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.
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.
The regulation of immigration, naturalization and international commerce are powers specifically delegated to the federal government alone. Even if you support the spirit of Arizona's law you cannot deny the hard facts of the constitutionally-delegated powers. Arizona is intruding into federal policy in an area where the federal government is given sole authority to regulate. A temporary injunction on the law is pretty much guaranteed.
The Supremacy Clause says a state can't do something that contradicts federal law (provided the feds have the jurisdiction to act in that area). In this case, the AZ crafted a law that is not quite as stringent as the Federal law. So, it does not contradict the federal law at all.
S.B. 1070’s mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government’s careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives. For example, it will impose significant and counterproductive burdens on the federal agencies charged with enforcing the national immigration scheme, diverting resources and attention from the dangerous aliens who the federal government targets as its top enforcement priority. It will cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants, and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents specified by the statute, or who otherwise will be swept into the ambit of S.B. 1070’s “attrition through enforcement” approach. It will conflict with longstanding federal law governing the registration, smuggling, and employment of aliens. It will altogether ignore humanitarian concerns, such as the protections available under federal law for an alien who has a well-founded fear of persecution or who has been the victim of a natural disaster. And it will interfere with vital foreign policy and national security interests by disrupting the United States’ relationship with Mexico and other countries.
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).
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).
The supreme court won't hear it. Why do you think they would? They get to pick and choose and they've already shown they don't give a crap about America by refusing to hear the cases on Obama's citizenship.
The regulation of immigration, naturalization and international commerce are powers specifically delegated to the federal government alone. Even if you support the spirit of Arizona's law you cannot deny the hard facts of the constitutionally-delegated powers. Arizona is intruding into federal policy in an area where the federal government is given sole authority to regulate. A temporary injunction on the law is pretty much guaranteed.
So a police officer can't make an arrest or detain someone if they are breaking a federal law? That is essentially all AZ is doing, they are turning over any illegals to ICE. They are not prosecuting them.
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.
.
Nope, actually, it's a bunch of BS. Any lawyer worth their degree that just wasn't a political hack would tell you that.
The Supremacy Clause says a state can't do something that contradicts federal law (provided the feds have the jurisdiction to act in that area). In this case, the AZ crafted a law that is not quite as stringent as the Federal law. So, it does not contradict the federal law at all.
As a Supremacy clause case, you can compare this to CA standards on emissions. The Feds have acted in the area of emissions controls for cars, yet CA maintains a law that is much stricter than the feds. Why hasn't it been preempted by the feds? Because it doesn't contradict federal law, it says the samething, only stronger.
AZ stands in the same position with regard to illegals. They don't contradict federal law, their just going to enforce it. That's why the feds really have nothing.
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.
Okay hung up on immigration issues dipshits, legal arguments?
The lawsuit filed in federal court in Phoenix said the law, due to take effect July 29, usurps the federal government's "pre-eminent authority" under the Constitution to regulate immigration.
"The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country," the suit says.news report...........
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.
Okay hung up on immigration issues dipshits, legal arguments?
The lawsuit filed in federal court in Phoenix said the law, due to take effect July 29, usurps the federal government's "pre-eminent authority" under the Constitution to regulate immigration.
"The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country," the suit says.news report...........
Somebody will have to argue against what the US is claiming. Making up your own bullshit legal arguments in a void just won't cut it.
From the petition:
That one looks pretty tough to overcome. If AZ loses, the precedent could cripple any future state law regarding immigration.
.
Nope, actually, it's a bunch of BS. Any lawyer worth their degree that just wasn't a political hack would tell you that.
The Supremacy Clause says a state can't do something that contradicts federal law (provided the feds have the jurisdiction to act in that area). In this case, the AZ crafted a law that is not quite as stringent as the Federal law. So, it does not contradict the federal law at all.
As a Supremacy clause case, you can compare this to CA standards on emissions. The Feds have acted in the area of emissions controls for cars, yet CA maintains a law that is much stricter than the feds. Why hasn't it been preempted by the feds? Because it doesn't contradict federal law, it says the samething, only stronger.
AZ stands in the same position with regard to illegals. They don't contradict federal law, their just going to enforce it. That's why the feds really have nothing.
Now that's interesting. So it actually would make more sense for the Justice Department to sue sanctuary cities for pre-empting federal immigration law, than to sue AZ over a law that is in-line with federal policy.
Okay hung up on immigration issues dipshits, legal arguments?
The lawsuit filed in federal court in Phoenix said the law, due to take effect July 29, usurps the federal government's "pre-eminent authority" under the Constitution to regulate immigration.
"The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country," the suit says.news report...........
Somebody will have to argue against what the US is claiming. Making up your own bullshit legal arguments in a void just won't cut it.
I'm sorry, I am not a lawyer but even I know that you do not regulate immigration by ignoring your own laws.
The regulation of immigration, naturalization and international commerce are powers specifically delegated to the federal government alone. Even if you support the spirit of Arizona's law you cannot deny the hard facts of the constitutionally-delegated powers. Arizona is intruding into federal policy in an area where the federal government is given sole authority to regulate. A temporary injunction on the law is pretty much guaranteed.
So a police officer can't make an arrest or detain someone if they are breaking a federal law? That is essentially all AZ is doing, they are turning over any illegals to ICE. They are not prosecuting them.
No , Ollie, as usual the idiots are wrong. ICE has been utlilizing local law enforcement to assist since 1955
So a police officer can't make an arrest or detain someone if they are breaking a federal law? That is essentially all AZ is doing, they are turning over any illegals to ICE. They are not prosecuting them.
No , Ollie, as usual the idiots are wrong. ICE has been utlilizing local law enforcement to assist since 1955
In the instances of which you speak, local authorities actively seek to set their policies to be in compliance with federal law. What sets this example apart is that Arizona actively seeks to ignore federal standards and replace them with guidelines which are deliberately designed to NOT be in compliance with federal law. For that reason, Arizona's law is violating the federal government's constitutional authority and is almost certain to be struck down.
Nope, actually, it's a bunch of BS. Any lawyer worth their degree that just wasn't a political hack would tell you that.
The Supremacy Clause says a state can't do something that contradicts federal law (provided the feds have the jurisdiction to act in that area). In this case, the AZ crafted a law that is not quite as stringent as the Federal law. So, it does not contradict the federal law at all.
As a Supremacy clause case, you can compare this to CA standards on emissions. The Feds have acted in the area of emissions controls for cars, yet CA maintains a law that is much stricter than the feds. Why hasn't it been preempted by the feds? Because it doesn't contradict federal law, it says the samething, only stronger.
AZ stands in the same position with regard to illegals. They don't contradict federal law, their just going to enforce it. That's why the feds really have nothing.
Now that's interesting. So it actually would make more sense for the Justice Department to sue sanctuary cities for pre-empting federal immigration law, than to sue AZ over a law that is in-line with federal policy.
Sanctuary cities do not interfere with the enforcement of federal law. Arizona's law does.
So a police officer can't make an arrest or detain someone if they are breaking a federal law? That is essentially all AZ is doing, they are turning over any illegals to ICE. They are not prosecuting them.
No , Ollie, as usual the idiots are wrong. ICE has been utlilizing local law enforcement to assist since 1955
In the instances of which you speak, local authorities actively seek to set their policies to be in compliance with federal law. What sets this example apart is that Arizona actively seeks to ignore federal standards and replace them with guidelines which are deliberately designed to NOT be in compliance with federal law. For that reason, Arizona's law is violating the federal government's constitutional authority and is almost certain to be struck down.
No , Ollie, as usual the idiots are wrong. ICE has been utlilizing local law enforcement to assist since 1955
In the instances of which you speak, local authorities actively seek to set their policies to be in compliance with federal law. What sets this example apart is that Arizona actively seeks to ignore federal standards and replace them with guidelines which are deliberately designed to NOT be in compliance with federal law. For that reason, Arizona's law is violating the federal government's constitutional authority and is almost certain to be struck down.
Bullshit, and you know it. Fuck, why can't you assholes debate honestly? SB1070 exactly mirrors federal statute. The only thing it does is require state and local police to inquire about the legal status of suspected illegals.
Seriously, don't be a fucking liar if you want to be taken seriously.
In the instances of which you speak, local authorities actively seek to set their policies to be in compliance with federal law. What sets this example apart is that Arizona actively seeks to ignore federal standards and replace them with guidelines which are deliberately designed to NOT be in compliance with federal law. For that reason, Arizona's law is violating the federal government's constitutional authority and is almost certain to be struck down.
Bullshit, and you know it. Fuck, why can't you assholes debate honestly? SB1070 exactly mirrors federal statute. The only thing it does is require state and local police to inquire about the legal status of suspected illegals.
Seriously, don't be a fucking liar if you want to be taken seriously.
The requirement to detain people based on "reasonable suspicion" is a standard purely of Arizona's creation which does not exist anywhere in federal law. It's an attempt to make the federal government prosecute federal cases based on arrest and detention standards which exist nowhere but in Arizona's law. That fact is beyond dispute. Hell, it's the one and only reason why the law was passed in the first place. If it was an "exact mirror" of federal law there would be no controversy here!
No , Ollie, as usual the idiots are wrong. ICE has been utlilizing local law enforcement to assist since 1955
In the instances of which you speak, local authorities actively seek to set their policies to be in compliance with federal law. What sets this example apart is that Arizona actively seeks to ignore federal standards and replace them with guidelines which are deliberately designed to NOT be in compliance with federal law. For that reason, Arizona's law is violating the federal government's constitutional authority and is almost certain to be struck down.
sorry, not buying that, there is a great deal of difference and mechanics of application between; "pre-eminent authority" and "abridgment" of said authority, I don't think they will win.
