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.
It won't happen now that the USSC has essentially abandoned Arizona. They were told not to do anything that even smells like it's a federal responsibility, and deporting aliens is a federal responsibility.
That's why Obama just defunded 247g -- he's making an example of Arizona as a warning to other states not to follow Arizona's lead. His order together with the USSC ruling just sent a message across the border that Arizona is now an open state.
THE ISSUE is the selective failure of the federal government to enforce existing law.
That was the issue at stake in this case, but the USSC just said that the Executive Branch can be as lax as it chooses in enforcement, and the state just has to sit back and take it.
Tapper would not like to seem as if he is changing his mind so it is reasonable for him to stick with his original prediction. In any case it is a pure guess and as such is worth what anyone else’s guess is worth
Was this directed towards me or Janet Napolitano?
Well, while all executive power is vested in the president, the other two branches do have some limited powers that they can exert to coerce the executive. Congress can legislate exactly how the president is to to do things (but generally the president has to agree to this by signing the legislation into law) while the courts have the power to declare actions of the president in violation of the law.
Since the courts have all judicial power to say what the law actually says, the courts can tell the president he president is violating the law. However, this is only if the president's non-enforcement of the law actually breaks the law, then he will be called to task in the courts. If his non-enforcement of the law does not break the law, then the court's don't get a say in how the President does his job.
In the case of the Impoundment Act of 1974, the law said that certain funds were required by law to be spent on specific items. The law itself required the president to spend the money. The president refused to follow the law. Thus the president broke the law that he himself signed. The case of Nixon's impoundment was cut and dry, either the president spent the money on the items in question or he did not. If he did not then he broke the law. There were concrete decisions that were violated and it could be proven in a court of law
However, when Obama refuses to enforce immigration law, the law is much more vague and gives the Executive Branch more leeway in how to go about doing this. Unless, the law says that all illegal aliens must be removed or dealt with in a specific way, you can't actually say that the president is breaking the law. If the president isn't breaking the law, then the courts really have no say in the process.
In short, generally speaking, if you want to sue the president for selective enforcement of the law via the courts, you must be able to prove that the president is actually breaking the law by not enforcing it. (Non-enforcement of the law does not necessarily imply the president is breaking the law.) If you want to sue for selective enforcement of the law, the law must give the executive no discretion in the matter, and it must be demonstrable that the president is in violation of this law by not enforcing it. (Though, I suppose that it could be argued that any selective enforcement of the law violates the 14th amendments promise of equal protection under the law.)
By the way back to your question about impoundment. Yes, there would most likely be a case of impoundment, if the law was specific enough about how the money was to be spent. However, what if Congress assigns money to be spent on immigration enforcement, and the president does spend it, but does not allow it to be spent on the aspects of immigration enforcement he doesn't like but which are not explicitly required in the law?
In order to be effective at preventing this, Congress would have to pass a law so nit-picky and detailed, that it would make your head spin. Everything would have to be itemized and earmarked down to the most specific details, otherwise the president would be able to find a loophole and do what he wants anyway.
I was not familiar with those suits. What is the basis on which the states believe they are entitled to receive these refunds, and on what basis does the court deny them?
Lord knows I am reminded of it every day and even some folks I admire like Mark Levin can't resist Saint Abe
Obama SHOULD be impeached.
Agreed, although taken in conjunction with today’s ruling - and Ginsburg saying “if you think you know, you don’t” - Tapper’s report gives me cause for concern.
If this is upheld, I will weep for those being denied care they would have received under their current insurance. And those cheering will think they will be “special” enough to find a way to get around the rationing. But they won’t be. Welcome to Europe.
Arizona?
Not much different than CA prop 187!
The U.S. Government oligarchy will not allow the borders to be secured.
We’ve known this for many years.
Of course, there will still be legal efforts to stop section 2b. Other states will take note and adapt. Here's my article about this issue and my state of Arkansas:
It's not part of the biggov plan.
The plan is to have an never ending line of low wage illegal labor for the fatcorps and corrupt biz....And to divide the united.
Biz counts their profits on the backs of the tax payers, while the tax payers subsidize their babies, healthcare, housing, food stamps, welfare, schools etc...
Big biz bankrolls the candidates to ensure millions of Mexicans are protected, resulting in low wage labor for biz.
Kill nationalism, kill sovereignty....Divide the united.
Profits regardless of consequences.
No, the government just told AZ to f off.
Just like CA prop 187.
Now that you call it to my attention, both. Of course the other village has had their idiot missing a lot longer.
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.
You may be right. I’m not an economist but I wonder how long would they be able to print money before the whole thing collapsed on itself?
Does anyone know..all this Obama money going out is going to boomarang. I mean in the form of hyper inflation. Which we have not even felt the full impact yet?
Hope your right. Hope they build some nice spartan tent cities for the millions about to resume their exodus to the promised land.
Tell me does your boorish,insipid behavior come naturally or do you work at it daily?
No need to respond as I won’t see it since I have turned on my “as*holes who post in political forums” filter.
The guys who have snapped at the outrage of it all and fought back even in small ways have been publicly condemned and disavowed by the vast majority conservatives.
So, we are doomed???
We let the corrupt Federal Government chip away at us and hope by electing a liberal Rino, who has no history of appointing Conservative judges, we have a prayer that the situatiion is going to improve?
Or, someone needs to officially get the ball rolling. Not sure how we are going to know exactly when and where it begins...?
Perhaps, we will get a e-mail?
Thanks sickoflibs.
Can 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii) "Any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law" be applied to a local police officer who conducts a traffic stop and finds a driver of a car (who may be an illegal) who has other people in the car as passengers (who are illegal) under the "transports" clause?(a) Criminal penalties
(1)
(A) Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or
(v)
(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
In other words, could Arizona police officers (under the definition of "any person who" be held in violation of this law by not detaining someone they suspect to be in violation of the above clause?
(c) Authority to arrest
No officer or person shall have authority to make any arrests for a violation of any provision of this section except officers and employees of the Service designated by the Attorney General, either individually or as a member of a class, and all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws.
Does "all other officers whose duty it is to enforce criminal laws" refer to state and local police officers?
(3) Upon the request of the governor or chief executive officer of any State, the Service shall provide assistance to State courts in the identification of aliens unlawfully present in the United States pending criminal prosecution.
The governor has the power to request the federal government to assist in the determination of immigration status of detained suspects.
So, Federal law allows for Arizona police to detain suspected illegal aliens pending ICE review.
The Governor can request federal support in determining the status of detainees.
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part IV > § 1226 (Apprehension and detention of aliens) says:
(d) Identification of criminal aliens(1) The Attorney General shall devise and implement a system—(A) to make available, daily (on a 24-hour basis), to Federal, State, and local authorities the investigative resources of the Service to determine whether individuals arrested by such authorities for aggravated felonies are aliens;
The federal code requires that the Attorney General create a database of legal immigrants that local law enforcement can call upon for verification of suspected illegal immigrants. The local law enforcement would not access this database directly, but would go through a liaison within the Justice Department. The federal code says that the Justice Department is to make this system available on a 24-hour basis.
More...
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part V > § 1252c§ 1252c. Authorizing State and local law enforcement officials to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens
(a) In generalNotwithstanding any other provision of law, to the extent permitted by relevant State and local law, State and local law enforcement officials are authorized to arrest and detain an individual who—(2) has previously been convicted of a felony in the United States and deported or left the United States after such conviction,but only after the State or local law enforcement officials obtain appropriate confirmation from the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the status of such individual and only for such period of time as may be required for the Service to take the individual into Federal custody for purposes of deporting or removing the alien from the United States.(b) CooperationThe Attorney General shall cooperate with the States to assure that information in the control of the Attorney General, including information in the National Crime Information Center, that would assist State and local law enforcement officials in carrying out duties under subsection (a) of this section is made available to such officials.
1252c specifically authorizes states to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens.
-PJ
Not saying it's right.
Mark Levine is a show not to miss tonight.
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.