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
click here to read article
Since in Arizona Kennedy went with the libs, I believe it’s his way of maintaining his bonafides, softening somewhat the acrimony he’s going to receive when his is the deciding vote overturning the health insurance mandate.
Roberts? I’m dumbfounded.
>>The court did not mention what states should do when the fed government will not enforce laws that hurt individual states.
The core of SCOTUS’s ‘reasoning’ to strike sections 3, 5, and 6 of the AZ law seemed to be that the state law interfered with FedGov’s right to NOT enforce federal law.
“(the second time using a koran!)”
If true, that’s shocking, hence: do you know of any evidence that’s true?
Here is the decision.
Mark Levin will dissect this decision tonight. Stay tuned.
More incentive to vote Obama OUT in order to get control of the border.
Jay Sekulow on Beck disagrees with your quick assessment, completely.
He said the guts of the AZ law was the provision that was upheld, that AZ police can ask immigration status and detain for ICE when carrying out other law enforcement duties.
He said it is HUGE.
He said the three provisions struck down were said to be pre-empted by federal law. In other words AZ can’t make it a state crime to illegally immigrate or be employed in the state because federal law already legislates in this area and trumps it.
THE RULING WAS UNANIMOUS.
LET ME REPEAT.
Why are people here attacking a couple of justices and attacking Bush over this?
If they use this same logic of Federal sphere of power superior to State Law in any and all all instances:
National Concealed Carry would be 9-0 affirmed
Right to Life would be 9-0 upheld
“Natural Born” would remove imposter from the White House
States could eliminate any and all personnel/budgetary consideratins for offices of Education, Labor, Environmental Protection, Transportation, Commerce and Drug Enforcement.
It’s just that that persnickety 10th Amendment is in the way . . .
Its over the. States have no rights to enforce law. Supremes have finished off the USA
As I understand it, in Mass a committee makes the nominations and he has to select from those nominated. Libs controlled that committee, so Romney could only select from that list. you can't nail him for that.
The root problem is not that SCOTUS shot down AZ S1170. The root problem that the executive branch is being allowed by both parties to choose which laws it will enforce, and which laws it will unilaterally decree in the form of Executive Orders. Note my tag line.
Why should the police check their immigration status if you cannot arrest them, if they are here illegally?
Immigration is the responsibility of the Fed, the Fed isn’t doing their job. Seems the court does not think the State can step in just because the Fed is looking the other way. However, the part of the law that wasn’t struck down is extremely important. I wouldn’t call this a loss but not a win either.
Huh? Romney does not have that as his history, so why would he do that as president?
The US Constitution enables a state to mobilize its military to repel a critical, imminent threat.
That would be an interesting decision.
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, ....engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. “
“Imminent” is in the eye of the beholder
They are stupid.
See my post #57 for Sekulow on Beck’s program.
“The issue Romney can win on is: I will nominate only conservative justices.”
I’m pretty sure that would be a first. Take a look at his record.
HUGE loss for Obama.
Because, in all my years of listening to stupid news media people, I have NEVER heard more incompetent reporting than I’ve heard this morning on this issue. The so-called smartest people in the room, our beloved media, can’t even tell us what was thrown out and what was upheld in a coherent manner.
Even though I was chastised for calling these black robed morons, black robed morons, here is more proof just how moronic they are.
Section 6 of the AZ law was so damned similar to section 2 as to require a microscope or a lawyer to discern the difference yet the morons struck down 6 and tossed 2 back to the most unconstitutional court in the land the 9th circus.
So here is the situation we have and will of course take no action to resolve.
We have an out of control, overreaching, clearly unconstitutional Federal government, as designed by the founders, who do not do one of the very few jobs assigned to them and the black robed morons on the USSC are preventing a state, negatively impacted by this inaction, from protecting themselves from an invasion of criminal trespassers.
Hey great: Ruling elite pass laws they have no intention of enforcing. Ruling elite prevent a state from enforcing those laws. Now WE THE PEOPLE have to fund criminal trespasser’s education, medical costs, food stamps etc.
Just when are we going to grow a set and chop the federal government down to the size INTENDED and DESIGNED by the founders?
Roberts as with this case and marijuana favors Federal power over State Rights.
Protection of borders is a Federal issue which is why the Court said that federal statutes “preempted” the Arizona law. Federal law always supersedes state law (Article VI, Clause 2). The issue is that Obama (and Bush for that matter) did not enforce existing federal law covering the borders and Arizona sought to protect itself. If the federal laws already in place are enforced properly by the executive branch then Arizona likely never passes SB 1070.
Honestly, this is a WIN for Arizona.
Fans of the Constitution should be pleased that the three provisions over-ruled were done so on the premise of pre-emption. There is already a federal law on the books that covers the three stricken provisions. The court merely upheld the law on this.
On the fourth issue, the Supremes said that Arizona is well within its rights to mandate LEOs ask for proper identifications and request immigration status and proof. THIS was the provision Obama wanted struck-down and he was DENIED!
yes...ruling against states right and law and even us immigrations law means the end.
ObamaCare standing WOULD ensure an 80% white, blue collar, and over 50 turnout against Obama in November. That would be a good thing.
——So basically, all the states can do is bend over and hand out welfare checks while saying “Welcome Senior and Seniorita!”-——
Simple solution: stop paying for welfare.
True, but this won't add much; after all Emperor Hussein I has already decreed that he isn't going to enforce the immigration laws he disagrees with.
Wait, what has one case to do with the other? The AZ law was about the State usurping the Fed authority in this area. The Obamacare case is about the feds overreaching and i this way it can be said the AZ ruling is actually a POSITIVE sign (to over turn) for the ruling to come on Thursday.
“Like the fall of Rome, the will to defend our own boarders isnt even there anymore.”
Great article here about our national suicide, and our leaders’ role in it.
In reading his thing, it appears that Kennedy et al are basing this ruling on the grounds of the “Supremacy Clause” in which Congress has the constitutional right to preempt state law. It misses the mark though in that the congressional preemption is NOT the issue, but the federal government’s deliberate refusal to enforce current law.
Thanks. On that basis, it would seem the decision is a valid one from a purely constitutional perspective.
I hope they are as rigorous on the subject of individual mandates and Obamacare.
Your comments, please.
There is something silly about saying that because Congress controls immigration that states can’t respond to lawbreaking, illegal invasion.
“So we now have the SCOTUS ignoring the laws of the land that they dont like?”
I think they just want to keep their jobs. I’m sure hussein will be removing them by mandate soon unless they follow his program.
Exactly. Now the issue remains how does a state force the federal government to uphold the current law?
i do believe it will be kicked bach to the lower court so they can finisht that part that still stand off.
Wrong reactions by most FReepers, according to Sekulow on with Beck.
See my post #57.
I don’t like the ruling either but too many people here want it both ways. Either the SC follows the Constitution (immigration is part of the Federal domain) or not. All this knee-jerk reaction is worthy of the DU.
Start sending reps that will enforce immigration law or ammend the Constitution.
“Further proof just how important unfettered illegal immigration is to the ruling class.”
That ‘bout says it all.
Then ICE simply lets them go, "Catch and Release".
Hold on, the stop provision survived. The headlines are misleading
How long before someone sues to stop "sanctuary city" practices on the basis of this decision?
Keep their jobs..........Their jobs are for life. The very purpose of job for life....was they wouldn’t have to be owing to anyone.
I see a second “swinger” on the COurt.
We need a rock-solid conservative to replace Kennedy when he leaves.
Sadly no. Any hard evidence would sink "The One" politically, and he knows it. The second swearing in was done in private and no photos - very odd for a guy as narcissistic as 0bama. Granted, the first swearing in was botched somewhat, but to summon the Chief Justice for a second attempt makes you wonder.
Far too often, initial reactions in here are wrong. It’s getting to the point where a core group of FReepers have adopted the ‘I’m a victim’ default position to EVERYTHING.
“Yes, the SC upheld the key portion of the law.”
At any time the 9th circus can stop this section again and like a bad dinner this vomit will be back at the USSC after the election of course.
If our laws are than damned convoluted that it takes this much crap for a state to do what the Federal government outlaws but does not enforce then we need a whole new set of laws. Only keep the fricken lawyers out of it.
EXACTLY...NO STATES RIGHTS.
Here’s a question. What if the state police pull over a car load of illegal immigrants for speeding? Their status is checked and they are detained for ICE. Then ICE sets them free. How is that a victory?
What SCOTUS did not do is to force the federal government to enforce its own laws.
That’s where electing conservatives to Congress and voting out the crap like Boehner, McConnell, Hatch, etc. is so important.
On top of all of his faults, incompetence, treason, etc., Obama can, and should be, impeached for failing to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. In this case, immigration laws.