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.
We have to do something so :Sue Obama and bring Obama and his executive order giving Amnesty to illegals before the Supreme Court.
And the cop can only check the driver’s status. Nobody else in the car were breaking any laws unless the cop searches them and finds drugs.
I predict most AZ cops will not be saying “Papers, please.”
If people who are otherwise against illegal immigration simply vote for the same old enablers, such as Obama, then they get what they deserve. The rest of us, not so much.
Still, what do we do if, after all our efforts, we come up short politically and lose? We might not deserve the fate of the democrats having a 50 year majority of the electorate that now counts illegals as newly minted voting citizens, but since those who interpret the US Constitution are against us, politics are our only way out.
I'm not trying to be dopey, but I am very pessimistic!
The story you refer to is about 6 weeks old.
Absolutely.
Hopefully Arizona already has it written up and can move on it immediately.
The states may not institute their own policies with regard to naturalization and immigration, but THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION HERE. The question is whether within ths immigration and naturalization system the federal government has instituted whether the state has the right to protect it sovereignity and its citizens. The only specification in the Constiution is that states must treat CITIZENS from the several states alike (and the Federal government does have a right to determine citizenship). But the states are SOVEREIGN states (and there is that little thing in the Constitution about powers not expressly granted to the Feds devolve to the states or the people.)
I was starting to agree with the majority decision until I read Scalia's informed, deeply considered and absolute dissent. Some quotes from Scalia:
"The United States is an indivisible “Union of sovereign States.” ... Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. I dissent.
As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty.
"We are not talking here about a federal law prohibiting the States from regulating bubble-gum advertising, or even the construction of nuclear plants. We are talking about a federal law going to the core of state sovereignty: the power to exclude. Like elimination of the States’ other inherent sovereign power, immunity from suit, elimina. tion of the States’ sovereign power to exclude requires that “Congress . . . unequivocally expres[s] its intent to abrogate,” ... Implicit “field preemption” will not do.
"Even in its international relations, the Federal Government must live with the inconvenient fact that it is a Union of independent States, who have their own sovereign powers. This is not the first time it has found that a nuisance and a bother in the conduct of foreign policy.Four years ago, for example, the Government importuned us to interfere with thoroughly constitutional state judicial procedures in the criminal trial of foreign nationals because the international community, and even an opinion of the International Court of Justice, disapproved them. See Medellín v. Texas, 552 U. S. 491 (2008). We rejected that request, as we should reject the Executive’s invocation of foreign-affairs considerations here. Though it may upset foreign powers—and even when the Federal Government desperately wants to avoid upsetting foreign powers—the States have the right to protect their borders against foreign nationals, just as they have the right to execute foreign nationals for murder.
“[T]he State is not inhibited from making the nationalpurposes its own purposes to the extent of exerting its police power to prevent its own citizens from obstructingthe accomplishment of such purposes.” ... Much more is that so when, as here, the State is protecting its own interest, the integrity of its borders. And we have said that explicitly with regard to illegal immigration: “Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without any power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law,and whose numbers might have a discernible impact ontraditional state concerns.” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202, 228, n. 23 (1982).
"What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that “federal policies” of nonenforcement will leave the States helpless before those evileffects of illegal immigration that the Court’s opinion dutifully recites in its prologue (ante, at 6) but leavesunremedied in its disposition.
"The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thingto do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act.7 Perhapsit is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind."
"Are the sovereign States at themercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?
A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’s judgment surely fails that test.
"Now, imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, cl. 4, the Naturalization Clause—which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits.
This court has unconstitutionally struck down the rights of states to protect themselves, even within the confines of federal law. The states must operate within Federal law, but the existence of a federal law SHOULD NOT prohibit the states from defending their sovereignty within the boundaries of federal law. We are moving closer and closer to proving the anti-federalists were right in fearing a central federal government that usurped the rights of the states.
Jay Sekulow said this was a big loss for Obama. (My synopsis of 3 parts ruled against: The parts struck down are already covered by federal law, so the spin on this will be wrong.)
” We still have Rubio “
I’ll GIT you fer that : )
Cop stops a driver who is swerving all over the road and clearly drunk. The controversy or “unclear” aspect of the law is whether or not the officer should check the drivers status. Even if the person can’t speak English. It will be cases such as this that end up in court.
125 pages which are unclear.
So what? The driver and a crew of illegals (better - foreign nationals) can say yup we are from Mexico, Guatemala, Syria, Afghanistan, etc. Then gibe the officer a Bronx cheer and say chi**-te fuzz you can’t do anything about it. Sheesh.
http://twitter.com/#!/JaySekulow
That occurred to me at first, but the huge difference (even for this court) is that immigration has traditionally been an area of federal jurisdiction. It's power in health care has never been as great.
When I posted about the unanimous ruling, I had just heard that from good sources. But in fact apparently the provision they upheld WAS unanimous but apparently not so, the other provisions. Which was not covered by the talk radio source I cited.
I still don’t know the exact breakdown, but have subsequently heard that ONLY that upheld provision was unanimous.
A split decision on a state’s right to legislate in this area is disappointing, but not surprising.
My guess is some of the justices that joined to strike down the provisions that made immigration crimes into state crimes whereas they have been federal crimes, were worried about opening a pandora’s box of challenges re: state laws attempting to mirror federal laws on the same issues.
Still don’t know how the votes exactly broke down, because haven’t yet heard a talk radio source say. Rush mentioned Kennedy and Roberts joining with libs, however, which makes me think the vote was them plus Sotomayor, Breyer, and RBG...Kagan having recused.
Is that correct? Was it 5-4 on the AZ mirror laws provisions being struck?
(Many of you have posted to me, which I haven’t had time to read yet, so if this was already revealed, thanks for the info.)
My apologies for misunderstanding the difference in unanimous on the upheld provision and not on the struck ones, but that part was not covered on Beck, by Sekulow.
Brewer and AZ AG say it’s an important win.
Rush seems to be saying “muddled”.
He is thrilled with the Montana decision and cites Pelosi going nuts...again.
Rush now referencing Scalia’s dissent on AZ’s struck mirror law provisions...
Says AZ is either a sovereign entity or not...”I dissent”.
Make no mistake, in a just world/system ALL of AZ would be upheld, but methinks some of them were worried about opening that pandora’s box...
And for ALL of you who attack Bush because of Roberts, I presume Alito dissented? Also a Bush appointee.
I presume ALL of you know Kennedy was appointed by Reagan?
I disagree with W when called for. I never did see reason behind gratuitous, senseless and savage attacks and this would be one.
A unanimous ruling against Obama is bad?
LOL :)
I couldnt help myself
No they didn't - read the decision. They remanded the case because they could not rule in the theoretical on a policy that has not been implemented, and specified ways it COULD be implemented and pass constitutional muster (I suspect that was Roberts' contribution), but that is a LONG way from upholding the law.
Does this mean cities cannot deem/legislate themselves sanctuary cities...and, enforce such "laws"?
Please see my latest post, #233.
Thanks.
Do you have any links to substantiate that Obama was sworn in using a Koran? I have heard it a bunch of times, but never pursued it. Using Snopes or Wikipedia is useless, because neither of them can be trusted in political matters especially when it comes to liberals. (I use both as a tool to buttress non-political questions of truth, but wouldn’t trust either of them further than I could throw them.
Just curious, because I really would like to know for sure.
All up to the feds and whether or not they decide to act on it. I won’t hold my breath:(
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.