Posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:29 AM PDT by pabianice
“...The very purpose of job for life....was they wouldn’t have to be owing to anyone”
What makes you think the king wouldn’t try it? And who would stop him if he tried that power grab? Our government was made for honorable men—neither obama OR holder qualifies.
Since we’re also talking about obamacare, has anyone ever explained how people on welfare that pay no taxes can be forced to “Pay” insurance premiums?
The States need to attack illegal immigration in areas where they have primacy. If, for example, a State refused to issue birth certs for children born to illegals, that is solely within its purview. If the feds disagree, they can issue their own certs.
If a State were to require EVERY citizen to get a work permit (which could be very pro forma, issued with drivers licences for example), and require everyone to provide a permit to work, that is not stepping on fed immigration law.
States are going to have to be more creatively aggressive about enforcing their end of federalism. To me, that’s the upshot of today’s ruling (and the pattern that has led to it).
If there is any hope for us we can’t start with a list taht is all conservative republicans to be elected out!
The list has to start with names like Obama, Reid, Pelosi. Otherwise we are sunk.
By that logic if the US has a law against “hate crimes” that means the states can have one since the US preempts them.
Nope, not quite. They said the court sent it back to the lower court.
Article says: “One section — allowing police to check immigration status after legal stopes — sent back to 9th District Court for review.”
The 9th District simply has it back; they don’t have instructions to permit police to check status. They could do that, but only time will tell.
From live ScotusBlog:
Justice Scalia would uphold the Arizona statute in toto.
Justice Scalia began his dissent by saying that he would uphold all parts of the Arizona law.
Justice Scalia is not only dissenting from the bench, but he has produced a written copy of the bench statement for the press. It is 7 pages long.
http://scotusblog.wpengine.com/
LOL, gimmee a break. How would you expect them to act? They have the base to keep excited. The will spin any decision as a win in some way for the obumbler.
Stopping what may turn out to be illegal aliens for infractions is not much of a problem since cars have broken tail lights and such and if you watch someone long enough they will violate some traffic law. Once stopped their status can be determined legally. If found to be illegal they can be shipped out.
Makes me think this is the umpire's "makeup call" (albeit, announced first) for killing Mengelecare.
Arizona tried to mirror the Feds law on immigration.
now Arizona should go back and sue the Feds to uphold federal law.
Perhaps we can use this to our benefit. Since the court has now held that not only do the the states not have the “obligation” to enforce Federal law, it appears that they now do not even have the “right” to enforce federal law. Therefore, as Gov. of Arizona, I would say to the Feds, “we no longer will provide any assistance in enforcing Federal law as it relates to collection of taxes, enforcing any Obamacare provisions, etc.”. Essentially, for all Federal laws, “you’re not getting our help - good luck with that”.
How could a court come back and now say, “you’re not allowed to enforce THIS federal law, but you MUST enforce others...”
Section 8 of the Constitution authorizes Congress to set up a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States. This never was an issue for states’ rights.
Arizona and other states should sue the US government for failure to enforce Congressionally-adopted laws regarding naturalization (and illegal aliens). The “we can’t wait” argument would be as dictatorial when made by the states as it is by Obama, in my opinion.
Agreed. I’ve argued before them and I HATE that. It’s not a game and, often, they act like it is. I hate the “we are royalty” feeling SCOTUS projects.
To p_r_s:
For once we agree...
That I know of, anyway.
Those who say Obama won this are beyond stupid.
Those who attack Roberts and Kennedy forgot to notice, the ruling was UNANIMOUS.
The provisions that say it’s an AZ crime to enter AZ illegally and obtain employment there have been ruled to be pre-empted by federal laws already in existence.
The law against illegal immigration remains in effect, the court ruled 8-0 that it’s a federal law and cannot at the same time be a state law.
It upheld for now the provision that cops in AZ can ask for legal status information in the normal pursuit of their law enforcement duties, apparently leaving door open a crack to have another go at the issue, later.
We wish the whole law was upheld as it was written.
But with a unanimous decision how can people keep attacking a couple of justices??
To dfwg:
Kennedy was a Reagan appointee.
Roberts, a W appointee, was joined by every other justice except the recused Kagan.
EXACTLY...SENT BACK TO LOWER COURT TO FIND A BETTER WAY TO DESTROY IT.
Could AZ appeal a ‘no’ decision by the 9th Circus back to the SCOTUS?
Who would have "standing" to do so?
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.