Arizona Governor to countersue U.S. government over immigration enforcement!

[get_involved]

"She said that no taxpayer money would be spent on the claim, and that she has set up a website to raise funds: keepazsafe.com .

Brewer said she has already raised $3.7 million."




Gov. Jan Brewer announces Arizona to file counter claim against US government

 

[kyzr]

Good for Jan. Hope she wins and that forces the army to the border.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's about time someone reminded the imperial federal government that the states are sovereign, not little subsidiaries and clients, and that the feds have responsibilities to the states, not just power over them.

 

[Rozman]

Good for her!.... I hope people in other States support her with words or donating money to a legal fund if needed.This Governor and the people in that State need our help.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Good for her....take that holder and obamaturd.

 

[Stephanie]

what the fxxk kind of President sues a state that HE REPRESENTS?

I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like this.

 

[Rozman]

what the fxxk kind of President sues a state that HE REPRESENTS?

I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like this.

This only happens in ObamaLand.....

 

[Againsheila]

Gov. Jan Brewer announces Arizona to file counter claim against US government

about time

 

[Avorysuds]

Haha, this is good news!

 

[gekaap]

I don't believe the federal government has the power to sue a state. Sovereign Immunity applies.

Also, I can't envision Arizona's suit having significant merit. For the most part, it is a complaint about how the federal government executes its own laws. That is a matter for the ballot, not the court.

 

[Ozmar]

Good for Jan. Hope she wins and that forces the army to the border.

As Andrew Jackson once said to the supreme court: "You made the ruling.. now enforce it."

 

[Cecilie1200]

I don't believe the federal government has the power to sue a state. Sovereign Immunity applies.

Also, I can't envision Arizona's suit having significant merit. For the most part, it is a complaint about how the federal government executes its own laws. That is a matter for the ballot, not the court.

I'm sorry, but how is that a matter for the ballot? Is the well-being and survival of Arizona, and whether or not the federal government does its duty by Arizona, to be subject to the voting whims of Massachusetts? Lots of nice New England liberals feel warm and fuzzy and righteous in their sympathy for the "poor, downtrodden" illegals they'll never see, so we're supposed to sacrifice our lives, our safety, and our property for their short-sighted voting choices? I don't think so.

I'd say this is, essentially, a breach of contract suit, based on the federal government's refusal to honor its legal obligations to the state of Arizona.

 

[gekaap]

I'm sorry, but how is that a matter for the ballot? Is the well-being and survival of Arizona, and whether or not the federal government does its duty by Arizona, to be subject to the voting whims of Massachusetts? Lots of nice New England liberals feel warm and fuzzy and righteous in their sympathy for the "poor, downtrodden" illegals they'll never see, so we're supposed to sacrifice our lives, our safety, and our property for their short-sighted voting choices? I don't think so.

I'd say this is, essentially, a breach of contract suit, based on the federal government's refusal to honor its legal obligations to the state of Arizona.

When elected officials do not do their job as well as you would want them to do so, you vote for someone else next time around. See how that works? It's called democracy. No, it's not a breach of contract suit, because there is no contract. It is about the relationship between the state government and federal government, with the state government complaining about the way the federal government exercises its legal powers, and executes its laws. Nothing that the suit complains about is outside of the federal government's power to do or not do. It is federal law, and the federal government gets to decide how to execute those laws. If the people of Arizona don't like the way the government is being run, they should vote for someone else.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I'm sorry, but how is that a matter for the ballot? Is the well-being and survival of Arizona, and whether or not the federal government does its duty by Arizona, to be subject to the voting whims of Massachusetts? Lots of nice New England liberals feel warm and fuzzy and righteous in their sympathy for the "poor, downtrodden" illegals they'll never see, so we're supposed to sacrifice our lives, our safety, and our property for their short-sighted voting choices? I don't think so.

I'd say this is, essentially, a breach of contract suit, based on the federal government's refusal to honor its legal obligations to the state of Arizona.

When elected officials do not do their job as well as you would want them to do so, you vote for someone else next time around. See how that works? It's called democracy. No, it's not a breach of contract suit, because there is no contract. It is about the relationship between the state government and federal government, with the state government complaining about the way the federal government exercises its legal powers, and executes its laws. Nothing that the suit complains about is outside of the federal government's power to do or not do. It is federal law, and the federal government gets to decide how to execute those laws. If the people of Arizona don't like the way the government is being run, they should vote for someone else.

When you see the term, "Illegal," it means illegal, ie breaking the law. See how that works? Arizonans OVERWHELMINGLY support Govenor Brewer in her bid to uphold the law. So much for your "democracy."

 

[peach174]

Good for Her!!!!
We are sick and tired of illegals and cartels and coyotes trashing our land and stealing our water and robbing our homes. Hope we get alot of money and troops to protect us down here.
I'm tired of them stealing my water in my front yard water faucet when we are gone. It costs us alot of extra money each month to have to pay that water bill.
It's the law here that you have to give someone water if they come up to your house and ask for a glass of water. Because we live in the very hot desert. But It doesn't give them the right to steal from us.

 

[gekaap]

When you see the term, "Illegal," it means illegal, ie breaking the law. See how that works? Arizonans OVERWHELMINGLY support Govenor Brewer in her bid to uphold the law. So much for your "democracy."

Your little tautology does nothing to establish any legal standing for a suit. If you don't like democracy, then maybe you should move to a different country. I hear that Iran is big on that theocracy thing you like so much.

 

[gekaap]

It's the law here that you have to give someone water if they come up to your house and ask for a glass of water. Because we live in the very hot desert. But It doesn't give them the right to steal from us.

Maybe you need to change your state laws.

 

[The T]

I'm sorry, but how is that a matter for the ballot? Is the well-being and survival of Arizona, and whether or not the federal government does its duty by Arizona, to be subject to the voting whims of Massachusetts? Lots of nice New England liberals feel warm and fuzzy and righteous in their sympathy for the "poor, downtrodden" illegals they'll never see, so we're supposed to sacrifice our lives, our safety, and our property for their short-sighted voting choices? I don't think so.

I'd say this is, essentially, a breach of contract suit, based on the federal government's refusal to honor its legal obligations to the state of Arizona.

When elected officials do not do their job as well as you would want them to do so, you vote for someone else next time around. See how that works? It's called democracy. No, it's not a breach of contract suit, because there is no contract. It is about the relationship between the state government and federal government, with the state government complaining about the way the federal government exercises its legal powers, and executes its laws. Nothing that the suit complains about is outside of the federal government's power to do or not do. It is federal law, and the federal government gets to decide how to execute those laws. If the people of Arizona don't like the way the government is being run, they should vote for someone else.

When you see the term, "Illegal," it means illegal, ie breaking the law. See how that works? Arizonans OVERWHELMINGLY support Govenor Brewer in her bid to uphold the law. So much for your "democracy."

And what is a pure Democracy but Mob Rule?

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

When you see the term, "Illegal," it means illegal, ie breaking the law. See how that works? Arizonans OVERWHELMINGLY support Govenor Brewer in her bid to uphold the law. So much for your "democracy."

Your little tautology does nothing to establish any legal standing for a suit. If you don't like democracy, then maybe you should move to a different country. I hear that Iran is big on that theocracy thing you like so much.

What in the hell does illegal immigration have to do with a theocracy? Egads you libs are truly clueless. You seem to believe the Dictatorship in Washington trumps the rights of States.

In case you missed it, allow me to educate you on the legality of filing suit:

Constitutional Standards: Injury in Fact, Causation, and Redressability.—While the Court has been inconsistent, it has now settled upon the rule that, “at an irreducible minimum,” the constitutional requisites under Article III for the existence of standing are that the plaintiff must personally have suffered some actual or threatened injury that can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.356


356 Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982); Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). See, however, United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980), a class action case, in which the majority opinion appears to reduce the significance of the personal stake requirement. Id. at 404 n.11, reserving full consideration of the dissent’s argument at 401 n.1, 420-21.

Arizona has AMPLE proof of injury regarding the threat of ILLEGAL immigration.

U T T E R F A I L

 

[gekaap]

Egads you libs are truly clueless.

I'm not a liberal, FYI.

You seem to believe the Dictatorship in Washington trumps the rights of States.

You're making an unfounded statement here.

In case you missed it, allow me to educate you on the legality of filing suit:

Constitutional Standards: Injury in Fact, Causation, and Redressability.—While the Court has been inconsistent, it has now settled upon the rule that, “at an irreducible minimum,” the constitutional requisites under Article III for the existence of standing are that the plaintiff must personally have suffered some actual or threatened injury that can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant, and that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.356


356 Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982); Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984); Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992). See, however, United States Parole Comm’n v. Geraghty, 445 U.S. 388 (1980), a class action case, in which the majority opinion appears to reduce the significance of the personal stake requirement. Id. at 404 n.11, reserving full consideration of the dissent’s argument at 401 n.1, 420-21.

Good job copying and pasting. Now here's the real question: Do you know what any of that means? Here's a simple test....What does this mean: Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982)

Arizona has AMPLE proof of injury regarding the threat of ILLEGAL immigration.

U T T E R F A I L

Nobody said that illegal immigration is not a problem. If you ever bothered paying attention, you'd see that I am anti illegal immigration, almost religiously. I'm am discussing the legal merits of the suit. I don't believe the matter gives Arizona grounds for relief. Their complaints are about whether the federal government does a good job or not. It's a matter for the ballots. If the judiciary gets involved, that would be an unconstitutional violation of separations of powers.

Meanwhile, the federal government's suit will not get anywhere because of sovereign immunity. State's cannot be sued in federal court without the state's permission.