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
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...
the feds exceeded their authority by trying
to force local police officers not to do their jobs...
arizona exceeded its authority by trying
to pass its own immigration laws...
And would add:
The lower court exceeded its authority by
trying to enjoin Section 2(B).
I expect several more states to follow suit now, kalifornia not being one of them.
Does not bode well for the decision on Obamacare.
Nope. Not at all. And it looks like we won’t hear about that till the end of the week. They want to get the hell out of Dodge.
I haven’t read Scalia’s dissent, but another poster on this thread mentioned it (and the fact that it discusses Dumb0’s decision last week to “specifically” NOT enforce provisions of Federal law as not having been part of the original SCOTUS SB1070 hearing) as providing perhaps an opening for States to have standing at SCOTUS to REQUIRE the feds to enforce immigration laws.
We shall see. Next up the House contempt citation and then Dumb0Care decision on Thursday.
Lot’s of ammo out there this week for Dumb0 to shoot himself in the foot.
Which is the part that *was* upheld by the Supremes. :)
There’s nothing stopping AZ from shipping everyone it catches to Washington DC. Legally, they are bringing it to federal attention.
How long is the president going to stop enforcing the border if AZ chooses to ship everyone to DC?
I wouldn’t put too much stock on what the extreme left says because anything other open borders, imposition of marxism and imprisonment of anyone to the right of Stalin will be considered a loss.
Isn’t this decision essentially saying that should the feds choose not to enforce a law, that’s okay, even if states pay the price? So a million new illegals enter AZ and they just have to take it? I don’t zee how the practical effect of this is anything else.
how about free bus tickets to DC?
Nah, they just refused to address it, while offering some guidelines in the event it’s litigated.
Do you really want the individual states to set their own unique immigration policies? Tell me, what do you think states like California would do with that green light? Sanctuary cities are bad enough. Sanctuary states?
By the way, it seems to me that this ruling pulls the rug out from under those sanctuary cities.