OO/pqo1.html
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Interesting sites Richard - thank you - many current immigration enforcement practices (or lack thereof) seem to be creating ill will today, also.
ZonieDiver
08-01-2010, 17:22
The answer is somewhere between 'Operation Wetback' and total 'amnesty.'. Whether or not we can come to consensus remains to be seen.
First we need to stem the flow. We can deal with a trckle, but not a flood.
The answer is somewhere between 'Operation Wetback' and total 'amnesty.'. Whether or not we can come to consensus remains to be seen.
First we need to stem the flow. We can deal with a trckle, but not a flood.
Personally, I think that there is wisdom in your words.
Like many complex issues we must prioritize our response as a nation. But, we must respond and not continue to ignore this problem.
IMHO, I agree with ZD's opinion that we need to stem the massive influx and then address the situation of those currently here illegally - but stop the flow first - respect for all people, and valuing our immigration history does not mean that the United States must accept the never-ending millions and millions who would like to come here, nor does it mean that employers, who wish to hire millions of cheap foreign workers, must be accommodated.
Next, those illegal’s that are in our prisons should be deported. I assume that one must be convicted of a rather serious crime these days to actually do time.
We should probably increase the guest worker program – at least these folks are documented and this should also minimize exploitation.
I am certainly no expert but it seems to me that we can prioritize like we do for any tough problem. Pointing fingers - more inaction - or ignoring this problem is not satisfactory.
Just my .02 cents
alright4u
08-01-2010, 18:46
Personally, I think that there is wisdom in your words.
Like many complex issues we must prioritize our response as a nation. But, we must respond and not continue to ignore this problem.
IMHO, I agree with ZD's opinion that we need to stem the massive influx and then address the situation of those currently here illegally - but stop the flow first - respect for all people, and valuing our immigration history does not mean that the United States must accept the never-ending millions and millions who would like to come here, nor does it mean that employers, who wish to hire millions of cheap foreign workers, must be accommodated.
Next, those illegal’s that are in our prisons should be deported. I assume that one must be convicted of a rather serious crime these days to actually do time.
We should probably increase the guest worker program – at least these folks are documented and this should also minimize exploitation.
I am certainly no expert but it seems to me that we can prioritize like we do for any tough problem. Pointing fingers - more inaction - or ignoring this problem is not satisfactory.
Just my .02 cents
Richard: Too funny.