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.
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he's not surprised by the Justice Department's challenge but called it "unnecessary."
He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.
"The issue was already teed up in the courts. There's no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn't add anything by bringing their own lawsuit," Kobach said in an interview.
It's a shame the states have no standing to sue the federal government for something like dereliction of duty in failing, or refusing, to control the border. It is interesting to note tho that the administration was able to get off it's ass long enough to file what appears to be an unnecessary suit.
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he's not surprised by the Justice Department's challenge but called it "unnecessary."
He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.
"The issue was already teed up in the courts. There's no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn't add anything by bringing their own lawsuit," Kobach said in an interview.
It's a shame the states have no standing to sue the federal government for something like dereliction of duty in failing, or refusing, to control the border. It is interesting to note tho that the administration was able to get off it's ass long enough to file what appears to be an unnecessary suit.
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he's not surprised by the Justice Department's challenge but called it "unnecessary."
He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.
"The issue was already teed up in the courts. There's no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn't add anything by bringing their own lawsuit," Kobach said in an interview.
It's a shame the states have no standing to sue the federal government for something like dereliction of duty in failing, or refusing, to control the border. It is interesting to note tho that the administration was able to get off it's ass long enough to file what appears to be an unnecessary suit.
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he's not surprised by the Justice Department's challenge but called it "unnecessary."
He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.
"The issue was already teed up in the courts. There's no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn't add anything by bringing their own lawsuit," Kobach said in an interview.
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
"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
It's a shame the states have no standing to sue the federal government for something like dereliction of duty in failing, or refusing, to control the border. It is interesting to note tho that the administration was able to get off it's ass long enough to file what appears to be an unnecessary suit.
Kris Kobach, the University of Missouri-Kansas City law professor who helped draft the Arizona law, said he's not surprised by the Justice Department's challenge but called it "unnecessary."
He noted that the law already is being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union and other groups opposed to the new statute.
"The issue was already teed up in the courts. There's no reason for the Justice Department to get involved. The Justice Department doesn't add anything by bringing their own lawsuit," Kobach said in an interview.
The Federal suit does not offer racial profiling as evidence to strike the law, so that will not be an issue in the Federal suit, as both Arizona and the Fed agree in the suit that the law does not promote racial profiling.
Arizona's defense is going to swing heavily on the Fed's repeatedly turning a blind eye to sanctuaries. The Fed argues that Arizona's law removes the Fed's right and ability to "do its job" yet the sanctuary laws all dictate that localities will either not aid the Fed, or will hinder the Fed, and the Fed ignores them.
Holder's argument can't legally stand up in court. Not saying it wont, but it can't legally.
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
From the petition:
"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
That one looks pretty tough to overcome. If AZ loses, the precedent could cripple any future state law regarding immigration.
.
It's a shame the states have no standing to sue the federal government for something like dereliction of duty in failing, or refusing, to control the border. It is interesting to note tho that the administration was able to get off it's ass long enough to file what appears to be an unnecessary suit.
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
From the petition:
"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
That one looks pretty tough to overcome. If AZ loses, the precedent could cripple any future state law regarding immigration.
.
Its legal bullshit. All AZ needs to do is keep appealing to the USSC and they win, that's if none of the other courts throw it out first. It just shows who Obama/Holder want to vote for them in November (Mexicanos). White voters have had enough of dems by a 56/39 score.
Oh my, Chris Matthews is in a tizzy, the dems are toast and the MSM is at a loss. Their team is getting clobbered and they can't do anything (most of the voters are watching FXN).
JohnsonCityPress.com - Local News - Johnson City, TN
It's time to put those behind this lawsuit out of office. Starting with State Sen. Russell Pearce.
