Skip to comments.Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law
Posted on 06/25/2012 7:50:07 AM PDT by TonyInOhio
click here to read article
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.