Skip to comments.Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law
Posted on 06/25/2012 7:50:07 AM PDT by TonyInOhio
The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough immigration law but struck down others as intrusions on federal sovereignty, in a ruling that gave both sides something to cheer in advance of November elections where immigration is a major issue.
The court backed a section of the Arizona state law that calls for police to check the immigration status of people they stop.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
I understood they sent that provision back to the lower court for reconsideration.
imho this is wishful conservative thinking. I keep hearing that they are allowing the one provision upheld to go back so they can see how it works in practice, or upon further lower court review. It will be challenged immediately.
They strongly upheld the principle that the federal government gets to set immigration policy, and this was in spite of the oral arguments which sounded hostile to the government.
High court strikes down much of Arizona immigration law
According to one of the Lawyers from the ACLJ, the key provision was upheld and the three others already had federal laws upholding them.
This is SPIN. The “upheld” is even going back for review. This is a major major loss for AZ and state’s rights. Ignore the spin.
Poor logic again by the Supremes.
The Constitution perscribes federal control over NATIRALIZATION. Period.
They used this to say that it also deals with non-naturalization issues like employment, which are NOT naturalization issues.
Like the Commerce clause, they stretched the Constitution to cover areas it did not apply to.
Under their weird reasoning, it is now legal to be an illegal alien. It is also now legal to take illegal employment.
It’s 1984 again.
“They strongly upheld the principle that the federal government gets to set immigration policy, and this was in spite of the oral arguments which sounded hostile to the government.”
The two are not mutually exclusive. Immigration policy (and border control) IS a constitutionally mandated FEDERAL concern.
We can’t have each border state creating and enforcing it’s own interpretation of immigration and border control law EVEN IF, as now, the current resident refuses to enforce FEDERAL law.
The “hostile” part of the SCOTUS arguments involved this second fact, not the first.
We here are the first to decry judicial activism as opposed to strict constructionism. In this case, the majority voted in a strict constructionist manner.
We should at least applaud that fact while voting ABO in Novemeber in the hopes of getting a resident who will actually enforce FEDERAL laws.
The left is already screaming “racist”, so you know it’s bad for them.
Exactly. Too many of us here are “headline readers”. Read the substance. We got slaughtered in SCOTUS on this today. This is a BAD BAD ruling for conservatives (said the lawyer).
I think here the Court fails the US again. They support invasion and overthrow. More and more reason to hold lawyers and judges and police in contempt.
It seems that conservatives are always trying to be evenhanded while liberals never give an inch. That is why compromise always sets up a half life scenario where the libs get half a loaf and next time they get half of our half and so on.
“Strict Constitutionist manner” would mean that the federal government has control over Naturalization issues, since that is the only provision in the Constitution. All other powers are reserved to the states and the people.
Arizona was not trying to make illegals citizens. It was actually trying to assist federal laws already on the books.
>>Too many of us here are headline readers.<<
I’m not a headline reader.
The biggest problem I see from this is that AZ calls ICE and they do nothing.
Until Obama is out.
From WSJ (headline): Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law
I get it. They are giving the power back to the Feds. This Admin has decreed they won’t enforce the laws at all, but another Admin can enforce the laws as written. We better get a new Admin who wants this country to succeed and thrive. Please God.
Jay Sekulow said it’s good news.
Personally, I’m waiting for Mark Levin to weigh in. Hopefully he will call into Rush.
Does not bode well for the decision on Obamacare.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
The Maj Decision is fairly easy to read, any where the AZ law touches a section of fed law the fed law shall have precedence this is fairly strict const.
Since Fed law stated that contact with ICE would be 24/7 and it was to be used by local LEO’s etc.. then the provision to contact and ascertain the legal status of persons arrested and held was upheld.
now when AZ has 10,000 or so contacts and EVERY TIME ICE does nothing... then it can be used as a political issue.
That 'bout sums it up.
I’m sorry to see Roberts side with the liberal majorit.
I love Scalia’s comment that if Arizon is not allowed to enforce its territory, we should stop calling it a sovereign state.
Well Antonin, these separate states have not been sovereign perhaps as far back as 1865. The certainly are not now. The US Central government has trod up state sovereignty for so long now, few even recognized the seperate states should be sovereign.
I know many conservatives who have no clue of the histories or purposes for the electoral college and the 10th amendment. They are good solid conservatives, just ignorant of these fundamental ideals.
Same thing they did here in 2000 Bush/Gore debacle. Same difference.
Isn't it actually the case that it is still illegal to be an illegal alien per federal law, but the ruling says a state cannot make and enforce the same law because of federal supremacy in this area?
It is still illegal to be an illegal alien, but the current (and several previous administrations) refuse to enforce those particular federal laws.
Until Obama and/or Romney are out...
I have the solution. Don’t call INS in these matters instead purchase suspect illegal immigrants a bus ticket to D.C. with the address of a congressmen or senator they can lodge with.
I'm not so sure. The ruling said that immigration policy is set only by the Federal government. First, I believe this is in agreement with Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.
Second, had the ruling gone the other way, the individual states would have been able to create their own unique immigration laws. Would you *really* want that? Can you imagine the immigration policy of states like California or Massachusetts?
What makes you think that Romney will improve things? Everything he has said or refused to say on the issue indicates that he welcomes illegal immigration and is not at all averse to amnesty and a fairly rapid transition to permanent One Party Democrat Government that will be occasioned by all the new Democrat/Socialist voting citizens.
Little barry bastard commie moved to enact his own rule toward a profiled segment of Latino illegals, and the pirate Roberts now sies with this approach to unConstitutional establishment of law via this very oath busting ruling.
Little barry bastard commie moved to enact his own rule toward a profiled segment of Latino illegals, and the pirate Roberts now sides with this approach to unConstitutional establishment of law via this very oath busting ruling.
As a rabid border enforcement supporter, and an avowed enemy of the idea of illegal immigrants staying here, I am not as inclined to view these rulings to be as entirely negative as folks might expect me to be.
On the surface it seems the SCOTUS ruled that states are not allowed to set immigration policy. Even so, it seems the SCOTUS did uphold the idea that states can help enforce federal immigration laws.
Laws already exist to cover the employment of illegals. This and other duplications are probably unnecessary. What the court did uphold, is the plan to require officers to ask people they think to be illegal immigrants, for their papers.
If under further review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, this is upheld, what is to stop states from doing work-place raids, at establishments they think to be employing illegals?
If I were the governor or a member of the Legislature in Arizona, I would be proposing work place enforcement within hours. Determining a work-place to be hiring illegals, the federal government would be forced to take legal action against that establishment.
Now, will he? I don’t know, but I do know that with Obama in, nothing changes. Guaranteed.
But who was the last president to actually enforce immigration law? Clinton didn't. Neither Bush did. I'm not sure about Reagan, or Carter or Johnson or Kennedy. We know Eisenhower did enforce the law.
And, I put huge blame on the two Bushes for the problem we now have. GHWB was the first full term after the 1986 amnesty and he did not enforce the law, and all presidents since have followed suit.
Your forgetting “national defense” (which “border patrol” arguably is) is also exclusively of FED purview.
Attack Dumb0 all you want for not enforcing immigration laws, but at least respect SCOTUS for trying to uphold federalism in the face Dumbo’s total illegality.
As another poster wrote me up thread, maybe Scalia’s dissent will push a coalition of states to petition the court for relief from that illegality. We can hope.
Ginxberg and Sotomeyor voted with the majority.
From what I can see they upheld the right of cops in Arizona to check the immigration status of people they stop, but struck down the portion that required immigrants to carry their papers. WTF????????
There is a big difference between what the Constitution grants to the federal government, the very specific power to “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” and the broad extension to policies that have nothing to do with immigration. All other powers except those enumerated in the Constitution are with the states, and the people.
That part of immigration which is allowed is the part that deals with naturalization. The illegal entry and presence of aliens in the US is not a naturalization process, unless you believe that an illegal alien is accomplishing his first step to naturalization, in which case the whole world will sneak in here illegally to get naturalized.
Getting employment is not part of any naturalization process.
so a federal court upheld federal power?
color me shocked
next you’ll feign surprise when the federal courts uphold any and all federal taxes on individuals
you sir are correct on all counts...
the feds exceeded their authority by trying to force local police officers not to do their jobs...
arizona exceeded it’s authority by trying to pass it’s own immigration laws...
The scotus got it right..
Perhaps if this argument were framed in a different way, say, suing for damages caused by the fed refusing to enforce immigration law???
I understood they sent that provision back to the lower court for reconsideration.
Yup. They didn’t uphold it. They just punted on it. So there is nothing in this ruling for us to cheer.
AZ should send them on a one way bus to that wonderful “sanctuary city” of San Francisco.
“Does not bode well for the decision on Obamacare.”
Apples and Oranges.
Article 1, Section 8? Yes, but doesn’t that same section give the States the authority to call on the militia to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”
I would consider what is going on in our border States, especially Arizona, an INVASION...
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.