Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
They think he's foreign born because he is dishonest and arrogant. Instead of facing questions head on, and just answering them he plays games and takes the stance of "I don't have to tell you shit".
Which feeds suspicions. If he doesn't have anything to hide..then why does he hide?
The birth certificate thing could have been put to rest long, long ago if he wasn't such a piece of shit arrogant liar. But he is...liars lie..even when they don't have to, they'll go to ridiculous lengths to avoid exposing themselves. Even if there's nothing of note to expose.
It always gets them in trouble..on a small scale, and on a grand one.
He's a sociopath. Their behaviors cause problems even when they aren't really doing anything wrong..because they always engage in that criminal thinking, and that in and of itself is self-perpetuating.
June 25, 2012 Justice Antonin Scalia Bench Statement
No.11-182 - Arizona v. United States
For almost a century after the Constitution was ratified, there were no federal immigration laws except one of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts that was discredited and allowed to expire. In that first century all regulation of immigration was by the States, which excluded various categories of would-be immigrants, including convicted criminals and indigents. Indeed, many questioned whether the federal government had any power to control immigration—that was Jefferson’s and Madison’s objection to the Alien Act.
The States’ power to control immigration, however, has always been accepted, and is indeed reflected in some provisions of the Constitution. The provision that “[t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” was a revision of the provision in the Articles of Confederation which gave those privileges and immunities to “inhabitants” of each State. It was revised because giving that protection to mere “inhabitants” would allow the immigration policies of one State to be imposed on the others. Even that revision was not thought to be enough, because the States were not willing to have their immigration policies determined by the citizenship requirements of other States. Hence the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution, which enables the federal government to control who can be a citizen.
Of course the federal power to control immigration was ultimately accepted, and rightly so. But where does that power come from? Jefferson and Madison were correct that it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution’s enumeration of federal powers. The federal power over immigration cannot plausibly derive from the Naturalization Clause. Not only does the power to confer citizenship have nothing to do with the power to exclude immigrants, but, as I have described, the Naturalization Clause was a vindication of state rather than federal power over immigration.
Federal power over immigration comes from the same source as state power over immigration: it is an inherent attribute—perhaps the fundamental attribute— of sovereignty. The States, of course, are sovereign, the United States being a Union of sovereign States. To be sovereign is necessarily to possess the power to exclude unwanted persons and things from the territory. That is why the Constitution’s prohibition of a State’s imposing duties on imports made an exception for “what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws.”
Thus, this Court’s cases have held that the States retain an inherent power to exclude. That power can be limited only by the Constitution or by laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution. The Constitution, as we have seen, does not limit the States’ power over immigration but to the contrary vindicates it. So the question in this case is whether the laws of the United States forbid what Arizona has done.
Our cases have held, with regard to claimed federal abridgment by law of another inherent sovereign power of the States—their sovereign immunity from suit—that the abridgement must be “unequivocally expressed.” The same requirement must apply here; and there is no unequivocal congressional prohibition of what Arizona has done. It is not enough to say that the federal immigration laws implicitly “occupy the field.” No federal law says that the States cannot have their own immigration law.
Of course the Supremacy Clause establishes that federal immigration law is supreme, so that the States’ immigration laws cannot conflict with it—cannot admit those whom federal law would exclude or exclude those whom federal law would admit But that has not occurred here. Arizona has attached consequences under state law to acts that are unlawful under federal law—illegal aliens’ presence in Arizona and their failure to maintain federal alien registration. It is not at all unusual for state law to impose additional penalties or attach additional consequences to acts that are unlawful under federal law—state drug laws are a good example. That does not conflict with federal law.
In sum, Arizona is entitled to impose additional penalties and consequences for violations of the federal immigration laws, because it is entitled to have its own immigration laws.
As my opinion describes in more detail, however, most of the provisions challenged here do not even impose additional penalties or consequences for violation of federal immigration laws; they merely apply stricter enforcement. The federal government would have us believe (and the Court today agrees) that even that is forbidden.
The government’s brief asserted that “the Executive Branch’s ability to exercise discretion and set priorities is particularly important because of the need to allocate scarce enforcement resources wisely.” But there is no reason why the federal Executive’s need to allocate its scarce enforcement resources should disable Arizona from devoting its resources to illegal immigration in Arizona that in its view the Federal Executive has given short shrift.
Arizona asserts without contradiction and with supporting citations the following: “n the last decade federal enforcement efforts have focused primarily on areas in California and Texas, leaving Arizona’s border to suffer from comparative neglect. The result has been the funneling of an increasing tide of illegal border crossings into Arizona.
Indeed, over the past decade, over a third of the Nation’s illegal border crossings occurred in Arizona,” Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the Executive’s unwise targeting of that funding?
But leave that aside. It has become clear that federal enforcement priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate so-called scarce enforcement resources—is not the problem here. After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1 .4 million illegal immigrants. The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since those resources will be eaten up by the considerable administrative cost of conducting the nonenforcement program, which will require as many as 1.4 million background checks and biennial rulings on requests for dispensation.
The President has said that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
The Court’s opinion paints what it considers a looming specter of inutterable horror: “If §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations,” That seems to me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A federal government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws exclude.
So the issue is a stark one: Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?
A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Imagine a provision—perhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, ci. 4, the Naturalization Clause— which included among the enumerated powers of Congress “To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate.” The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits from Independence Hall.
As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit.
Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. For these reasons, I dissent.
It's not you and me I'm referring to
It's not even the Obamalickers.
It's those who fail to vote due to a failure to even attempt to understand what is going on in their country.
First they came for...............
I believe in a president who who supports all of the states, its boundaries and it's citizens. Is that too much to ask for?
Edited to add: It's constitution and its laws.
Justice Scalia saw this coming before Obama and Bis Sis said FU to Arizona
June 25, 2012 Justice Antonin Scalia Bench Statement
No.11-182 - Arizona v. United States
For almost a century after the Constitution was ratified, there were no federal immigration laws except one of the infamous Alien and Sedition Acts that was discredited and allowed to expire. In that first century all regulation of immigration was by the States, which excluded various categories of would-be immigrants, including convicted criminals and indigents. Indeed, many questioned whether the federal government had any power to control immigrationthat was Jeffersons and Madisons objection to the Alien Act.
The States power to control immigration, however, has always been accepted, and is indeed reflected in some provisions of the Constitution. The provision that [t]he Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States was a revision of the provision in the Articles of Confederation which gave those privileges and immunities to inhabitants of each State. It was revised because giving that protection to mere inhabitants would allow the immigration policies of one State to be imposed on the others. Even that revision was not thought to be enough, because the States were not willing to have their immigration policies determined by the citizenship requirements of other States. Hence the Naturalization Clause of the Constitution, which enables the federal government to control who can be a citizen.
Of course the federal power to control immigration was ultimately accepted, and rightly so. But where does that power come from? Jefferson and Madison were correct that it is nowhere to be found in the Constitutions enumeration of federal powers. The federal power over immigration cannot plausibly derive from the Naturalization Clause. Not only does the power to confer citizenship have nothing to do with the power to exclude immigrants, but, as I have described, the Naturalization Clause was a vindication of state rather than federal power over immigration.
Federal power over immigration comes from the same source as state power over immigration: it is an inherent attributeperhaps the fundamental attribute of sovereignty. The States, of course, are sovereign, the United States being a Union of sovereign States. To be sovereign is necessarily to possess the power to exclude unwanted persons and things from the territory. That is why the Constitutions prohibition of a States imposing duties on imports made an exception for what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws.
Thus, this Courts cases have held that the States retain an inherent power to exclude. That power can be limited only by the Constitution or by laws enacted pursuant to the Constitution. The Constitution, as we have seen, does not limit the States power over immigration but to the contrary vindicates it. So the question in this case is whether the laws of the United States forbid what Arizona has done.
Our cases have held, with regard to claimed federal abridgment by law of another inherent sovereign power of the Statestheir sovereign immunity from suitthat the abridgement must be unequivocally expressed. The same requirement must apply here; and there is no unequivocal congressional prohibition of what Arizona has done. It is not enough to say that the federal immigration laws implicitly occupy the field. No federal law says that the States cannot have their own immigration law.
Of course the Supremacy Clause establishes that federal immigration law is supreme, so that the States immigration laws cannot conflict with itcannot admit those whom federal law would exclude or exclude those whom federal law would admit But that has not occurred here. Arizona has attached consequences under state law to acts that are unlawful under federal lawillegal aliens presence in Arizona and their failure to maintain federal alien registration. It is not at all unusual for state law to impose additional penalties or attach additional consequences to acts that are unlawful under federal lawstate drug laws are a good example. That does not conflict with federal law.
In sum, Arizona is entitled to impose additional penalties and consequences for violations of the federal immigration laws, because it is entitled to have its own immigration laws.
As my opinion describes in more detail, however, most of the provisions challenged here do not even impose additional penalties or consequences for violation of federal immigration laws; they merely apply stricter enforcement. The federal government would have us believe (and the Court today agrees) that even that is forbidden.
The governments brief asserted that the Executive Branchs ability to exercise discretion and set priorities is particularly important because of the need to allocate scarce enforcement resources wisely. But there is no reason why the federal Executives need to allocate its scarce enforcement resources should disable Arizona from devoting its resources to illegal immigration in Arizona that in its view the Federal Executive has given short shrift.
Arizona asserts without contradiction and with supporting citations the following: n the last decade federal enforcement efforts have focused primarily on areas in California and Texas, leaving Arizonas border to suffer from comparative neglect. The result has been the funneling of an increasing tide of illegal border crossings into Arizona.
Indeed, over the past decade, over a third of the Nations illegal border crossings occurred in Arizona, Must Arizonas ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcementor, even worse, to the Executives unwise targeting of that funding?
But leave that aside. It has become clear that federal enforcement prioritiesin the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate so-called scarce enforcement resourcesis not the problem here. After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1 .4 million illegal immigrants. The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since those resources will be eaten up by the considerable administrative cost of conducting the nonenforcement program, which will require as many as 1.4 million background checks and biennial rulings on requests for dispensation.
The President has said that the new program is the right thing to do in light of Congresss failure to pass the Administrations proposed revision of the immigration laws. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind.
The Courts opinion paints what it considers a looming specter of inutterable horror: If §3 of the Arizona statute were valid, every State could give itself independent authority to prosecute federal registration violations, That seems to me not so horrible and even less looming. But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A federal government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws exclude.
So the issue is a stark one: Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the federal Executives refusal to enforce the Nations immigration laws?
A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Courts holding? Imagine a provisionperhaps inserted right after Art. I, §8, ci. 4, the Naturalization Clause which included among the enumerated powers of Congress To establish Limitations upon Immigration that will be exclusive and that will be enforced only to the extent the President deems appropriate. The delegates to the Grand Convention would have rushed to the exits from Independence Hall.
As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit.
Arizona bears the brunt of the countrys illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are simply unwilling to do so.
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereigntynot in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. For these reasons, I dissent.
How many States are Holder and the Asshole in Chief suing for God's sake? They've attacked their own People from day one. Taking the side of Illegal Aliens and Mexico over their own People is just plain despicable. We do have Traitors in the White House. Get out and vote people. Or you'll see another four years of attacks on American Citizens.
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL...what Obama wants. Forget the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, paulitician.
Soverign States no longer exist in the Statist mind. Individuals don't exist.
LAW is subjective as to what to enforce in review of political ramifications.
It's just so shockingly sad watching our own President taking the side of Illegal Aliens and Mexico, over his own People. It really is Treasonous. Their currently suing several States. They declared War on their fellow Americans from day one. I just don't understand how so many can support this. I guess it's all about that NWO Globalist/'Social Justice' stuff. This President could care less about America, its Constitution, or Sovereignty. He really does feel perfectly comfortable taking the side of a Foreign Nation over America. It's very sad. Americans better get it together and vote these assholes out in November. They're a menace to our Nation.
They think he's foreign born because he is dishonest and arrogant. Instead of facing questions head on, and just answering them he plays games and takes the stance of "I don't have to tell you shit".
Which feeds suspicions. If he doesn't have anything to hide..then why does he hide?
The birth certificate thing could have been put to rest long, long ago if he wasn't such a piece of shit arrogant liar. But he is...liars lie..even when they don't have to, they'll go to ridiculous lengths to avoid exposing themselves. Even if there's nothing of note to expose.
It always gets them in trouble..on a small scale, and on a grand one.
He's a sociopath. Their behaviors cause problems even when they aren't really doing anything wrong..because they always engage in that criminal thinking, and that in and of itself is self-perpetuating.
Obama is a supreme narcissist.
They think he's foreign born because he is dishonest and arrogant. Instead of facing questions head on, and just answering them he plays games and takes the stance of "I don't have to tell you shit".
Which feeds suspicions. If he doesn't have anything to hide..then why does he hide?
The birth certificate thing could have been put to rest long, long ago if he wasn't such a piece of shit arrogant liar. But he is...liars lie..even when they don't have to, they'll go to ridiculous lengths to avoid exposing themselves. Even if there's nothing of note to expose.
It always gets them in trouble..on a small scale, and on a grand one.
He's a sociopath. Their behaviors cause problems even when they aren't really doing anything wrong..because they always engage in that criminal thinking, and that in and of itself is self-perpetuating.
Obama is a supreme narcissist.
This has been discussed by experts. They warned us about him.
Illegal Aliens and Mexican Citizens are very proud of Barack Obama. But American Citizens, not so much. He clearly doesn't represent American Citizens.
Illegal Aliens and Mexican Citizens are very proud of Barack Obama. But American Citizens, not so much. He clearly doesn't represent American Citizens.
He never has. Obama is at WAR with the people he swore to protect and defend...him and HOLDER.
Thumbing his nose at law and order....again!
More like giving the middle finger to America.
Thumbing his nose at law and order....again!
Illegal Aliens and Mexican Citizens are very proud of Barack Obama. But American Citizens, not so much. He clearly doesn't represent American Citizens.
He never has. Obama is at WAR with the people he swore to protect and defend...him and HOLDER.
It's all about NWO Globalism and "Social Justice" i guess. American Citizens clearly don't mean anything to this guy. He's way too comfortable throwing them under the bus. I guess the Democrats weren't kidding when they said they wanted him to be 'President of the World.' But i think most Americans just want a President of the Unites States of America. This guy's time should be up. He should be a 'one & doner.'
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer started out Monday insisting she was pleased that the Supreme Court upheld what she called "the heart" of her state's controversial immigration law. But by nightfall, she was declaring that the Obama administration had told the state to "drop dead."
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down most of SB1070, saying that control of the nation's borders was the province of the federal government, not the states. It did allow local law enforcement officials to, under certain conditions, check an individual's immigration status during lawful stops.
During a news conference Monday morning, Brewer said that Arizona would "move forward instructing law enforcement to begin practicing what the United States Supreme Court has upheld."
"Today is a day when the key components of our efforts to protect the citizens of Arizona, to take up the fight against illegal immigration in a balanced and constitutional way, has unanimously been vindicated by the highest court in the land," she added.
But later that night, she lambasted the Department of Homeland Security's decision to cancel its agreements with Arizona law enforcement agencies allowing them to check the citizenship of suspected illegal immigrants. The 287(g) task force agreement cessation was accompanied by an announcement that Homeland Security agents will not respond if asked by Arizona officials to take illegal immigrants into custody unless the detainees had criminal backgrounds or had repeatedly violated immigration rules.
Poor Jan.
Christ, what a whiner THAT one turned out to be!
Brewer accuses Obama administration of telling Arizona to 'drop dead' - San Jose Mercury News
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer started out Monday insisting she was pleased that the Supreme Court upheld what she called "the heart" of her state's controversial immigration law. But by nightfall, she was declaring that the Obama administration had told the state to "drop dead."
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down most of SB1070, saying that control of the nation's borders was the province of the federal government, not the states. It did allow local law enforcement officials to, under certain conditions, check an individual's immigration status during lawful stops.
During a news conference Monday morning, Brewer said that Arizona would "move forward instructing law enforcement to begin practicing what the United States Supreme Court has upheld."
"Today is a day when the key components of our efforts to protect the citizens of Arizona, to take up the fight against illegal immigration in a balanced and constitutional way, has unanimously been vindicated by the highest court in the land," she added.
But later that night, she lambasted the Department of Homeland Security's decision to cancel its agreements with Arizona law enforcement agencies allowing them to check the citizenship of suspected illegal immigrants. The 287(g) task force agreement cessation was accompanied by an announcement that Homeland Security agents will not respond if asked by Arizona officials to take illegal immigrants into custody unless the detainees had criminal backgrounds or had repeatedly violated immigration rules.
It's like she's bipolar. She's up down, up-down, up-down. Four paragraphs, she changed her mind four times.
Is she related to Mittens?
