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.
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.
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.
Well then, you don't know about the constitutional clauses which the courts will be required to consider. The federal government's authority is the SOLE authority. There is no hair-splitting to be done. Any way you slice it, Arizona has NO constitutional authority over immigration enforcement, period. It is an exclusively federal matter.
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!
you sure you don't mean 'probable cause'?
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.
Well then, you don't know about the constitutional clauses which the courts will be required to consider. The federal government's authority is the SOLE authority. There is no hair-splitting to be done. Any way you slice it, Arizona has NO constitutional authority over immigration enforcement, period. It is an exclusively federal matter.
well then, you apparently don't even understand what I wrote ala abridgment of authority....good luck, see you back here when the case is submarined.
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!
you sure you don't mean 'probable cause'?
Arizona's arrest and detention standard for this law is "reasonable suspicion," a standard, by the way, which they left completely undefined in real-world terms. That's a major part of the problem. It basically empowers each individual officer to go with his or her own personal definition of what's "reasonable," thereby opening up the possibility of who knows what where it comes to arrest and detention. If Arizona had instead chosen to go with "probable cause" we'd be having an entirely different discussion. That standard is extremely well-defined and specific.
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.
One thing....remember the MLK birthday celebration thing in Arizona. How did that turn out?
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.
you sure you don't mean 'probable cause'?
Arizona's arrest and detention standard for this law is "reasonable suspicion," a standard, by the way, which they left completely undefined in real-world terms. That's a major part of the problem. It basically empowers each individual officer to go with his or her own personal definition of what's "reasonable," thereby opening up the possibility of who knows what where it comes to arrest and detention. If Arizona had instead chosen to go with "probable cause" we'd be having an entirely different discussion. That standard is extremely well-defined and specific.
I sincerely doubt we'd be having a different discussion.
You do understand that the fine point of the feds case is they basically choose not to enforce the law, right?"They want to prioritize their arrests", whatever.
The AZ lawcompliments the Fed. law not confounds or ABRIDGES it.....
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.
Where there is a void there is always a substance to fill it. The feds left a void Arizona means to fill it. Tough shit Sherlock.
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.
Where there is a void there is always a substance to fill it. The feds left a void Arizona means to fill it. Tough shit Sherlock.
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.
Where there is a void there is always a substance to fill it. The feds left a void Arizona means to fill it. Tough shit Sherlock.
And where there is a Constitution which gives specific enforcement powers to Washington, states will get struck down when they try to interfere. Tough shit Sherlock.
Where there is a void there is always a substance to fill it. The feds left a void Arizona means to fill it. Tough shit Sherlock.
And where there is a Constitution which gives specific enforcement powers to Washington, states will get struck down when they try to interfere. Tough shit Sherlock.
What part of Section 287(g) are you not understanding? The USG has enlisted the help of local and state LEO since 1995. Obama doesn't like that policy though.
And where there is a Constitution which gives specific enforcement powers to Washington, states will get struck down when they try to interfere. Tough shit Sherlock.
What part of Section 287(g) are you not understanding? The USG has enlisted the help of local and state LEO since 1995. Obama doesn't like that policy though.
Yes, the U.S. government often uses state and local law enforcement when they comply with federal policy. Here, however, Arizona is trying to impose their own immigration policies on the federal government. It has nothing to do with the officers on the ground. It has everything to do with who is setting the policies. State governments don't get to set policies telling the feds how to run the immigration business. It's that simple. That's why this thing will not stand.
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.
What part of Section 287(g) are you not understanding? The USG has enlisted the help of local and state LEO since 1995. Obama doesn't like that policy though.
Yes, the U.S. government often uses state and local law enforcement when they comply with federal policy. Here, however, Arizona is trying to impose their own immigration policies on the federal government. It has nothing to do with the officers on the ground. It has everything to do with who is setting the policies. State governments don't get to set policies telling the feds how to run the immigration business. It's that simple. That's why this thing will not stand.
Have you read the law? It doesn't institute ANY policies, it simply allows local LEO to detain illegals and turn them over to ICE.
Funny that not a single attorney not employed by the Justice Department thinks this lawsuit has a chance.....
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.
Where there is a void there is always a substance to fill it. The feds left a void Arizona means to fill it. Tough shit Sherlock.
And where there is a Constitution which gives specific enforcement powers to Washington, states will get struck down when they try to interfere. Tough shit Sherlock.
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.
