Showdown on Arizona Immigration Law Goes to Supreme Court

The Supreme Court and the Obama administration are set for another politically charged clash Wednesday as the justices take up Arizona's tough crackdown on illegal immigrants.

It will be a rematch of the attorneys who argued the healthcare case a month ago, and another chapter in the partisan philosophical struggle over states' rights and the role of the federal government.

To prevail this year, the administration must convince at least one of the five to switch sides and rule that the state is going too far and interfering with the federal government's control over immigration policy.

The election-year legal battle goes to the heart of the dispute between Republicans and Democrats over what to do about the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.

I see this from an unusual perspective, that of “statutory neglect”.

In early America, smuggling along the East Coast was both very profitable and illegal. However, the local authorities refused to investigate, arrest or try these smugglers, because they rejected the law. And by failing to do so, the law became moot, with the idea of “statutory neglect”.

But in this case, the opposite is true. There are federal laws on the books that the states want enforced by the federal government, that several administrations have refused to enforce.

This is “statutory neglect” from the other direction. And the state authorities are arguing that this neglect is directly damaging them. Therefore, they are saying that, since these laws are on the books, but the federal government refuses to do its job, though we cannot force the federal government to do its job, we cannot be refused the authority to do that job ourselves.

While the Obama administration is arguing that the “supremacy clause” doesn’t allow the states to carry out federal law, the states can equally argue that the “supremacy clause” *only means* that the states cannot force the federal government to enforce the law.

That is, that while the states agree that they cannot issue a “writ of mandamus”, to force the federal government to perform its duties. However, the federal government cannot claim “supremacy” when it is engaged in “statutory neglect”, so cannot enjoin the states from carrying out federal laws.

The same logic applies that while a police officer may choose to not arrest a dangerous criminal committing a crime against a citizen in plain sight, he may not prevent another ordinary citizen from affecting a “citizen’s arrest” of the criminal, on the basis that he is unlawfully impersonating an officer.

In my opinion the question is: Can the executive branch of the government nullify acts of Congress by refusing to enforce the law duly passed by the representatives of the people, and signed into law by the former head of the executive branch?

Can they by omission break the law?

The Senate is already doing this too by its failure to pass a budget.

Short answer: The leadership of both parties doesn’t care and have abrogated their responsibilities to the people of this nation. They allow the executive to assume the role of lawmaker and enforcer, without complaint, and without objection of any kind, and then ask us to vote for them to stop the travesty...

As I understand it, this Arizona law was written to tie in with federal laws already on the books, on the subject of dealing with illegals.

The law was written with complementary language, not contradictory language. It was written to reinforce, not contravene, existing federal laws.

Whether those existing federal laws are really being enforced is a separate question. Based on the language of both the federal and Arizona laws, there should not be an issue of whether Arizona’s law is constitutional or not.

On another liberal cause celebre, the voter ID laws, the liberal 9th Circuit upheld most of Arizona’s voter ID law the other day. This has to shock liberals, that the courts may not be willing to uphold their agendas in some cases.

Voter ID has already been upheld by the Supreme Court, but the liberals keep suing on that issue anyway.

Real interesting issue. Immigration is an area which is probably the best example of federal preemption (except, maybe, regulation of aviation). You have a federal function which is relegated to the Congress for policy, with enforcement to the Executive branch. You have an Executive branch which has done nothing effective for decade after decade. And you have a state on the border which is trying to exercise its inherent police powers to control the illegal immigration which is demonstrably damaging that state and its people. When is a preemption waived by inaction? We’re about to find out!

And once again, President Obama's lawyers are likely to face skeptical questions from the high court. Last year, the court's five more-conservative justices rebuffed the administration and upheld an earlier Arizona immigration law that targeted employers who hired illegal workers.
To prevail this year, the administration must convince at least one of the five to switch sides and rule that the state is going too far and interfering with the federal government's control over immigration policy.

If that last par is not telling about the corrupt, biased, far left, Lame Stream Media, (to include of course the LA [SL]imes) I don't know what is

What these Moonbat a-holes are basically admitting is that NONE of the uber lib, Demo-Rat-appointed other 4 so-called "Justices" could be persuaded to rule based upon the Constitutionality of the arguments or merits and worst yet, has advanced the foregone conclusion that they will all vote in lockstep AGAINST Arizona before even hearing the arguments.

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.