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.
How does the Arizona law usurp the federal law? And please be specific.
Rinata!!
Answer this question and the one I asked prevously.
Why do you liberals run and hide when challenged?
Run and hide???From whom??? I try to answer questions when I am asked. I am not real motivated to do so though when I get some of the responses. The questions are asked so politely. But not the responses.
How does the Arizona law usurp the federal law? And please be specific.
Rinata!!
Answer this question and the one I asked prevously.
Why do you liberals run and hide when challenged?
Run and hide???
I'm glad you Hopey Changeys had a nice Summer but most Americans didn't.
How does the Arizona law usurp the federal law? And please be specific.
The lawsuit argues that Arizona's law requiring state and local police to question and perhaps arrest illegal immigrants, during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic violations, usurps federal authority.
"In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the lawsuit says. "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."
The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement tactics.
Federal officials have a major concern that other states want to follow Arizona by crafting their own immigration enforcement laws.
"As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country," Obama said. "A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed."
I'm no expert, but it makes sense to me.
I understand what the lawsuit says, but exactly how does it usurp federal law?
Doesn't the state have a right to enforce it's laws?
SB1070 is not any different than the federal law, in fact the federal law is much more intrusive and doesn't prohibit racial profiling. Under SB1070 law enforcement cannot ask for immigration status unless the individual is already being investigated for a criminal offense and there is reason to believe the individual is here illegally.
Try reading SB1070 and you will find that the Government's argument is rather weak.
A Summer to definitely not remember but lets recap anyway...
Iran went Nuclear while our President Vacationed,North Korea sunk a South Korean ship,Foreign spies ran rampant in this Government,We officially began losing ....
A Summer to definitely not remember but lets recap anyway...
Iran went Nuclear while our President Vacationed,North Korea sunk a South Korean ship,Foreign spies ran rampant in this Government,We officially began losing ....
As if you ever had any to begin with, but your entire post lost credibility when you somehow attributed the sinking of a Korean ship to be Obamas fault and then "Forgeign spies ran rampant" as somehow being a negative. The spies who had been in place for YEARS, well before Obama took office. Maybe you are congratulating him for having them caught under his watch?
All your post does is show that you are not objective in anyway, and you will actually look for things to blame Obama for. Must suck to live the bitter life you lead.
A Summer to definitely not remember but lets recap anyway...
Iran went Nuclear while our President Vacationed,North Korea sunk a South Korean ship,Foreign spies ran rampant in this Government,We officially began losing ....
As if you ever had any to begin with, but your entire post lost credibility when you somehow attributed the sinking of a Korean ship to be Obamas fault and then "Forgeign spies ran rampant" as somehow being a negative. The spies who had been in place for YEARS, well before Obama took office. Maybe you are congratulating him for having them caught under his watch?
All your post does is show that you are not objective in anyway, and you will actually look for things to blame Obama for. Must suck to live the bitter life you lead.
So says the Bush Did It Society Secretary.
As if you ever had any to begin with, but your entire post lost credibility when you somehow attributed the sinking of a Korean ship to be Obamas fault and then "Forgeign spies ran rampant" as somehow being a negative. The spies who had been in place for YEARS, well before Obama took office. Maybe you are congratulating him for having them caught under his watch?
All your post does is show that you are not objective in anyway, and you will actually look for things to blame Obama for. Must suck to live the bitter life you lead.
So says the Bush Did It Society Secretary.
Since I never mentioned Bush once.....Good one.
The lawsuit argues that Arizona's law requiring state and local police to question and perhaps arrest illegal immigrants, during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic violations, usurps federal authority.
"In our constitutional system, the federal government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters," the lawsuit says. "This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests."
The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, but Arizona is the first state to make it a state crime and add its own punishment and enforcement tactics.
Federal officials have a major concern that other states want to follow Arizona by crafting their own immigration enforcement laws.
"As other states and localities go their own ways, we face the prospect that different rules for immigration will apply in different parts of the country," Obama said. "A patchwork of local immigration rules where we all know one clear national standard is needed."
I'm no expert, but it makes sense to me.
I understand what the lawsuit says, but exactly how does it usurp federal law?
Doesn't the state have a right to enforce it's laws?
SB1070 is not any different than the federal law, in fact the federal law is much more intrusive and doesn't prohibit racial profiling. Under SB1070 law enforcement cannot ask for immigration status unless the individual is already being investigated for a criminal offense and there is reason to believe the individual is here illegally.
Try reading SB1070 and you will find that the Government's argument is rather weak.
As I said, I am no expert. I've just been following the story and listening to the politicians. What I am understanding is that some think that we should have the same laws for immigration in every state in the union. That the federal govt. is responsible for making the rules, not the individual states.
The DOJ is suing Arizona, claiming SB 1070 (PDF) violates the U.S. Constitutions Supremacy Clause. According to the complaint (PDF), the law is a state-specific immigration policy that attempts to regulate immigration, which is the preeminent authority of the federal government.
Like I said, I am no expert. But I think it makes sense. Also, I think Brewer comes off as a poor leader with her own agenda. I don't trust her and I don't like her.
This was a nice exchange. Thanks.
So says the Bush Did It Society Secretary.
Since I never mentioned Bush once.....Good one.
My bad, I was reading ahead in the script. Carry on.
Since I never mentioned Bush once.....Good one.
My bad, I was reading ahead in the script. Carry on.
Jumping to conclusions rather than paying to attention to what I actually said. Shocking.
My bad, I was reading ahead in the script. Carry on.
Jumping to conclusions rather than paying to attention to what I actually said. Shocking.
Not as bad as you saying someone blamed Obama for the South Korean ship sinking, when the post clearly said North Korea was the responsible party. You have information to the contrary?
Jumping to conclusions rather than paying to attention to what I actually said. Shocking.
Not as bad as you saying someone blamed Obama for the South Korean ship sinking, when the post clearly said North Korea was the responsible party. You have information to the contrary?
The title of the post is "Obummer summer" and then he lists out a series of negative things. I had a reason to make my assumption.
Don't play dumb, you know what he was doing with his post.
Not as bad as you saying someone blamed Obama for the South Korean ship sinking, when the post clearly said North Korea was the responsible party. You have information to the contrary?
The title of the post is "Obummer summer" and then he lists out a series of negative things. I had a reason to make my assumption.
Don't play dumb, you know what he was doing with his post.
An assupmtion you didn't need to make if you had read the post. Don't be a hypocrite, admit you wanted to make a point and ignored what the post said. People do it all the time here. Your just not immune.
The title of the post is "Obummer summer" and then he lists out a series of negative things. I had a reason to make my assumption.
Don't play dumb, you know what he was doing with his post.
An assupmtion you didn't need to make if you had read the post. Don't be a hypocrite, admit you wanted to make a point and ignored what the post said. People do it all the time here. Your just not immune.
I read the post, it was full of rambling and mindless drivel. The only point I wanted to make is that his post was just that, mindless and pointless. He titled his post as a criticism of Obama, then lists out negatives that happened this summer. If he would have typed out Korean ship sank (no fault of Obama though), then maybe you'd have a case, but he didn't do that.
And I guess my last post was wrong, you weren't playing.
An assupmtion you didn't need to make if you had read the post. Don't be a hypocrite, admit you wanted to make a point and ignored what the post said. People do it all the time here. Your just not immune.
I read the post, it was full of rambling and mindless drivel. The only point I wanted to make is that his post was just that, mindless and pointless. He titled his post as a criticism of Obama, then lists out negatives that happened this summer. If he would have typed out Korean ship sank (no fault of Obama though), then maybe you'd have a case, but he didn't do that.
And I guess my last post was wrong, you weren't playing.
The OP clearly blamed the North Koreans, as it blamed the source of every other "problem". Obama deserves criticism over leaving his job so unfinished, yet taking time off of a four year job. Every other President has in similiar situations. Can you explain what makes this President so different than the others? Your in the unenviable position of having to choose between reading comprehension problems, being hypocritical or just a hack.
You're being difficult just for the sake of it now, that has to what's going on here. EVERYTHING else in his list he attributes to Obama or the Gov't. His post is titled blaming Obama and you want me to assume he slipped in one negative thing that he didn't want to at least associate to happening under Obamas watch. Get real.
