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
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.
Which does have to make you wonder what in the world John Roberts was smoking at the time.
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?
As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States.
“Once again the liberal jurist always vote the liberal agenda first while conservative jurist do not. “
There are lots of libertarians who are pro-illegal. WSJ editorials are fun to read except for when they bring up this issue.
The left is already screaming racist,
Just shows how embedded playing the skin color card is in their thinking. It’s become totally automatic. Even when they get what they want, the first thing they say is “racist!”
“arizona exceeded its authority by trying to pass its own immigration laws...”
That’s right. You immigrate to the US, not Arizona.
I don't think so. I think they firmly supported some imagined power of the executive to ignore the law despite the constitution saying that the executive is to enforce the law of the land.
Arizona was "in trouble" for enforcing federal law in contravention of the executive's decision to ignore the law with forbids what we call illegal immigration. An executive who is allowed to ignore the law is call a despot, I believe.
This should be called the "Despotism Empowerment Decision" in the future.
They will go full circle when they get a ruling that supports a despot making up his own law. He can now ignore enforcing law, and in the future create law on whim. Sounds like old Rome to me.
>>I wouldnt put too much stock on what the extreme left says<<
I’m not. But it’s fun to watch.
Where is that quote from?
I think, as a general rule, it is a crime for an illegal alien to be in the US, but it has been many years since we had a president and administration who intended to enforce existing immigration law.
I didn’t quote that. My post was #57.
If the executive can just decide not to enforce a law, the states (and its citizenry) are simply forced to take it?
“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?”
You are correct. This opinion paves the way for the feds to take action against “sanctuary cities.” Getting the feds to do that places the obligation right back where it ought to be; as a political issue and changing the people running the show in DC.
Must we wait for the Feds to take action? That might be a long wait depending on who's in power. Can't someone bring suit now against a sanctuary city based on this ruling?
Here’s a plan:
Round-up illegals in those states whose state and federal reps. vote for more restrictive policies on illegals, securing the borders, etc. and send them to states whose reps vote for less border control, amnesty for illegals,etc.
And let’s not forget the home states of the members of the federal courts who come down AGAINST preserving our vanishing national character.
These clowns think it’s such a swell idea, let THEM live with these folks.
As cheap as I am, I’d even donate to such an effort.
But its AZ (or whichever state) that gets the shaft.
The first order of business for rino romney ( and I want this commitment NOW)( is to criminalize illegals being here. Once we get that done then we are back in business.
Romney won’t say anything to decrease that 25% Hispanic support.
Which, if true, invalidates current federal law.
Apparently, and it's been that way at least since Reagan, and maybe before. It just reached critical mass during the past ten or fifteen years, and spilled in many states where illegals had scarcely been noticeable before.
The only remedy seems to be a president who will enforce the law.
But a previous Arizona law requiring the use of E-verify and allowing the revocation of business licenses from businesses that hire illegals was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2011. - So, Arizona has gained some tools for enforcement over the past couple of years.
(Those two posts sort of ran together and I replied to the wrong one on that quote.)
Yep, the solution to the problem is a president who will enforce immigration law, but it's been quite a while since any president did. I don't even know the last one who did, certainly neither Bush nor Clinton.
What the heck does any of that have to do with the CONSTITUTIONALITY of those provisions?
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.
And that is the million dollar question. This has NEVER been about a state creating 'it's own' immigration code or law.
Oh yes. Constitution expert. Just like hussein. LOL
and just as much respected around here. Rightfully so. /s
>>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.
Interesting. Thanks to all posters.
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.
Levin is shredding the notion that conservatives, patriots, and AZ won anything today.
Now I’m depressed.
The majority voted to strike down most of the law!!!
It's not a numbers game, it's a quality game.
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
We better start praying because we don’t have much of a choice.
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.
“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.