Obama sues Arizona
6/7/10 16:50![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
reality-hammer.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsJust when you think the Obama administration disregard for the rule of law couldn't get any worse it sets the bar that much lower.
Gosh, in the same way that states pursuing bank robbers usurps the federal laws against bank robbery?
Obama & Co. also seem blissfully unaware that there are dozens of state laws against activities that are illegal at the federal level. Are they going to argue that all of them are invalid?
Obama and holder are giving the Constitution the middle finger and violating the rights of states that are clearly defined in the Constitution as well as ignoring the duties and limitations of the federal government contained in that document.
Do Obama and Holder really think they can pull off something so egregiously anti-American?
I'd love to see counter-suits from states that recognize the federalism defined by the Constitution and which object to the callous disregard for the rule of law being perpetrated by the Obama administration.
It will be amusing to see how many people who claimed that Bush was "shredding the Constitution" stand up and object to a real raping of the rule of law.
So is this the lowest Obama and Holder can go or will we see worse by November?
ETA: court decisions and DOJ analysis. If you read carefully there's an out for Obama to play: declare that immigration laws are not being enforced at the federal level so states cannot enforce them either. It's a move that would satisfy the extremists on his side but pretty much cause a political tsunami against Democrats who continued to support Obama.
The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement tactics.
Gosh, in the same way that states pursuing bank robbers usurps the federal laws against bank robbery?
Obama & Co. also seem blissfully unaware that there are dozens of state laws against activities that are illegal at the federal level. Are they going to argue that all of them are invalid?
Obama and holder are giving the Constitution the middle finger and violating the rights of states that are clearly defined in the Constitution as well as ignoring the duties and limitations of the federal government contained in that document.
Do Obama and Holder really think they can pull off something so egregiously anti-American?
I'd love to see counter-suits from states that recognize the federalism defined by the Constitution and which object to the callous disregard for the rule of law being perpetrated by the Obama administration.
It will be amusing to see how many people who claimed that Bush was "shredding the Constitution" stand up and object to a real raping of the rule of law.
So is this the lowest Obama and Holder can go or will we see worse by November?
ETA: court decisions and DOJ analysis. If you read carefully there's an out for Obama to play: declare that immigration laws are not being enforced at the federal level so states cannot enforce them either. It's a move that would satisfy the extremists on his side but pretty much cause a political tsunami against Democrats who continued to support Obama.
(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 20:59 (UTC)The Arizona law which essentially legalizes racial profiling would be an attempt to supercede a number of Rights, aka Federal protections.
This is **upholding** the rule of law....not ignoring it.
(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 21:02 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
And?
From:Re: And?
From:Re: And?
From:Re: And?
From:Re: And?
From:Re: And?
From:Re: And?
From:Re: And?
From:Re: And?
From:Re: And?
From:Re: And?
From:Re: And?
From:You've got the correct approach, bro:
From:Re: You've got the correct approach, bro:
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:"legalizes racial profiling"
Date: 6/7/10 21:13 (UTC)Next?
Re: "legalizes racial profiling"
From:Re: "legalizes racial profiling"
From:Re: "legalizes racial profiling"
From:Re: "legalizes racial profiling"
From:Re: "legalizes racial profiling"
From:Re: "legalizes racial profiling"
From:Re: "legalizes racial profiling"
From:Re: "legalizes racial profiling"
From:Re: "legalizes racial profiling"
From:Re: "legalizes racial profiling"
From:Re: "legalizes racial profiling"
From:Re: "legalizes racial profiling"
From:8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code - Section 1304
Date: 6/7/10 21:43 (UTC)Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times
carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate
of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to
him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section. Any alien who fails
to comply with the provisions of this subsection shall be guilty of
a misdemeanor and shall upon conviction for each offense be fined
not to exceed $100 or be imprisoned not more than thirty days, or
both.
That seems very similar to the AZ law.
Re: 8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code - Section 1304
From:Re: 8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code - Section 1304
From:Re: 8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code - Section 1304
From:Re: 8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code - Section 1304
From:Re: 8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code - Section 1304
From:(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 23:56 (UTC)Chessdev speaks truth.
Date: 7/7/10 02:07 (UTC)Re: Chessdev speaks truth.
From:Re: Chessdev speaks truth.
From:Re: Chessdev speaks truth.
From:(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 21:01 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 8/7/10 00:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 21:24 (UTC)The only ones disregarding the law here are Jan Brewer and her company.
(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 21:42 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 21:51 (UTC)Wrong again.
Obama is violating the Constitution, not upholding the law. There is no law stating that the federal government should sue any state that chooses to enforce the law. That would be silly, wouldn't it?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:I can't see it, my eyes are closed!
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 21:33 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 21:37 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:I'm pro law enforcement, but..
From:Re: I'm pro law enforcement, but..
From:Of course.
From:Re: Of course.
From:(no subject)
Date: 7/7/10 02:41 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/7/10 18:06 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 21:37 (UTC)I certainly hope not. Anything you guys don't like I want Obama to do more of.
(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 21:54 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 21:56 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:You're up to something here
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 22:01 (UTC)http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/521199.html
The OP made some excellents points back then.
Now to the specific charges against this law by the Federal Government
Profiling:
A law enforcement official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution
This text from the AZ law shows a greater respect than 8 U.S.C. § 1304 : US Code - Section 1304 which does not say that a Federal Law enforcement officer may not consider race,color, or nation of origin before demanding their papers that they must keep on them at all times, per the law.
Supremacy Clause would have to show me how the AZ law contracts the Federal law. I can not find t hat contractition. In fact, I believe they are pretty much the same law. With the caveat of the Powers to Arrest. However, this power has not always been solely in the hands of Officers who report to the Attorney General. In 1996, the U.S. trained local officers to enforce national immigration laws under the 287(g) program
I believe this is a classic case of demagoguery over leadership.
(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 22:27 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:The existence of good does not negate the existence of evil, and vice versa.
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 22:30 (UTC)"a state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid federal statute" and that a conflict will be found either where compliance with both federal and state law is impossible or where the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Edgar v. Mite Corp., 457 U.S. 624, 631 (1982).
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/10 00:03 (UTC)http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/immstopo1a.htm
From:(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 22:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/7/10 23:33 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 7/7/10 01:33 (UTC)This has been recognized by both the federal courts and the DOJ as valid wrt immigration.
http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/olc/immstopo1a.htm
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 7/7/10 04:58 (UTC)2. The law is barely in effect. I'd bet its a facial challenge to the law. The law outright bans racial profiling. I can't imagine this lawsuit winning on a facial challenge because facially it is constitutional. It might get struck down as an "as applied" case; however, I'm not sure because that would essentially be saying that the American immigration laws are unenforceable.
3. I'm not sure how this goes against the supremacy clause. The OP makes a good point in relation to this issue.
(no subject)
Date: 11/7/10 16:39 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/7/10 11:30 (UTC)That ^ made me laugh. Thanks. :)
(no subject)
Date: 7/7/10 15:34 (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
Date: 7/7/10 16:09 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 11/7/10 16:44 (UTC)(no subject)
From: