A Practical Question About the AZ Law

[Liability]

I don't think it's the place of any state to tell the Federal Government what to do.

The Constitution agrees.

I'll direct your attention to the supremacy clause.

The Constitution does not agree. All the Supremacy clause says is that, in a conflict between federal and state law, federal law made in pursuance of the Constitution wins. If the federal government passes a law that requires states to shoot people who engage in sodomy, and California chose to ignore that law because it argued that their constitution makes that illegal, California wins.

That is why you should never argue about law with someone who can think of absurdities, you will always loose.

As a lawyer, you should know better.

Actually, you're totally wrong. A state cannot unilaterally decide a Federal law is unconstitutional. Only the Federal Courts can do that.

If you knew law, you might know better.

No offense, of course.

If a FEDERAL Law IS at odds with the Constitution, it is not a law made in pursuance of the Constitution. It is void ab initio.

So, you can't validly say that he's entirely wrong.

In fact, he's right.

If the Federal law is UnConstitutional, it will be deemed a nullity. And if that would-be law is at odds with a State law, it would be improper for the State to ignore its own law in deference to a Federal NON-law.

And while I agree that a state doesn't ordinarily pass judgment on Federal laws, the question of constitutionality DOES come up in STATE cases, too. The STATE can pass judgment on the Constitutionality of a federal act, but subject to review by the Federal Courts whose pronouncements on the matter would be binding on the State.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From what I understand, the fed has been enforcing immigration laws all along. So I'm not really sure what AZ is trying to accomplish.

This could go two ways. One, the fed will start being at the beck and call of Arizona, channeling limited resources away from other states.

Or two, AZ will end up with quite a few Gitmos of its own and they will have to foot the bill for imprisoning those that have violated immigration policy.

A more serious approach would be to raise taxes to hire more ICE agents....

You think the feds have been enforcing immigration law all along? What gives you that impression? Has some news article made that argument at some point? Are you aware that that argument is so facially absurd that the administration didn't even try to argue it yesterday before the Supreme Court? In fact, they essentially argued that the fact that the federal government is not enforcing the law precludes the states from doing so, which is what set Sotomayor off.

Seriously, deal with the real world, not the imaginary one in your head.

Why don't you do some research before you stick your foot in your mouth you opinionated buffoon?

The entire fracking premise of the argument yesterday was whether a state can enforce a law the federal government chooses to ignore. What, exactly, do you think I should research before I open my mouth?

 

[jillian]

The Constitution does not agree. All the Supremacy clause says is that, in a conflict between federal and state law, federal law made in pursuance of the Constitution wins. If the federal government passes a law that requires states to shoot people who engage in sodomy, and California chose to ignore that law because it argued that their constitution makes that illegal, California wins.

That is why you should never argue about law with someone who can think of absurdities, you will always loose.

As a lawyer, you should know better.

Actually, you're totally wrong. A state cannot unilaterally decide a Federal law is unconstitutional. Only the Federal Courts can do that.

If you knew law, you might know better.

No offense, of course.

If a FEDERAL Law IS at odds with the Constitution, it is not a law made in pursuance of the Constitution. It is void ab initio.

So, you can't validly say that he's entirely wrong.

In fact, he's right.

If the Federal law is UnConstitutional, it will be deemed a nullity. And if that would-be law is at odds with a State law, it would be improper for the State to ignore its own law in deference to a Federal NON-law.

And while I agree that a state doesn't ordinarily pass judgment on Federal laws, the question of constitutionality DOES come up in STATE cases, too. The STATE can pass judgment on the Constitutionality of a federal act, but subject to review by the Federal Courts whose pronouncements on the matter would be binding on the State.

That is an absurd premise. A State cannot unilaterally decide, absent adjudication by the federal court, that a federal statute violates the U.S. Constitution. And if there is a conflict between the state and federal law, the federal law prevails. You know this.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What happens when a police officer arrests someone who is to be charges with a federal crime, say bank robbery?

Are they supposed to let him go until the Feds decide to do their job?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think it's the place of any state to tell the Federal Government what to do.

The Constitution agrees.

I'll direct your attention to the supremacy clause.

The Constitution does not agree. All the Supremacy clause says is that, in a conflict between federal and state law, federal law made in pursuance of the Constitution wins. If the federal government passes a law that requires states to shoot people who engage in sodomy, and California chose to ignore that law because it argued that their constitution makes that illegal, California wins.

That is why you should never argue about law with someone who can think of absurdities, you will always loose.

As a lawyer, you should know better.

Actually, you're totally wrong. A state cannot unilaterally decide a Federal law is unconstitutional. Only the Federal Courts can do that.

If you knew law, you might know better.

No offense, of course.

Totally wrong?

Federal law says marijuana is always illegal, yet many states allow people to use it with a prescription. Funny thing, not a single court has ever ruled that states can't do that.

Federal law says nothing about flirting, yet it is illegal in Little Rock. Does federal law preempt the law against flirting?

I can keep this up all day. If I was totally wrong you should be able to win by default.

Just saying.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, you're totally wrong. A state cannot unilaterally decide a Federal law is unconstitutional. Only the Federal Courts can do that.

If you knew law, you might know better.

No offense, of course.

If a FEDERAL Law IS at odds with the Constitution, it is not a law made in pursuance of the Constitution. It is void ab initio.

So, you can't validly say that he's entirely wrong.

In fact, he's right.

If the Federal law is UnConstitutional, it will be deemed a nullity. And if that would-be law is at odds with a State law, it would be improper for the State to ignore its own law in deference to a Federal NON-law.

And while I agree that a state doesn't ordinarily pass judgment on Federal laws, the question of constitutionality DOES come up in STATE cases, too. The STATE can pass judgment on the Constitutionality of a federal act, but subject to review by the Federal Courts whose pronouncements on the matter would be binding on the State.

That is an absurd premise. A State cannot unilaterally decide, absent adjudication by the federal court, that a federal statute violates the U.S. Constitution. And if there is a conflict between the state and federal law, the federal law prevails. You know this.

I admitted my example was absurd, my use of reductio ad absurdum does not invalidate my position.

States unilaterally decide to ignore federal law all the time, if they didn't we wouldn't have same sex marriage.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Federal government has every right to prosecutorial discretion. In addition to having the responsibility of enforcing immigration laws, the Federal government is also responsible to taxpayers and must ensure that resources are allocated in an efficient and appropriate manner.

Consequently AZ has no recourse to compel the Federal government to pursue criminal charges against suspects it deems an inappropriate and wasteful expenditure of its resources.

The logistics of the issue, therefore, is that AZ alone would be responsible to prosecute and incarcerate illegal immigrants pursuant to State law, assuming the High Court reverses the lower courts’ rulings – which seems likely.

When is Prosecutorial Discretion Used in Immigration Enforcement?

Prosecutorial discretion may be exercised at any stage of an immigration case. Specifically, prosecutorial discretion may be exercised when deciding whether to: issue a detainer; initiate removal proceedings; focus enforcement resources on particular violations or conduct; stop, question, or arrest a particular person; detain or release someone on bond, supervision, or personal recognizance; settle or dismiss a removal case; stay a final order of removal; pursue an appeal; and/or execute a removal order. Examples of the favorable exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the immigration context include a grant of deferred action; a decision to terminate or administratively close removal proceedings; a stay of removal; or a decision not to issue a charging document in the first place.

Who Exercises Prosecutorial Discretion?

ICE, USCIS, and CBP officers have the authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion. Because prosecutorial discretion is a process that determines whether the government is going to pursue enforcement in a case, the initial decisions are made by those immigration officers assigned to the case. Once the initial decision is made to issue a Notice to Appear (a document that formally initiates removal proceedings by charging an individual with immigration violations), further decisions about continuing the government’s case will be made at higher levels within ICE or DHS.

Understanding Prosecutorial Discretion in Immigration Law | Immigration Policy Center

…from a practical matter this law serves no useful purpose other than to garner votes from one segement of the Arizona population.

True, this measure is purely partisan.

And conservatives and republicans should hope the Court upholds the lower courts’ ruling, enjoining the inane provisions of the law. This will succeed only in driving a wedge further between the GOP and Hispanics.

Arizona officials will also be stuck with the expense of detaining those suspected of being in the country illegally, as well as defending itself from various civil rights violations lawsuits.

Actually, you're totally wrong. A state cannot unilaterally decide a Federal law is unconstitutional. Only the Federal Courts can do that.

Correct, see: Cooper v. Aaron (1958).

In a signed, unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court held that the Arkansas officials were bound by federal court orders that rested on the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education. The Court noted that its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in Brown was the supreme law of the land and that it had a "binding effect" on the states. The Court reaffirmed its commitment to desegregation and reiterated that legislatures are not at liberty to annul judgments of the Court.

Cooper v. Aaron | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[jillian]

The Constitution does not agree. All the Supremacy clause says is that, in a conflict between federal and state law, federal law made in pursuance of the Constitution wins. If the federal government passes a law that requires states to shoot people who engage in sodomy, and California chose to ignore that law because it argued that their constitution makes that illegal, California wins.

That is why you should never argue about law with someone who can think of absurdities, you will always loose.

As a lawyer, you should know better.

Actually, you're totally wrong. A state cannot unilaterally decide a Federal law is unconstitutional. Only the Federal Courts can do that.

If you knew law, you might know better.

No offense, of course.

Totally wrong?

Federal law says marijuana is always illegal, yet many states allow people to use it with a prescription. Funny thing, not a single court has ever ruled that states can't do that.

Federal law says nothing about flirting, yet it is illegal in Little Rock. Does federal law preempt the law against flirting?

I can keep this up all day. If I was totally wrong you should be able to win by default.

Just saying.

You know that if the Feds chose to prosecute for medical marijuana, they could. right? they choose not to. it should actually be de-criminalized totally. we spent ridiculous amounts of money keeping people in jail for a bag of weed. but i digress.

state law is subservient to Federal law. That is basic hornbook con law.

feel free to find a case issued by the supreme court that says otherwise.

hint: neither you nor liability can do so because none exists.

like i said, your premise is patently incorrect.

and the concept that federal law is void ab initio without action by any court is beyond silliness....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually, you're totally wrong. A state cannot unilaterally decide a Federal law is unconstitutional. Only the Federal Courts can do that.

If you knew law, you might know better.

No offense, of course.

Totally wrong?

Federal law says marijuana is always illegal, yet many states allow people to use it with a prescription. Funny thing, not a single court has ever ruled that states can't do that.

Federal law says nothing about flirting, yet it is illegal in Little Rock. Does federal law preempt the law against flirting?

I can keep this up all day. If I was totally wrong you should be able to win by default.

Just saying.

You know that if the Feds chose to prosecute for medical marijuana, they could. right? they choose not to. it should actually be de-criminalized totally. we spent ridiculous amounts of money keeping people in jail for a bag of weed. but i digress.

state law is subservient to Federal law. That is basic hornbook con law.

feel free to find a case issued by the supreme court that says otherwise.

hint: neither you nor liability can do so because none exists.

like i said, your premise is patently incorrect.

and the concept that federal law is void ab initio without action by any court is beyond silliness....

D'oh. Why don't you point out that gravity exists now, it has as much bearing on the actual issue as the diversions you keep throwing out.

The issue here is not about individuals ignoring federal law, it is about states doing so. I used medical marijuana because I can point to federal court decisions that say that, just because federal law says it is illegal, that does not exempt local officials from following state law that requires them to issue certificates for people to legally grow marijuana under state law.

San Diego, San Bernardino Counties Must Obey Marijuana Laws: LAist

Why don't you actually address the subject, kinda of like you spent half the thread complaining other people aren't doing? If I am so incorrect, why do federal courts say that officals have to follow state law over federal law?

Why don't you surprise me and actually answer the question instead of trying to pretend you are smarter than me?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thanks for that, Valerie. I appreciate the synthesis of the argument.

My question though may be more practical than legalistic. I want to know, in terms of cost, in terms of response requirements, what the US Govt is supposed to do every time AZ picks up an allegegd illegal?

AZ can't have deporation hearings.

AZ can't deport.

So then what?

Don't you think it's the duty of the Federal authorities to enforce Federal law and thus to deport illegal alliens?

I don't think it's the place of any state to tell the Federal Government what to do.

The Constitution agrees.

I'll direct your attention to the supremacy clause.

Within the state boundaries the state has a duty to defend it's citizens. and when the federal government is not doing it's job the state has the authority to step up and defend it's citizens.
The states can amend the Constitution even it the feds don't want it done.

 

[jillian]

Totally wrong?

Federal law says marijuana is always illegal, yet many states allow people to use it with a prescription. Funny thing, not a single court has ever ruled that states can't do that.

Federal law says nothing about flirting, yet it is illegal in Little Rock. Does federal law preempt the law against flirting?

I can keep this up all day. If I was totally wrong you should be able to win by default.

Just saying.

You know that if the Feds chose to prosecute for medical marijuana, they could. right? they choose not to. it should actually be de-criminalized totally. we spent ridiculous amounts of money keeping people in jail for a bag of weed. but i digress.

state law is subservient to Federal law. That is basic hornbook con law.

feel free to find a case issued by the supreme court that says otherwise.

hint: neither you nor liability can do so because none exists.

like i said, your premise is patently incorrect.

and the concept that federal law is void ab initio without action by any court is beyond silliness....

D'oh. Why don't you point out that gravity exists now, it has as much bearing on the actual issue as the diversions you keep throwing out.

The issue here is not about individuals ignoring federal law, it is about states doing so. I used medical marijuana because I can point to federal court decisions that say that, just because federal law says it is illegal, that does not exempt local officials from following state law that requires them to issue certificates for people to legally grow marijuana under state law.

San Diego, San Bernardino Counties Must Obey Marijuana Laws: LAist

Why don't you actually address the subject, kinda of like you spent half the thread complaining other people aren't doing? If I am so incorrect, why do federal courts say that officals have to follow state law over federal law?

Why don't you surprise me and actually answer the question instead of trying to pretend you are smarter than me?

your link says the position of this administration is that they aren't doing raids. as i said, if they wanted to, they could.

not quite sure of your point. i suspect neither are you.

i answered your question. I can't help it if you don't like the answer.

 

[jillian]

Don't you think it's the duty of the Federal authorities to enforce Federal law and thus to deport illegal alliens?

I don't think it's the place of any state to tell the Federal Government what to do.

The Constitution agrees.

I'll direct your attention to the supremacy clause.

Within the state boundaries the state has a duty to defend it's citizens. and when the federal government is not doing it's job the state has the authority to step up and defend it's citizens.
The states can amend the Constitution even it the feds don't want it done.

the state cannot amend its constitution to afford lesser rights than are provided by the federal government. they can always provide greater rights.

as for your point about the boundaries... yadda, yadda... that's not the point of this thread. my question is specifically about the logistics of what happens if its sustained.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, you're totally wrong. A state cannot unilaterally decide a Federal law is unconstitutional. Only the Federal Courts can do that.

If you knew law, you might know better.

No offense, of course.

Totally wrong?

Federal law says marijuana is always illegal, yet many states allow people to use it with a prescription. Funny thing, not a single court has ever ruled that states can't do that.

Federal law says nothing about flirting, yet it is illegal in Little Rock. Does federal law preempt the law against flirting?

I can keep this up all day. If I was totally wrong you should be able to win by default.

Just saying.

You know that if the Feds chose to prosecute for medical marijuana, they could. right? they choose not to. it should actually be de-criminalized totally. we spent ridiculous amounts of money keeping people in jail for a bag of weed. but i digress.

state law is subservient to Federal law. That is basic hornbook con law.

feel free to find a case issued by the supreme court that says otherwise.

hint: neither you nor liability can do so because none exists.

like i said, your premise is patently incorrect.

and the concept that federal law is void ab initio without action by any court is beyond silliness....

Remember that you’re dealing with graduates from the Mr. Nick School of Law, where the Supreme Court is wrong about everything, up to and including Marbury.

 

[jillian]

Totally wrong?

Federal law says marijuana is always illegal, yet many states allow people to use it with a prescription. Funny thing, not a single court has ever ruled that states can't do that.

Federal law says nothing about flirting, yet it is illegal in Little Rock. Does federal law preempt the law against flirting?

I can keep this up all day. If I was totally wrong you should be able to win by default.

Just saying.

You know that if the Feds chose to prosecute for medical marijuana, they could. right? they choose not to. it should actually be de-criminalized totally. we spent ridiculous amounts of money keeping people in jail for a bag of weed. but i digress.

state law is subservient to Federal law. That is basic hornbook con law.

feel free to find a case issued by the supreme court that says otherwise.

hint: neither you nor liability can do so because none exists.

like i said, your premise is patently incorrect.

and the concept that federal law is void ab initio without action by any court is beyond silliness....

Remember that you’re dealing with graduates from the Mr. Nick School of Law, where the Supreme Court is wrong about everything, up to and including Marbury.

it's pretty funny. thanks for the reminder.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I don't think it's the place of any state to tell the Federal Government what to do.

The Constitution agrees.

I'll direct your attention to the supremacy clause.

Within the state boundaries the state has a duty to defend it's citizens. and when the federal government is not doing it's job the state has the authority to step up and defend it's citizens.
The states can amend the Constitution even it the feds don't want it done.

the state cannot amend its constitution to afford lesser rights than are provided by the federal government. they can always provide greater rights.

as for your point about the boundaries... yadda, yadda... that's not the point of this thread. my question is specifically about the logistics of what happens if its sustained.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[jillian]

Within the state boundaries the state has a duty to defend it's citizens. and when the federal government is not doing it's job the state has the authority to step up and defend it's citizens.
The states can amend the Constitution even it the feds don't want it done.

the state cannot amend its constitution to afford lesser rights than are provided by the federal government. they can always provide greater rights.

as for your point about the boundaries... yadda, yadda... that's not the point of this thread. my question is specifically about the logistics of what happens if its sustained.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

sweetheart, there's no need to amend the constitution. state law is always subservient to federal law if it's pre-empted on a subject.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the state cannot amend its constitution to afford lesser rights than are provided by the federal government. they can always provide greater rights.

as for your point about the boundaries... yadda, yadda... that's not the point of this thread. my question is specifically about the logistics of what happens if its sustained.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)

Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

sweetheart, there's no need to amend the constitution. state law is always subservient to federal law if it's pre-empted on a subject.

You said the states cannot tell the federal government what to do. Yes they can.

 

[Liability]

Actually, you're totally wrong. A state cannot unilaterally decide a Federal law is unconstitutional. Only the Federal Courts can do that.

If you knew law, you might know better.

No offense, of course.

If a FEDERAL Law IS at odds with the Constitution, it is not a law made in pursuance of the Constitution. It is void ab initio.

So, you can't validly say that he's entirely wrong.

In fact, he's right.

If the Federal law is UnConstitutional, it will be deemed a nullity. And if that would-be law is at odds with a State law, it would be improper for the State to ignore its own law in deference to a Federal NON-law.

And while I agree that a state doesn't ordinarily pass judgment on Federal laws, the question of constitutionality DOES come up in STATE cases, too. The STATE can pass judgment on the Constitutionality of a federal act, but subject to review by the Federal Courts whose pronouncements on the matter would be binding on the State.

That is an absurd premise. A State cannot unilaterally decide, absent adjudication by the federal court, that a federal statute violates the U.S. Constitution. And if there is a conflict between the state and federal law, the federal law prevails. You know this.

Of course the State can. It would set up a nice federal appeal, in fact.

Nothing absurd about what I said.

There is something silly about your contention, though.

If the Federal Court then disagrees with the State Court, the State determination goes by the boards. But until then -- you're wrong. And you SHOULD know this.

 

[Liability]

Actually, you're totally wrong. A state cannot unilaterally decide a Federal law is unconstitutional. Only the Federal Courts can do that.

If you knew law, you might know better.

No offense, of course.

Totally wrong?

Federal law says marijuana is always illegal, yet many states allow people to use it with a prescription. Funny thing, not a single court has ever ruled that states can't do that.

Federal law says nothing about flirting, yet it is illegal in Little Rock. Does federal law preempt the law against flirting?

I can keep this up all day. If I was totally wrong you should be able to win by default.

Just saying.

You know that if the Feds chose to prosecute for medical marijuana, they could. right? they choose not to. it should actually be de-criminalized totally. we spent ridiculous amounts of money keeping people in jail for a bag of weed. but i digress.

state law is subservient to Federal law. That is basic hornbook con law.

feel free to find a case issued by the supreme court that says otherwise.

hint: neither you nor liability can do so because none exists.

like i said, your premise is patently incorrect.

and the concept that federal law is void ab initio without action by any court is beyond silliness....

State law is not subservient to federal law.

Federal law MAY preempt a field. And if and when it does, then you have a point.

But if there is no clear design to preempt the field, State law is not subservient to Federal law.

You should know better than to say such silly things.

 

[jillian]

If a FEDERAL Law IS at odds with the Constitution, it is not a law made in pursuance of the Constitution. It is void ab initio.

So, you can't validly say that he's entirely wrong.

In fact, he's right.

If the Federal law is UnConstitutional, it will be deemed a nullity. And if that would-be law is at odds with a State law, it would be improper for the State to ignore its own law in deference to a Federal NON-law.

And while I agree that a state doesn't ordinarily pass judgment on Federal laws, the question of constitutionality DOES come up in STATE cases, too. The STATE can pass judgment on the Constitutionality of a federal act, but subject to review by the Federal Courts whose pronouncements on the matter would be binding on the State.

That is an absurd premise. A State cannot unilaterally decide, absent adjudication by the federal court, that a federal statute violates the U.S. Constitution. And if there is a conflict between the state and federal law, the federal law prevails. You know this.

Of course the State can. It would set up a nice federal appeal, in fact.

Nothing absurd about what I said.

There is something silly about your contention, though.

If the Federal Court then disagrees with the State Court, the State determination goes by the boards. But until then -- you're wrong. And you SHOULD know this.

nonsense... they have to implement the federal law unless and until the court says they don't have to.

there is nothing silly about what i said. if you have precedent from the high court that says otherwise, i look forward to seeing it.

otherwise, what you're saying simply isn't the case.