Posted on 06/25/2012 11:55:05 AM PDT by pabianice
Just announced on Rush. On the heels of today's SCOTUS decision regarding Arizona's border protection law, Napalitano (Obama) has just notified Arizona that the federal government/ICE/DHS has been ordered not to cooperate with AZ regarding the reporting of illegals stopped in AZ.
And that will do nothing. Nothing at all anymore. The SC has spoken and the precedent is set against such a lawsuit. The SC today just said that the state of Arizona has no right to sue the feds for non-enforcement. They have said that the feds alone have the right to decide to enforce or not to enforce. The State of Arizona has no standing if the SC’s interpretation of the law is upheld.
Justice took off the blinders today and decided to meet out their own brand of the law by looking beyond the law and the Constitution. Today the SC became activist and Roberts allowed it to do what he thought was best, to preserve the dignity of the court while salvaging what he thought was a useful part of the law.
CALL JOHN BOEHNER’S OFFICE and leave a PROTEST. IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
202-225-0600
CALL JOHN BOEHNER’S OFFICE and leave a PROTEST. IMPEACH THIS PRESIDENT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
202-225-0600
good question and SUGGESTION to our officials.
A “state” deals with its own laws, while the Federal Government doesn’t deal with the state laws.
And likewise, the Federal Government deals with its own laws, while the state doesn’t.
Each have their own set of laws that they -exclusively- deal with - while the “other” doesn’t.
If the state were to arrest someone “for the Federal Government” - it’s only the Federal Government who would determine what to do with them (and not the state).
Likewise, if the Federal Government were to arrest someone “for the state” - it’s only the state which would determine what to do with them, and not the Federal Government.
In many cases, there may be something that “both” the Federal Government and the state may be interested in a person for - but they each would deal with that person on the basis of their own laws - and not laws pertaining to another jurisdiction.
More specifically, if the state arrests someone for the Federal Government, the state doesn’t have jurisdiction over what the Federal Government does in regards to “Federal laws”.
Each has its own jurisdiction for its own laws.
” The nation has a rogue president on it’s hands.”
A TREASONOUS rogue President.
Well, maybe Judge Napolitano thinks so -BUT- the people who ACTUALLLY WROTE THE LAW and enforce it (namely Governor Jan Brewer on behalf of the State of Arizona) don’t think so. And remember, it’s “them” (i.e., “Arizona” and the Governor who has been right on top of this thing) - that don’t think that.
In fact, listen to what Governor Brewer says ...
Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights.
The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling. Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) to develop and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made available once again to all of Arizona’s law enforcement officers. I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable.
Of course, today’s ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, “We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.”
http://www.facebook.com/GW.IFA/posts/316129271812118
Also, an article on the decision ...
“Actually, Key Part of Arizona Law Upheld”
The crucial point in Mark Krikorian’s post on the Supreme Court’s Arizona immigration ruling is exactly right — “the core of the law was upheld.” According to the New York Times (“Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law,”) “the court was unanimous” on allowing police to check the immigration status of “people they stop and suspect are not in the United States legally.”
The Obama administration argued vigorously against the law, and particularly against the provision of the right of police to check the legal status of people that they come into contact with on routine stops, who they have reason to believe are not in the country legally. The court struck down 5–3 (Scalia, Thomas, Alito dissenting, Kagan recused) other provisions in the law that make it against Arizona state law for illegal immigrants to apply for a job or fail to carry identification that says whether they are in the U.S. legally. These provisions are, according to the court majority, preempted by federal law. Clearly, these other provisions seem rather minor compared to the police check on immigration status, which was upheld, I repeat, unanimously. The Washington Post (“Supreme Court rejects much of Arizona immigration law”) calls the court ruling a “partial victory” for the Obama administration. It looks more like a defeat for Obama and a win for Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and immigration enforcement.
http://www.facebook.com/GW.IFA/posts/459758417369907
” The president basically just declared a smoldering war on Arizona, on behalf of Mexico.”
Yep, and not a peep out of R’s in D.C.
Anti-U. S. at the very least huh. I wonder what laws like sedition, treason, conspiring this guy could be in violation of?
In case you don’t know ... the states don’t get in the middle of Federal laws, as the Federal authorities deal with that. The states may arrest someone if there is an arrest warrant out for them by the Federal authorities, but the states then don’t do any more than that and simply let the Federal authorities take care of their Federal laws. The state officials will simply turn a person arrested over to the Federal authorities and then it’s COMPLETELY UP TO THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES as to what they do - and not up to the State.
It’s the same thing with Federal authorities, in that they may have arrested someone who has violated a state law and then the Federal authorities turn them over to the state officials to handle their own laws. The Federal authorities don’t get in the middle of State laws and the state officials don’t get in the middle of Federal laws.
That’s the way it’s always been and it’s nothing new.
I noticed. In fact, the media hasn’t really addressed it yet either. What the hell?
I suppose AZ could just keep them in detention forever and use them as slaves for the State, such as for building roads.
It’s actually a pretty SIMPLE PRINCIPLE and actually straightforward - the State deals with their “state laws” and the Federal Government deals with their “federal laws”.
And they each don’t deal with the “others’ laws” - except simply to perhaps arrest someone who has an arrest warrant - but past the arrest - it’s up to EACH JURISDICTION to deal with THEIR OWN LAWS!
As long as you know that and understand that - then you don’t get “all tangled up” in misunderstanding this mess.
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part V > § 1252c
1252c specifically authorizes states to arrest and detain certain illegal aliens. How does this judge expect the states to comply with 1252c if they cannot first determine if the person is an illegal alien, and then determine if said illegal alien has committed a felony?
-PJ
” I wonder what laws like sedition, treason, conspiring this guy could be in violation of?”
At least 5 or 10 counts.
At some point the only thing which will work is starving the beast.
At some point the only thing which will work is starving the beast.
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.