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

[LadyGunSlinger]

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.

This thread is about ARIZONA countersuing, thus my post. So long as Arizona can show causation regarding damage inflicted upon the State due to the Fed's LACK of involvement, ie their Constitutional obligation to defend and protect the citizens of this nation, they can counter all damn day.

 

[gekaap]

This thread is about ARIZONA countersuing, thus my post. So long as Arizona can show causation regarding damage inflicted upon the State due to the Fed's LACK of involvement, ie their Constitutional obligation to defend and protect the citizens of this nation, they can counter all damn day.

You didn't answer my question about the sources you copied and pasted. Can you translate this those who may not know what it means: Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982)

Also, the federal government does not have a constitutional obligation to do anything. It has constitutional powers to do things, and constitutional limits to do other things. It does not have obligations. That is the reason AZ has no grounds to receive any relief. All the things they complain about are matter of legal prerogative at worst, incompetence at best. If the citizens have a problem with the function of Congress, then perhaps they need to reconsider their choices for Representatives and Senators at the next election. If they have a problem with the executive department, then they should consider supporting an alternative candidate in 2012. That is their recourse. Not appealing to the judiciary to interfere with legal activities of Congress and the Presidency.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

This thread is about ARIZONA countersuing, thus my post. So long as Arizona can show causation regarding damage inflicted upon the State due to the Fed's LACK of involvement, ie their Constitutional obligation to defend and protect the citizens of this nation, they can counter all damn day.

You didn't answer my question about the sources you copied and pasted. Can you translate this those who may not know what it means: Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United, 454 U.S. 464, 472 (1982)

Also, the federal government does not have a constitutional obligation to do anything. It has constitutional powers to do things, and constitutional limits to do other things. It does not have obligations. That is the reason AZ has no grounds to receive any relief. All the things they complain about are matter of legal prerogative at worst, incompetence at best. If the citizens have a problem with the function of Congress, then perhaps they need to reconsider their choices for Representatives and Senators at the next election. If they have a problem with the executive department, then they should consider supporting an alternative candidate in 2012. That is their recourse. Not appealing to the judiciary to interfere with legal activities of Congress and the Presidency.

I guess that little oath thing when they assume office, you know.. to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, doesn't mean shit to you?!

I cited case law from where I obtained the statute. That's what people do..

 

[bodecea]

I seem to remember border states talking of suing the Feds for reembursement for all the state money spent due to large influx of illegals stressing the infrastructure. I wonder what happened to that one. I like the idea.

 

[peach174]

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.

Why? It's only right to give someone water if they ask. I have no problem with the law. It is'nt OK when they steal it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

Except that we're not talking about one elected official here. Obama is making a complete jackass of himself on the subject, that's true, but we're talking about an ongoing pattern of the ENTIRE federal government shirking its duties.

And there sure as fuck IS a contract between the federal government and the states, and for that matter, between the federal government and the individual citizens. What do you think all that ratifying of Constitutions is about, anyway? When the original states ratified the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, when their state Constitutions were ratified and they were accepted as states, and when the subsequent states had THEIR Constitutions ratified and were accepted as states, that was ALL about setting up the obligations between the state governments and the federal, and between all the governments and their constituents.

The federal government is NOT an imperial government, whatever it might think, and it does NOT get to decide arbitrarily which laws it will enforce and how. It has legal obligations upon it that the states and the people have a legal right to expect it to fulfill, and it's long past time that someone reminded them of that fact.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Oh noes!!! Don't look now: Constitutional ATTORNEY Jay Sekulow;

"President Obama has admitted that the federal government has failed," ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow said. "And when the federal government fails to act and do it's job, the Constitution is clear in the 10th Amendment there are powers reserved to the states. That's part one."

"Part two -- Arizona is not trying to enforce immigration," he continued. "They're not saying you can come into the country and you can't come into the country."

"What they're saying is to employment, employers, to those who are here illegally, 'If we know that you are here illegally, we're going to do something about it because [the] Immigration and Customs Enforcement office....has said that they don't have the time to handle every single immigration issue that comes about,'" Sekulow explained.

"So when the federal government admits they can't do their job... that opens the door for states like Arizona to say... 'We're going to take charge. We're going to do something about it," he said


White House Challenges Ariz. Immigration Law - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

 

[gekaap]

I guess that little oath thing when they assume office, you know.. to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, doesn't mean shit to you?!

Protect and defend the constitution....How is the constitution not protected or defended because the federal government did not do things the way a given state wants?

I cited case law from where I obtained the statue. That's what people do..

You still haven't addressed what I asked. Interpret it. What does the citation mean? How can a person use the information to find what it is citing? Oh, I see, you don't know. That's my point, you've copied and pasted information that you didn't even know the meaning of. You're just saying things that you assume support your agenda, but you don't actually have any knowledge or understanding of the subject you're babbling about.

I'll explain it for you:

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United
This is the name of the case

454 U.S.
This refers to the 454th volume of United States Cases. When the courts publish a decision, it appears in bound volumes of various series. The United States Cases are SCOTUS decisions that have been published.

464, 472
These are the specific pages where you can find the specific information that is being cited.

(1982)
This should be simple enough, but in case it's not, this is the year of the decision.

 

[Avorysuds]

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.

Except that we're not talking about one elected official here. Obama is making a complete jackass of himself on the subject, that's true, but we're talking about an ongoing pattern of the ENTIRE federal government shirking its duties.

And there sure as fuck IS a contract between the federal government and the states, and for that matter, between the federal government and the individual citizens. What do you think all that ratifying of Constitutions is about, anyway? When the original states ratified the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, when their state Constitutions were ratified and they were accepted as states, and when the subsequent states had THEIR Constitutions ratified and were accepted as states, that was ALL about setting up the obligations between the state governments and the federal, and between all the governments and their constituents.

The federal government is NOT an imperial government, whatever it might think, and it does NOT get to decide arbitrarily which laws it will enforce and how. It has legal obligations upon it that the states and the people have a legal right to expect it to fulfill, and it's long past time that someone reminded them of that fact.

This I can agree with. If the Federal Government were able to just pick what areas of the constitution it wanted to uphold then what was the point of the constitution? Again, if that were the case then it should go both ways and states would just be allowed to pick and choose what laws they wanted to follow.

 

[Avorysuds]

I guess that little oath thing when they assume office, you know.. to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, doesn't mean shit to you?!

Protect and defend the constitution....How is the constitution not protected or defended because the federal government did not do things the way a given state wants?

I cited case law from where I obtained the statue. That's what people do..

You still haven't addressed what I asked. Interpret it. What does the citation mean? How can a person use the information to find what it is citing? Oh, I see, you don't know. That's my point, you've copied and pasted information that you didn't even know the meaning of. You're just saying things that you assume support your agenda, but you don't actually have any knowledge or understanding of the subject you're babbling about.

I'll explain it for you:

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United
This is the name of the case

454 U.S.
This refers to the 454th volume of United States Cases. When the courts publish a decision, it appears in bound volumes of various series. The United States Cases are SCOTUS decisions that have been published.

464, 472
These are the specific pages where you can find the specific information that is being cited.

(1982)
This should be simple enough, but in case it's not, this is the year of the decision.

Name a state that wants massive illegal immigration. It's not a matter of the Federal Government not doing a job how some random state wants it done... It's the FGov has outright failed to do the job at all while trying to sue a state for enforcing basic laws that the FGov has no right to say if the state can and can't enforce.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

I guess that little oath thing when they assume office, you know.. to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, doesn't mean shit to you?!

Protect and defend the constitution....How is the constitution not protected or defended because the federal government did not do things the way a given state wants?

I cited case law from where I obtained the statue. That's what people do..

You still haven't addressed what I asked. Interpret it. What does the citation mean? How can a person use the information to find what it is citing? Oh, I see, you don't know. That's my point, you've copied and pasted information that you didn't even know the meaning of. You're just saying things that you assume support your agenda, but you don't actually have any knowledge or understanding of the subject you're babbling about.

I'll explain it for you:

Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United
This is the name of the case

454 U.S.
This refers to the 454th volume of United States Cases. When the courts publish a decision, it appears in bound volumes of various series. The United States Cases are SCOTUS decisions that have been published.

464, 472
These are the specific pages where you can find the specific information that is being cited.

(1982)
This should be simple enough, but in case it's not, this is the year of the decision.

#1- I never claimed to be an attorney.
#2- I know how to cite a reference which is EXACTLY what I did. The number appeared below the text, citing that particular case for the statute. If that case history doesn't reflect the case cited, TAKE IT UP WITH THE AUTHOR. It's rather simple.

Illegals crossing the border and murdering Americans is most certainly a responsibility and duty of the Federal Government.. TO PROTECT AND DEFEND. A monkey could understand simple American law in it's most basic form. Check out the 10th amendment.. gee, there's a clue for ya.

 

[hobeco]

Neither lawsuit will go anywhere of course. The feds sued Arizona because Arizona usurped federal duties when they passed their latest anti-immigration laws (more to come by the way) and Arizona sued because they do not feel the feds do their job(s). Meanwhile nobody mentions that illegal immigration is lower than it has been for years so somebody must be doing something. Napolitano ,who has been on both sides of this fight, says it's the feds. Arizona conveniently ignores this fact. Both parties should work on things that mean something like budgets that are way out of whack here in Arizona and employment for the feds.But that does not get them any brownie-points with the voters. Lawsuits do! Especially here in Arizona.

 

[gekaap]

Except that we're not talking about one elected official here. Obama is making a complete jackass of himself on the subject, that's true, but we're talking about an ongoing pattern of the ENTIRE federal government shirking its duties.

So the, we're talking about an ongoing patter of elected officials not performing well. Maybe the people need to start making better decisions. If you go to Starbucks every day for 10 years, and every day you're unsatisfied with their service, are you going to sue them? Maybe you should just go get your coffee somewhere else.

And there sure as fuck IS a contract between the federal government and the states, and for that matter, between the federal government and the individual citizens. What do you think all that ratifying of Constitutions is about, anyway? When the original states ratified the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, when their state Constitutions were ratified and they were accepted as states, and when the subsequent states had THEIR Constitutions ratified and were accepted as states, that was ALL about setting up the obligations between the state governments and the federal, and between all the governments and their constituents.

You're calling for an interpretation of the constitution that is not supported by a plain reading. In order to support such an interpretation you have to meet a very heavy burden, including decision precedent, history of application, and explaining a good reason why the interpretation should be adopted now after all this time.

But, I have to tell you there's a major flaw with your notion of a contract between the states and the federal government, because the USA did not come into existence with the ratification of the constitution. The US existed before the constitution was ratified, under the Articles of Confederation. Under the AOC, the federal government was extremely weak, and did not have any obligations to the states. Indeed, the overall weak state of the Union is what led to the adoption of the new constitution. The "new" constitution does not say anything about obligations of the federal government. Thus, in order to establish whether any such obligations exist one must look elsewhere. Under the AOC, no such obligations existed either. Therefore, there is nothing that establishes any set of obligations that the federal government has to the states. There are, instead, only sets of powers that are granted to the federal government, and limits of powers granted to the federal government. In fact, the only obligations that appear in the constitution is the obligation to the states to provide a republican form of government to its people.

The federal government is NOT an imperial government, whatever it might think,

Nobody said that the federal government was an imperial government. Why are you debunking such a straw man?

and it does NOT get to decide arbitrarily which laws it will enforce and how.

That's where you are wrong. The federal government has the prerogative to make such decisions, and it has always exercised that in various ways. For example, Congress has the power to legislate, or not to legislate, expenditures that will fund execution of laws, including immigration law. Without such funding, the federal government cannot execute those laws, or it may have to prioritize things in order to fit the funding made available by the Congress. What this comes down to is that the government must establish priorities that it finds to be appropriate, based on what is most necessary and what is most possible. When elected officials set forth their priorities by their actions or words, they are held accountable by the voters for their agendas. If voters like these agendas, they can continue to support them with their votes. If they do not like these agendas, they can support alternative candidates with other agendas. AZ's lawsuit essentially comes down to a request for the judiciary to set the agendas for the Congress and the President. This would violate the constitution's separation of powers.

It has legal obligations upon it that the states and the people have a legal right to expect it to fulfill, and it's long past time that someone reminded them of that fact.

Again, this is wrong. The constitution is not a charge of responsibility, it is a granting and limiting of powers. The constitution repeatedly refers to the powers of government. It vests legislative powers, it vests executive powers, it vests judiciary powers, and it limits powers. After all of this vesting and limiting of powers, only once does the constitution do anything that resembles a charge of responsibility. That is the requirement it applies to the states to ensure a republican form of government.

 

[gekaap]

Oh noes!!! Don't look now: Constitutional ATTORNEY Jay Sekulow;

"President Obama has admitted that the federal government has failed," ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow said. "And when the federal government fails to act and do it's job, the Constitution is clear in the 10th Amendment there are powers reserved to the states. That's part one."

"Part two -- Arizona is not trying to enforce immigration," he continued. "They're not saying you can come into the country and you can't come into the country."

"What they're saying is to employment, employers, to those who are here illegally, 'If we know that you are here illegally, we're going to do something about it because [the] Immigration and Customs Enforcement office....has said that they don't have the time to handle every single immigration issue that comes about,'" Sekulow explained.

"So when the federal government admits they can't do their job... that opens the door for states like Arizona to say... 'We're going to take charge. We're going to do something about it," he said


White House Challenges Ariz. Immigration Law - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

Somehow, I don't take the CBN as a reliable and unbiased source, or anyone speaking through it as a reliable expert.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Oh noes!!! Don't look now: Constitutional ATTORNEY Jay Sekulow;

"President Obama has admitted that the federal government has failed," ACLJ chief counsel Jay Sekulow said. "And when the federal government fails to act and do it's job, the Constitution is clear in the 10th Amendment there are powers reserved to the states. That's part one."

"Part two -- Arizona is not trying to enforce immigration," he continued. "They're not saying you can come into the country and you can't come into the country."

"What they're saying is to employment, employers, to those who are here illegally, 'If we know that you are here illegally, we're going to do something about it because [the] Immigration and Customs Enforcement office....has said that they don't have the time to handle every single immigration issue that comes about,'" Sekulow explained.

"So when the federal government admits they can't do their job... that opens the door for states like Arizona to say... 'We're going to take charge. We're going to do something about it," he said


White House Challenges Ariz. Immigration Law - US - CBN News - Christian News 24-7 - CBN.com

Somehow, I don't take the CBN as a reliable and unbiased source, or anyone speaking through it as a reliable expert.

Jay Sekulow is a noted Constitutional attorney who has argued NUMEROUS cases before the SCOTUS. I'll take his word over yours any other self appointed legal expert any day.

Jay Alan Sekulow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[gekaap]

#1- I never claimed to be an attorney.
#2- I know how to cite a reference which is EXACTLY what I did. The number appeared below the text, citing that particular case for the statute. If that case history doesn't reflect the case cited, TAKE IT UP WITH THE AUTHOR. It's rather simple.

The point is that you can't even make an argument. All you can do is copy and paste something that you assume helps your cause. You don't know anything about what you even said. You're just trying to borrow things from other people.

Illegals crossing the border and murdering Americans is most certainly a responsibility and duty of the Federal Government.. TO PROTECT AND DEFEND. A monkey could understand simple American law in it's most basic form. Check out the 10th amendment.. gee, there's a clue for ya.

What? Do you even know where the 10th amendment comes into the argument?

 

[gekaap]

Jay Sekulow is a noted Constitutional attorney who has argued NUMEROUS cases before the SCOTUS. I'll take his word over yours any other self appointed legal expert any day.

Jay Alan Sekulow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And that still does not change the fact that just because this guy is arguing a case that the CBN has paid him to argue to their audience, does not mean that it is a ultimately a true interpretation of law. It is an argument, one that he has been directed to make. That is what lawyers do when you hire them.

 

[The T]

Jay Sekulow is a noted Constitutional attorney who has argued NUMEROUS cases before the SCOTUS. I'll take his word over yours any other self appointed legal expert any day.

Jay Alan Sekulow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And that still does not change the fact that just because this guy is arguing a case that the CBN has paid him to argue to their audience, does not mean that it is a ultimately a true interpretation of law. It is an argument, one that he has been directed to make. That is what lawyers do when you hire them.

Whom cares whom paid whom? Seems to me you have a problem with CBN.

I think the man is in a better position to comment on the subject better than you and I combined...NO?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I think it's awesome... add this to the admin being held in contempt for failure to adhere to a lawful court order and Obamacare being declared null and void.

What a record!

 

[The T]

I think it's awesome... add this to the admin being held in contempt for failure to adhere to a lawful court order and Obamacare being declared null and void.

What a record!

Not to mention being held in contempt regarding the drilling moratorium (X2).