Skip to comments.Court strikes down most of Arizona immigration law, but leaves key provision in place (1070)
Posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:29 AM PDT by pabianice
SCOTUS strikes-down 3 of 4 S1170 provisions; says immigration is under federal control. One section -- allowing police to check immigration status after legal stopes -- sent back to 9th District Court for review.
What was a unanimous decision?
Which means the president is supposed to be enforcing the current law as written and not the imagined revisions he'd like to enforce.
The Supreme Court makes decisions and the laws that they rule on affect all of our lives. That, in itself seems to be against our rights under the Constitution of the United States.
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a constitutional challenge to a central provision of Arizonas anti-illegal immigration law, clearing the way for similar legislation to take effect in other states and advancing a political narrative that could give President Barack Obama an added boost from Latino voters in November.
That provision, requiring police to conduct immigration checks on individuals they arrest or merely stop for questioning whom they suspect are in the U.S. illegally, does not appear to violate the Constitution by intruding on the federal governments powers to control immigration, the court said.
All eight justices who ruled on the case voted to allow the mandatory immigration-check requirement to go into effect.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77789.html#ixzz1yoyU2xlN
The central premise of the law remains in effect and that is to round up and (legally) dispose of illegal aliens
Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; §5(C)makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; §6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable
from the United States”””
It already is and has been for a number of years not legal AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL for any employer to hire a person who is not authorized to work in the USA.
IF a form I-9 is properly filled out and the applicant cannot prove that they are authorized to work in the USA, an employer cannot hire them.
IF they choose to hire them and get caught-—the fine can be as high as $5000 a day per employee.
Perhaps, but Scalia's dissent was obviously, at the least, revised in the last 10 days as he makes direct reference to Obama's announcement that he will not enforce the law on those brought here as children.
Quote of the day: Scalia - "...the Federal Government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States, who have their own sovereign powers."
Not looking good for us.
How can this be a unanimous decision if Scalia wrote a scathing dissent?
None of the reporting on this makes any sense whatsoever.
I;n no atty but I called one I know and from what he explained the sending of the provision back to the 9th district for reviews was a formality. The USSC has ruled it to be Constitutional and what was sent back was this decision simply so they, the 9th district could look it over.
The lower court can no longer rule against this unless some other outside entity brings another suit on grounds different then what was just ruled on by the USSC. That’s the way I understood what he explained to me.
They’re in denial. That’s better than being depressed as hell.
Roberts and Kennedy are there to provide a firewall for the moderate Republican insiders who want illegal immigration.
The GOP insiders are supported by the business interests who want cheap labor and dare I say it, also want Obamacare-Romneycare to bail them out of heathcare costs.
The Supremes may strike down a federal mandate, but allow states to mandate ala Romneycare which is what Willard mean when he speaks of “repealing” Obamacare.
But would people believe him?
I think the last state politician to stand up to the feds was George Wallace. Too bad he picked the wrong issue to support states’ rights.
“I’m hoping Roberts joined the majority to write the opinion and limit the damage.”
Nope, Kagan recused herself, so even with Kennedy switching sides it would have been a 4-4 decision.
I had believed that Roberts was a constructionist and that Kennedy was a libertarian/activist.
I see no way to take the words of the constitution and make it say that the president can whimsically enforce or not enforce the law of the land. Roberts' position then is based on something other than the constitution. I would guess that it's based on the desire of business to have cheap labor. If so, that is very bad for the ObamaCare decision because corporations are the ones who are really driving the train on the national health care issue. They want out from under the expense of providing it through their businesses. (Legitimate on the part of business, but the answer is to just stop covering it, not pass it off to a big government program. Let individuals buy their own.) If Kennedy is a libertarian, then I see no way that "liberty" is an issue in a cop turning in an illegal alien or a state wanting their police to do so. That means the "activist" portion won out, and Kennedy is also probably siding with international corporate desires to keep wages low via illegals competing for jobs. For all you democrat pro-unionists out there, this is a hugely ANTI-UNION decision, and especially in the building, trucking, and service sectors. But your bosses in the democrat party are going to want you sing praise to this catastrophe.
Do you think corporations would stop taking taxes out of your paycheck?
“Makes me think the health care mandate will be allowed to stay. We are so screwed.”
Interesting - this morning, my husband told me that Jake Tapper of ABC had reported that Obamacare would be UPHELD - 6-3 - with Kennedy and Roberts joining the majority (Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg). The theory being that Kennedy didn’t want to be the 5th vote - as in Bush v. Gore - and Roberts didn’t want to divide the country. Sounds a bit like the failed philosophy that underlay the Missouri Compromise and the Dred Scott decision.
I bet this law had a severability clause.
Obamacare does not. Of course the USSC could decide this is like social security and damn everyone to slavery.
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.