Skip to comments.Harry Reid's Bill Could Nullify State Illegal Immigration Laws
Posted on 11/30/2011 2:14:31 PM PST by VU4G10
what may become the second arm of a federal pincer strategy aimed at judicially nullifying state laws, leading Democrats in Congress have proposed a new bill that may void the various state statutes enacted recently to combat the growth of the illegal alien population.
As has been thoroughly covered in The New American, the Obama administration has filed suit in several federal courts challenging the constitutionality of laws passed by state legislatures that have drawn the attention of the media for their more controversial provisions.
To date, the complaints filed by the Department of Justice (typically with the Department of Homeland Security listed as a co-plaintiff) have named as defendants the Attorneys General of the states whose laws they are seeking to set aside.
This latest effort by the federal government to redraw the lines of power laid out by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution would authorize the Department of Justice to file suit against state and local governments suspected of using racial profiling to carry out the new anti-illegal immigration laws passed by legislators.
(Excerpt) Read more at thenewamerican.com ...
Roger on that!
Roger on that!
Working with a new Kindle Fire...sometimes it makes you think it didn’t do what you requested....so you just keep trying...
Roger, Roger. Ya know, you can get a new keyboard for about $10 bucks.
Lots of blather here. Reid, et al are wasting their time and taxpayer dollars chasing this wild assed scheme.
1. The bill will run into a brick wall in the House.
2. If, by some miracle, the bill passes and nobama signs it, multiple state attorneys general will file suit claiming it is unconstitutional.
Bottom line: Reid is blowing smoke.
Newt would love this.
Don’t attach that POS to anything you want passed in the House!
No E-Verify, no workee
No E-Verify, no public assistance
No racial profiling, no round-up, no descrimination, no national ID, no police state.
It ain’t perfect, but it’s a start. Can be done by individual states or at the federal level. zThe E-Verify requirement for work has already passed constitutional muster.
It is my understanding that “COURTS” are “opinion” providers and are not above other branches of Government. They are equal...
The states should start getting the cajones and tell the courts “thank you for your opinion” but we are exercising our rights undder the 10th amendment regardless of your “court opinion”
Maybe I am wrong, the Courts do not get the right to write law or implement law, only write opinions...
You are SPOT-ON with your assessment of what is in the 10th Amendment, but your statement is essentially what Courts now are doing, without challenge.
WHO can challenge this, EXCEPT the States, or We The People. A State challenge would result in a total cut-off of Federal Funds to that State (through Leftist legislative action and/or a Federal Court "Ruling"), so we are left with a 1776-type scenario to straighten it out.
Unfortunately, we've dumbed down the populace with indoctrination as opposed to education, and few are left who would fight for Freedom and a return to the Constitutional principles....the only fight left in people is the fight over their "Right" to other people's earnings.....
“Reid should read the 10th amendment.”
Nevada should take its 30 pieces of silver and leave us lovers of liberty in peace. Their reelection of Reid has placed them low in the esteem of free states.
Reid will next push this to apply to the entire southern border.
and they will keep pushing until they are thrown behind bars.
The American people are fed up with these criminals in office and are in the process of doing the job Nancy Pelosi said she was going to do - drain the swamp. Of course, we will include her too in the cleansing process.
That includes Social Security, etc.”””
Social Security withholding by employers is deposited direct to the IRS/SS administration. It does NOT pass thru the state level.
what’s your vector,victor?