Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law

The Wall Street Journal ^ | 06/25/12 | Jess Bravin

[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.

[henkster]

A private citizen would run into the same legal problem that Arizona ran into at the Supreme Court. It’s a federal, not state, local or private issue. I would bet that a Federal Court would toss out such a suit on the basis that the private citizen does not have standing to assert the claim.

It is still a political issue. The fact that a branch of government is not performing its job function does not grant any other branch the legal authority to step in and fill that function. It is a political question up to the electorate to hold elected representatives accountable for their malfeasance.

This site is about upholding the principles of the United States as a Constitutional Republic. Well, that is how a Constitutional Republic is supposed to work. Forcing it to do anything else means it is no longer a Constitutional Republic. While the United States probably is no longer a Constitutional Republic already, it’s not logically justifiable to make it something other than a Constitutional Republic that we want as opposed to what the left wants.

[moehoward]

"How in the world can you find a state enforcing federal law to be contrary to that law just because a current executive doesn’t feel like enforcing it?"

And that is the million dollar question. This has NEVER been about a state creating 'it's own' immigration code or law.

[battletank]

Oh yes. Constitution expert. Just like hussein. LOL

and just as much respected around here. Rightfully so. /s

[netmilsmom]

>>Romney with a Republican Congress just puts a different man at the helm of the Socialist Enterprise and the speed with which that train comes down the track will not even slow. <<

Unless some miracle (that trust me, I’m praying for) happens, we have a choice of a Socialist that likes America or a Marxist that hates it, who will stack the Supreme Court and disregards the congress.

ABO

[PGalt]

Interesting. Thanks to all posters.

[qaz123]

Barack Obama is celebrating the SCOTUS decision and is now digging the knife deeper into the backs of the people of Arizona. Just like his “I Won” comment.

He has told the people of Arizona....F**K YOU. I’ll do what I want, when I want.

And not one person will do anything about it. They’re hoping and praying that he’ll lose in November. But, what if he doesn’t

Good Job Mr President....thumbing your nose at the citizens of the United States, yet again.

[Jacquerie]

Levin is shredding the notion that conservatives, patriots, and AZ won anything today.

[netmilsmom]

Oh great.

Now I’m depressed.

[ontap]

The majority voted to strike down most of the law!!!

[pfflier]

But they upheld the part that holds most of the water, the part that 13 other states have bought into and the part that is the key feature of SB1070.

It's not a numbers game, it's a quality game.

[arthurus]

Judging by Romney’s judicial picks in Massachusetts I think the Court will tip into Permanent left Activist with him as well as with the kenyan. Romney Justices will have a more scholarly veneer than Kenyan appointments but the result will be the same. The Constitution will be referenced, if at all, with minimum lip service. today’s Arizona decision is a demonstration that we have already lost the Court. The only Justices left on the side of the Constitution are Thomas and Scalia. Robets has become Earl Warren

[netmilsmom]

We better start praying because we don’t have much of a choice.

[Reagan69]

Seriously. Why couldn’t border states have a “we’ll move undocumented workers to California or DC” program?

It would be worth it to get them out of AZ’s hospitals and school systems, and apparently, California loves them.

[oldbill]

“Do you really want the individual states to set their own unique immigration policies?”

No stae or locality is setting up its own immigeration policy in the laws they have enacted. In every case, including Arizona, the states and localities are implementing local enactments of the existing federal laws which are not being enforced.

For example, the requiremnt that foreigners carry some proof of their staus and legality of being in the US. That IS existing federal law, that a foreigner in the US carry with him at all times his proper documentation - passport, visa, I-94, work permit, etc.

We have gotten ourselves into the bizarre and illogical position that only the feds can enforce immigration laws, not the states, but the feds refuse to enforce those same laws. What if we applied these same rationales to the overlapping federal and state laws concerning kidnapping, bank robbery, counterfeiting, drugs, mail fraud, etc.?

Every existing or proposed state /local law on immigration is a direct result of the federal government’s refusal to enforce federal law. The Rep[ublicans should be initiating impeachment bills for Obama’s failure to do his Constitutional duty to “. . . take care that the laws be faithfully executed”. But Republicans in power also want the illegals here to provide cheap labor for their Chamber of Commerce cronies.

Only the people are left out of the process. They suffer, everyone else profits.