just in time for the election... how convenient
Posted on 04/07/2016 3:53:17 AM PDT by lowbridge
A federal appeals court has affirmed the ability of young immigrants protected from deportation to obtain an Arizona driver's license.
In a 42-page opinion Tuesday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in California ruled the plaintiffs suffered irreparable harm from Arizona's policy.
Plaintiff lawyers say the policy was discriminatory and impeded the immigrants' ability to work and go to school.
A federal judge in Phoenix issued a permanent injunction in the case in January 2015.
At a hearing in Tucson last August, Arizona attorneys argued to reinstate the driver's license ban for immigrants who are part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
The state said it denied licenses over liability concerns and to reduce the risk of the licenses being used to improperly access public benefits.
(Excerpt) Read more at azfamily.com ...
so an illegal was then named undocumented, and now is called a dreamer.
For crying out loud . Can everyone stop this nonsense and never call tem anything but illegal and if one hears someone them otherwise then correct them
McCain is fine with this.
Apparently, to the 9th Circuit, Constitutional uniform immigration laws are "discriminatory and impeded the [foreigner's] ability to work and go to school."
-PJ
Fine, then go back home where you can get a license LEGALLY. Duh!
It’s illegal and unconstitutional for the black robed tyrants to do this. Another violation of states right by the communists.
So the GOP-controlled congress did nothing to stop the unconstitutional DACA executive order, and now leftwing judges use it as the basis to trash States rights.
Spit on the GOPe.
Which presidential candidate seems most likely to actually fight against this, as opposed to giving them teddy bears?
PERFECT place/time for Governor to refuse to comply, States Rights issue. Let the courts rule, then make them enforce it. AZ State Police and AZ NG protect Governor from arrest. Force the Feral Gubbmint’s hand.
just in time for the election... how convenient
State driver licenses are a Fed issue ?
Illegal immigrants are now called dreamers, nice!
GO TRUMP,
I don’t understand why a Federal Court can order a State to Issue Licenses that under the law are defined as a privilege and not a right.
Drivers Licenses weren’t always issued by States, it is a way for States to authorize motor vehicle operators on State Roads.
Not if the state of AZ says, "No they can't, 9th Circuit. Come make us issue them."
The institutions We The People created in Articles II and III have assumed not just the Article I powers of congress, but the lawmaking power of the states as well.
Oh, and the Article III institution often assumes Article V authority too.
Our republic is beyond the redemption of elections alone.
I agree.
Tell the court to GO POUND SAND!
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
When State and Federal Law are in Conflict, Federal Law is Supreme. Federal Law Clearly defines what :”Driving a Motor Vehicle” is, and STATE LAW CANNOT CHANGE IT!!
In my studies I learned many years ago that the driving code is commercial in nature.
By law, the only individuals who are required to license themselves and their vehicles are those who are involved in the commercial activity of transporting goods or paying passengers for a living. We The People have a Right to own the cars we have purchased and travel upon the public Right of Way. However, it has been written since the times of horse and buggy that the commercial activity of transportation shall be a regulated privilege. “The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Thomas v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
18 U.S. Code § 31 - Definitions
(6)Motor vehicle.—
The term “motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/tom_hyland_story.html
Tom won two cases in New Mexico courts brought by the State of New Mexico against him for “no driver’s license, no plates, no registration, and no insurance”. Both cases were dismissed, with prejudice, and have established precedents, whether recognized, or not. To expose this fraud and restore Constitutional governance to New Mexico, Tom filed a Complaint and case in the state’s first judicial district court, in Santa Fe, against 34 individuals who work for the machinery of government of the State of New Mexico […]
>”discriminatory and impeded the [criminal’s] ability to work...
Which, in itself, is ILLEGAL (multiple times over in fact): document fraud, filing a false return, identity theft, etc.
Hard to read the signage when no habla Espanol, no?
Tell me again why, as a natural born American Citizen, *I* should need to worry about renewing MY ‘license’, pay ‘my’ TAXES, follow ANY ‘law’?
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.