Arizona to Los Angeles "No Power For You!"

[saveliberty]

And I'm sure that there are no legal contracts drawn up between California and Arizona power companies...just a handshake is all that is needed.

I'm sure Arizona stopping power delivery would not be a breach of contract.

Again, the article was simply suggesting LA live up to its boycott and stop using AZ power.

 

[Immanuel]

Wonder how much those contracts would have bothered LA if they'd actually had the stones to put on a REAL boycott, instead of this "fauxcott" media event of theirs.

You don't think the people of L.A. would have stood by and allowed Arizona to actually retaliate in said manner do you?

I mean really. L.A. expects to boycott the State of Arizona and not face any consequences. Can you imagine the screaming if Arizona pulled the plug for say even five minutes in L.A.?

The wrath of "the angels" would be unleashed on Arizona if that happened.

You know that saying... what is good for the goose is good for the gander? It does not apply here.

Immie

They can take their frigging wrath and stuff it where the sun don't shine. Arizonans generally aren't that fond of Southern Californians to begin with, and they're not helping matters.

For the record, to those who commented on my post, but don't seem to understand, I meant that L.A. expects to get away with this yet not have to suffer any repercussions for their actions. Kind of like saying, "the gall of those people from Arizona, how dare they spit on us just because we spit on them?"

Kind of arrogant if you ask me and I was born and raised in California albeit Northern California.

Immie

 

[The T]

True. I'm just having fun poking the lib ant hill and watching them all scurry around in collective freakout.

Thanks to Arizona standing up for itself, we are quickly coming to a long overdue constitutional crisis. I for one am ready to welcome it. Let's see how well things go for those accustomed to living on a double standard handle it when they no longer get that advantage. Equal justice under the law. No more equal results by special rules.

NAILED. But many will continue to buy into the Tit-For-Tat crap being dished out by Obama in his effort to Divide the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

He is so frustrating to watch in action. What we need is another apology tour.

Yeah I know. He just Saddled UP to the Mexican President, as I predicted HE would do earlier this week...

To Wit May 17th 2010:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2316100-post3.html

Obama's Statements TODAY...

WITNESS

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K63xEbqO4FY&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - President Obama Tells Mexican President "We are Not Defined by Our Borders"[/ame]

He is transparent as HELL. I called it outright.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytrKwDEuIFY&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - legal analysis[/ame]

OBAMA: We also discussed the new law in Arizona which is a misdirected effort, a misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system and which has raised concerns in both our countries. I want everyone, American and Mexican, to know my administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law. We're examining any implications, especially for civil rights because in the United States of America no law-abiding person -- be they an American citizen or a visitor or tourist from Mexico -- should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.

OBAMA: A fair reading of the language of the statute indicates that it gives the possibility of individuals who are deemed suspicious of being illegal immigrants from being harassed or arrested, and the judgments that are going to be made in applying this law are troublesome.

OBAMA: What I've directed my Justice Department to do is to look very carefully at the language of this law, to see whether it comports both with our core values and existing legal standards as well as the fact that the federal government is ultimately the one charged with immigration policy. Uh, and I expect to get, uh, a final report back from the Justice Department soon, uh, at which point we'll make some decisions, uh, in terms of how we are going to address that law.

OBAMA: The second thing we've gotta do is we've gotta make sure that businesses are following the rules and are not actively recruiting undocumented workers so that they don't have to abide by overtime laws, they don't have to abide by minimum wage laws, they don't have to abide by worker safety laws and otherwise undercut basic worker protections that exist. And they have to be held accountable and responsible.


SOURCE

US President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon Blast Arizona Immigration Law

"With Mexico’s leader at his side, President Barack Obama called Arizona’s tough new law “misdirected,” and warned that it could violate civil rights.

“It gives the possibility of individuals who are deemed suspicious of being illegal immigrants from being harassed or arrested, and the judgments that are going to be made in applying this law are troublesome,” he said.

Arizona’s law makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally."

_____________________

Couple it with what the FEDERAL Law says? And I wanna know WHO's Civil Rights? Have we gone further to grant 'Rights' to those crossing the border Illegally?

They have the right to be treated as HUMANS certainly...that's where it ENDS.

The Great State of Arizona has certainly done ZERO wrong.

Now Contrast how citizens of another country are treated to Mexican LAW conversely?

DOUBLE STANDARD.

~T

 

[Yurt]

Yeah, we know they won't do it, but many here are arguing for them to do it and supporting it, hence what my comments are directed to

Fair enough.

My opinion is any such city or State "boycott's" (some might say embargo) should be illegal within the United States. Boycotts are an individual choice, embargo's have the force of law. Thus L.A. was wrong to "ban official travel to Arizona and block future contracts" and Arizona would be wrong should the AZCC try and stop selling L.A. power. (as if they had the power to do that anyway)

National Briefing - West - California - Los Angeles Approves a Boycott of Arizona - NYTimes.com

I disagree. If the people of LA are not on board with a boycott of AZ then there will be political repercussions. If they are, then they have every right to conduct the business of the city on par with how the majority populace has elected.

Tell me, should there be a FEDERAL LAW dictating that such boycotting should be banned at such a local level?

i would be surprised if the interstate commerce clause wouldn't deal with this

 

[GHook93]

Should do it anyway for a week just to make the point to not fuck with those that hold your leash. 7 days at 75% power... Wonder how much of LA would be in flames after that?

Yeah! Let's punish an entire city because of the words of a politician! That will show 'em that you're right and sane!

Are you dense dogshit? LA, SF and other traitorous liberal CA cities are voting on boycotting AZ. Now the tables are turned and douche back libtards like you cry foul. What hypocrisy!

 

[GHook93]

OK, then how about colorado stop water to Arizona

Hey DUMB ASS, all bodies of water: rivers, lakes, streams, underground water or any navigable waterways are SOLELY within Federal jurisdiction under the commerce clause.

 

[Bfgrn]

With November elections on the horizon, this is perfect timing by Arizona Republicans to remind Californians of Enron and the disastrous consequences of Republican deregulation

 

[GHook93]

In reality I do not think that AZ will be allowed to cut off electric power to CA.
Interstate commerce and existing agreements/contracts will prohibit their stopping the power I think.

As long as CA pays for it of course.

NOT True! One well known and BATTLE tested exception to the Dormant commerce clause and Privilege and Immunities Clause of Article IV is the market participate exception. In this case, AZ is acting as a market participate (like a private entity) in running a power plant to supply energy to its citizens. Its a fully constitutional exception to both the dormant commerce clause and privilege and immunity clause! The Market Participate exception is ConLaw 101.

HOWEVER, the LA and Fag City boycotts are NOT constitutional and are in direct and clear cut violation of both the Dormant Commerce Clause and Privilege and Immunity Clause Art IV.

I. Privilege and Immunity Clause of Art IV - This clause prohibits states from discriminating in favor of instate residents vs out-of-state residents. A boycott of an entire state is a clear cut example of a local government discriminating against out of staters in favor of instaters. Once that is established the government must pass the strict scrutiny standard (Necesary means to achieve a Compelling government purpose - the least restrictive alternative applies). When strict scrutiny applies the government nearly always loses.

II. Dormant Commerce Clause - DEF: State and local laws are unconstitutional if they place an undue burden on interstate commerce. (1) Does the law effect interstate commerce? Its btw 2 states, so yes! (2) Does the law discriminate on instaters vs out-of-staters? Yes (see above), (3) Due either of the 2 exceptiosn apply (a) Market Participate? Not even by stretching the meaning dishonestly and (b) Congressional Approval? None was given. and (4) Then does it pass strict scrutiny? Not a chance.

You lose Libtards!

 

[GHook93]

Whether he likes the AZ law or not the worthless President SHOULD not let states or cities boycott other states! First, its only going to hurt each state and eventually the country. Second, its clearly unconstitutional in violation of both the dormant commerce clause and the Privilege and Immunity Clause of Art IV. Third, it creates a bad precedence. Say CA wants to end coal burning so it boycotts coal mining states, this is a horrendous precedence and the worthless president needs to get his head out of his ass and stop the madness right now. Fourth, it divides the country more than ever. Never thought in my lifetime, but we might see a state (or states) once against try to succeed from the Union! Scary thought. Fifth, its shows lack of leadership in Washington and is frankly embarrassing to see this happen. Sixth, it just makes plain and simple common sense, which the failed community organizer obviously doesn't have.

 

[GHook93]

What should Obama have done once the hypocrite Mexican President bitched about the HIGHLY justifiable AZ law? Just read a few dozen lines from the Mexican immigration and illegal immigration policies and the wetback would have turned red from utterly stupidity, hypocrizy and embarrassment.

NAILED. But many will continue to buy into the Tit-For-Tat crap being dished out by Obama in his effort to Divide the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

He is so frustrating to watch in action. What we need is another apology tour.

Yeah I know. He just Saddled UP to the Mexican President, as I predicted HE would do earlier this week...

To Wit May 17th 2010:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2316100-post3.html

Obama's Statements TODAY...

WITNESS

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K63xEbqO4FY&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - President Obama Tells Mexican President "We are Not Defined by Our Borders"[/ame]

He is transparent as HELL. I called it outright.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytrKwDEuIFY&feature=player_embedded"]YouTube - legal analysis[/ame]

OBAMA: We also discussed the new law in Arizona which is a misdirected effort, a misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system and which has raised concerns in both our countries. I want everyone, American and Mexican, to know my administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law. We're examining any implications, especially for civil rights because in the United States of America no law-abiding person -- be they an American citizen or a visitor or tourist from Mexico -- should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.

OBAMA: A fair reading of the language of the statute indicates that it gives the possibility of individuals who are deemed suspicious of being illegal immigrants from being harassed or arrested, and the judgments that are going to be made in applying this law are troublesome.

OBAMA: What I've directed my Justice Department to do is to look very carefully at the language of this law, to see whether it comports both with our core values and existing legal standards as well as the fact that the federal government is ultimately the one charged with immigration policy. Uh, and I expect to get, uh, a final report back from the Justice Department soon, uh, at which point we'll make some decisions, uh, in terms of how we are going to address that law.

OBAMA: The second thing we've gotta do is we've gotta make sure that businesses are following the rules and are not actively recruiting undocumented workers so that they don't have to abide by overtime laws, they don't have to abide by minimum wage laws, they don't have to abide by worker safety laws and otherwise undercut basic worker protections that exist. And they have to be held accountable and responsible.


SOURCE

US President Barack Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon Blast Arizona Immigration Law

"With Mexico’s leader at his side, President Barack Obama called Arizona’s tough new law “misdirected,” and warned that it could violate civil rights.

“It gives the possibility of individuals who are deemed suspicious of being illegal immigrants from being harassed or arrested, and the judgments that are going to be made in applying this law are troublesome,” he said.

Arizona’s law makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally."

_____________________

Couple it with what the FEDERAL Law says? And I wanna know WHO's Civil Rights? Have we gone further to grant 'Rights' to those crossing the border Illegally?

They have the right to be treated as HUMANS certainly...that's where it ENDS.

The Great State of Arizona has certainly done ZERO wrong.

Now Contrast how citizens of another country are treated to Mexican LAW conversely?

DOUBLE STANDARD.

~T

 

[hyakku]

A zonie is just a derogatory term for those from Arizona in So-Cal. I don't know about all your "statist" claims, and Big Fitz I simply meant that you just completely abandoned the topic you were talking about, conceded that your suggestion would not be the best, and then advocated it anyway.

California doesn't want illegal immigration destabilizing us, that's a major reason why we dislike Arizona's law because it may push them here. Furthermore, as I have proven the state of Arizona has employed and continues to employ illegals (hired directly or through contractors) to work on sites like the nuke power plant where Brock Enterprises were caught with more then 7 illegals.

Get real people, I'm tired of ideologues from both sides of the spectrum ignore reality.

 

[GHook93]

<Bump>

In reality I do not think that AZ will be allowed to cut off electric power to CA.
Interstate commerce and existing agreements/contracts will prohibit their stopping the power I think.

As long as CA pays for it of course.

NOT True! One well known and BATTLE tested exception to the Dormant commerce clause and Privilege and Immunities Clause of Article IV is the market participate exception. In this case, AZ is acting as a market participate (like a private entity) in running a power plant to supply energy to its citizens. Its a fully constitutional exception to both the dormant commerce clause and privilege and immunity clause! The Market Participate exception is ConLaw 101.

HOWEVER, the LA and Fag City boycotts are NOT constitutional and are in direct and clear cut violation of both the Dormant Commerce Clause and Privilege and Immunity Clause Art IV.

I. Privilege and Immunity Clause of Art IV - This clause prohibits states from discriminating in favor of instate residents vs out-of-state residents. A boycott of an entire state is a clear cut example of a local government discriminating against out of staters in favor of instaters. Once that is established the government must pass the strict scrutiny standard (Necesary means to achieve a Compelling government purpose - the least restrictive alternative applies). When strict scrutiny applies the government nearly always loses.

II. Dormant Commerce Clause - DEF: State and local laws are unconstitutional if they place an undue burden on interstate commerce. (1) Does the law effect interstate commerce? Its btw 2 states, so yes! (2) Does the law discriminate on instaters vs out-of-staters? Yes (see above), (3) Due either of the 2 exceptiosn apply (a) Market Participate? Not even by stretching the meaning dishonestly and (b) Congressional Approval? None was given. and (4) Then does it pass strict scrutiny? Not a chance.

You lose Libtards!

 

[bodecea]

Well, I have to leave for Work soon. Will I be Seeing less Zoni license plates on the freeway Today? I can Only hope. I Can only hope.

 

[namvet]

if the power does go off people will die. who's responsible for that???? CA's broke. and threatning a neighbor state is stupid.

sounds like saber rattling to me. just sayin'

 

[saveliberty]

Well, I have to leave for Work soon. Will I be Seeing less Zoni license plates on the freeway Today? I can Only hope. I Can only hope.

I'm thinking you will see a bunch MORE as the ILLEGALS immigrate to California. I'd worry about your job, word is they work cheaper.

 

[hyakku]

Well, I have to leave for Work soon. Will I be Seeing less Zoni license plates on the freeway Today? I can Only hope. I Can only hope.

The second I land i'm gonna be on the lookout for them hard.

 

[Cecilie1200]

yea i am interested in this answer myself.....maybe its Cacti.....we might need more Cacti...

Well, apparently, we have electricity, and you don't.

my city has not experienced the blackouts that most of this state experiences during hot weather....they own their own electric company and the great majority of their power comes from out of state sources.....sorry not Arizona....as far as i know.....in 08 they signed a 20 year contract to get geothermal power from Utah....and we have our own generators for just this purpose....when blackouts hit....cause they are still part of the power grid.....but the generators then kick in....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your profile says that you're in Southern California. If that's true, then delude yourself all you like, but you ARE buying power from us. And rather more to the point, California has to buy power from other states, while Arizona has enough for itself AND to sell. So you wanted to know what we have that you would want? That's what.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Los Angeles Approves Arizona BOYCOTT
LA Mayor Joins Arizona Boycott Supporters | NBC Los Angeles

Head up your ass much?

LA IS A CITY...NOT THE STATE.....for the 15th fucking time....

LA, San Diego, San Francisco.. what's left? Lompoc?

Sacramento, I guess.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fair enough.

My opinion is any such city or State "boycott's" (some might say embargo) should be illegal within the United States. Boycotts are an individual choice, embargo's have the force of law. Thus L.A. was wrong to "ban official travel to Arizona and block future contracts" and Arizona would be wrong should the AZCC try and stop selling L.A. power. (as if they had the power to do that anyway)

National Briefing - West - California - Los Angeles Approves a Boycott of Arizona - NYTimes.com

I disagree. If the people of LA are not on board with a boycott of AZ then there will be political repercussions. If they are, then they have every right to conduct the business of the city on par with how the majority populace has elected.

Tell me, should there be a FEDERAL LAW dictating that such boycotting should be banned at such a local level?

i would be surprised if the interstate commerce clause wouldn't deal with this

I don't think the regulation of commerce between states includes forcing states to have commerce with each other if they don't want to. Of course, I'm not a Supreme Court Justice, so I don't have the special ability to see "hidden" clauses and rights in the Constitution. I think they're issued a special set of glasses when they're sworn in.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A zonie is just a derogatory term for those from Arizona in So-Cal. I don't know about all your "statist" claims, and Big Fitz I simply meant that you just completely abandoned the topic you were talking about, conceded that your suggestion would not be the best, and then advocated it anyway.

California doesn't want illegal immigration destabilizing us, that's a major reason why we dislike Arizona's law because it may push them here. Furthermore, as I have proven the state of Arizona has employed and continues to employ illegals (hired directly or through contractors) to work on sites like the nuke power plant where Brock Enterprises were caught with more then 7 illegals.

Get real people, I'm tired of ideologues from both sides of the spectrum ignore reality.

If California is so worried about illegal immigration destabilizing them, why do they allow sanctuary cities to exist?

The reality is, Arizona is not obligated to allow itself to be destroyed simply to stave off California's suffering from its own unwillingness to deal with the problem. Feel free to copy our example and look to your own state defense.