Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arizona v. United States: Reading the Tea Leaves of Oral Argument
American Thinker ^ | April 29, 2012 | Herbert W. Titus and WIlliam J. Olson

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: aliens; arizona; immigration; scalia; scotus; sovereignty
Also from the article: "In response, Justice Scalia jumped back into the fray, noting, first, that the constitutional grant of exclusive authority is over "naturalization which we've expanded to immigration": But all that means is that the Government can set forth the rules concerning who belongs in this country. But if, in fact, somebody who does not belong in this country is in Arizona, Arizona has no power? What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?"
1 posted on 04/29/2012 1:38:28 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
It looks like Obama will go 0-2 this June on Arizona and Obama Care.

Then a lost in November this whole country will be ok.

2 posted on 04/29/2012 2:03:13 AM PDT by scooby321 (h tones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scooby321
"It looks like Obama will go 0-2 this June on Arizona and Obama Care.

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.

3 posted on 04/29/2012 3:02:12 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
Obama - this whole mess and all the other constitutional power grabs, messes, and outright flaunts of established law - is the face of the immigration problem. He is propped up by the Democrat Party and the media.

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!"

4 posted on 04/29/2012 3:28:44 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: scooby321

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.


5 posted on 04/29/2012 4:05:41 AM PDT by Spktyr (Overwhelmingly superior firepower and the willingness to use it is the only proven peace solution.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
Here's the money argument that both Obama lawyer Verrilli and SCOTUS missed:

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'.

6 posted on 04/29/2012 4:32:24 AM PDT by Hostage (Be Breitbart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spktyr

“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?


7 posted on 04/29/2012 4:57:04 AM PDT by Soul of the South (When times are tough the tough get going.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Hostage
Illegal immigrants are not immigrants

Agreed. They are invaders or trespassers at best.

8 posted on 04/29/2012 5:07:36 AM PDT by varon (The Patriots stand watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

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.


9 posted on 04/29/2012 5:11:04 AM PDT by Graybeard58 (Romney vs. Obama? One of them has to lose, rejoice in that fact, whichever it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Graybeard58
"I understand that Kagan or however you spell the idiot’s name, has recused herself."

Why would she recuse herself on this, and not "Obamacare"? Whaaa?

10 posted on 04/29/2012 5:14:39 AM PDT by Flotsam_Jetsome (If not you, who? If not now, when?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome

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.


11 posted on 04/29/2012 5:32:24 AM PDT by Thumper1960 (A modern so-called "Conservative" is a shadow of a wisp of a vertebrate human being.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: varon
Agreed. They are invaders or trespassers at best.

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.

12 posted on 04/29/2012 5:42:32 AM PDT by TruthBeforeAll (To a liberal any Gov. program that is an utter failure is only so because there's not enough of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: scooby321

I’d like to see the moving van pulled up to the White House come November.


13 posted on 04/29/2012 5:56:20 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: scooby321

“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.


14 posted on 04/29/2012 6:55:11 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: scooby321
It looks like Obama will go 0-2 this June on Arizona and Obama Care.

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.

15 posted on 04/29/2012 11:52:34 AM PDT by zeugma (Those of us who work for a living are outnumbered by those who vote for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks

I understand your urgency, however, the moving van will not be there until January of 2013.


16 posted on 04/29/2012 2:58:01 PM PDT by Baron 2A (Big business earns my money. Big government takes it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Baron 2A

Cue up the United Van Lines jingle...


17 posted on 04/29/2012 5:46:58 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome; stephenjohnbanker
The Alamo
18 posted on 04/30/2012 2:51:41 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas (Fool me once, shame on you -- twice, shame on me -- 100 times, it's U. S. immigration policy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas

LOL!


19 posted on 04/30/2012 4:51:27 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Flotsam_Jetsome
Scalia: What does sovereignty mean if it does not include the ability to defend your borders?"

EXACTLY!!!

20 posted on 05/01/2012 10:22:52 AM PDT by AuntB (Illegal immigration is simply more "share the wealth" socialism and a CRIME not a race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Thumper1960

>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.


21 posted on 05/01/2012 1:21:35 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson