Posted on 06/25/2012 11:11:15 AM PDT by zencycler
So an Arizona law which makes reference to federal law is now unconstitutional basically because the court says its up to the Feds to enforce its own laws.
It seems to me then that there is an easy way around this. Arizona can just enact legislation that it is against STATE law to enter the country illegally (etc etc etc) and then empower its police to enforce the state law. It seems to me that if the STATE law is just a redundant, literal mirror image of the federal law, then the issue of the states enforcing a federal law disappears.
This would be similar to federal vs state drug laws. The states can pass anti drug laws that don't contradict federal law, and then the states can enforce their own laws. So AZ just need to redo its law so that it is not referring to the federal law and thereby empowering its police to enforce federal law.
Seems like a simple fix to me ... am I missing something?
I am longing for the day when we have a President that decides not to enforce tax laws.
Note that whatever the Supreme Court says is “Unconstitutional” - it means that a state cannot make a “law” in which the US Supreme Court just said it’s Unconstitutional.
What one has to do in that case - is follow the Constitutional and put forth a “Constitutional Amendment” which would then OVERRIDE the US Supreme Court decision. Of course that takes a 2/3 vote of Congress to get the Constitutional Amendment started, and then it takes 3/4 of the states in the US to pass it - and the process usually takes about 7 years (depending on the time length Congress specifies in the Amendment).
HOWEVER, the “heart of the matter” (as Governor Jan Brewer puts it) - was NOT declared Unconstitutional. So, that part is not true.
“...but the court said today that they cannot.”
The “inability” of the Feds to enforce their own laws is the strongest argument for secession since 1850.....
Seems to me that it only matters if the Federal government is enforcing the Federal statutes that the AZ law duplicated; which it isn't, at least without any conviction, IMO.
Well, I guess you can talk to Governor Jan Brewer about it ... :-)
She said ...
Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights.
The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling. Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) to develop and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made available once again to all of Arizona’s law enforcement officers. I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable.
Of course, today’s ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, “We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.”
http://www.facebook.com/GW.IFA/posts/316129271812118
Also ...
National Review:
“The Supreme Court deals Obama a defeat.”
http://www.facebook.com/GW.IFA/posts/459758417369907
Secession comes to mind but they need a port. Texas doing anything tomorrow? NM maybe gives them a ribbon of land for safe passage? Declare on Mexico and fight their way to the sea?
Isn’t it naturalization, not immigration? I think the op might have something in her analogy. States can make their own laws and apply them to their own states as long as it isn’t already a federal law?
I’m getting confused on all these requirements, but it almost seemed as if Scalia was trying to tell Arizona what they can and can’t do as far as getting around this law. Only Congress can create the laws, Obama should be smacked down on what he just announced on Friday. He is in fact breaking the law.
I think if Arizona puts on their books that it is a crime to be in their state illegally, then the government can’t do anything about it? I hope this is correct!
It is really "crunch" time, if any continuity in the American experience, is to be maintained. A nation is not a geographic entity, but a specific people, with a common identity, a common purpose. The Left in adopting the insane immigration policy of 1965--the Teddy Kennedy initiative--and compounding that by refusing to protect our Southern border for the past twenty years, has gravely imperiled the continuity of America, her heritage & culture. (See Immigration & The American Future.) The argument for preserving what is ours, is not answered by name calling or hissing insult.
William Flax [Continuity, not "Diversity"]
I don’t think it would work, since that was essentially what AZ did with some parts of the statute that were struck down. The Feds weren’t enforcing the immigration laws, so they made it a state misdemeanor to hold a job in AZ if you were in the country illegally. The Feds said, no that’s strictly a Federal matter.
It seems to me that the Court may be inviting a suit against the Feds for non-enforcement of an existing Federal law. Surely, selective enforcement of the laws of the country is unconstitutional.
I think California tried this, and I think it failed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.