US Sues Az.

[ba1614]

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.....

Yes, I've read it. Arizona is trying to institute new arrest and detention policies which do not exist in federal law. They're saying that their state and local cops will make busts based on state policy. They're then saying they expect federal prosecutors to enforce state-created law enforcement policies. That's not going to happen. If there is one thing that is absolutely certain here it's that federal cases will not be bound by the dictates of a state law. That's what Arizona is trying to do.

I still do not see how this interferes with federal statutes. The arrests may be made according to state policy but the prosecution is totally under federal statutes. The policy of checking the immigration status of individuals in the states does not change the fact that they are still breaking federal law and it is under that law they will be deported. Where is the difference in the state law and the federal law? Just because the feds are making it policy to not enforce the law does not mean that the law is not there and it seems that it is within a states right to actually enforce the law as written. If the fed does not want Arizona to enforce the law as it stands then they need to CHANGE that law, not sue Arizona for helping to enforce it.

The federalies don't want the extra work that would result from the states arresting the criminals and handing them over.

 

[FA_Q2]

Yes, I've read it. Arizona is trying to institute new arrest and detention policies which do not exist in federal law. They're saying that their state and local cops will make busts based on state policy. They're then saying they expect federal prosecutors to enforce state-created law enforcement policies. That's not going to happen. If there is one thing that is absolutely certain here it's that federal cases will not be bound by the dictates of a state law. That's what Arizona is trying to do.

I still do not see how this interferes with federal statutes. The arrests may be made according to state policy but the prosecution is totally under federal statutes. The policy of checking the immigration status of individuals in the states does not change the fact that they are still breaking federal law and it is under that law they will be deported. Where is the difference in the state law and the federal law? Just because the feds are making it policy to not enforce the law does not mean that the law is not there and it seems that it is within a states right to actually enforce the law as written. If the fed does not want Arizona to enforce the law as it stands then they need to CHANGE that law, not sue Arizona for helping to enforce it.

The federalies don't want the extra work that would result from the states arresting the criminals and handing them over.

Kind of my point. Extra work does not mean an infringement. The law is still being enforced according to the federal laws, it is just being enforced BETTER.

 

[Gremlin-USA]

BO is doing this for votes from the Hispanic Community


The other reason evades me, is BO trying to say it is OK to illegally cross into Arizona and Flaunt your illegal presence, because to me that is what he is saying by challenging the Arizona Law.


.

 

[KMAN]

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.

This is scary stuff. A state is trying to enforce Federal law and protect itself and the Federal Government is saying you can't do that. What's next?

I guarantee you if a state passes a law opting out of the Government run health care that they will sue that state as well..


What do you expect from a bunch of lawyers who have never actually created anything, their experience is taking from other people....so that's what they do.

 

[Pepe]

I expect this to be the first in a long procession of Lawsuits pitting the Sovereign and Independent States against the Imperial Leviathan located in the District of Corruption.

Think 10th Amendment.

Hell, even the UN recognizes the "Right to Self-Defense."

The Unconstitutional Health Care Bill is also in the line up for "Nullification" and/or lawsuit by multiple States.

The Empire of the United States is now in the throes of "Balkanization."

The only question is whether the "Breakup" will be peaceful vis a vis Czechoslovakia and the old USSR or violent.

 

[froggy]

Have you contacted your Govt. showing your views on them giving our country away to foreigners?

 

[Claudette]

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.

Ditto.

This is the exact explanation I've heard quite a few times.

AZ knew this would land in court and it was crafted to mirror the Fed law.

It remains to be seen how the SC will deal with it.

 

[SFC Ollie]

So what Brubricker, the Feds, and others on here are saying, is that AZ does not have the right to bust someone for breaking a federal law. So if there is a bank robbery, the locals can't step in and stop it in process. The local sheriff then cannot make an arrest on a guy he pulls over who has a federal warrant. And the list goes on........

 

[ConHog]

So what Brubricker, the Feds, and others on here are saying, is that AZ does not have the right to bust someone for breaking a federal law. So if there is a bank robbery, the locals can't step in and stop it in process. The local sheriff then cannot make an arrest on a guy he pulls over who has a federal warrant. And the list goes on........

I have to admit, it would be funny if the next time a bank is robbed in some small town in AZ the local Sheriff just called the FBI and set on his ass doing nothing.

 

[Bullfighter]

So what Brubricker, the Feds, and others on here are saying, is that AZ does not have the right to bust someone for breaking a federal law. So if there is a bank robbery, the locals can't step in and stop it in process. The local sheriff then cannot make an arrest on a guy he pulls over who has a federal warrant. And the list goes on........

I have to admit, it would be funny if the next time a bank is robbed in some small town in AZ the local Sheriff just called the FBI and set on his ass doing nothing.

Isn't Phoenix the kidnapping capital of the US? And kidnapping is a federal offense. Do the local police just ignore kidnapping?

 

[Againsheila]

Have you contacted your Govt. showing your views on them giving our country away to foreigners?

LOL, many, many times. You wouldn't believe how many letters I have from my representatives explaining why they are in favor of the DREAM Act, which has nothing to do with what I've said in any of my letters.

 

[Againsheila]

Watched a news show on tv the other day, I think it was either Israeli or Al Jazerra, anyway, it had Arab letters across the bottom. It also had a box that said in English something like "America's coming collapse...." Even other countries know we are dead, we just haven't realized it yet.

 

[Tech_Esq]

I expect this to be the first in a long procession of Lawsuits pitting the Sovereign and Independent States against the Imperial Leviathan located in the District of Corruption.

Think 10th Amendment.

Hell, even the UN recognizes the "Right to Self-Defense."

The Unconstitutional Health Care Bill is also in the line up for "Nullification" and/or lawsuit by multiple States.

The Empire of the United States is now in the throes of "Balkanization."

The only question is whether the "Breakup" will be peaceful vis a vis Czechoslovakia and the old USSR or violent.

To clarify and remind. The 10th Amendment is unenforceable as it stands right now. The USSC in U.S. v. Darby Lumber in overturning Hamer v. Daggenhart said that the 10th Amendment was a truism, nothing more. So, unless the USSC changes it's mind, forget the 10th Amendment, it'll just make you crazy.

The Health care bill is being challenged by 20 states. Not on the basis of "nullification" at theory that has already been shot down in the 1830s, but on the Constitutionality of forcing the population to purchase something from a private entity through the mechanism of the commerce clause. If the feds are successful on the point it would be the largest expansion of federal government power since the Ollie's Barbecue case. Or maybe even Wickard v. Filburn.

Balkanization, unlikely. Chances below 10%

 

[driveby]

That does not change the fact that Arizona is interfering in an area where the Constitution gives sole regulatory authority to the federal government. It's a purely constitutional question and there is absolutely no doubt that states have no authority over immigration.

so if the federal govt wont do the regulating they are mandated to do.....what are the states affected by this supposed to do?.....nothing?...

Take up the issue in Congress.

They're too busy running car companies, healthcare and the financial system to bother with little things like this......

 

[hboats]

so if the federal govt wont do the regulating they are mandated to do.....what are the states affected by this supposed to do?.....nothing?...

Take up the issue in Congress.

They're too busy running car companies, healthcare and the financial system to bother with little things like this......

They've got all that on their plate and don't have time to worry about illegal immigration, but they're about to attempt to take over the energy industry as well.

Rick

 

[Meister]

Watched a news show on tv the other day, I think it was either Israeli or Al Jazerra, anyway, it had Arab letters across the bottom. It also had a box that said in English something like "America's coming collapse...." Even other countries know we are dead, we just haven't realized it yet.

Anyone that has common sense in America realizes that fact. Our politicians use no common sense when legislating, therin lies the problem.

 

[lawbuff]

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.

The 4th Amendment states no UNreasonable seizures.

AZ did not create the "reasonable suspicion" standard.

Most traffic case law nationwide, as an example, gives officers authority to pull over a motorists IF a reasonable suspicion/belief exists they violated a traffic law.

Terry v. Ohio, US SC, was based on a reasonable belief, by the officer, the men were casing the store.

A police officer can detain an individual, whether on foot or in a car, as long as it is a reasonable seizure, probable cause is not needed, but may be present, yes.

There is tons of RS case law out there, state and federal.

 

[Foxfyre]

The US lawsuit isn't dealing with Obama's concerns about racial profiling/civil rights. It deals with federal law trumping or pre-empting state law. It will try to make Arizona law an effort to pre-empt federal law even though it includes nothing that is not in the federal law and Arizona's requirements for enforcement are actually less rigid than Federal law which does not prohibit profiling.

The best possible outcome is for the court to rule that when a state has a vested interest in the enforcement of Federal law, it can pass whatever authority it needs to enforce that law. We citizens have jurisdiction to enforce local laws when it is in our interest to do so. So why shouldn't states have jurisdiction to enforce federal laws when it is in their interest to do so?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Hope they win. Shut the Nazis down.

RETARD, if Arizona's law is drafted by Nazis then the Federal law is worse since the Arizona law was taken FROM the US law and more safeguards put in then the Federal LAW.

Yuo dumb mother fuckers are beyond idiotic.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Watched a news show on tv the other day, I think it was either Israeli or Al Jazerra, anyway, it had Arab letters across the bottom. It also had a box that said in English something like "America's coming collapse...." Even other countries know we are dead, we just haven't realized it yet.

Foreigners saying America is doomed? Wow! Stop the presses.