Skip to comments.
Suit: Arizona Immigration Law Crosses 'Constitutional Line'
Yahoo News ^
| 7/8/2010
| Yahoo News
Posted on 07/06/2010 7:59:30 PM PDT by Dallas59
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
1
posted on
07/06/2010 7:59:34 PM PDT
by
Dallas59
To: Dallas59
2
posted on
07/06/2010 8:00:49 PM PDT
by
Dallas59
(President Robert Gibbs 2009-2013)
To: Dallas59
I wonder how many other state laws that follow or uphold federal laws are unconstitutional Andrew Seidman of McClatchy News, if we follow your stupid logic?
3
posted on
07/06/2010 8:04:59 PM PDT
by
Red Steel
To: Dallas59
The three Fox News lady lawyers - Kelly, Wiehl, and Guilfoyle all disagree, saying the AZ law is on solid ground, constitutionally.
4
posted on
07/06/2010 8:09:27 PM PDT
by
bigbob
To: bigbob
But Janet Nappy says it would keep her from doing her job!
5
posted on
07/06/2010 8:10:47 PM PDT
by
Dallas59
(President Robert Gibbs 2009-2013)
To: Dallas59
The ultimate hypocrisy;
Do as we say, not as we do!
Oh, and by the way, only we get to pick and choose the law; now on you knees servant and pay tribute.
6
posted on
07/06/2010 8:11:50 PM PDT
by
ntmxx
(I am not so sure about this misdirection!)
To: Dallas59
So where are the lawsuits against the sanctuary cities?
The selective enforcement of immigration law invalidates the suit.
7
posted on
07/06/2010 8:13:38 PM PDT
by
denydenydeny
("Why should I feed pirates?"--Russian officer off Somalia)
To: Dallas59
Substitute “investigate kidnappings” or “investigate counterfeiting” for “verify immigration status” to clearly see how mind-boggling stupid the federal lawsuit would be under those circumstances.
8
posted on
07/06/2010 8:14:16 PM PDT
by
jiggyboy
(Ten per cent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
To: Dallas59
The “constitutional” thing is a red herring. The real question is the individual states’ obligation to protect their citizens and freedom to do so when the feds fail to do their job.
9
posted on
07/06/2010 8:41:48 PM PDT
by
SpaceBar
To: Dallas59
Since when did the states create a federal government to be their lord and master?
10
posted on
07/06/2010 8:51:24 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(The US will not die with a whimper. It will die with thundering applause from the left.)
To: Dallas59
eric the redblack wouldn’t know the Constitution if it bit him in the arse.
11
posted on
07/06/2010 8:55:34 PM PDT
by
43north
(BHO: 50% white, 50% black, 100% red)
To: ntmxx
That’s what I was thinking. Is this some kind of ironic joke or what? It would be knee-slapping, beverage exiting through your nostrils funny if they weren’t serious about it. Really though, the obama administration calling someone on a Constitutional issue? They’ve got stones, I’ll give them that. Not a lick of common sense though.
12
posted on
07/06/2010 8:55:39 PM PDT
by
ThunderSleeps
(obama out now! I'll keep my money, my guns, and my freedom - you can keep the change.)
To: Dallas59
13
posted on
07/06/2010 9:27:15 PM PDT
by
februus
To: Dallas59
When did this DOJ gave a shite about the Constitution?
14
posted on
07/06/2010 9:29:09 PM PDT
by
pankot
To: pankot
My thoughts exactly! Only when it can be used in their favor my friend! Rats.......the whole lot of them!
15
posted on
07/06/2010 9:41:37 PM PDT
by
Circle_Hook
(Lies, deception and payoffs will get you everywhere)
To: februus
“......the conditions of an aliens entry and presence in the United States despite the fact that those subjects are federal domains and do not involve any legitimate state interest”
This quote straight from the complaint filed. No legitimate state interest. DOJ has become DOG-—department of garbage.
16
posted on
07/06/2010 10:26:04 PM PDT
by
at bay
(My father was born with 28 ounces of flesh in 1924 then went on to become Mr. (Glenn) Holland.)
To: at bay
...an aliens entry and presence in the United States...do not involve any legitimate state interest.As if one could reside in the federal government without residing in a state. This can only apply to the DC.
17
posted on
07/06/2010 11:17:06 PM PDT
by
Louis Foxwell
(He is the son of soulless slavers, not the son of soulful slaves.)
To: Blood of Tyrants
Somewhere between 1861 and 1865. ;0)
18
posted on
07/07/2010 8:01:04 AM PDT
by
seemoAR
To: Dallas59
Sympathize with the lawyers in the DOJ who were given the conclusion that the Dept would sue and then tasked to find a reason why. This had to be embarassing for them professionally.
19
posted on
07/07/2010 10:31:34 AM PDT
by
yeetch!
(The end is near.)
To: Dallas59
Holder is crossing many constitution lines, in rapid succession. Exhibit B: dismissing the new black panther voting intimidation case.
20
posted on
07/07/2010 10:37:57 AM PDT
by
C210N
(0bama, Making the world safe for Marxism)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson