Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Charles Schumer promises action on Arizona immigration law
Los Angeles Times ^ | April 24, 2102 | By Lisa Mascaro

Posted on 04/24/2012 2:09:15 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer

WASHINGTON -- On the eve of the Supreme Court’s hearing of the Arizona immigration law, a top Democrat vowed to take congressional action if the high court upholds the state’s tough-on-immigration statute.

The proposal from Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) would surely extend the immigration debate and touch off a states’ rights fight with strong opinions on either side. Should the court uphold Arizona’s SB 1070, Schumer said his proposal would prohibit states from enacting or enforcing their own immigration law penalties unless they are working in concert with the federal government.

“I believe it is simply too damaging to our economy, and too dangerous to our democracy, to have 50 different states doing 50 different things with regard to immigration policy,” Schumer said during opening remarks at a hearing Tuesday.

(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Mexico; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: aliens; amnesty; arizona; border; immigration; scotus
Language, border, culture.
1 posted on 04/24/2012 2:09:23 PM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Schmuckie needs to tend to his knitting and get NYS straightened out.


2 posted on 04/24/2012 2:10:52 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Shut up Chuck.


3 posted on 04/24/2012 2:12:57 PM PDT by smoothsailing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

It really scares me that NY keeps re-electing this ass-clown.


4 posted on 04/24/2012 2:13:13 PM PDT by Drill Thrawl (The United States of America, a banana republic since 1913)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

The AZ law makes it illegal to be an illegal immigrant in the state of AZ.
That’s a “threat to democracy”?

shumer can stick it up his a@@.


5 posted on 04/24/2012 2:13:32 PM PDT by San Jacinto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

This one’s liable to bite Chuckie in the azz and it couldn’t happen to a nicer POS.


6 posted on 04/24/2012 2:13:32 PM PDT by MtBaldy (If Obama is the answer, it must have been a really stupid question)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I’m sure it wouldn’t dawn on the likes of Schumer that the reason states pass these laws is because of willful malfeasance on the part of the federal government.


7 posted on 04/24/2012 2:15:51 PM PDT by VR-21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: San Jacinto
shumer can stick it up his a@@.

My sentiments exactly!

8 posted on 04/24/2012 2:16:12 PM PDT by Bigun ("The most fearsome words in the English language are I'm from the government and I'm here to help!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Typical grandstanding. Chuckie knows said bill would never get our of the Senate, and certainly not the House. Just playing to his base with meaningless gestures.


9 posted on 04/24/2012 2:16:48 PM PDT by Hugin ("Most time a man'll tell you his bad intentions if you listen and let yourself hear"--Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Chucky’s dreaming about all the cameras that will be in front of him on this issue.


10 posted on 04/24/2012 2:17:53 PM PDT by jazusamo ("Intellect is not wisdom" -- Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Since Arizona’s law is a duplicate of the federal immigration law, that could be problematical, ChuckYou.


11 posted on 04/24/2012 2:18:43 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Government is the religion of the sociopath.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

If the SC says it is valid, would they not require an amendment to the Constitution to override it?


12 posted on 04/24/2012 2:18:49 PM PDT by Ingtar (When I donate to FR, it does not take the money and run as every politician I donate to does)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drill Thrawl
It really scares me that NY keeps re-electing this ass-clown.

That is NY State. Schumer is a PR whore. The most dangerous place to be is between him and a TV camera. Because he is a PR whore though, he's also very shallow and won't really do the work necessary on such a controversial issue like this AZ law.

13 posted on 04/24/2012 2:19:21 PM PDT by PGR88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
This is nothing but hot air. Schumer’s proposed law would be shredded in the House.
14 posted on 04/24/2012 2:22:13 PM PDT by Brad from Tennessee (A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
“I believe it is simply too damaging to our economy, and too dangerous to our democracy, to have 50 different states doing 50 different things with regard to immigration policy,” Schumer said during opening remarks at a hearing Tuesday. Don't like States rights eh Chuck. By the way we are a Republic.
15 posted on 04/24/2012 2:23:23 PM PDT by ColdOne (I miss my poochie... Tasha 2000~3/14/11 0bie don' t eat my dog!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Sen. Charles Schumer promises action on Arizona immigration law

Oh, please do, Sen. Schumer, please make state sovereignty an issue this election cycle. As wishy washy and mushy as the presumptive Republican nominee is on various issues, the only one he's been pretty steady on in that issue; he has to be, in order to defend Romenycare at all.

16 posted on 04/24/2012 2:23:48 PM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

The SC will be deciding if the AZ law is within the constraints of existing federal statutes. Current federal law already specifically allows state and local law enforcement to assist in and perform certain immigration-associated functions.

If SCOTUS upholds the AZ law, congress could repeal those statutes with another law.


17 posted on 04/24/2012 2:26:47 PM PDT by rottndog (Be Prepared for what's coming AFTER America....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“50 different states doing 50 different things”

While the federals do one thing: Nothing.


18 posted on 04/24/2012 2:27:03 PM PDT by tumblindice (Our new, happy lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

One more thing...this coming from the left who regularly loves it when the courts overturn issues in their favor, now they don’t like it? FO Chucky!


19 posted on 04/24/2012 2:27:08 PM PDT by ColdOne (I miss my poochie... Tasha 2000~3/14/11 0bie don' t eat my dog!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PGR88
Schumer is a PR whore
20 posted on 04/24/2012 2:28:37 PM PDT by Drill Thrawl (The United States of America, a banana republic since 1913)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Climb back in your slime pit Up-Chuck Schumer.


21 posted on 04/24/2012 2:31:23 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty - Honor - Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drill Thrawl; PGR88

I just saw an Arizona state senator call Chuckie a chicken and said he will never insist on it coming to a vote because it would mean the loss of 10 senators in swing states.

He lambasted Schumer


22 posted on 04/24/2012 2:34:34 PM PDT by bert (K.E. N.P. +12 ..... Crucifixion is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum

B U M P


23 posted on 04/24/2012 2:39:28 PM PDT by stephenjohnbanker (God, family, country, mom, apple pie, the girl next door and a Ford F250 to pull my boat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
It doesn't matter what Chuckie proposes.

It matters what gets passed and signed.

The the GOP House would not pass such a law...even IF Chuckie was able to break a filibuster in the Senate.

24 posted on 04/24/2012 2:45:15 PM PDT by Mariner (War Criminal #18)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“Schumer said his proposal would prohibit states ... “

Another damned yankee who forgets the federal government was created by the states, not vice versa.


25 posted on 04/24/2012 2:47:56 PM PDT by tumblindice (Our new, happy lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ingtar

“If the SC says it is valid, would they not require an amendment to the Constitution to override it?”

Not necessarily. Congress passing a law slapping down a SCOTUS opinion would lead to what we call a “Constitutional crisis,” that is if anyone bothered to care. They’d need Obama on their side at least.

It’s happened before, what with Andy Jackson daring judges to enforce their ruling and South Carolina’s infamous nullification threat. People tend to view the former as bluster and the latter as treason. SCOTUS’ prestige as the final arbiter of the Constitution has only grown since then. Even among those who disagree with most of its decisions.

For my part, I am happy to let SCOTUS have final official say for practical purposes. Leave final final say to those who supposedly retain sovereignty, that is the people. Judicial power has probably become too entrenched to snatch back Constitutional stewardship by now. Heck, Bush the Younger wouldn’t even presume to veto a law that might be struck down by SCOTUS eventually.

It’s not as if final say is theirs by right or law, however. They have ultimate judicial authority, but judges can be wrong. Incorrect decisions are just as illegal unconstitutional laws. What do you do when SCOTUS doesn’t follow the Constitution, as they have (according to me) in too many cases to list? (Oh, okay, I’ll list a few in no particular order: Kelo, Helvering, Roe, Calder, Wickard, Dred Scott, Plessy, Butler, Home Building and Loan, Carolene Products, Bollinger, Penn Central, McConell, Buckley, Korematsu, Bennis, Miller.) Under the current balance of power, you wait until you get a different SCOTUS or you ammend the Constitution. It doesn’t have to be that way, as it’s only a compromise. Whensoever people lose the faith they’ve built up in SCOTUS as the ultimate arbitrator, that could change.


26 posted on 04/24/2012 2:49:05 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

I do not pretend to be a legal scholar, but could something like this be seen as a bill of attainder? And thus unconstitutional? Not that it has stopped them before...


27 posted on 04/24/2012 2:53:40 PM PDT by cld51860 (Oderint dum metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Arizona, enforcing the Federal law the Federal government won’t enforce.


28 posted on 04/24/2012 2:54:41 PM PDT by popdonnelly (Socialism isn't going to work this time, either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mariner

This nonsense won’t get that far. I doubt it’ll ever make it out of committee and then the dims will be afraid to bring it to the floor for a vote anyway. This is just the usual leftie pandering by Chuckles the AssClown!


29 posted on 04/24/2012 2:58:07 PM PDT by rex regnum insanit (falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

“the federal government was created by the states, not vice versa”

Yes, and anyone who thinks they did so by sacrificing authority over their own borders is an idiot.


30 posted on 04/24/2012 2:58:58 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cld51860

“could something like this be seen as a bill of attainder?”

No, bills of attainder single out individuals and groups for punishment without due process. I’m pretty sure such a group could not be the entire state of Arizona. The law itself would be what’s singled out for “punishment,” if you can do such a thing as punish a law.


31 posted on 04/24/2012 3:02:54 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Laws mean nothing to these people.

More reason to GET THEM OUT!


32 posted on 04/24/2012 3:08:28 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (Anyone not wanting an ID or purple thumb to vote isn't worthy of voting privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Did anybody else notice the phrase “repeal the Scotus decision”. I don’t think there is a mechanism outlined in the Constitution to “repeal Scotus decisions). I don’t even think a Constitutional amendment counts as a repeal as it really just sets up a new measuring stick.


33 posted on 04/24/2012 3:10:20 PM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drill Thrawl

Only parts of NY keep electing him. The rest of us think he is an embarrassing jackass.


34 posted on 04/24/2012 3:11:47 PM PDT by Dutch Boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

schmuck


35 posted on 04/24/2012 3:15:48 PM PDT by Doogle (((USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dutch Boy

We need to make SF, Chicago and NYC, be their own state.

That way we only have 2 senators to deal with.


36 posted on 04/24/2012 3:18:47 PM PDT by hadaclueonce (you are paying 12% more for fuel because of Ethanol. Smile big Corn Lobby,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

Chuckey’s base consists mostly of New York’s criminal classes and school teachers ~


37 posted on 04/24/2012 3:24:02 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: smoothsailing

Joe Biden, “STAND UP CHUCK, EVERY BODY GIVE A HAND FOR CHUCK, OH, SORRY CHUCK.”


38 posted on 04/24/2012 3:32:38 PM PDT by GOYAKLA (Recall/ Impeachment Day, November 6, 2012. FUBO, same for RINOs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Usagi_yo

“I don’t think there is a mechanism outlined in the Constitution to ‘repeal Scotus decisions’”

There’s no mechanism outlined for SCOTUS to strike down laws, either. It depends on what people are willing to accept, and what becomes habit. I don’t think we’re going to get public acceptance of Congressional oversight of SCOTUS opinions anytime soon.


39 posted on 04/24/2012 3:34:04 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Do it, Schmuckey! The more losing issues you push the more seats the Pubbies will take in the House and Senate. While you’re at it go hard on gun control too.


40 posted on 04/24/2012 3:38:18 PM PDT by TigersEye (Life is about choices. Your choices. Make good ones.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
I had a big gob of Chuck U. Schumer on my shoe but I scrapped it off.


41 posted on 04/24/2012 3:51:58 PM PDT by Iron Munro (If Repub's paid as much attention to Rush Limbaugh as the Dem's do, we wouldn't be in this mess)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

... snip ...
There’s no mechanism outlined for SCOTUS to strike down laws, either. It depends on what people are willing to accept, and what becomes habit. I don’t think we’re going to get public acceptance of Congressional oversight of SCOTUS opinions anytime soon.
... snip ...

No, the Jurisdiction of SCOTUS is well defined. For enforcement, the SCOTUS largely depends on what you talked about, peoples tolerances. Enforced by public opinion.

After that the only other recourse is Contumacy, but that would be declaring constitutional war ... not a bad idea given the concept of “Repealing Scotus decisions”.


42 posted on 04/24/2012 3:55:17 PM PDT by Usagi_yo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
This is a loser for you clowns,Chuck U! Polls show a clear majority of Americans support a crackdown on wet...sorry,”undocumented workers”.
43 posted on 04/24/2012 4:46:26 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Unlike Mrs Obama,I've Been Proud Of This Country My *Entire* Life!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Powers not granted are reserved. Under the Compact Theory which says that the states are parties to the compact(Constitution) and the Constitution created the federal government, the states are the final arbiter of constitutionality of laws passed by the Legislative branch; executive orders, “guidances’”, etc written by the Executive branch; and decisions made by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has a self-vested interest as it is part of the federal government. They consistently make bad decisions i.e. Kelo vs. New London, Wickert vs. Filburn, etc and then we have to live with those bad precedent setting decisions.

The sovereign power is the people and the people have to say to their state legislatures that a law, executive order, or decision is unconstitutional and the state should nullify such. 35+ states passed legislation that private property would not be taken for private use and public benefit which basically nullified the Supreme Court decision in Kelo. Virginia recently nullified those unconstitutional provisions in the NDAA. There are numerous examples in our country’s history all the way back to the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798-99 where state nullification has been used.

The people of each state need to say “enough is enough” and make null and void, through their state legislatures, those unconstitutional actions of the federal government.

Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California need to nullify any decision by the Supreme Court that negatives the Arizona immigration law. I don’t expect NM and Calif. to do that because of their liberal views, but there is a good chance that Tex and Ariz would pass nullification. Those two states represent a large part of the southern border.
What will the feds do? Send in the troops? Cut off federal funding? The states need to say “Go ahead, make my day”. The feds would be powerless and our Union and Constitution would be intact. Powers not granted are reserved


44 posted on 04/24/2012 6:34:07 PM PDT by nmrancher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
Why is a New York Senator who cannot even get a budget passed in the US Senate for over THREE YEARS, wasting his time meddling in the Arizona's affairs? Oh that's right the RAT party made promises to the "Hispanic community" and they have failed to deliver voting documents to the millions who invaded our country illegally, and are now doing a preemptive attack the day before SCOTUS declarres the AZ law not more onerous than the Fed laws. There just is no way they can argue before the Supremes that AZ is defining "immigration" differently than the Feds do - THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE IS THAT AZ MADE IT A STATE LAW TO "ENFORCE" THE FED LAW IN THE ABSCENSE OF ANY ENFORCEMENT ON OBOZO'S WATCH.
45 posted on 04/24/2012 7:14:12 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Schmuckie must be reading Dubya’s old notes.


46 posted on 04/24/2012 7:17:16 PM PDT by Pelham (Marco Rubio, la raza trojan horse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pelham

W’s second term was underwhelming in many ways.


47 posted on 04/24/2012 7:20:18 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson