Posted on 06/25/2012 7:26:29 AM PDT by pabianice
SCOTUS strikes-down 3 of 4 S1170 provisions; says immigration is under federal control. One section -- allowing police to check immigration status after legal stopes -- sent back to 9th District Court for review.
I quite agree with you but all we have is the law and if those who are responsible for enforcing it refuse to do so then we have an Admin who rules by fiat. This will not in any way help him with the vast, VAST majority of voters in this country and will add to the urgency now growing that he must go.
Jay made this statement before Janet told Arizona cops not to call them anymore.
Yeah, Sheriff Joe and his buds ought to take out ads in the Washington Times listing the illegales they caught which Auntie Samantha refused to do anything with.
“shipped out” was not the way to put it but they can be detained for an undetermined period of time while waiting for the Admin to act.
As you say the Obama people have said they simply will not enforce the law to any serious degree and if that is so they will only hurt themselves because a HUGE majority of Americans are in favor of this law.
Halls, please see updated post #233.
How would that work, since there is no real money to begin with. In any case they can just print money until you beg for relief. FDR would have done that if he didn’t still have more patriots in Congress, than commies, now I don't think we do.
Unfortunately, the Constitution vests all executive power in the president of the United States. This means that all power to enforce the laws, to decide how to utilize the resources at the Executive branch's disposal, and to prioritize which laws are enforced using the limited amount of resources at your disposal, are solely the prerogatives of the president of the United States. The other two branches can't really tell him how to do his job, because his branch is independent of the the other two. As long as the president, breaks no laws, I don't think there is much we can do about it. You can sue for damages in court for consequences resulting from how the president enforces or does not enforce the law, but the courts power over the Executive Branch is very weak. Even if the court, did tell the president to enforce the law, he could refuse to do it.
The only remedy that there really is against a president who refuses to enforce a law passed by Congress is a political remedy not a judicial remedy--impeachment. If the president willfully refuses to uphold the laws passed by Congress without good cause, he should be impeached for willful subversion of a duly enacted law, for violation of the oath of office, for usurping Congressional power, or for whatever other crimes and misdemeanors with which Congress should seek to charge him.
Unfortunately, this is also a weak remedy because Congress never seeks to use its power of impeachment against offenders; or if it does levy charges of impeachment, conviction on the charges is virtually impossible even for obviously guilty parties, because no party votes to convict its own.
Nonsense. They can be detained while information is awaited on their legal or illegal status and they can be held for an undetermined period of time.
One of the reasons for a law, any law is to make the commission of a crime in that area unpalatable. The illegals now know they may get stopped for any reason if police deem them to have committed any offense and from there have their status checked which could lead to incarceration for what could be an extended length of time.
Some village has been missing an idiot for nearly a month now.
Janet Napolitano just announced they would no longer accept calls from AZ cops on matters of status. Defacto Law, the best kind, since it has no appeal.
I am sure LaRaza will remain silent on that issue aren't you?
The court upheld the provision allowing immigration checks and remanded to the 9th circuit NOT for an OK by them but simply for the to see the decision. As was explained to me by an atty it was a courtesy. In effect they were saying to the 9th, “we agree with your position on 3 parts of the law but disagree on the 4th part and here are our reasons for for the disagreement your information”
Exactly.
I’ve had the displeasure of meeting her when she ran for Sec. of State here in AZ. She had the audacity to tell me I had to sign her petition. I did not after questioning her on some political agendas she had.
Her CCW was great, but that was only after someone was challenging her in the race for her second seat as Gov. Thank goodness The Ice Cream Lady was appointed head of Homeland Security.
Enough from me. I might froth at mouth if I mention McQueeg.
Maybe these people could be released to the drug cartels’ “no-go zone” (which the feds ceded to the drug cartels).
Please see my updated post #233.
How does this square with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974? That came about when Congress passed funding for certain programs, and Nixon refused to spend the money on those programs. If Congress budgets money for immigration enforcement, and the Executive refuses to enforce immigration, wouldn't that be a case of impoundment?
This is where Brewer needs to deport themselves and dare Obama and the feds to stop her. THE ISSUE is the selective failure of the federal government to enforce existing law.
“Jake Tapper of ABC had reported that Obamacare would be UPHELD - 6-3 - with Kennedy and Roberts joining the majority (Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg). The theory being that Kennedy didn’t want to be the 5th vote - as in Bush v. Gore - and Roberts didn’t want to divide the country.”
“The story you refer to is about 6 weeks old.”
_________________
I would hope that it is, because then it would qualify as an attempted manipulation of Justice Kennedy & CJ Roberts. However, my husband was watching Jake Tapper on Imus this morning (6/25). Didn’t see it, so I don’t know if it was live, but it’s still a current prediction. And today’s ruling did nothing to diminish the analysis.
Yes there are, but there will be wailing an knashing of teeth when the full truth is known. Janet Napalotino has already issued a statement that they would no longer cooperate with AZ law enforcement. Essentially saying don't call us with your petty illegal issues.
I have always thought that the Court might rule the mandate out, but that they would leave the rest in place and offer an opportunity to pass the mandate cost on to the States. Now I think the whole thing will stand.
That would make them feckless and unfit.
That just proves that the court is totally political, not to mention corrupt.
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.