Skip to comments.Arizona v. United States: Reading the Tea Leaves of Oral Argument
Posted on 04/29/2012 1:38:22 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome
The issue arose early in the oral argument, even before the solicitor general could make his claim of exclusivity. Justice Scalia kicked off, asking Mr. Clement whether he would concede "that the State has to accept within its borders all people who have no right to be there, that the Federal Government has no interest in removing ... and the State has no power to close its borders to people who have no right to be there."
This time Mr. Clement answered: "I think my answer to that is no." But he did not back up his answer with either reason or conviction, resting Arizona's case on the sole ground that the state has the constitutional right to help the federal government to enforce federal law. In contrast, General Verrilli boldly rejected Mr. Clement's basic argument that the Arizona immigration law was nothing more than the state "aid to Federal immigration enforcement," when as a matter of fact, "Arizona is pursuing its own policy of attrition through enforcement and that the provisions of this law are designed to work together to drive unlawfully present aliens out of the State. That is something Arizona cannot do because the Constitution vests exclusive --"
Before General Verrilli could finish his sentence, Justice Sotomayor asked him to "answer Justice Scalia's earlier question...whether it would be the Government's position that Arizona doesn't have the power to exclude or remove ... from its borders a person who's here illegally." Given the opportunity to finish his sentence, General Verrilli stated: "It is our position [that] the Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the national government."
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Then a lost in November this whole country will be ok.
Then a lost in November this whole country will be ok."
Oh, how I wish I could believe that. Time will tell, and there is still a not-unsubstantial amount of it between now and November. I'm "buttered side of the toast falls face-down on the floor every time" in outlook however, so I'm not so optimistic, obviously.
The House actually holding Eric withHolder in contempt of Congress over F&F would be a good starting point in restoring some of my anemic faith in the rule of law.
With each argument before the Supreme Court, his minions spout lies and convoluted logic, twisted to fit the intent of Obama's (et al) dire need to populate this country with potential dependent voters, regardless of the social, medical and financial consequences.
The government's court arguments to me often seem akin to the case where a Pimp is arrested for beating one of his hookers, he explains, "You cain't b'lieve that b!tch, she a lyin' ho!"
No. All that would mean is that someone’s bandaged the bleeding for now, not that the wounds are healed. It will take decades, if its even possible, to recover from this. I am no longer sure we can recover, not as an entire nation.
Remember, those two issues are out of dozens of not hundreds of major policies that would have to be rolled back - and that takes more time than passing them in the first place. We now have a huge near-permanent welfare state as well.
Undaunted, General Verrilli pressed forward, asserting that "the Framers vested in the national government the authority over immigration because they understood that the way this nation treats citizens of other countries is a vital aspect of our foreign relations."
Scalia had been quick to point out that the Constitution vested interest over 'naturalization' versus 'immigration' asserting the United States has authority to decide whether an alien shall be allowed to become a citizen but that state sovereignty allowed for a state to control its borders.
A key to this exchange is that SCOTUS is focusing words, definitions, meanings and intent to the literal wording of the Constitution and not to Verrilli's extrapolation to 'immigration'.
But both Scalia and Verrilli lost the opportunity to focus on the real word that is at issue, 'illegal immigration'. Even this term 'illegal immigration' has problems.
Obviously, 'immigration' and 'illegal immigration' are not the same. But what is 'immigration' and what is 'illegal immigration'?
Immigration is a process by which a foreign person obtains a license to reside and enjoy the benefits and most rights of living in the US. Illegal immigration is where a person resides in and benefits from living in the US without license.
Illegal immigrants are not immigrants. The word is included in their descriptor because they are usurping privileges of legal immigrants. But in reality they are illegal border crossers.
Looking above again at what Verrilli said:
"the Framers vested in the national government the authority over immigration..."
Even if SCOTUS were to concede Verrilli's argument, this statement has nothing to do with 'illegal immigration' or illegal border crossing. Verrilli is merely expressing the underlying political motive that Obama considers 'illegal aliens' as 'immigrants' or 'immigrants-to-be' and as 'future or already current democrat illegal voters'.
“Remember, those two issues are out of dozens of not hundreds of major policies that would have to be rolled back - and that takes more time than passing them in the first place. We now have a huge near-permanent welfare state as well.”
Plus you need a President and Congress committed to rolling back the policies and the backbone to stand up to the interests benefiting from the policies. Does anyone really believe President Romney, Speaker Boehner, and Senator McConnell have either the desire or the backbone for such a fight much less the belief in conservative principles?
Agreed. They are invaders or trespassers at best.
With Sotomayor’s tone, this thing might be an 8-0 slap in the face for Obama.
I understand that Kagan or however you spell the idiot’s name, has recused herself. In my opinion, that’s not all she should do to herself.
Why would she recuse herself on this, and not "Obamacare"? Whaaa?
The Federal government is on notice.
When the Federal government displays little respect for The Law, if cannot complain when The People display a similar disrespect for The Law. The Federal government agitates for anarchy and will have to accept that anarchy is a two way street.
That's only true if one recognizes the borders of this nation and it's states as being more than arbitrary lines drawn by racist white guys. Which this administration and it's ilk do not.
I’d like to see the moving van pulled up to the White House come November.
“Then a lost in November this whole country will be ok.”
Then we will have a different battle for liberty at the hands of big government Republicans who want to seize government to have it control our lives in different ways, but always ending up with a government that is bigger and spending more when they leave office than when they came into office.
Actually, I wouldn't be suprised at all if a political decision was made to let Fedgov slide on Obamacare in exchange for siding with AZ in its case. If the court ruled against Fedgov, I would be a bit surprised. We ceased being a Constitutional Republic a long time ago.
I understand your urgency, however, the moving van will not be there until January of 2013.
Cue up the United Van Lines jingle...
>When the Federal government displays little respect for The Law, if cannot complain when The People display a similar disrespect for The Law. The Federal government agitates for anarchy and will have to accept that anarchy is a two way street.
Or, to put it another way: when the government casts off the constitution, it also casts off all laws pursuant to the constitution (and laws not pursuant are not constitutional, and therefore irrelevant/non-binding), thereby forfeiting all legal protections thereof. (i.e. voiding the law eliminates even the laws which protect you.)
But, even prior to the constitution there was the Declaration of Independence which says it is the right, and duty, to [re-]create a governemtn when the old becomes injurious to individual liberties/rights.