Skip to comments.The Audacity Against Arizona
Posted on 07/14/2010 7:10:58 AM PDT by IbJensen
One need not be a lawyer to recognize the audacity inherent in the arguments of the Obama Administration against the State of Arizona and Governor Jan Brewer in its complaint filed last week in U.S. District Court.
The arguments presented in U.S. v. State of Arizona & Brewer are not grounded in constitutional consideration but rather are rooted in a litany of grievances unfettered by reason:
If allowed to go into effect, S.B. 1070's mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives. For example, it will impose significant and counterproductive burdens on the federal agencies charged with enforcing the national immigration scheme, diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority. It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute, or who otherwise will be swept into the ambit of S.B. 1070's "attrition through enforcement" approach.
This is an administrative issue, not a constitutional one. Perhaps it will cause some inconvenience for the feds. But let us never confuse inconvenience with unconstitutionality.
The idea the Arizona law will cause "the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification" is also absurd.
The last I checked, authorized visitors are required to carry passports and other travel documents.
Even if you are a citizen it is usually a good idea to carry some form of identification in public especially if you are operating a motor vehicle.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
He might find his ass on the receiving end of a deportation order.
I have tried asking many left-wingers if they will support the Obama administration interpretation of the Supremacy clause in regards to other federal laws and I give them examples:
If an administration in the future chooses to not enforce federal pollution laws and restricts the states from as well will the left still support federal supremacy. (Oh wait Obama already is doing this in the Gulf) Will the left support sanctuary cities for polluters?
If an administration in the future chooses to not enforce federal civil rights laws and restricts states from doing so as well will the left-wing still support federal supremacy. (Oh wait Obama already is doing this for his friends the Black Panthers)
I have not really gotten one good answer. They all back off and start to give up the argument then.
I think everyone who uses the word "audacity" from now on should have to make a $100 contribution to the Tax-chick Restorative Fund, for the purchase of tasty American and Australian wines for myself and deserving FRiends.
Copying from ZERO, of all people, should be too embarassing for any writer even to contemplate.
Blargh, I knew that looked wrong. Imbecility.
For some reason, audacity came into my head as “odd acidy.”
Do I need coffee?
I bet you do!
Exactly. The consequences for our nation are dire indeed if 0bama gets this law struck down. It's game over at that point.
Thanks! I’ll make some!
There’s one fooling around in the White House.
I needed to clean my glasses.
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.