Posted on 07/28/2010 10:29:45 AM PDT by edpc
PHOENIX – A judge has blocked the most controversial sections of Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect Thursday, handing a major legal victory to opponents of the crackdown.
The law will still take effect Thursday, but without many of the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Tara,
I am impressed that you use the proper name correctly.
Did I have any influence on you?
(Not sarcasm, just delight)
October but the Supreme Court almost never takes cases this quickly. They wait for them to be batted around the lower courts for awhile.
This judge would have to first rule on the case. Then the state would appeal to the higher circuit court. That court needs to rule, then they appeal to the appeals court. At that point the Supreme Court could either pick up the case or wait for the appeals court to rule and then pick it up.
This whole process can take a long time.
There’s also the chill factor — fear that a bran new voter block could be formed before the Safe Borders mandate has any affect.
I think it would be interesting to see who this activist judge “consulted” before making her ruling. I wonder if someone could do a Freedom of Information request for her telephone call logs and emails? Or does that apply to people in her position?
How would like to be the Judge who just gutted SB 1070?
Amen to that. . prepare. .
This decision almost guarantees a range war in Southern Arizona.
Lets see, how’z perjury, forgery, fraud to name a few.
To even move about and survive in this country without the proper documents an ordinary citizen would hold, one would have to commit a host of crimes mentioned above
Housing, put your children in school, activate utilities, drivers lic, insurance, bank accounts and or check cashing.
Most all of these activities require signatures by applicants on governmental documents that subscribe felony penalties for falsified information, statements and or supporting documents.
USSC - De Canas v. Bica (1976): States may enact legislation to discourage illegal immigration within their jurisdictions.
What AZ is doing is known as concurrent enforcement: a person can only be guilty under state law if guilty under the federal law.
Correctly, the Lefty black-robed clowns at the 9th Circus Court of Appeals – the most overturned court in the system got it right and has gone along with that concept.
I forgot the source, but in 1983, they ruled federal law precludes a city from enforcing the criminal provisions of immigration law. Gonzalez v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468, 476 (9th Cir. 1983). AZ's 1070 simply codified already existing enforcement provisions of federal law on the books since 1940.
I know people outside Colorado are not affected but this could be very good for Tom Tancredo.
The United States has been the world’s bitch for a long God damn time. And only now, when it’s too late to do anything at all about it, do we notice it.
It’s almost as thought they **WANT** CW2.....undermining what the (legal) citizens want at every turn.
“This will only galvanize voters for the GOP.”
I think you’re correct; at least I certainly hope so.
Looking ahead past Nov. 2010, though, my major concern is whether the GOP will have any strong, valid, candidate for 2012 who will swing the independents his/her way. Sarah Palin ain’t it. The GOP better start getting its act together for a presidential run. Getting rid of Michael Steele would be a good start.
1. A valid Arizona driver license.
2. A valid Arizona nonoperating identification license.
3. A valid tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification.
4. If the entity requires proof of legal presence in the United States before issuance, any valid United States federal, state or local government issued identification.
“The SEC no longer has to comply with public requests for information.”
http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2010/07/28/sec-says-new-finreg-law-exempts-public-disclosure/
“It is “oh it is all hopeless what ever we do” crybabies like you that have created this mess. You are so busy crying you never have time to do anything else. Time for you all to quit your knee jerk crying, get off your ass and fight.”
Sure thing, but I’m still not convinced that voting is going to change anything. Public lynchings, maybe.
If a law enforcement officer pulls over an illegal for speeding, is this what will happen?
1. Run the license plate and gather information on the car and resgistration.
1a.The license check can come back clear, registration expired, stolen vehicle, or the plates don't match the description of the car.
2. The law enforcement officer asks the driver for a driver's license and registration. This is to confirm that the driver is the same as listed with the plates, and that the registration matches what was listed with the plates.
2a. The driver may refuse or is unable to produce a driver's license.
2b. The driver may refuse or is unable to produce a registration.
2c. The driver may not match the name associated with the license plates.
2d. The driver may not match the "look" of the person associated with the registration or license plate.
What are the law enforcement officers options at this point, with regards to today's ruling?
-PJ
The Attorney General shall cooperate with the States ..."
Shall in most legal terms means "will". By law the AG has no choice, although since when has anyone in the current administration abided by law?
:)
Well I try and do my spiritual homework!
Impeaching her is a non-starter. McCain, however, is vulnerable. His loss in the primary against Hayworth would make one hell of a statement. I hope JD is paying attention.
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.